British Politics’s Blog

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

Posts Tagged ‘Labour

New Labour lies and contempt for the public

with 2 comments

No matter which way you try and paint it, New Labour have lied to the public. This, by virtue of the fact that they gave a commitment in their Manifesto not to raise income tax and then reneged on that promise, without a hint of embarrassment or self-doubt. So, if there was anyone out there that still believed New Labour was a party of honesty and integrity, then they only need to look at the fact that they have deliberately broken a contractual commitment with the public. A business would pay the price in the courts, this discredited government must pay the price at the ballot box, because we can never believe them again.

Alistair Darling is reported to have said, “I want to ensure that people inside this country can aspire to do as well as they can for themselves and their families – people want to ensure that if they do a hard day’s work, they get a reward for it.” Surely the irony of this statement is not lost on Mr Darling, given it was he that introduced a penal rate of tax for those that strive to do better for themselves and succeed. This is a tax on hard work, achievement, success, enterprise and entrepreneurship.

Darling went on to say that those with the “broadest shoulders” should pay more. By this he means anyone earning over £100k who will have been told they will lose their personal allowance incrementally to the point where it was vanish by the time they have earned £113,000 and, those earning over £150k, who will be charged 50% tax on all earnings over that threshold. But, as one commentator has already pointed out and, as Chancellor Mr Darling should know, these people already pay nearly 7 times more tax  (in cash terms) than the average British worker. Surely that means they are already shouldering a larger, if not disproportionate, slice of the £150bn income tax take? If our Chancellor cannot even count, then why on earth is he in such an important position?

No further evidence in need, New Labour now stands for broken promises and it is clear that the party no longer values effort, success or enterprise, instead New Labour see these aspects of human endeavour as something to be punished. New Labour don’t deserve to even be on the ballot box, much less governing this country. If they had any self-respect left, they would call an election now!

Advertisements

Gordon Brown asked to resign

with 2 comments

It will probably make no difference at all, but Kalvis Jansons has created a new petition on the No.10 Downing Street website calling for Gordon Brown to resign. http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/

At least it is a chance for the many, many people that are at their wits end with him and his government, to have their views considered. I for one have already signed up and I would urge other to follow suit, maybe the Labour Party grandees will be reading.

Written by British Politics

25 April, 2009 at 10:52 am

Jacqui Smith, it time to resign

with 12 comments

I am not normally one for calling for an MP’s resignation, albeit I am sure I, like many others would consider that there are a good number that should do so voluntarily. That said, I am of the opinion that Jacqui Smith needs to go and soon, not because of a single misdemeanour, but a series.

The bottom line is Jacqui Smith is not very good at their job. She is the first to try and manipulate the press and public opinion with elements of “good” news from reports, whilst blatantly ignoring those aspects which are critical or not self-serving, either for her or the government. Fair play some might say, but ministers must be judged on what they add, not what they claim.  Further, Jacqui Smith is something of a puppet, if the police want something, she believes that by giving it to them, she is helping the public, because the police only want to fight crime etc., this is utter rubbish. The police want more powers to intrude, monitor and spy of ordinary citizens and Jacqui Smith is seen as a soft touch. As a consequence the people of this country have seen a massive erosion of their civil liberties, right to privacy and freedoms.

My issue with Jacqui Smith is the utter and barely concealed contempt she has for the public at large, not just in terms of her actions is respect of her ministerial responsibilities at the Home Office, but also, her actions in respect of maximising her personal finances via the public purse. Whilst Jacqui Smith may be able to claim that she has operated “within the rules“, to quote one of her colleagues, “in the court of public opinion“, her expense claims are not acceptable in the least.

First she claims up to £24,000 per year because she says that her main residence is the room at her sisters house in London, not Redditch where her husband lives and her children reside and go to school. There is little or no credibility in this explanation. Then she claims for electrical goods, which includes two washing machines, why does she need two washing machines? Why should she feel the need to claim for two flat screen TV’s, what is wrong with one, why do they have to be flat screen? £550 for a kitchen sink….£1,000 for an antique fireplace, are these truly essentials, I think not. In the old days, expenses were referred to as “out of pocket expenses“, for an MP, they are nothing of the sort, instead they are used as a method of supplementing salaries.

