From a political point of view, it is not clever politics.

However, the reason it’s not clever politics is not because the concept is wrong, but because of the reaction from Bernard Bovingdon, who thinks that because you own a large “something”, then you must also have lots of cash.

Most people with large assets are cash poor – and also often stuck in a situation where they can’t sell as there are too few buyers willing to take on such a property.

It’s a bit like being stuck with negative equity – you can’t move home.

Given the choice between letting the buildings fall to ruin, and then the inevitable demands from local pressure groups for taxpayers money to be spent repairing them – why not stop them falling into ruin in the first place?

Oh, because the Bernard Bovingdon’s on the world can’t understand the difference between having cash in the bank vs owning an expensive to run yet unsaleable property.

Ian @1

Surely the answer is pretty simple? Sell up or vacate the property, and let the ‘big society’ take the strain?

Isn’t typical that the Tory demands self reliance at the rest of us, but when a Toff hits the skids, we can find tax payers money?

Yeah, let it crumble while there are real people suffering hardship.

It’s not about politics (directly) it’s about priorities. If we have to cut so far and so fast, as the Tory MP says we have to, then we must use what money is left for the most deserving causes (DC used to call it “fairness”).

The day centre will close soon if it loses financial support, the castle will fall down slowly. And the people who use the day centre are more in number (and probably, although I don’t really know, more deserving) than the person who owns the castle.

Of course, when I say it’s about piorities not politics, it’s about Tory priorities….

…better to save a castle than a day centre…

actually it is about politics…

Surely the answer is pretty simple? Sell up or vacate the property, and let the ‘big society’ take the strain?

Most castle owners did just that ages ago. It’s called the National Trust.

I completely agree with the Tory MP – castles are part of our heritage that have been here for far longer than anyone alive today, which is why we have a duty to save them and to maintain them. If that translates as a tax cut, so be it. Unlike some above I’m not bone-headedly anti-rich. And no, I’m not a Tory, and I don’t live in or even near any castles. Unless there are castles in Stoke Newington I’m missing.

I’d be interested to know if this MP plans to vote for or against the planned sell-off of Forests

#5

Colm

You might not be anti-rich but you’re clearly anti-thinking straight.

Preserving the physical heritage of this country does not necessarily equate to cash handouts (which is effectively what tax breaks are) for those who happen to have inherited them from wealthy ancestors who shagged or killed the right people in order to get ownership of a castle. As already pointed out, we have the National Trust if they are so cash poor they can’t maintain their inherited pile.

Oh and there’s the castle climbing centre thing on Green Lanes, but I don’t expect that’s what you were referring to.

Colm @ 5

castles are part of our heritage that have been here for far longer than anyone alive today, which is why we have a duty to save them and to maintain them.

Then why not send them a couple of quid, then? Why do we need to change the tax laws tokeep this feckless bastard in his house? I don’t know how much it is going to cost to do up this castle, but I bet it is more than the housing benefit limit of twenty grand. Sell up and move on, mate.

I’m reminded of the joke in Grand Theft Auto, where the radio station advertises an interview with british hedge fund manager who bought all the castles in scotland, then burnt half of them down to raise the value of the other half.

@National Trust peeps I don’t object to that, but the National Trust is cash-strapped and I remember watching a Beeb documentary about Virginia Woolfe’s in which they were shown to be woefully poor at managing properties.

Ian @1
Sell up and move to somewhere smaller. That’s what the rest of us have to do if we were unfortunate enough to take on a mortgage in easier times and are now finding the repayments unaffordable. Even worse, those renting and made redundant may well have to move if their rent is above the HB limit. Not that moving house is cost-free either.
But you have to expect people to want to stick up for their own, don’t you? So a Tory is bound to stick up for the Lord in his castle. All in it together?

I believe the basis for the argument is that privately owned historic houses, which are open to the public on the same terms as National Trust and English Heritage properties, are subject to different tax treatment. A specific tax treatment – the heritage maintenance fund was introduced by Jim Callaghan (that arch Tory) to ensure that funds for the maintenance and upkeep of historic houses were exempt from IHT. Because funds generated by these are taxable at 50%, and are also subject to CGT, they aren’t being used for the purposes intended.

Baldry’s proposal is to eliminate a few structural anomalies (which should be entirely revenue neutral) and to tax HMFs at the basic rather than the higher rate, which is estimated to cost £6m pa. Heritage tourism apparently brings in £20bn annually to the British economy.

Disclosure: Lord Saye & Sele once bought me (and the rest of the pub) a pint at the Broughton Arms. Seemed like a nice chap.

Nick @ 6:

” I ‘d be interested to know if this MP plans to vote for or against the planned sell-off of the forests.”

