British Politics’s Blog

The ravings of an individual, UK voter frustrated with our politicians

Posts Tagged ‘economic stability

British Public will not accept higher taxes

with 3 comments

David Cameron has made much about the fact that he cannot make any commitments in terms of tax cuts and he has also said that he cannot rule out tax increases. The reality is he probably thinks this makes him look tough, honest or maybe even sincere. But there is another harsh reality that he ignores at his peril. That is, the current Labour administration has constantly hammered the taxpayer to fund new initiatives, to invest in health, education and to deal with child poverty. We will no longer tolerate another attack on our finances, particularly given the current state of the economy and the failures of the current administration to get value for our taxes.

The Labour administration has used stealth taxes to increase the tax take, this is equivalent to 3% of GDP, or if you prefer, the equivalent of a further 10p in the pound on direct taxes. David Cameron’s government would benefit from this situation. Yes, I fully accept that as a result in the slow down in the economy and the high level of borrowings, that tax cuts may not be a short, or even medium term reality, but tax cuts must remain a long term commitment.

If we work hard, we are entitled to retain more of our hard earned money. The conservatives must, instead, look to address the public sector, which is so bloated, that it now employs one in 5 of our working population. They must look to ensure that we get more ‘bang for our buck’ the current Labour administration has spent £billions on consultants, spin, marketing and failed projects. Some estimates put their waste at over £100bn in 11 years. Any future government that does not accept that savings can be made in how taxpayers money is being spent, does not deserve the opportunity to lead this country.

The ‘something for nothing’ society needs to be addressed. There are 2.5m people claiming invalidity benefits, up by 1.5m during Labour’s reign, this must be addressed. Those with genuine needs must be supported, the rest must be forced to accept work. The taxpayer does not want to pay someone to sit at home on their backsides if they have a bad back, instead they can get an office job and make a contribution to society.

Any government, current, or future, would do well to consider the fact that the British public, or more specifically, the taxpayers, contributing to this society, are fed up with being made to pay more and more of our money in taxes. It is accepted, that it is far easier to introduce more stealth taxes or increase existing ones, than it is to deal with our bloated public service sector, our something for nothing society or our government waste, but deal with it is what they must do.

As a people, we have a moral responsibility to help those that are not able to help themselves, but we should not be encouraging people to simply help themselves to our tax money. Grand initiatives are okay, but only if we can afford them, we should for example, slash our overseas aid budget, which is currently costing the UK taxpayer some £5bn per annum. We should call a halt to the policy of cancelling third world debt without pre-conditions, which serves only to allow the rich elite of these countries to further prosper at our expense and the expense of their own people.

If Cameron, or anyone else for that matter wants my vote, they do not have to promise tax cuts, but they must promise not to increase taxes. Instead, they must get on with the job of reducing their overheads, getting rid of waste, exactly the same as every working family in the country is required to do in these difficult times.

Government must lead by example, and David Cameron should take note, that the last thing the taxpayers of this country needs is another government that is pilfering our money and then frittering it away. Arguably, taxes are a privilege, not a right.

Advertisements

Tories vow to address the health and safety culture

with 3 comments

Not before time, a UK political party has committed to address the almost farcical health & safety culture that has built up in the UK, not least its affect on the ability of the emergency services to do their jobs.

I remember discussing the case of Jordan Lyon who drowned last year with an ex-fireman. This young boy drowned even though two Community Safety Officers were on the scene, because these ‘officers’ did not have the appropriate training. The ex-fireman told me that the fire service is also tied up with Health & Safety red tape, to the extent, that if a fireman was to enter the water to save someones life, without the requisite support, then he could have faced losing his job and pension. I was appalled. If you take on the job of a police office or a fireman, you know that at times, you will have to risk your life to save others, very often, it is a judgement call, to have that decision made by health & safety officials is deplorable.