What I find difficult to believe is that Jacqui Smith seriously expects the public to believe that she did not know that her claim of £69 per month was only for the internet and nothing else. It would suggest that she is both out of touch with the real costs we face everyday and implies that her attention to detail is very badly and sadly lacking. For a Minister in charge of the Home Office and therefore our security this is a very real worry. Moreover, someone that claims to operate within the rules whilst ignoring the spirit of the arrangement is, at least in my opinion, lacking judgement and credibility. If Smith was doing a good job, perhaps the public would be more forgiving, but she is utterly useless. The only consolation is that most of her fellow ministers are as inept, therefore she fits in well, but that doesn’t make it any better. She will survive, but only because Gordon Brown know that the by supporting her he can benefit from undying loyalty and that having a cabinet full of incompetents makes him look better.

I am further angered at the way that Gordon Brown has insisted that there should be a review of MP’s expenses, yet it cannot start until the end of the summer recess and has no need to report until after the next election. Once again, we are all being taken for fools, it simply does not take that long to review MP’s expenses. The bottom line is expenses can and must only cover ‘out of pocket’ expenses, they can and should be based on those in the private sector and second home allowances must stop. MP’s can be provided with an overnight allowance for when they are in London on parliamentary business, but his should be weighted based on private sector allowances for accommodation and food.

The review of expenses ought to be carried out by a firm of accountants and the brief include a requirement that they revise them to fall in line with the private sector. I reckon it will take about 2 weeks, but of course, we know that these self-serving MP’s are going to insist that they receive a salary increase in place of any ‘sacrifice’ they make on expenses. They also know that they will then get a doubly whammy, because a higher salary means a better pension, all funded by us. For a government so focused on targets, why don’t they pay themselves performance and results based rewards? Simple, not one of them would earn the bonus, they know it and we know it!

If MP’s don’t like the terms or rewards of a parliamentary career, then they must resign and make way for others that do. One thing is for certain, based on the rank incompetence demonstrated by the majority of our MP’s we shall be no worse off and in all likelihood, we will end up with real people that represent the interests of the public at large, not just themselves. It is time for change.

Anyone that is angered by the information contained in this post may also like to be aware that there is a new Bill going through parliament which seeks to provide MP’s and all other public servants with what amounts to an immunity from prosecution (civil and criminal) with a legal definition of the term ‘reasonable discretion’. You can find out more here: Bill to Exercise Reasonable Discretion

Another Jacqui Smith gimmick

leave a comment »

Not for the first time, Jacqui Smith demonstrates what a naive politician she is and how she will do anything to grab the headlines. Once again, however, she managed to put her foot in it. This time, the subject matter, part of the government’s gimmick a day programme, was a domestic violence initiative, whereby, the government is proposing the setting up of yet another database, this time to register known abusive partners.

Clearly domestic violence is a serious issue and I am all for a tough line being taken on offenders. But, during a round table discussion, Sandra Horley, Chief Executive of Refuge, a women’s charity, said: “We have had enough talking – we need action. As for the perpetrators’ register, it is a gimmick and doesn’t address the root problem. The Government is hoping to get away with useless initiatives like this register and it is hypocritical to sound tough and do little.” Fair point from someone that should know. But, my problem is that any initiative of this type must be gender neutral, Ms Smith’s comments would indicate otherwise.

On a breakfast TV programme, Ms Smith said “Violence against women and girls is unacceptable in any form. We’ve already made real progress with domestic violence incidents more than halving in the past 12 years. But I want to start a national debate on what more we can do to prevent it and challenging attitudes which condone it.” Once again, in her ‘foot in the mouth’ style, she makes it a gender issue, when there are countless statistics that demonstrate that men are also victims of domestic violence. What really annoys me, is in an attempt to suck up to female voters, ahead of an election, she detracts from the initiative by implying that it is gender specific.

I am all for the introduction of bold initiatives aimed at combatingdomestic violence, irrespective of gender, but such programmes need early discussion with groups that understand the problems and challenges. Governmentofficials must never seek to launch an initiative before it has broad support from those that havethe knowledge and experience to make a tangible contribution. The way this initiative was launched, was typical of Jacqui Smith and her spin obsessed government. So much for Gordon Brown’s promise to stop Labour spin! There was some consolation that Ms Smith was berated in public, although I suspect somehow, she will be too thick skinned to realise what a complete idiot she looked. Hopefully, this clumsy announcement by Jacqui Smith will not discourage interested groups from coming up with an alternative proposal that is gender neutral, has general buy-in and is workable in practice.

