British Politics’s Blog

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

Posts Tagged ‘power to the people

Boycott the mainstream parties

with 4 comments

I have often advocated to friends and colleagues that the best way to deliver a hard-hitting message to politicians is to vote for fringe parties rather than mainstream. The reality is, at least for the most part, leaders of the main parties take our votes for granted. They know that there is a hardcore of supporters, but it is floating voters that really decide results, so that is who they target with populist policies. The thing that they fear most, is something that upsets the status quo, that is, the voters responding in an unpredictable or uncontrolledable way. Whether we like it or not, most voters are predictable, the mainstream parties like that.

This is perhaps why Lord Tebbit urged disaffected voters to “teach the big parties a lesson” by endorsing one of the smaller parties. Now this has been admitted by a former Conservative Party Chairman, perhaps my friends and colleagues will start to realise that a vote for a fringe party is not a wasted vote. As a fellow blogger stated in a recent post; “Politicians of all parties would do well to listen. They rule by consent, not as a right. The public could scupper all of their plans by simply voting for fringe parties, it may not give us a joined up government, but lets be honest, we haven’t had one of those for generations!”. There is no need to vote for extremist parties, in the EU Election there are quite a number of choices, including, but not necessarily limited to; UKIP, the Greens, the English Democrats, the Christian Peoples Alliance, NO2EU, Libertas, and the Jury Team.

Truth be told, MEP’s have very little power, so using the European elections to deliver a message to our domestic politicans carries very little risk and a great deal of upside. I know that I may be criticised for this comment, but the real power in the European Union lies with the unelected Commissioners, not the MEP’s. Our domestic MP’s have disappointed us, many have either abused or stood by whilst others abused an expense system that was actually designed to be abused….by the abusers! Ironic isn’t it! – Clearly our MP’swere quite prepared to treat the very people that elected them with contempt, but why not, they only needed us once every 5 years?

I dislike being taken for granted, both in terms of my goodwill and my vote and I am sure many people will feel as I do. So maybe we should all consider delivering a very explicit message to the mainstream parties, that we cannot, nor will we be taken for granted. And, if they don’t start to listen following the June 4th results, then there is a very real possibility that people power will ensure that the vast majority of current MP’s will lose their seats at the next election and I mean from all parties. If existing MP’s are unwilling to listen, especially those from New Labour, then I will consider standing as an independent MP and I will urge others to follow suit. If there are enough independent MP’s, the people of this country may actually regain their voice, because massive majorities will be replaced by the need to gain a consensus. Authoritarian rule will be replaced by a democratic process. Now that would be nice.

I am happy to be accused of being naive. But I will say this, MP’s abused their expenses because we let them, we assumed that they could be trusted to self-regulate. We have accepted an electoral system that favours the larger parties, a system that provides these party’s with massive majorities, even if they get just 35% of the vote, in turn we get what amounts to single party rule. The ruling party, as evidenced by the New Labour Party Machine, want ever more state power and control over the people. New Labour, for example, has become completely disengaged and out of touch with the people, they have introduced a raft of  new laws, well over 3,500 in 12 years, many removing long-held rights to privacy and liberty and the New Labour delivery has become authoritarian, not inclusive. 

If we have to vote for fringe parties, or independent candidates to deliver a harsh lesson to our self-serving MP’s and political parties, then I am up for it. I want to return to a democratic process where our views are taken into consideration, not one where we are controlled or spied on; I want our government to be truly representative and, above all, I want to feel proud of our democracy, our politicians and our government….and I am sure many people would agree with those sentiments, so lets take the “necessary action” to repeat the overused phrase by our illustrious leader…and “do what’s right” to use another!

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!

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

1929 stock market is history repeating itself

with one comment

I read an interesting article over at the political blog Power to the People, about the similarities between the 1929 stock market crash and our current economic situation and I am finding it difficult to fault the parallels. Clearly many of the problems we are experiencing today are similar to those during the 1929 crash, except, as the author points out, back then it was shares and today it is property.

As the author makes clear there were some people in power in 1929 that were rightly concerned about the possibility of the whole pack of cards falling down, but elected to do nothing.

