Executive Pay- More Smoke and Mirrors from the LibDems

Vince Cable wants ‘unearned’ fat-cat director fees to be controlled by allowing a veto by shareholders.

This sounds like another great idea from the LibDems; until one analyses the proposition and realises it may not only be ineffective but also iniquitous.

How will this work if the director is a majority shareholder or holds enough shares to only need one or two other shareholders on board to pass a huge pay rise? How will it work if the director(s) decide to pay themselves through share dividends; surely the other shareholders will not vote down such a payment? And I fail to see how he will convince the Tories to introduce more red tape by ’…requiring companies to set out the criteria used to determine pay and perks.’

And how does this help ordinary workers whose wages have been effectively reduced over the last 30 years? Should the criteria be ‘earned’; or should these massive payments be subject to restriction across the board, as the pay of the workforce so often is?

The idea that anybody should receive a massive pay increase when the economy, as we are so often told, is in difficulty? Why shouldn’t these pay increases by taken in tax, before being paid to directors, whose P.A. is often the driving force behind their efficiency, rather than use a system where shareholders, whose agenda is similar to that of directors, decide and that is open to abuse? If they can afford huge pay increases, they can afford to pay their share- we are in it together… aren’t we?

Mr Cable also says he doesn’t want state control of pay; this is misdirection; more smoke and mirrors; either Vince Cable is very naive or thinks we are! You cannot say ‘we want legislation to curb [anybodies] pay’ while also saying ‘we don’t want state control of pay’.

If you really want a fair system of director pay restriction, let the whole workforce, not just employee representatives (who will be open to ‘persuasion’, bullying and self-interest) on remuneration committees vote on proposals; perhaps then directors will be more inclined to fairer pay negotiations; this would be a real change, a fairer change. It would also put some power removed by biased and unfair anti-union legislation back into the hands of the workforce.

Troop Numbers to be Cut; Ghurhas Treated Differently (Again)

Someday I hope somebody can explain this government to me. We have troops in Afghanistan and Libya, yet they want to cut numbers? There were mooted threats to use troops in the recent riots, yet they want to cut numbers?

Though the MoD says that the troops in these geographical areas will not be affected, who will replace them if the conflicts and peacekeeping duties continue for an extended period of time? Saying they will not be affected is misleading.

And what about troops to aid in violent civil unrest; one thought during the riots was that troops would need to be used because of the reduction in police numbers due to cuts (something we were told would not happen). But now the MoD is to reduce the number of our armed forces as well. Where is the logic? Where is the sense?

One could take a cynical view and consider that with an increasingly disillusioned police force and armed force (though in my view the distinction between the two is becoming blurred somewhat) they might be willing to support a violent rebellion, much as happened in Russia in 1917. Is that the government’s real fear?

And the government’s view that the cuts are necessary because of a £38 million ‘black hole’ left by the previous government also has me questioning the logic of these cuts. When did our armed forces become a profit making concern? Any money spent on defence goes into a so-called ‘black hole’. Once again, the choices are cuts or taxes. We all know which side of the fence the Tories fall on.

But the most heinous aspect to these cuts is the disproportionate cuts the Ghurkhas will bear. Defence officials claim this greater burden is necessary because of the changes to the Ghurkhas terms of service fought for and won in 2008. This gave them similar terms as the rest of the army. Except, it appears, when it comes to cuts.

They go on to say it is more expensive to employ them. Sorry, misrepresentation; it is more expensive to employ them that it was when their terms of service were unjust; it is now no more expensive than to employ any other soldier in the British army.

This just oozes ‘revenge’; it screams payback; it is as unjust and unfair as treating our bravest, most loyal troops as second class ‘Johnny Foreigners’.

"Curiouser and curiouser" cried Alice as Cameron Protects the Fat Cats

So David Cameron doesn’t want jobs put at risk through banking reform; here we go again. The taxpayer donation to the banks following the credit crunch is worth £10 billion annually to them; they continue to pay bonuses many of us will never earn in a lifetime; and Cameron forgets his election promise ‘we’re in it together’; yeah, until it affects his big banking buddies.