It is high time that this government and its ministers understood that the public will not tolerate serious issues such as domestic violence being used to gain a cheap political advantage. The press launch was quite clearly an ill-considered, pathetic attempt to gain news headlines with little or no substance behind the announcement. The public demand that issues such as this be dealt with in a serious, considered and practical manner.  Jacqui Smith is long past her sell by date and should be removed from her post, although that is highly unlikely, given it is only her rank incompetence that makes Gordon Brown look slightly better.

UPDATE:

Anyone that is angered by the information contained in this post may also like to be aware that there is a new Bill going through parliament which seeks to provide MP’s and all other public servants with what amounts to an immunity from prosecution (civil and criminal) with a legal definition of the term ‘reasonable discretion’. You can find out more here: Bill to Exercise Reasonable Discretion

Harman does it again

with 5 comments

At PMQ’s Harriet Harman made the following statement in response to a question about who had put Fred Goodwin forward and why; “I think Sir Fred was nominated for a knighthood because of his services for the Prince’s Trust.  “I understand it was not in recognition of his services to banking.”  Tut, tut Harriet, have you learned nothing? If you want to be PM in waiting you don’t try and guess the answers, you can only do that when you have the position, ask your boss! This statement has since been corrected by an official from her office.

But what does it tell us about Harriet Harman? It is, after all, only a few days since she suggested that the government would consider introducing new legislation, which would then be made retrospective, to enable the government to reverse Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension entitlement. Now, whilst I accept that there are at the very least, moral reasons why Sir Fred should not receive this pension, the fact remains that government ministers were party to, if not fully au fait with, the content of a compromise agreement, which is legally binding on all sides. To make matters worse, any threat to introduce legislation designed to target one citizen is a draconian move and anyone supporting or suggesting such an act must be considered a threat to all of us, especially when they are from a government that has paid lip service to civil liberties.  Sir Fred is NOT deserving of a pension in my view, but surely there are other ways in which this can be dealt with, for example, whether or not he had failed in his fiduciary duty?  If he had not, then there would, presumably, be some form of legal recourse using existing and established law.

In my view, Harriett Harman has, in the past week or so, confirmed why it is that she will never be a viable candidate for prime minister (or, more accurately, leader of the Labour Party).  Firstly, her judgement; no minister, whatever the motivation or justification should ever seek to use the immense power of government to target a single British subject. No-one deserves that, not even Sir Fred. Secondly, her knowledge on the subject matter; how is it that Ms Harman can claim to know all the details surrounding Sir Fred’s pension arrangements and the negotiations thereto, but not why Sir Fred was nominated for a knighthood and by whom? As Alan Duncan said, “Instead of worrying so much about her campaign to succeed Gordon Brown, she should focus on mastering the detail.”

I find it difficult to recall anything useful that Harriet Harman has ever done during her time as an MP, though I am happy to be corrected on that one, any takers? That said, at the risk of arguing against myself, perhaps that is why she would make a good leader of the Labour Party for their period in the wilderness which is certain to come after the next election. But PM, never, at least not in my life time, of that I am certain.

Written by British Politics

4 March, 2009 at 5:19 pm

Is Harriet Harman is an opportunist?

with one comment

It is difficult not to conclude that Harriet Harman’s attack on Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension is anything other than opportunistic. Clearly she will be aware that public opinion is firmly against corporate greed and any form of reward “for failure”. However, if government ministers were to be judged on the same criteria, there would be mass resignations, no pay-off’s and a refusal to take their generous, gold-plated pensions. Of course we all know that isn’t going to happen.

It is fair to say that Sir Fred’s pension is obscene and that the board and Lord Myner’s should have dealt with this thorny issue at the time, but they did not. Instead, it would appear that it formed part of what is commonly described as a ‘compromise agreement’ and this is, whether government ministers like it or not, enforceable in a court of law. Compromise agreements are not the exclusive preserve of high ranking banking officials, many thousands of people every year enter into some form of compromise agreement with their employers, with each party fully appraised by their legal advisers of the consequences.