The people of America felt rich, lifestyles improved after the austerity of the first world war and few people raised any doubts, those that did, such as President Hoover, tended to keep it to themselves, rather than be see as the Cassandra.

Surely Gordon Brown knew there were real risks that the property bubble could burst, particularly given the property crash of the 1990’s, he must have been aware that the economy was being fueled by cheap and easy credit and above all, that the massive profits being reported by the banks were not from their high street activities alone. Yet, he chose to do nothing, now he is puffing his chest out and telling us how he is going to save the world. Personally I think that there is something morbid about allowing the same person who threw us in at the deep end to then jump in, ignoring his own culpability and receive backslaps for his vain attempt to save us.

During the 1929 crash, millions of people were destitute, having lost all their saving. Today, with millions of people investing in pensions, the fall in key stocks means that their pensions are worth considerably less than they were 18 months ago. Perhaps by as much as 50%! Those that have saved for their retirement, will be punished with low or non-existent interest rates, resulting in a reduction in their standard of living, even though they may not have been benificiaries of the largesse that caused these problems. Of course, most civil servants do not have to worry about such anomolies, because their final salary schemes are paid out of future income and as such, are guaranteed.

But the lessons of history havent been learnt, as the article goes on to state;

After the 1929 stock market crash, Hoover introduced the Securities & Exchange commision to regulate US markets, this had the desired affect. However, over the past 20 years or so, the rules and regulations have been relaxed, seen as no longer necessary and much of what we witness in the United States today can be attributed to the easing of those regulations. Similarly, the much vaunted deregulation of the City was also a pre-cursor to the problems we all face today. Light regulation and a hand-off approach by government and the regulators has allowed the banks to enter very high risk transactions which many people struggle to understand.

This government has a lot to answer for. Mr Brown promised an end to boom and bust yet, in spite of his promise, we are actually in one of the most dire economic positions ever experienced by this country, even though the warning signs were there all along. They were just conveniently ignored for political expediency and no doubt, because Gordon Brown, whilst basking in the glory of being described as the ‘iron chancellor’ didn’t want to be a party pooper. Shame on him, he was in the best position to know the risks and to do something about them, but he did nothing. In my view he is either incompetent, inept or reckless.

And…I couldn’t agree more with the statement made on this posting…

In my view, government ministers and bankers must be called to account because they have demonstrated what appears to be a reckless disregard for the interests, respectively of the people of this country and the interests of their shareholders.

We must all demand that all those in position of power or responsibility that have played an active part in this economic mess be made to accept responsibility. Further, anyone that has been reckless, irrespective of whether they are in government or commerce, must be brought to book. We, the people will automatically have to pay for any mistakes we have made (as well as those we haven’t), why should politicians and senior business executives get away scott free?

Prostitution, pimps, trafficking and criminal intent

leave a comment »

There is an interesting post over at Power to the People on the government announcement that they intend to introduce new legislation to protect women that have been forced into prostitution by people traffickers or pimps. The post does not cover the rights and wrongs about prostitution, but instead the issue surrounding a fundamental change to criminal law, in that there is no need to demonstrate intent only “strict liability”.

The following paragraph probably sums up best the argument contained in the post:

I am no law expert, but by introducing a “strict liability” clause into criminal law, (I believe it is already used in civil law), means a serious criminal offence can be committed without there being any intent. Now I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but this legislation means that even if a man asked the necessary questions and was given the appropriate responses, he is still playing a game of Russian Roulette, with odds that would not be lawful in a casino! Worst still, the man doesn’t even need to have sex in order to commit the offence, he just has to conduct the transaction.

If true, this is a very worrying precedent being set by government ministers, perhaps made worst by the fact that Harriet Harman is actually a QC. She more than anyone must know the consequences of a piece of legislation that can find a man guilty of rape simply because he conducted a transaction for sex with a prostitute.

Surely this is what is wrong with this government. They try and intefere in everything, with little or no knowledge of the problems, issues or implications. It is always a sledgehammer to crack a nut, draconian and penal laws introduced against a backdrop of political correctness or a wish to grab the headlines. The Big Brother Database was one way in which this government attempted to run roughshod over the civil liberties of the people of this country. Now they seek to introduce a strict liability clause which means that no ‘act’ has to take place for a very serious offence to have been committed which could result in a life sentence.

