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.

PAY, PAY AND PAY AGAIN

There is a BBC report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14692596) that the unemployed may be made to pay full council tax.

It seems there is a need to save 10% off the current bill. But hang on; wasn't that money taken off benefits by Thatcher's government in the 1980's and paid direct to the council? So effectively it is going to be taken twice.

And how are the single unemployed expected, out of around £56 a week supposed to find £20 council tax? That leaves £36 to eat, pay gas and electricity bills.

All the while the debate continues as to whether to keep (and it looks like it will go) the 50p tax rate and whether there should be a mansion tax.

Looks like once again the poor pay while the rich gain.

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.

JUSTICE MUST MANIFESTLY BE SEEN TO BE DONE

Ken Clarke is proposing not locking up so many people because 'prison doesn't work'.

It is significant that the kind of low level offenders that Mr. Clarke intends to deal with without recourse to custodial sentencing are the relatively low level offender that are more likely to offend against residents of or visitors to poorer areas.

It is significant that in 2000 Mr. Clarke voted in accordance with a commons proposal "That this House condemns the Government's policy of giving prisoners special early release on the Home Detention Curfew scheme;"

I remember a time when assaulting a police officer would have meant a custodial sentence if found guilty, irrespective of mitigating circumstances or severity of the assault.

I remember when assaulting anybody would most likely attract a custodial sentence.

I remember there were far fewer assaults then. 

I accept this is anecdotal and there could be many other reasons why custodial sentencing gives the average man in the street the impression of fewer offences and makes him (or her) feel safer. But the point is it has an effect on the confidence of the public and this alone is good reason to lock up offenders. It also means that while he (or she) is behind bars, the only other people that he will assault are other criminals.

Lord Hewart CJ said:"...a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." 

That is to say, no matter how fairly, legally and equitably proper a decision is made IT MUST BE SEEN TO BE SO! This involves a principle of perception. If a decision is perceived to be unfair, unjust or improper, then that decision cannot be acceptable. 

And so this should extend to sentencing. If the public perceives that convicted criminals are free to continue to commit crimes and that locking them up stops them committing crime, then we should lock them up.

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.

ONE LAW FOR THE RICH

There is only one test here, irrespective of David Laws wealth, personal relationships or his character, be it good or bad. Did he or did he not illegally and knowingly claim and accept monies to which he was not entitled?

If the answer is yes, he should, like all the other thieving b*****s be brought to book in a criminal court, be stripped of office and barred from ever holding public office again.

But like the others, he will walk away with nothing more than having to pay back the alleged £40,000 he purloined. From his massive wealth it could be likened to me losing a pound.

Yet if you steal a packet of pork chops to feed your family your poverty or your hunger will not be an excuse. While you may be treated leniently by a judge or magistrate you will find yourself before one or the other and have a criminal record to be taken in to consideration should you find yourself before a court of law again.

And they try to tell us we live in a classless society? That we are all equal before the law? There is only one answer to this 'money talks' society thrust upon us by Thatcher and her 'ites' and that is a return to socialism.

To this end I hope to see Len McCluskey elected General Secretary of the Unite union. With millionaires abandoning New Labour they will have to rely on trades union funding once again and accept the agenda of the blue collar worker, not the wealthy entrepreneur or the City execs.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION- IS IT REALLY MORE DEMOCRATIC?

There has been a lot of talk recently about the need for electoral and parliamentary reform.

I have an idea that I believe would be simple to instigate and virtually cost free. It would bring some real democracy to parliament and allow members of the house the individual freedom that all politicians claim is a basic human right.

On many issues, MPs vote according to his/her conscience or according to his/her constituents' wishes. However, there are circumstances where MPs are forced to vote according to party policy.

And these circumstances tend to be votes on the most important issues.

If we consider that MPs tend to agree with the policy of the party of which they are members, we can assume they will generally vote in accordance with that parties' policy. In the instances where the party whip is used to ensure MPs vote 'correctly' we can reasonably assume enough MPs disagree with the policy to vote against it and thus endanger its' success. In these circumstances it is not just MPs freedoms that are restricted by the party whip, but parliament's and by extension the wishes of the people. It removes the right of an individual to practice the democracy their party lays claim to.