I am pleased, thought I hate to admit it, that Vince Cable seems to be on the side of the people when he insists the banks should split their retail arm so in time of financial trouble ordinary consumers accounts can be protected from City bankers and their excesses.

One thing that puzzles me; when Cameron and his crew announced his welfare and public spending cuts, the job losses were acceptable and would be absorbed by the private sector; but with possible job cuts to tame the bankers, the possible job losses are unacceptable. “Curiouser and curiouser!” cried Alice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8732964/David-Cameron-warns-banking-reform-must-not-put-jobs-at-risk-as-Coalition-row-grows.html

The Truth About Libya?

I came to a YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJURNC0e6Ek that intrigued me. I decided to do some research of my own to verify or otherwise the claims of the 'tube'.

Below are the results of that research. I spent all day looking at the referenced links, and many more. My opinion is that the claims are essentially true. I do not expect you to change your opinion (if it is different to the proposals) based on these claims. I merely ask you consider them; and to do your own research; and to consider why these claims do not make it into the mainstream media, if only to be contested.

In 1949 The United Nations was given jurisdiction and decided that Libya should become independent, which it did on Dec. 24, 1951, as the United Kingdom of Libya. The 1950s in Libya were characterized by great poverty; minimal economic development was possible only because of payments and loans received from various Western nations.

In 1958, petroleum was discovered and by the early 1960s Libya's revenues grew from the exploitation of that resource[1].

However, aware of the potential of their country's natural wealth, many Libyans had also become conscious that its benefits reached very few of the population[2].

Before the NATO invasion Libyans enjoyed the highest standard of living in Africa and ahead of Russia, Brazil and Arabia[3].

In Libya homes are considered a human right; newly married couples receive $50,000 to buy their own home and electricity is free to all people[4]^,[5].

Gaddafi vowed to home every Libyan before his own parents; he kept his promise and his father died before he was housed[6].

Before Gaddafi less than 20% of Libyans were literate; now education is free[7], high quality and the literacy rate is 83%[8].

It is reasonably understood that whereas the United States of America is reputed as a developed nation, the poorest man in Libya is incomparable to the poorest in America; the latter will perceive the former as rich[9].

Healthcare is free and high quality; if Libyans cannot get the education or healthcare they are entitled to in Libya the Libyan government funds them to go abroad to access it[10].

All loans are interest free by law[11]; if a Libyan buys a car the government pays 50% of the cost and the price of petrol is $0.10 a litre[12]

Any Libyan wishing to become a farmer is given free use of land, equipment, livestock and seed[13].

On July 1^st 1.7 million (95% of the population of Tripoli, about 1/3^rd of the population of Libya) people assembled in Green Square to show defiance against NATO bombing of Libya[14].

The central bank of Libya is state owned, and unlike all western banks is not owned by Rothschild and issues debt free money. Reports that the 'rebels' have already established a new Central Bank of Libya suggests there are outside [banking] influences involved[15] [16]

At the trial of the Lockerbie bombers, the US paid witnesses $4 million to testify against the accused Libyans. They have since recanted their evidence[17] ^[18] .

Prior to the 'rebellion' Gaddafi was working to change payment for Libyan oil from the US dollar to the African dinar[19]; Sarkozy said Libya was a 'threat to the financial security of Mankind'[20].

Rothschild's banks create money out of thin air and sell it to the people with interest, meaning they can never repay their 'debt'[21] [22].

Unlike Cameron, Obama, Sarkozy etc., Gaddafi refused to sell his people out and Libya was DEBT FREE! [23] [24] [25]

It begins to become clear why Gaddafi gets the loyalty of his people and who is behind the bombing of a free and sovereign state and its people.

Libyans shared in the wealth of their country, free from the shackles of usury and private banking interests.