Vulnerable girls forced into prostitution are entitled to and must be protected. However, the laws are already there for the police to use, so why don’t they? If 70% of the girls are working under duress, then the police should have no problem bringing prosecutions. I don’t know how many ‘sex transactions’ take place everyday, but if 70% of them could lead to a serious offence being committed, surely the courts will be inundated with criminal cases. Also, we need to start building new prisons now, because I suspect, that this law will not stop the oldest profession in the world. In a worst case scenario, it could make the girls more vulnerable and drive it underground where it will be impossible to protect them.

Those that sponsor or support this bill in its current form should hang their heads in shame for they seek to change a fundamental aspect of criminal law in this country and fail to achieve the objective set. As for Jacqui Smith and Harriet Harman, they should resign immediately, because they have demonstrated that they are not fit for the high offices that they hold.

Has Hazel Blears been reading our blogs?

with one comment

Based on an article written by Communities Secretary, Hazel Blears for The Guardian newspaper, it is a reasonable question. Especially given she naively attacked political bloggers a couple of weeks ago. Now she appears to have used these same blogs for her own research into what is wrong with politics. In this particular article, she was specifically taking a swipe at the BNP, no doubt because they make an easier target than other mainstream political parties. But, as we know, her comments could apply to any party that is gaining votes at Labours expense. Here is a summary of some of the points she made.

  • Politicians from all parties must work hard to win back the trust and confidence of disaffected voters by proving that mainstream politics has the answers they seek
  • Politics required a revival of local political culture, a significant shift of power from the centre to the community and politicians who look and sound like the people they represent
  • Estates have been ignored for decades; voters taken for granted; local services that have failed; white working-class voters who feel politicians live on a different planet

Now of course, delivering rhetoric is one thing, delivering solutions is quite another. As we know, Hazel Blears may be vocal and enjoy getting her name in the press, but lets face it, not many people hang onto her every word. So whilst it is a pity that a more serious politician did not make these comments, lets hope one of them can read, because she does get to the root cause of why so many people feel both disenfranchised and disaffected with politics.

Of course there are many other issues, such as the creation of a nanny state, the constant waste of taxpayers money, the government’s introduction of Big Brother, voyeuristic, privacy invading, civil liberty busting programmes designed to control and oppress the people of this country, as well as, of course, the complete screw up of our economy. However I believe there are two comments that she made that are particularly relevant today and those are ‘politicians need to look and sound like the people they represent’ and ‘voters feel politicians live on a different planet ‘ . 

These two comments could not be applied exclusively to the Labour Party, although that would be an excellent start, they would apply to MP’s of all parties. With only a few exceptions, once our members of parliament are elected, and they enter the house of commons, they really start to believe that they are a cut above everyone else and power goes to their heads. The only time they become ‘human’ again, is when they are begging for our votes! Most MP’s are, or become in a very short period, pathetic self-serving, self-righteous, self-obsessed dickheads, interested in the position, rather than the responsibility or why they were put there.

Nonetheless, as always, Hazel is keen to highlight problems. However as with most Labour MP’s (and David Cameron), short on ideas of how to address them. May I suggest therefore, that a good start is for the main political parties to start selecting the person they want to represent them at election time and in parliament, from ordinary citizens, rather than career politicians or party activists? Party activists and career politicians lose their personality or individuality on the way, learn to do as they are told, rather than what is right and more often than not, are the very people that see getting the job as more important than doing it. Better surely, that prospective MP’s are selected based on a passion for their local community, values and making a difference, rather than simply seeking a political career?

Anyway, at least we know that whilst Hazel Blear may not like the home truths that arise from those prepared to take the time to comment on political issues, at least she is prepared to accept some of them may be quite pertinent. Even if she is not capable of making a difference.

Welcome to Big Brother Britain

leave a comment »

Well all is not as it seems. This is not a sign in the arrivals hall at Heathrow, although it probably should be, instead it is a big welcome to the new political blog Big Brother Britain & Civil Liberties. The initiative of the author of Power to the People, with contributions from David Davis, it is destined to become a leading site for resisting and highlighting attempts by the Labour government to do away with our long held and highly prized civil liberties.