It is difficult to conceive that any credible member of parliament would possibly suggest that a compromise agreement ought to be overturned through the introduction of new legislation which is applied retrospectively. Yet, Harriet Harman has done precisely that, whether it was her own idea, or someone has ‘suggested’ that she become the sabre rattler is not clear, either way, she does not come out of this with any real credibility. Yes, the public will, at face value, agree with her and therefore, it will appear that she is in tune with the masses. However, this completely ignores the fact that a Labour minister was party to the pension discussions and that the government were aware of the compromise agreement back in October. Yet it has only come to light now, when there was a need to divert attention from the real issue, which is the massive injection of additional taxpayer cash into RBS and the taking on of massive potential liabilities through the underwriting of so called ‘toxic assets’.

There have been suggestions that Harriet Harman has been positioning herself to become the successor-in-chief to Gordon Brown, I don’t know how much truth there is in these rumours. However, if I wanted to set her up for a fall, I would have asked her to do precisely what she has done. Why? Because no minister ought to be proposing new legislation to reverse something in a contract, that they were party to (directly or otherwise), simply because they no longer like the terms. Once that happens, the government can no longer be trusted to enter into any contract, without the other party believing that there is a possibility that any terms could subsequently be overturned, on a whim, through retrospective legislation.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension arrangements, ministers from the Prime Minister down appear to be milking it for all it is worth and in doing so, they are successfully diverting the country’s attention from the real issue and that is our massive long term exposure to RBS liabilities. Worst still, if they are expending so much time and effort on what, in the scale of things, is a peripheral issue, can we trust them to be steering the ship in which we have so much invested? I wonder!

Written by British Politics

1 March, 2009 at 2:06 pm

Is government the servant or master?

with 4 comments

Gordon Brown says that banks should be the “servants of the economy and society and never its master“. What a pity he does not apply that same logic to government, because lets face it, that was supposed to be how things were. Instead, we have had nearly 12 years of a government that has lectured, cajoled, bullied and mislead its people.

This government has made promises to the people that is has not delivered on, then, quietly shelved the initiative without telling us. This government in general and Gordon Brown in particular has consistently failed to deliver on its financial targets. Whether we are referring to the economy, or something like child poverty. Rather than admit that they have failed, they simply re-write the rule book, no apology, no explanation, just carry on as if nothing has happened.  Just take a look at UK Plc’s debt mountain to see how government has manipulated the figures, with countless examples of ‘off-balance sheet’ accounting. PFI, public sector pensions etc.

When it comes to our civil liberties and right to privacy, this government has driven a coach and horses through everything that our forefathers fought for and we valued, all in the name of protecting us against the threat of terrorists. This, in spite of the fact that this country faced 30 years of terrorism from the IRA, without the need for draconian legislation. Now, as a result of this government believing that it knows best, or to put it another way, government is the master, not the servant, we can do little without being tracked by faceless government officials.

We have 4.2m CCTV cameras watching our every move, ANPR cameras tracking individual movements of cars and if you have an Oyster card, your movements will be recorded and retained. The details of every call, text message and email will be recorded and retained for use by government officials. As will your internet browsing habits. If you go on holiday, the government will now record where you went, for how long, how you paid and where you were seated. If you have young children, our government will record every detail of their educational needs, welfare, carers, psychological well-being and education results. This government wants to record the DNA of of every individual in the country that is questioned by the police, irrespective of whether they are subsequently charged, they then want to retain that information, even if the individual is acquitted.

This government wants to introduce ID cards, even though most people don’t want them. They want to use biometrics and even include a chip that could potentially record the movement of every citizen with a card. This government has allowed 780 individual government agencies and/or private companies access to our most private information, with little or no oversight. There are now 250 agencies that can legally break into our homes. This is a government that believes that it is the master and not the servant of the people.

Like it or not, this Labour government, with the tacit approval of any MP who failed to speak for the people, has run roughshod over the people of this country. Even now, no major party will speak up for the people, yes, they may make the odd comment, but they do nothing about it. None of the major parties have included in their policy an agreement to review and if necessary, repeal legislation that has wrecked our liberty and right to privacy. It is high time the people of this country said that enough was enough, members of parliament are supposed to serve the public, government is the servant, not the master and we demand the return of our liberty and our right to be free from an overbearing, know it all state.