Gaddafi believed that parliamentary democracy was inherently corrupt. He believed true democracy come from the people. He believed the people should rule themselves; he explains this in his Green Book. [26]

Please read Qaddafi's Green Book. Download link:

http://911-truth.net/other-books/Muammar-Qaddafi-Green-Book-Eng.pdf

The draft UN report on human rights in Libya before the NATO bombings & invasion.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf

---

[1] http://www.mongabay.com/reference/country_studies/libya/ECONOMY.html

[2] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Kingdom_of_Libya

[3] http://panafricannews.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

[4] http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2011/08/truth-about-libya-watch-this-video-and.html

[5] http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread679428/pg1

[6] https://roblorinov.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/what-khadafi-did-for-libya-and-maybe-the-real-reason-for-his-ouster/

[7] http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-skills-for-employability-libyan-education-system.htm

[8] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/libya/literacy-rate-youth-total-percent-of-people-ages-15-24-wb-data.html

[9] http://redpepper.co.ug/welcome/?p=3887

[10] http://www.twf.org/News/Y2011/0401-Paradise.html

[11] http://economicsnewspaper.com/economics/the-libyan-crisis-spontaneous-revolution-or-coup-in-progress-28187.html

[12] http://www.futurefastforward.com/feature-articles/5259-by-helen-shelestiuk

[13] http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24763

[14] http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2011/07/one-third-of-libya-turns-out-to-support-qaddafi-in-worlds-largest-march-ever/

[15] http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep2/libya-rebels-central-bank.html

[16] http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2011/April/18%20b/Libya%20All%20About%20Oil,%20or%20All%20About%20Banking%20By%20Ellen%20Brown.htm

[17] http://my.telegraph.co.uk/clothcap/clothcap/16313364/libyagate-false-flag-possibility-al-qaeda-is-the-uk-a-new-sponsor/

[18] http://www.opednews.com/articles/Putting-Out-Fire-with-Gaso-by-Susan-Lindauer-110412-819.html

[19] http://www.dailypaul.com/165949/the-real-reason-the-us-invaded-libya

[20] http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2011/April/18%20b/Libya%20All%20About%20Oil,%20or%20All%20About%20Banking%20By%20Ellen%20Brown.htm

[21] http://www.sovereigntrust.info/id17.html

[22] http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/it-is-now-mathematically-impossible-to-pay-off-the-u-s-national-debt

[23] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/BritishColumbian/obama-rebuilding-libya_n_936852_104892233.html

[24] http://crashareyouready.betterthanyours.com/w/?p=1534

[25] http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=27067

[26] http://911-truth.net/other-books/Muammar-Qaddafi-Green-Book-Eng.pdf

Fifty Plus? Then it's the Benefits Bus.

A Telegraph report (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8728179/100000-older-workers-forced-to-retire-early.html) suggests that if you are 50+ and lose your job, you are likely never to work again and be forced into early retirement, with a consequently lower pension- and perhaps dependence on state benefits?

That's bad enough, but what about the manual workers who cannot get their pension until they reach whatever arbitrary age the government decides on?

I though this government was all about reducing public spending, in particular the benefits bill to improve the countries finance? Surely this will place a greater burden on the public purse. Or maybe their plan to slash benefits, irrespective of the human and economic cost means this will have little overall impact?

And I have to ask the Telegraph, why have you said "…the Institute of Public Policy Research, which has links to the Labour Party"? What relevance does having links to the New Labour Party (correct title, if you please) have? Either the report is a reasonable assessment from a reputable body, or it isn't and if it isn't, explain why they are wrong; don't try smear tactics by associating them and the report with New Labour.

I am of the opinion there is too much emphasis on getting the young into work. There should be no emphasis on helping any group back to work. The government must ensure the jobs are there, that they are secure and that anybody receiving benefits takes any reasonable job offer. This will only be done with the rebuilding of British manufacturing, at tax payers' expense (initially) if necessary. But if there must be an emphasis, it should be with the older worker with a proven track record who, as the report suggests may find themselves unemployable.

BLAIR’S [LATE] WARNING OVER 'DISAFFECTED YOUTH'

Tony Blair has finally had his say on the U.K. August riots. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14605459)

I find it difficult to find (acceptable) words to describe my position. Doesn't he realise it is his, his Tory predecessors and his New Labour and Tory successors that are the root of the problem? That their disastrous policies, pandering to the bankers, the rich elite and to big business (big in profits, not employees) that has caused the disaffection he describes?