There are quite a few blogs that deal with civil liberty issues and political blogs that touch on so called Big Brother issues, however, this particular blog is intended, as I understand it, to bring all of these topic under a single umbrella. The author has made it clear that he is keen to have as many people as possible contributing posts and comments in order that it can quickly become an authorative reference site and be used as a campaigning blog.

I have agreed to write posts for the Big Brother Britain blog and I would urge others to offer similar tangible support. Together with the RESIST initiative introduced by Shrewd Mammal, there is a real opportunity for some momentum if people with similar concerns get behind this initiative and support, contribute to and visit the blog.

Big Brother Britain by Stealth

leave a comment »

Proof, if any were needed, that this Labour government will bring in ID cards by any means necessary was provided by a recent statement given by Home Office Minister, Meg Hillier at the Biometrics Conference.

She was quoted as saying that there was “nothing to stop” drivers’ licences or other documents from being designated to work as ID cards and went on to say “In time it is possible to designate the driving licence or other documents to be counted as an ID card.” The only conciliatory note in her comments was that there were no plans to do so before 2012. Cold comfort for those who believe, as I do, that this Labour government is simply obsessed with gaining more and more control over the views, activities, intentions and minds of the electorate.

As Cornelius Tacitus, senator and historian of the Roman Empire was quoted as saying “In a free society, the rights and laws protect the individual from the government. In a dictatorship, the rights and laws protect the government from the people. The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”

Hillier explained that once an ID Card system was in place, it would be used for proof of age, criminal records bureau checks, for bank loan applications, for employers, as well as maternity allowances, tax returns, TV licences and incapacity or unemployment benefit claims. Of course, we all know that this will also include biometric data.

Under the Identity Card Act 2006, the Home Secretary can designate documents that will require anybody applying for them to be placed on the National Identity Register (NIR), the backbone of the ID card scheme. In other words, they could refuse to issue, for example, passports, drivers licenses and so on, unless, or until we agree to join the National Identity Register. This, presumably is designed, to counteract the growing movement of disobedience, where people are signing a pledge not to do anything to support the introduction of identity cards.

Phil Booth, national co-ordinator for pressure group NO2ID, said: “It is clearly a compulsory scheme if in order to continue driving, travelling abroad or get a loan you have to be registered on the scheme“.  He added that “it is coercion up to the point of compulsion.”

Add this database, with the Big Brother Database, monitoring all forms of communications, mobile calls, text messages, email and internet browsing, together with the children’s database, ContactPoint and the mobile phone register, added to vehicle tracking through ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition), 4.2m CCTV cameras and a National Health Database that will hold all of our medical records for our lifetime and you really start to get a picture of just how much control this government wants overs its citizens. We need to ask ourselves why, what are they so afraid of? It cannot be to protect us against terrorism, because lets face it, for 100’s of years, this country has been under threat from outside influences, yet we have survived and prospered, without this level of state intelligence and policing.

If we value our civil liberties, which clearly this government does not, then we need to be vocal and we should consider supporting pressure groups such as NO2ID, Statewatch and The Open Rights Group.

We need wholesale tax and benefit reform, not meddling

with 4 comments

The news that the Liberal Democrats wants to reduce income tax for middle and low income earners is welcome news, albeit the chances of them getting sufficient votes to deliver on this commitment is unlikely. However, it does appear that they are willing to fill the void left by the current reincarnation of the Tory party.

The conservatives have traditionally been a party of tax cuts, not something that is always justified, but nonetheless, for the most part that is how they are perceived. David Cameron does not seem to want to make this commitment, because he is justifiably concerned that the Labour party will scream that the conservative party will hit schools and the NHS to fund the tax cuts. Rather than fighting this unsubstantiated claim, David Cameron is avoiding the fight and in my view, showing how incredibly weak he is, both as a person and a politician.

Gordon Brown said in 2004 that he could save £20bn per annum in an efficiency drive within high spending departments. He has not delivered on that commitment in fact, quite the reverse, we have actually seen an increase in public sector spending. Neither the LibDems nor the conservatives are willing to look to fund tax cuts from an efficiency drive, yet only an imbecile would claim that government departments are efficient or not guilty of waste. There have been numerous reports lately claiming that £billions have been wasted.