So if we remove the party whip (not in the political sense, in the 'real world' sense of stop using it) and allow MPs to vote freely on all subjects, they will mostly vote within the policy dictates of their party, which presupposes it is in accord with the wishes of the people that elected them. Where party policy is opposed to an individual's beliefs, he or she should have the freedom to vote according to conscience which we all hope is in accord with the constituents that elected them.

There is some debate that a change in the electoral system to proportional representation or a similar system of voting would call into question the constitutional rights and responsibilities of the monarch to dissolve parliament or to invite a party leader to form a government. While this may be a good thing, and I tend to this view I am also aware that it could also cause constitutional complications from which the democracy we currently enjoy might never recover. Put simply, we may, contrary to the popular assumption, leave ourselves open to a much less democratic system of government. Simply giving an elected representative of the people the right to vote according to his/her conscience or the wishes of his/her constituents, I believe would bring about some real democracy without the expense and complications associated with constitutional electoral change.

WORRYING EMANATIONS FROM THE COALITION.

Worrying Emanations from the Coalition.

Theresa May, appointed Home Secretary is trying to sound diplomatic, democratic and caring. Unfortunately when we strip away the thin veneer of compassion we see little difference from Old School Tory thinking. And little difference from New Labour thinking.

She says that ID cards will be scrapped. What ID cards?  I was under the impression that ID cards had been shelved long before the election. And, just like the previous administration, she doesn't mention the massive database on which the ID cards were to be based. It is not the cards themselves that are intrusive, and in the wrong (even government) hands downright dangerous. It is the database that stores the information, and not just name, age and fingerprints. The database is an organic, growing beast storing ever more information about people, gathered from every form, paper or electronic you fill in, from phone and email conversations and sundry other sources. The capacity for error is massive. The capacity for misuse is equally horrendous. Yet there is no mention of its being scrapped, along with the ID cards it was created for. in fact, there is no mention of it at all.

Personally, I wonder if the whole fiasco is actually a well defined plan. Producing the database might produce unease in the electorate, so we plan ID cards, build the database then if and when the protests become loud enough we scrap ID cards but maintain the database, which nobody has actually noticed. Nice one.

About the DNA database, she said: "One of the first things we will do is to ensure that all the people who have actually been convicted of a crime and are not present on it are actually on the DNA database."

"The last government did not do that. It focused on retaining the DNA data of people who were innocent."

Again, it sounds like what we want, but what does this mean? Since everybody convicted of a crime is automatically on the database, she must intend rounding up past criminals and putting them on the database. Does that mean a 50 year old man found guilty of stealing sweets when he was 14 will go on the database? Does it mean one mistake will have you on the database forever?

I am not against the DNA database, but I do think this is being used as political spin, saying what the politicians think we want to hear; if you are a criminal, you are on the database, if you aren't you won't be. What they should be saying is how they can use the technology fairly, more justly. For example, if your conviction is spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act, then your DNA should come off the database. This may well be the intention, but if so, say so.

Health secretary Andrew Lansley said the coalition would go further than Labour's plan to save £20bn in the health service by efficiency savings over the next three years.

"Of course we do need to do that, and we may need to do more because we have increases in demand in the NHS and a need to improve the outcomes. Every penny that is saved by doing things better can be reinvested for the benefit of patients."

But patients will not benefit from the savings. There will be no reinvestment. Savings will be used to cut health service costs and consequently government funding.

So while it all looks shiny and new, scratch the surface and the foetid stained inner shows nothing much has changed and where there is change, it is not necessarily for the better.

 

IS CAMERON A SOCIALIST?

David Cameron:

"Those who can, should, and those who can't, we will always help"

The Communist Manifesto:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

THE DEFICIT MUST BE TACKLED- BUT NOT BY US!

I have just watched the director of the CBI and some other business noteworthy on BBC Breakfast. I wasn't taking much notice until I heard them say that an incoming government must tackle the deficit immediately, not next year like New Labour wanted, but then said that spending by bodies such as the NHS should not be restricted because small business relies on this and many might go to the wall

So they want the deficit tackled but don't want public funding cut in a way that affects them. Just the sort of thinking that got us into this mess. And where do they think cuts will be made? Benefits and hike taxes, but only for the workforce?