Is his reference to "…canons of proper behaviour" a veiled reference to his new found catholic faith?  And to talk of "…a proper solution," after his disastrous years of tenure is beyond belief.

Tony, you should have done something when you had the chance, not begin pontificating now about "…deal[ing] with the problem in the only way that will work."

WONDER WHO'LL PAY IF PICKLES GETS HIS WAY?

It seems Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary doesn't want a mansion tax. Neither does he want the 50p tax kept, according to an article written by the Telegraph-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/8712661/Eric-Pickles-says-no-to-higher-property-taxes-for-middle-classes.html

Some choice clips from the article:

• "Liberal Democrat Coalition partners have "got to understand" that introducing any form of so-called mansion tax would be a "big mistake". "

• "He adds that the 50p higher rate of income tax should be scrapped so [rich] families can "keep more in their pockets". "

• "It's a red line for the Coalition. "

• "A growing number of Conservatives believe there should be tax cuts, starting with the removal of the 50p tax rate…"

• "I believe you get more tax revenue by lowering taxation …"

Funny isn't it? Lowering the VAT rate doesn't seem to figure in the "I believe you get more tax revenue by lowering taxation …" idea.

Funny, how the poor are told cuts in benefits and services are necessary, but the relatively rich can't be penalised by paying more to help.

Except it isn't really funny; not if you are poor; not if you are intelligent enough to spot the flaw in the arguments.

It will be interesting to see what the LibDems have to say about Mr Pickles statements. Will this be their 'red line' in the coalition? Will they have the guts to say 'no more. We are out. Call an election.' Somehow I think that is quite unlikely.

THE 2011 UK RIOTS- AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW

I have waited until the hue and cry has died down before I say my piece. I also wanted to give the mainstream media a chance to take the bull by the horns and take an impartial role, not toe the government line or expound the failing of the youth rather than that of the government.

The rich see the poor as a drain on their wealth. The fact is that riots tend to happen in times of high unemployment, social and economic exclusion and an unjust and biased social, economic and legal system.  A police state would be far more expensive to run than a welfare state is. This is something the wealthy do not realise. This is something the government does not want the wealthy to realise.

Just as the government would have you believe that rioting is a modern disease, a cultural or racial event; a show of disrespect for the law and the establishment; pure greed and criminality. But let's take a look at the history of UK riots-

·         St Scholastica Day riot 1355, started because of an altercation between two Oxford students and a tavern keeper. It resulted in almost 100 deaths. Quite ironic that the place the riot started, the Swindlestock Tavern is now the site of the Santander Bank.

·         Evil May Day, 1517. This riot started because Londoners resented foreigners, especially the wealthy foreign merchants and bankers of Lombard Street. I mention this because of the parallels with the riots recent in London, Manchester etc. Edward Hall, a lawyer and chronicler of the time said that for two weeks after a xenophobic speech by a Dr. Bell rumours went around that "on May Day next the city would rebel and slay all aliens". Fortunately, they didn't have Blackberry's. The mayor and aldermen called for a 9 o'clock curfew. Looting of houses took place and by 5^th May (5 days later- ring any bells?) there were 5,000 troops in the city.

·         The Spitalfield Riots of 1769 were the result of an attempt to arrest a meeting of weavers who had organised into an (illegal) trades union and met with resistance. Shots were fired and two weavers died the rest then dispersing. Not much of a riot, you might think but that is the spin the government of the day gave it.

·         In the early 19^th century the Luddites were renowned for their violence and riotous actions in an attempt to stem the flow of technology that removed the skill (and quality) of their product. The name Luddite is now used as a derogatory term that describes somebody who refuses to accept industrial change or innovation. Personally, I am proud to be called a Luddite.

·         The Swing Riots (so called from a fictitious often used on threatening letters to local farmers) were the agricultural equivalent of the industrial Luddites. The anger of the rioters was directed at three targets that were seen as the prime source of their misery: the tithe system, the poor law guardians, and the rich tenant farmers who had been progressively lowering wages while introducing agricultural machinery.

·         The Tonypandy Riots of 1910/11 were the result of mine owners attempting to reduce wages, accusing men of working slowly (though they were paid by the ton, not the hour), attempts to lockout the miners resulting in strike action and the bringing in of strike breakers.