What we need is wholesale reform, not tinkering, backed up by a firm commitment to reduce taxes. The government, and it has to be said, the opposition parties believe it is okay to keep taking more and more of our money, every time they screw up, they either borrow, which lets face it, we will have to pay for, or they will introduce more stealth taxes. It has to stop. Under this Labour government, more and more people believe that they have an automatic right to look to the state, more accurately the tax payer, to provide them with an income, housing etc. There are nearly 870,000 people claiming unemployment benefits and 2.5m on some form of disability benefit. That is 3.4m people that require some form of tax payer funded benefits.

Now I accept that there are people with genuine disabilities and they should receive our support, but how much longer can the tax payer be expected to fund 3.4m people (and rising), that are making no contribution? I have deliberately ignored pensioners given many have contributed to state pensions for most of their lives.

Someone needs to say it how it is. There are just too many people expecting too few tax payers to fund their living costs, subsidise housing costs, as well as provide free education and health. Enough now, some of these people, probably that vast majority, can help themselves and they must. In these difficult economic times, those working have to make significant cuts, or take on extra jobs, or both. Why? Because we are expected not only to cover our own cost of living increases, but also the rises faced by those who make no contribution, in other words we pay twice.

Uncontrolled immigration places a further burden on the tax payer. It does not take a genius to work out that the contribution in taxes and national insurance made by many immigrants seeking work in the UK, does not cover the free education and health benefits received by their offspring. So, what happens? There are fewer jobs available for the 870,000 people claiming unemployment benefit, so we have to keep forking our our hard earned money providing them with tax payer funded benefits. Whilst the people coming into the UK and accepting low paid work, cannot possible pay enough tax and national insurance to cover the free benefits they receive.

There is nothing wrong with immigration, provided they can make a genuine and a net contribution to the UK economy, not simply provide employers with a source of cheap labour, which in itself is exploitation of the individual and the tax payer. There are many people that have genuine disabilities that prevent them from taking any work, but this is by no means the majority, those genuine claimants are entitled to our help, because that is our way. The rest must find some form of gainful employment, even if it is part-time. There will always be people unemployed and of the 870,000, some of these may be between jobs, but once again, they are likely to be in the minority. The others, well some will have never held a job and they must be required to make a contribution.

Redistribution of wealth may be a fine goal, but not if the hard pressed tax payers are simply expected to reward people that are making no attempt to make a contribution to society. Successive government have failed to grasp the nettle, but they must, we need to urgently reform our whole benefits system, so that the genuinely needy receive an appropriate level of help and support and the others, those that refuse to make a contribution are forced to go to work.

Very wealthy people are able to employ clever people to avoid paying too much tax, but the rest of us, who do not have that luxury are expected to make up the balance, simply because we are the easier target. It is far, far easier to hit the lower and middle income earners than it is to get the long term unemployed back to work, to determine which of the 2.5m people are genuinely unable to work and tackle those guilty of extravagant and complicated tax avoidance schemes.

Think about it for a moment. We tax and insure our cars, because if we didn’t, we could expect to be arrested, charged and fined, because we are, for the most part, law abiding tax payers. The others, well they won’t tax or insure their cars, if they are arrested they skip bail, if they get caught by a camera, then it doesn’t matter, because the car won’t be registered in their name. It is estimated that there are 1m uninsured and untaxed vehicles on our roads. We tax payers, received our pay, with tax and national insurance deducted, why, because we are law abiding citizens, the others, well they work cash in hand, because the chances are they won’t get caught? Why, because it is just too difficult to track and too costly to enforce?

We need wholesale reform, after all, any money earned, starts off as our own. That’s right, when you apply for a job, you get told how much your employer will pay you. Then the pimp, sorry the government comes along with hand extended and says, well you have a “social responsibility” and we are going to-redistribute some of your income to those less fortunate than you and to pay for things like health, education and pensions. We all sit there and take it, why, because we are law abiding and of course, we don’t have any choice? If government gets it wrong, no matter, they will just come back for more, perhaps in the form of direct tax, such as that on petrol, energy, insurance, vehicles etc.