Without a doubt we will be made to pay for the bankers mistakes. I'm not happy about it, but unless there are riots in the streets as we have seen in Greece, it's going to happen. But I am damned sure that the businesses and banks should pay proportionate to their income and maybe more as a financial penalty.

SETTING THE SCENE FOR MASSIVE CUTS

William Hague is accusing the New Labour government of deliberately failing in its economic strategy so that an incoming Tory government will be handed a 'poisoned chalice' of massive debt. Now to be fair, he does say 'an incoming government'. But we all know what he means.

I think that from my other posts you will see I am no lover of New Labour. But this claim is ridiculous in the extreme. First, this presupposes the Conservatives will win. Yes, I know it is looking likely. But surely the basis of this pronouncement is that the Tories intend whatever the condition of British finances to introduce massive public spending cuts to fund massive tax breaks for their wealthy pals. And this sets the scene, putting the public's mind in 'service cutting' mode.

And he forgets that New Labour might actually win. Would they want to return to power to face their own 'poisoned chalice'? It smacks of playground name-calling, hoping that if enough muck is thrown, some of it will stick.

I suggest you ignore the tactics of the gutter and take a close look at policies, not just of the big two or even the big three. But see who is saying what you believe. Forget a tactical vote to keep New Labour or the Tories out. Vote with your conscience and maybe we will see a surprise result. Maybe more people are thinking like you than you give credit.

PEOPLE’S BANK BONUS. (DON’T FORGET TO TELL SID!)

The Tories have come up with a plan to pay back the public for the investment in failing banks. The idea is to sell shares at discount prices to the public, with extra discounts for those on low-incomes and the young.

How will this help? With shares at hundreds or even thousands of pounds what kind of discount will they offer? If it is a large discount, selling shares at a few pounds then the banks will be disadvantaged and we will find a similar situation that the public investment was designed to ease. If it is a small discount, once again it will not be the less well off, but the Tories rich mates that will benefit.

Even if we ignore this and the obvious publicity stunt this is to catch a few votes, and accept it is a good thing and will help, we will see the shares bought up at slightly inflated prices that the small shareholders will see as attractive and a quick profit by the biggest and richest players and we shall be back to square one with the banks owned and run by a few rich individuals who care only about quick profit, whatever the cost.

Mainly, however we should look at the shares fiasco of the 1980's. It is obvious that the Tory Party has not learned anything, that it has not changed and is dogmatically following the tenets of Thatcherite monetarism. If that's what you want, vote for them. I want something different. Something none of the three major parties are offering. A return to the manufacturing base that made Britain great and paid high wages to ordinary people. A return to a system that put people before profits, not the utopian ideal that the benefits of capitalism and profit will inevitably trickle down to the less fortunate.

Why is Mandelson Politician of the Year?

Lord (ha!) Mandelson has been named |politician of the year by Spectator magazine's annual awards. I fail to see why. He is unelected, does not sit in the House of Commons and as a politician sucks. I've seen better policies on the back of a beer mat.

Come to think of it, wasn't he sacked or had to resign or something? Seems to me one need not be good at ones job. Just be controversial. Like Jedwood.

(now awaiting my bonus, thankyou.)

Harriet Harman – Don’t Sack Spouses

Harriet Harman has said that MP's who pay family members to work for them should not be forced to sack them.

Parents are not allowed to pay family members to help with childcare because such a system would be open to abuse. Why should MPs employ their families when they have shown they cannot be trusted to apply allowances legally, let alone fairly?

Sorry, Mrs. Harman. MPs have had it too good for too long, taken advantage of generous allowances and now comes the time to pay the piper. You'll find little public sympathy and your comment only serves to underline how out of touch you really are.

It proves to me my belief that the Labour Party has ceased to exist, along with morality and integrity in politics. Clawing at each and every straw to try to retain as much as you can when the honourable thing would be as a minimum accept the recommendations with what grace can be mustered in light of the abysmal and flagrant abuse of taxpayers funding.