·         The Llanelli railway strike In August 1911 began when the railway strike in Llanelli was brutally suppressed by the police; 2 men - John 'Jac' John and Leonard Worsell - were shot dead by troops of the Worcester Regiment. Rioting followed and magistrates' homes were attacked and railway trucks were set on fire, resulting in an explosion which killed a further four people.

·         On Peace Day, July 19, 1919, Luton Town Hall was burnt down during a riot by ex-servicemen unhappy with unemployment and other grievances.

·         Bristol Old Market riot, 1932 where 3,000 unemployed engaged in running battles with the police as they tried to march to the city centre, led by the National Unemployed Workers Movement. Police baton-charged protesters outside Trinity police station and along Old Market.

·         The St Pauls riot occurred in St Pauls, Bristol, England on 2 April 1980 when police raided the Black and White Café on Grosvenor Road in the heart of the area. After several hours of disturbance in which fire engines and police cars were damaged, 130 people were arrested. The riot occurred against a background of increasing racial tension, poor housing and alienation of black youth.

·         The Brixton riot of 1981was a confrontation between the Metropolitan Police and protesters; Brixton in South London was an area with serious social and economic problems.

·         The Toxteth riots of July 1981 were a civil disturbance in Toxteth, inner-city Liverpool, which arose in part from long-standing tensions between the local police and the black community. Though termed 'race riots' there is evidence white youths came to the area to support the local residents against the police. Again, an area of high unemployment due to job losses at the docks, caused by containerisation.

·         The UK Poll Tax Riots in the 1980's and 1990's were a series of mass disturbances, or riots, in British towns and cities during protests against the Community Charge, commonly known as the Poll Tax.

·         Cardiff Ely Bread Riots, 1991 were an outbreak of supposedly racially motivated disturbances that occurred in the council suburb of Ely in the Welsh capital of Cardiff that started when after argument between a white and Asian shopkeeper who had begun to sell bread, putting the other out of business; however, many locals believe that this was just a spark for a more significant problem of social exclusion resulting from unemployment & crime.

·         Stokes Croft Tesco riot; on 21st April, 2011, there was a riot in the Stokes Croft area of Bristol following a raid by police on a squat named 'Telepathic Heights'. A protest ensued, and they withdrew; at 9pm that evening, riot police blockaded the area and entered the squat. A crowd quickly gathered, with about 300 people defending the squat, and a further 1000 caught up in the mayhem. More than 160 officers were involved in the operation. The reason for the operation given by the police was that they held intelligence that petrol bombs were on the premises designated for the Tesco development opposite.

There are other riots, many in the 1980's and 1990's that are designated 'racially motivated'. A closer look often reveals they take place in areas of high unemployment, social, political and economic exclusion, these places often being areas where large racial minorities live. But just looking at those I have chosen to highlight my contention the latest round of rioting is politically, socially and economically motivated (even if thieves and vagabonds did usurp them) one can see how the reasons for and reaction to riots has changed over centuries. From a disagreement about the quality of ale to the feeling of futility and injustice forced on us by an unelected and misleading government; from local law enforcement to calling in the troops as was considered recently.

For those that believe we are in a depression; that there is no money; that the rich are suffering alongside the poor I'll believe it when I see ruined businessmen jumping out of office windows, demands for payment clutched in their fat little hands.

For those who believe that everybody on welfare is idle, I'll believe that when these same businessmen start to pay decent wages and folk still refuse to work.

Yesterday, on http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/8712661/Eric-Pickles-says-no-to-higher-property-taxes-for-middle-classes.html Eric Pickles, the Communities secretary said "But you know I'm a Conservative, I like the idea of lowering taxation." Yes, and lowering wages (but not bonuses!). He also said "I believe you get more tax revenue by lowering taxation because people work harder. I like people to keep more in their pockets for their family." Funny; when, as a shop steward I used the same argument for higher wages, employers, Conservative supporters thought the idea ridiculous.