Some people don’ realise this and of course the government won’t tell you. But when you buy petrol or a new car for example, the government add the duties and then VAT to the duties. How bad is that, not only do we pay VAT on the cost of the goods, but we also pay VAT on the duties! No wonder they think we are a bunch of mugs.

Someone, perhaps a political party, needs to stand up for the hard-pressed tax payer. Accept that there is a disproportionate amount of money taken from us and that the system needs serious reform. The LibDems have suggested that they could provide some tax cuts by tackling waste, but they have set the barrier way, way too low, even if this is a paradigm shift by the LibDems. If you are going to take flack for suggesting that we can keep some of our hard earned money by the government tackling waste, why not also target abuse, not just the wealthy, but those happy to receive tax payer funded benefits?

We need a party for wholesale reform and they need to tackle the people that are registered as disabled, but are able to work. After all, those that use or abuse the system are just taking it away from the genuinely needy, who should receive our help. Those claiming unemployment benefit must be required to work within a given period or lose all benefits. It is enough now, for far too long we have heard (and have allowed to pass unchallenged), people on benefits saying that they would be “worse off if they went back to work”. Surely this means that the benefit payments are too generous?

Why can’t lone parents group together, so that some can go to work, whilst the others look after the children? In the real world of the tax payer, that is what we do. What makes lone parents any more deserving? Why should someone that has never contributed anything in the form of income tax, be entitled to housing, benefits, free furniture, free health and free education? If they have an automatic entitlement to receive these benefits, what incentive do they have to work and make a contribution? Successive governments have added to the notion that everyone is entitled to state aid of some sort. Why should these people not be encouraged to help themselves, rather than helping themselves to the hard-earned money of honest tax payers.

Unemployment figures have been massaged by this government by allowing more and more people to claim that they are unable to work through disability, there are currently 2.5m in this category. It is a fair bet and some government ministers have alluded to this, that as many as 1.5m are able to do some form of work. So is the true unemployment figure actually 2.4m? Those that are workshy as opposed to genuinely disabled, must be identified and should be forced back to work. If necessary, through a steady decline in the benefits they are receiving, if that means that some become homeless, so be it. They always have a choice.

I accept, that if there are no jobs available, then we must take that into account, but whilst there is, those able and capable of working must be dissuaded from claiming benefits. Not incentivised, because that is morally wrong, they must be dissuaded through a steady fall in their tax payer funded benefits. We must also change some of our language, for example, state benefits should be changed to tax payer funded benefits, which is a more accurate statement. The state is faceless, but everyone know someone who is a tax payer, they will invariable be the people looking knackered without the ability to buy a pint in their local.

Many low paid workers are claiming that they need more money to deal with the rising cost of living, well firstly I should like to point out that the problem is not uniquely theirs and it is wrong to play the victim as if it is an exclusive right, everyone is suffering. But, more importantly, they need to approach it from another angle, they should not be looking for more money funded, in the case of public sector workers, by the tax payer, instead, they should be entitled to keep more of their own money. By tackling government waste and making more people contribute, we can all see a reduction in our taxes, we will all feel better off and this country will prosper again.

I cannot see any of the political parties tackling this issue. The LibDems have moved from a party of higher taxation to one that is now talking of reduced taxes. Albeit it without the support of the entire party and, it has to be said, with a limited remit in terms of what aspects of abuse they will tackle. The conservative party has consistently refused to address taxation as if it is a poisoned chalice, because they don’t want to take on the current government on regarding waste, and abuse of the benefits system. Then the Labour government, who, through their self-righteous programme of re-distribution have built up this waste and allowed a situation where even they know that there is no more money to be had from the hard pressed tax payer. What hope is there for us with such weak politicians?