Imagine the situation if all our armed forces were forced to consider the health & safety risks before they went into battle. When you join the army, you know that you may be called upon to fight for your country and lay your life down in that service. You are entitled to expect senior officers to complete a risk assessment and not waste young lives, but not a health & safety officer! Yet here we are, with health & safety officers placing a raft of conditions on police officers and fireman. The public are entitled to expect the emergency services to help us when we are in need, they have chosen that vocation, are paid to do the job and they know the risks. They should not be prevented from doing their jobs through red tape.

Clearly this government does not understand the implications of all this, although that is not particularly surprising, given they are so out of touch with the people of this country. I normally have a lot of time for Home Office Minister Tony McNulty, but here is what he had to say about the conservative proposals. “The lives of police officers and Police Community Support Officers are as important as those of the people they serve, and this government will back the police service in the day to-day operational decisions they make in protecting the public against crime and terrorism. “And we will ensure that the criminal justice system is firmly weighted in favour of the victim, not the criminal.” Yes, but these officers know the risks and they are paid to do a job, they should be allowed to get on with it.

I would suggest he ask the rank and file members of our emergency services as to whether or not they are in favour of all of these health & safety rules, whether they see it as the government protecting them, or unnecessary interference, in as much as it prevents an officer from making a safety assessment on the spot. There are 167,000 police officers in this country, yet we feel less safe than we did 20 years ago, why is that, could it be something to do with the fact that in many cases, police officers are prevented to go into a dangerous situation, unless they have back up?

We are constantly told that the emergency services deserve good salaries and pension schemes, because of the risks they take to protect the public, yet more and more, they are required to take less risk. Our police officers and firemen should not be risk averse, they must be brave, they are charged with protecting the public and they must be allowed to do so. With this health & safety culture of ours, we will never know whether lives are lost because officers don’t have the backbone to go in, or if they are simply following health & safety rules. I would hope that these officers are not hiding behind these rules, I am sure they are not, but unless they also make it clear that they do not want these restrictions, what is the public to think?

On top of all this, I believe there needs to be a very clear definition of ‘reasonable force’, it is currently very vague. There is a need for the public to act in cases when their are no police officers around, or the police are not allowed to act for fear of losing their jobs. Where the public do act, they must be protected by law, they should not live in fear of prosecution. In my view, reasonable force is any act necessary to prevent the threat and the benefit of doubt should always be given to the member of public that has intervened where a police officer couldn’t or wouldn’t.

But the conservatives should also deal with health and safety regulations in the workplace, this has gone so far, that it is simply killing small business who must either employ and health & safety officer or use the services of a consultant. Yes there must be rules because the public and employees are entitled to be protected, but health and safety has now turned into a massive industry and it is costing every single one of us. There needs to be balance. Once again, I hope the conservatives will be bold in their policies, there is no point in meddling, Health & Safety Regulations need wholesale reform.

Bankers must accept their own responsibility

with 2 comments

It is difficult to argue with the suggestion put forward by Power to the People, suggesting as it does, that the bankers should be held to account for their poor decision making that has, for the most part, brought about the current crisis.

When the dust settles, governments around the world need to reflect on precisely how a situation arose, where taxpayers were required to bail out struggling banks and insurers. This should be wide ranging and lead to both regulation and prosecution.

Power to the People

There is much talk about government responsibility through the poor enforcement of existing regulation and the need for more regulation and legislation. However, the bottom line is that the whole ethos of the city is that it thrives on being a free market. So yes, by all means include further regulation to avoid a repeat of the current fiasco, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead, remind city execurtives, whether they are from the banking, insurance or any other sector, that they are trustees of the shareholders, they are expected to increase wealth, not take massive gambles, which expose the very assets they are supposed to protect and grow.

There is a very good argument for prosecuting those executives that were involved in the decision making process that brought about this calamity, no matter where they are based. Their assets should be frozen and if they are found guilty, they should be siezed, only then can we be sure that they will have learned their lesson.

 

Google Groups
UK Politics
Visit this group