But there are other arguments for higher wages and full employment. It removes the argument that a riot is political, or social, or economic. It leaves the rioters out in the cold. More to the point, it removes the need to riot.

'RED' ED MORE A PALE PINK

I have been watching Ed Miliband with interest. I hoped the anti-Labour movement that tried to tar him 'Red Ed' were right. That maybe he would lead the Labour Party back to its socialist roots, and I could vote for them once again. But his comment, reported at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12362722 that "the UK had its own version of the "American dream"" has led me to re-asses my tentative acceptance of his leadership of Labour. He is a Blairite, a Capitalist and will not persuade me with such talk that Labour is fit to govern- any more than the coalition is.

CAMERON SAYS BANKS 'SHOULD PAY SMALLER BONUSES'

David Cameron says banks should pay smaller bonuses.  But he won't do anything to make them.

The article goes on to bleating bankers and how tough the rules are in the U.K.

They all should take a stint at the sharp end and see just how hard it is for ordinary folk before they complain about multi-million pound bonuses not being enough.

BANK BONUSES TO RUN TO BILLIONS IN 2011

So much for the 'Big Society'. So much for fairness. So much for sharing the burden.

"The best the coalition can hope for is a declaration from the banks that they will pay out less than they would have without government intervention."

It seems this coalition can legislate to make those less able pay the for the deficit. But is unable to legislate to make the bankers, who owe the country billions, do the same.

'Were in this together'. Trouble is, some of us are in it up to the neck, with bankers standing on our heads.

HIGHER PRICES = MORE JOBS?

How in heaven's name does raising VAT from 17.5 to 20% boost jobs? And if income tax was raised in the right places, e.g. Super-bonuses over a set limit, say £50,000 and raising the top rate of tax to 75& for those earning £200,000 and over we wouldn't need the VAT rise that hits us all.

VAT was introduces to replace the several rates of purchase tax and was designed to be a 'luxury tax' on goods deemed not essential, such as fur coats and Rolls Royce cars so that those that could afford such goods would contribute more through their purchases. Hard to believe when we see it on everyday clothes we all have to buy.

This rise will hit spending and therefore jobs. High wages and low prices are not diametrical opposites. This is a good, efficient expanding economy. The problem is successive governments have concentrated on holding down wages while prices have been left to the whims of their wealthy friends.

And why isn't VAT charged on newspapers and magazines? I haven't bought either of these items for years and get on quite nicely. Could it be the government don't want to upset their friend's in Fleet Street and attract bad press?

It's time VAT was applied strictly to luxury goods, such as the ones I mention above. Then they can charge 90% as far as I am concerned.

CRIMINALS CHARTER

Senior UK police officers today said the current range of cuts would mean fewer police officers.

On the Andrew Marr Show, May 2nd, just 4 days before the election David Cameron said he would not accept cuts to the NHS, international development or frontline services.

It would appear that ‘front line services’ has been re-defined. You don’t get much closer to the front line than a policeman or woman in the fight against crime and the work towards a better community for us all.

Or David Cameron either got it wrong or told a downright lie to win the election- in either case, should he be running the country?

But the Tories always do the same. Promise one thing while planning another. Meanwhile, the Tory pundits tell us ‘it was the Labour governments fault. They left a bigger mess than we thought’.

Don’t get me wrong. I class the New Labour administration as equally, if not more deceitful than the Tories. Both lied their way into power and continued to lie while advancing their own agenda rather than their election commitments.

This is where politics needs to be cleaned up. But with parliamentary privilege and rules that you can’t call a member a liar, it never will be.

These rules were introduced when a Member of Parliament was supposed to be trustworthy so wouldn’t tell lies but might [accidentally] get the facts wrong. So be polite, no calling him into disrepute for an [honest] mistake.

Nowadays we know what a thieving, lying bunch they are. So let’s do away with the niceties and start calling a spade a spade.

WORK UNTIL YOU DROP

According to a news report on BBC's Breakfast program, the pension age rise to 66 will mean that although you will lose one year's pension your pension at 66 will be 10% higher.

So, a pension of x at 65 will be a pension of x + 10% at age 66. This means living to 76 years the new retirement age will have no overall effect on the pension bill. Yes, that means no savings. 10 years of claiming pension from age 66 costs just the same as retiring at 65.