I am not advocating that everyone who is claiming unemployment benefit should lose, it, nor am I suggesting that everyone in receipt of disability benefit is workshy, far from it. I am arguing that unless we reform our tax and benefits system, this country will be bankrupt. We already have a massive accumulated deficit in public sector pension schemes, an aging populating and high borrowings. We also have hugely expensive PFI schemes that need to be paid for over the next 20 years. The tax payer is straining under the additional burden placed upon them by this government’s failure to tackle the issues in case they lose some of their core vote. However, unless we address the issue of those that are contributing little of nothing in the form of income tax and national insurance, then we will reach a stage where those currently funding this largess will no longer be able to cope themselves.

There needs to be a reduction in those claiming tax payer funded benefits, a corresponding increase in the number of people contributing income tax and national insurance and a halt to immigration unless or until they can demonstrate that they can provide a net contribution to the UK economy, taking account of their needs, such as free health and education…the government has no right to exclude this cost when making statements about how they contribute. If we don’t, we will reach the point of no return, where we have to borrow more and more money just to fund our pensions and benefits system, until one day, our government bonds will have the same status as junk bonds. By then, it will be too late and there will be considerably more people that will need some form of tax payer funded benefits, but with no-one left to turn to. Doomsday scenario or basic economics, you choose?

 

Google Groups
UK Politics
Visit this group

Fuel Poverty – The case for creative thinking and solutions

with 5 comments

Within the UK, there is no denying that there are a high number of people in fuel poverty. These include ordinary families on low incomes, pensioners, lone parents, the unemployed and those with long term disabilities and registered as unable to work. In fact, the problem is so large, estimated to be some 4.5m, that the government cannot wave their wand and make the problem go away. That is the long and short of it.

Union leaders and Labour MP’s can huff and puff as much as they like, but the harsh reality is, this government has squandered much of the income it has gained as a consequence of the economic boom, higher taxes and borrowing. This means that the cupboard is bare. The union leaders crying foul, are the same people that fought and succeeded in getter higher wages for their members and in the process, supporting this government. The MP’s bleating, are the same ones that thought the gravy train of higher taxes, followed by waste, was okay. They have themselves, New Labour values and specifically, this government to blame. So there is no point trying to convince us that you are fighting for the ‘people’ when you are as guilty as the rest for the position we all find ourselves in.

It is time to stop the whining and start thinking creatively. It is time to forget trying to fleece the ordinary taxpayer that has spent the last 11 years supporting those that cannot or will not work and propping this government allowing them to claim that they have successfully invested in our services, whilst failing to demonstrate any real tangible benefit to the majority.

The Labour government typically throw money and/or resource at problems in the hope that it will fix the problem, or at least provide a brief respite, perhaps with some good headlines. Their spendthrift ways have lumbered this country with an enormous mountain of debt, which includes official borrowings of £450bn and another £170bn that needs to be paid between now and 2032 on PFI schemes. This ignores the £800bn or so shortfall in government pension schemes. In fact, it is an utter mess, and demonstrates what a tardy bunch this government is. Many of the foolish press barons have hailed Gordon Brown as a prudent or successful chancellor, history will judge him differently.

With nothing in the kitty, ‘working’ taxpayers are so highly taxed through direct, indirect and stealth taxes introduced by this government and with realborrowings at an all time high, there is little room to manoeuvre, even for a government adept at screwing every last penny from the rest of us. Now is the time for new ideas, a bold approach, creativity and above all honesty.

Windfall taxes are a ‘one off’ short term measure with long term consequences, given the energy companies will get the money back somewhere, either by reducing necessary investment, increasing energy cost for the majority, or, most likely a combination of the two. Similarly, throwing money at the problem, assuming we had any, in the guise of fuel credits is knee-jerk and would then be expected every year. The answer is investment in ways to reduce energy consumption through insulation, energy saving appliances and bulbs and other such measures. Estimates suggest that these measures could reduce our energy bills by up to 35%.

The government should encourage the energy companies to invest their carbon credits in the UK rather than elsewhere. They should be incentivised, rather than bullied into offering more support for the Warm Front programme and the government should put back the money they withdrew from the scheme. The energy companies should, however, be forced, by legislation if necessary, to offer the so called ‘social tariffs’ to all those in need and should be prevented from charging higher tariffs for meters on non-direct debit customers. The energy companies have dragged their feet on social tariffs and the penal rates they charge people who use pre-payment meters, this in unacceptable. The regulator should be given more powers to mandate and control issues such as access to social tariffs as well as price rises.