No need to ask that question – he’s a Tory MP.- When and if the forests are flogged off – how soon will there be a bill introduced to allow landowners to charge tolls for walking footpaths? Labour had better get it’s act together pronto – and inform the would -be purchasers of public woodland that it will be re-nationalised with no compensation after the next election. That would give the land-grabbers pause for thought. The same goes for the rotten Tory/ Lib Dem library closing plans.
Castles? Let ‘em rot – that’s what a consistent philistine would do.

I suppost they must look after there own especially now some cannot cream of their expenses claims, thats assuming some castle owners are Politicians or Lords.

This also sums up the saying ” We are all in this together “

The National Trust went off castles decades ago.

A couple of changes would make sense, but not direct tax breaks:

Zero-rate VAT on restoration of listed buildings, as is done for new build.
Get conservation officers away from a tick-box mindset (they can be terrified of not enforcing the dot and tittle of policy), and to recognise that old buildings should be allowed to evolve as they have always done.

If castles are forced into public ownership it will cost a *hell* of a lot more than the expenditure on various tax breaks, and I’m not willing to throw unnecessary money down the toilet of dogma when pragmatism is cheaper.

Matt

Agree that politically it would be far more astute to highlight non-titled people who are struggling to maintain a listed building because they love it.

i.e. yes he is a bit of a twat and PR is not the coalitions strong point, despite doing many of the correct things.

16 – Broughton Castle is the most prominent privately-owned historic house in his constituency. It’s also beautiful and very old, so it’s not an inappropriate illustration. The politics of the matter are pretty toxic, as the delightful comments above demonstrate, but it’s a perfectly proper cause for an MP to be pursuing.

The aristocracy never want to pay for anything, Many of these castles they inherited from their families going back hundreds of years, and did not pay for them either. Usually given them for kissing the Kings arse.

The last time we had a tory govt they came up with a tax dodge for aristo’s who had art collections. If you were prepared to let the public in to view you could get a tax cut. Of course it was much abused, with owners not advertising that you could visit, and only being open 1 day a year and other such bullshit.

Looks like this is another case of “we’re all in this castle together”

@17

All fine and dandy, but while the government is cutting Sure Start, libraries, DLA, play areas for poor kids, etc etc I think folks sympathy is going to be in limited supply on this issue. MPs should be pursuing more worthwhile causes if they actually care about the people they represent.

Of course, this is a classic case of the rich sticking up for their own. Would that Ed Miliband be so forthrght in defending the folk Labour are supposed to represent.

Matt @ 15

If castles are forced into public ownership it will cost a *hell* of a lot more than the expenditure on various tax breaks, and I’m not willing to throw unnecessary money down the toilet of dogma when pragmatism is cheaper.

Dogma? Surely not? Surely car boot sales, raffles, sponsored walks etc are just what the doctor ordered, lest ‘Nanny State’ sticks her unwanted nose into it. If there is a high level of interest in this build is there, they should have no problem comming up with the cash.

Tim @ 17

The most significant word there is ‘privately’. This castle is owned privately, yet at a time when the poorest people in the Country are facing up to a further 2.5% hike in VAT, to be asking for a tax break to fix up ‘privately owned’ castles appears a bit much. If the ‘Big society’ means anything, this is surely it. Perhaps they could rename it ‘Tesco Towers’ in a sponsership deal?

@ 18

“Looks like this is another case of “we’re all in this castle together””

You know, I rag on sally quite a lot, but occasionally she goes all non-linear and says something awesome like this.

To be fair though. This should put the notion that the Tories are only in it for the rich to bed though, personally, I am now rather ashamed that distrusted Cameron’s empathy with the lower orders. I mean what better illustration that the Tories are attempting to get with the ‘squeezed middle’ when they would happily stand up for the weaker members of society by offering tax cuts so that we can ‘all’ get our castles up to scratch?

Maybe they should build another castle in the area and let the ‘free market’ decide which one falls?

“The last time we had a tory govt they came up with a tax dodge for aristo’s who had art collections.”

I don’t care about the politics of this, but accuracy I do care about. Section 25 of the IHTA derived from the Finance Act 1975 and the Finance Act 1976.

No Tory Government at that time methinks!

Some posters seem to miss the point that if you own a listed building (which may have little appeal to the general public), you can’t do what you like with it. There are restrictions on appropriate construction materials and methods which make them expensive to maintain. Other restrictions increase running costs or limit the way that a building can be used commercially.

So why not give the owners a few tax breaks? If government imposed restrictions on your home preventing installation of modern heating and double glazing, you would be rightly annoyed when your annual electricity bill was £3,000.

Predictably enough, Tony Baldry misses the plot. Not all listed buildings can be open to the public on practical grounds or lack popular appeal. My local university owns four listed buildings, two of which it would love not to own. To me, those two are the most interesting and the two more famous ones could be knocked down for all I care. But the university spends a lot of money on all four, none of which are suited for contemporary higher education.