According to The Office for National Statistics, men will live to 76.4 years.

'Google' life expectancy UK and you will see other institutions give similar results.

Of course, this will mean fewer jobs for younger people. And if you are too ill to work until 66, it is likely the current incapacity/sickness benefits will be slashed so if you are lucky enough to be able to claim them, they won't be much.

The conclusions are several if men are to live until 76+, claiming their pension + 10% at age 66 with no overall reduction in costs-

• That we are being deliberately mislead, once again politicians fooling us into believing they are 'doing something'.

• That the problem will not be the current administrations problem.

• That as the pensionable age is forced up we will be worked to death before we claim a pension.

• That more draconian measures are planned.

It seems that old age, poverty, incapacity, inability and sickness is to be penalised so the banks can stay rich.

The 16 or so billion pound deficit is a drop in the ocean for the banks that caused the problems. Why are they not being made to pay?

Tens, if not hundreds of millions of pounds (http://www.moneyhospital.co.uk/blog/post/the-50-billion-british-bank-bail-out) of taxpayers money was used to bail out the banks, much more than the deficit. Make the banks repay the money and there will be no need for these draconian measures AND LOTS TO SPARE!

The problem is these measures are not about the deficit. They are about the traditional Tory values of making the poor pay for the luxuries and wealth of the rich.

Watching question time last night, Peter Hitchens, a noted traditionalist conservative said as much-

"it's all very well to say tax the rich, fine by me,  tax the rich but there aren't enough rich people to make a substantial difference. If you have the kind of economy we have…  you have to tax the poor, there isn't any other way you're going to afford it."

This is typical Tory policy. This is typical of Tory half-truths. Because while it may be arguable "there aren't enough rich people to make a substantial difference" the fact is that the dearth of rich people is more than compensated by the fact that currently 1% of the population hold 70% of the wealth.. I would argue that while there may not be enough rich people, they certainly hold enough of the wealth.

JAM TOMORROW?

VAT increased to 20%- thus reducing sales

Public sector wage and pension cuts- less spending power

Benefit cuts- again, less spending power

How do Messrs Cameron and Clegg suppose this will ease the deficit? These actions may in the short term leave some money spare to pay off the deficit. But long term, they will mean less jobs, less spending, less growth.

More unemployed, so the benefit cuts will be wiped out by more people claiming lower benefits.

History shows us that penalising the poor- no, let’s call it what it is- making poverty a crime- is not the answer and it does not work. It was tried with 17th and 18th century parish poor relief and 19th century workhouses. The early 20th century saw benefits, but only if you could prove you were poor and had to sell anything not absolutely essential to life before relief was given.

In other words, a workhouse in your own home! So what happened? People died or turned to crime. Perhaps that is why Ken Clarke is considering cutting £2bn from the legal aid bill. We all know who that effects. Not Ken.

David Cameron, accompanied by a distinctly uncomfortable looking Nick Clegg effectively said benefit cuts, both in amount and those entitled to them would encourage people into work.

So would removing anti-Trades Union legislation and allowing higher wages thus negotiated. As one would expect in the Thatcherite free market economy. The other nail in this particular coffin is the prevalence of a generation of young people who have never worked or known job security and are perfectly able to make a good living selling drugs. Does he believe this underclass will worry if their benefits are cut?

IS CAMERONISM THE NEW THATCHERISM?

It has just been announced on BBC news Cameron has turned down his pension of around £66,000.

Now, does he mean he will never claim it? Or does he mean he won't claim it unless the deficit is dealt with?

Well I'd like to say I couldn't care less. This problem has been caused by private financial institutions. Yet all I have seen or heard so far are cuts to wages, cuts to benefits and cuts to public services. In other words, public services and the neediest paying for the mistakes of wealthy bankers who STILL receive their massive bonuses.

And Ken Clarke, another of Thatchers Thugs is talking of £2bn cuts to legal aid and closing 103 magistrates courts. So if you protest the cuts and get arrested, don't expect to be represented- unless, like Ken you can afford to retain legal representation.