The government then needs to be more creative. Lets face it, at a time like this, everyone needs to pull together. Those in fuel poverty should be encouraged to help themselves, not simply come along to the government expecting more money, which the rest of us will have to pay. Ordinary working families, whether they fall inside or outside the fuel poverty trap are feeling the pinch. Many have had to reduce their expenditure on non-essentials in order that they can meet the higher fuel prices, higher costs in getting to and from work, higher food prices, higher mortgage costs and higher local taxes. They too are suffering, even though they are working, some, many have had to also take on a part-time job in order that they can meet their obligations and keep their head above water. What of these people, the taxpayers that make it possible to support so many that are not working or are retired, don’t they matter?

No solution is going to be perfect, but you can be damned certain, that chucking borrowed money that this country doesn’t have at the problem is going to be much worse. Here are some ideas the government could consider.

  1. Determine which of those in ‘fuel poverty’ are capable of helping themselves with government assistance or encouragement and which are not.
  2. Allow those on fixed incomes, such as lone parents, disability allowances and the unemployed to take on a part-time job (stacking shelves, land work, cleaning houses etc) and retain the income, free of tax, national insurance and, most importantly benefit deductions. The limit for this extra income should be set at a level equivalent to what the government believes is the additional cost of living as a consequence of food and energy increases.
  3. Allow those in ‘fuel poverty’ and in receipt of some form of ‘tax credit’ to earn an additional income through a part-time job, free of tax and national insurance, albeit up to a pre-determined limit, set by the government or better still, experts!
  4. Remove VAT and any other forms of duties on items that are routinely used to save energy, such as, energy saving bulbs, insulation, gas boilers and so on.
  5. Reduce the amount of paperwork pensioners have to complete in order that they can take on a part-time job. Provide them with an additional ‘work credit’ whereby they can earn up to a pre-determined amount, free of tax and national insurance contribution, without affecting their pensions. Increase the work credit by an amount equal to each allowance they do not claim, such as the ‘winter fuel payment’, the savings could be reinvested.
  6. Stop paying the winter fuel allowance to pensioners that no longer reside in the UK and reinvest this money into support for the most needy or energy saving measures.
  7. Provide, if necessary, secured short-term, interest free loans to private landlords, housing associations and local authorities to allow them to bring properties under their control up to acceptable standards in terms of energy efficiency. – A large proportion of homes that need upgrading are in the private sector.

The policy of assuming that there will always be enough taxpayers that can be fleeced to support those that are actually capable of helping themselves in times of need has to stop, it is not sustainable. Yes, if they cannot work, through a genuine disability, age, or lack of mobility then we should offer support, but if they can help themselves, why should they get away scotfree whilst the rest of us pick up the tab through higher taxes and having to take on extra jobs? It is time to view the so called priviledged not as a gravy train, but as the conduit through which those less fortunate can have a better existence.

The truth is, many of those that are capable of helping themselves, probably would if they are in dire straits. However, New Labour has exercised and grown this culture of state intervention, the government will always come to the aid of those less well off. Little or no effort is put into finding out whether they can or are willing to help themselves. If someone on benefit tries to get a part-time job to cover the additional energy costs, they can expect to lose the equivalent amount in state benefits. Why, where is the incentive? I am not suggesting that we should let people abuse the system, just that they are encouraged to help themselves, within limits that relate to their assessed additional needs.

Similarly pensioners are penalised if they work part-time. Clobbered with paperwork and additional taxes, encourage them, don’t penalise them. Government should look to incentivise, cajole and if necessary bully people into helping themselves, rather than transferring the burden onto overburdened taxpayers who are suffering just as badly.

Okay, I accept there are flaws and risks in some of my suggestions, but then I am not an economist or a civil servant. What I do possess is commonsense and a desire to be constructive in my criticism, the former is something the government lacks and the latter something the opposition parties lack. At least my suggestions are a start, perhaps those better qualified than myself can come up with working proposals that encourage those that need help to do more for themselves, thereby reducing the burden on existing taxpayers already facing pressure on their own finances.

 

Google Groups
UK Politics
Visit this group