Nick Clegg tried to soften the blow by saying that public servants wage cuts will start at the top. Quite simply they are the ones who are most able to bear the burden and as for Cameron's attempt at empathy by giving up his pension, well I wish to hell I was wealthy enough to turn down £66,000 a year.

This is just a return to Thatcherism. The global economic recession and the deficit must have Cameron and his cronies laughing all the way to the bank. What a perfect excuse for austere financial restraints on the poorest to maintain the rich.

The only small light I can see is that Nick Clegg, confronted by an audience of ordinary people with Cameron looked decidedly uncomfortable. Though he tried to give the impression of unity, I can only hope he has become disillusioned with the coalition and that it hastens my prediction that we will see it collapse before September this year, leading to a general election. And I hope the Labour Party seize the opportunity to return to grass roots socialism and win a massive landslide victory.

BBC Poll Says Free Market Flawed

According to a poll commissioned by the British Broadcasting Company most people believe the free market economy is flawed. There are also stark contrasts as to whether the fall of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall were good things.

Of course, there is no explanation of why people now believe these things might not be such a good thing. It could be that they feel a diametrically opposed political, social and economic system (somewhere else in the world) struck a balance. A balance that prevented financial institutions and the capitalist system from running amuck and bringing down banks, pension schemes and mortgages.

But I think it is not this that has brought about a differing opinion around the world. I think it is the same thing that has seen a hundred years of alternate Labour and Tory governments in Britain. It is the same thing that is the great flaw in democracy. A flaw exploited by the rich and powerful. That the majority of people change their opinions according to circumstances.

When the Soviet Union was a powerful counter-balance to capitalism it was seen as evil and counter-productive. Now it is gone, we have seen capitalism and the free market economy run wild and threaten the financial system of the world. While communism and socialism was a powerful threat, capitalists could not take the risks we have seen taken in recent times because there was an effective alternate system to fill the void. Without this alternate system, the risks could be taken and if they failed, as they did, the only option was to rebuild capitalism.

Much like the rampant capitalism that filled the void in communist Russia, socialism could and possibly would have filled the void left by a failed world economy. That is what the poll is reflecting. That is what the ('democratic') capitalists are afraid of.

 

Careers Advice for Seven-Year-Olds

The government now wants to give careers advice and introduce university to 7 year olds.

What a ridiculous idea. Children need to be allowed to be children. Better focus on discipline and teaching children to be able to read, write and do basic mathematics before moving to high school. That is the place to introduce them to careers advice and the aspiration of university.

But if we look closely, this is just another 'seen to be doing something' scheme by the government which I believe will do little for children, education or employment.

Indeed, I suggest it may have the opposite effect, that of reducing aspirations because children feel pressurised and 'switch off'.

Considering, also that there just is not and probably never again will be such a thing as full employment, we are setting up young children to fail, the effects of which could be devastating both at a personal and socio-economic level.

And what do we tell the children who we convince university is the career path for them, those this idea is focused toward from deprived backgrounds, when they find they cannot afford to go to university?

Once again I see a proposal that on the face of it appears to be advantageous to the disadvantaged, but the result will be the opposite. The education and aspirations of those people will be reduced, leaving an underclass that can more easily be controlled.

I suggest to the government another way, if better education and greater aspiration is the aim. First, we invest in real jobs that produce goods people want. Pay a decent wage and allow employees the right to negotiate better conditions. Then we will find more children in families where the mother can afford to stay at home to raise children. We will have a generation of children growing up in a working household and will see that as the norm, rather than benefits and low esteem.

And you never know, contrary to popular belief that high wages cause inflation and cripple the economy, all this extra money to spend and being spent might actually stimulate and strengthen the economy, truly bringing prosperity to all.

Honest(l)y, You Can’t Win!

Alistair Darling admits he got it wrong when he forecast the length and depth of the recession. Instead of trying to muddy the waters with political rhetoric, he has put his hands up and said he was wrong. The Tories ask why anybody would believe Gordon Browns (not Alistair's?) economic claims again.

Well, no lover of Mr Brown, Mr Darling or New Labour isn't this the honesty in politics we have all been demanding?