Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship
|
Spin,
not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's
chosen method of communication. Ordinary people are dangerous. Ordinary
people might ask a question which throws a politician 'off message';
the Cabinet member might reveal himself or herself to be a human being
like us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might
tell the truth.
Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004
Blair wants to leave his
mark on history - looks more like a stain to me.
Peter Thorndyke, Diss,
Norfolk - Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
I know I'm me - why do I
need an ID card?
"Sorry, officers, I
don't have an ID card. I never applied for one. It seemed a bit steep
at 300 quid. I do have my free passport, my driving licence and my
London freedom travel pass, each with my photograph. I have my NHS
medical card, with its lengthy number, given me at birth, my RAF
service book with my Armed Forces number, and a chit authorising me to
wear a few gongs -including a General Service Medal with Malaya bar,
for fighting communist terrorists on behalf of my country, or so they
told me.
"I've also got various credit
cards and store cards, all with my signature on the back, generally
good for buying the everyday requrements for life as well as the odd
luxury. If you decide to arrest me, I suppose I'll have to be
photographed and given another number, besides my PINs.
"I'm afraid I haven't got a
pension book; it was taken away."
"By thieves, sir?"
"No ... well, not exactly. By the
Government. By the way, may I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?"
Oh dear, they've disappeared. E.
Harry Gumer, Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005
NO means NO
When does NO mean MAYBE?
When it's not the answer the EU wants. With the courageous French
NON resounding in their ears, shabby, undemocratic self-interested
leaders of Europe propose ignoring the part of their precious
constitution that requires ratification by all members and
continuing without one of the biggest founder members to
prevent derailing the gravy train.
As in Ireland,
they refuse to accept any NO votes, ignoring the will of the people,
and re-stage votes until they can engineer the 'correct' answer. Sadly,
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dances to their tune like a puppet on a
string. With tactics such as these, how can anyone really believe the
EU has our interests at heart. Letter from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth, Kent - Daily
Mail, June1, 2005
Surely
the French result makes the £1million the EU recently spent on a
treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature and extravagant. Letter from Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail,
June1, 2005
|
Britain has
traditionally been one of the biggest net contributors to the EU
because we do not get as much money back from Brussels in farm and
regional subsidies as our rivals.
According to
Treasury figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average contribution
taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion, or £43.55
per head of population.
The French -
the biggest recipient of farm subsidies - contributed £1billion a
year or £16.08 per head of their population.
|
December
28, 2005 (959 days since Iraq war ended)
Death Toll: 2,172 US - 98UK - >>30,000?
Iraqi - 25 media
January
16, 2006 (978 days since Iraq war ended)
Death Toll: 2,219 US - 98UK - >>30,000?
Iraqi - 25 media
March 8, 2006 (1033 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 2304US - 103UK - >>6,164? Iraqi - >>17,300?
civilians - 25 media
| Tony
Blair should know that respect comes by example - from the
top. If a country's leader has no respect for the rule of
international law and no respect for the truth, how can he
expect anyone to have respect. Letter
from P.J.Atkinson, Ashford, Kent - Daily Mail, January 12,
2006 |
Pensions:
How this Labour Government betrayed us
Special
Report by Tony Hazell - Money Mail Editor
Daily
Mail, March 15, 2006
One
message rings loud and clear from today's Ombudsman's report into
the scandal of pension wind-ups: when it comes to your pension,
you can never trust the Government. More than 85,000 people lost
part or all their pensions when their employers abandoned their
occupational schemes.
These
people, many of whom had saved throughout their working lives,
were shocked and outraged when their pensions failed because they
had believed repeated Government assurances that final salary
schemes were safe and guaranteed. Yet throughout this disgraceful
episode the Government has consistently refused to admit it has
done anything wrong. Even yesterday it was still refusing to accept
blame or offer full redress to the victims.
However,
Parliamentary Ombudsman Ann Abraham's report, published today,
offers a stern rebuke to those assertions. In accusing the Government
of maladministration, she provides the ultimate justification
to those who have battled for so long to have these pensions restored.
Government information on occupational pensions was, she says,
'inaccurate', 'incomplete', 'unclear', and 'inconsistent'.
How
it all went wrong
1980:
EU law passed requiring legislation to protect pensions
on employer insolvency. Nothing was done.
1992:
Robert Maxwell's plundering of Mirror Group; pensions
is revealed.
1997:
Pension scheme members told pensions are safe because
of Pensions Act of 1995. A minimum funding requirement
(MFR) established to ensure schemes have enough money
in them. Regulator (OPRA) set up.
1999:
Financial Services Authority issue pensions public information
leaflet. But this fails to mention the dangers of pension
scheme wind-ups.
2000:
Actuaries tell Treasury that people think the MFR will
give them full protection if pension scheme fails. Department
for Social Security acknowledges this, but fails to issue
warning. Shoemaker BUSM pension goes into wind-up
2001:
OPRA urges that members be told about actual security
of their pensions. Government ignores advice. DSS public
information leaflet fails to mention scheme wind-ups.
Kalamazoo (office eqpt. firm) pension goes into wind-up.
2002:
Feb: Government reduce protection of the MFR. Actuaries
again urge government to warn members about security of
pensions.
July: Steelmaker ASW fails despite being 102% funded on
MFR.
Dec:
Pensions Green Paper states accrued pension rights 'are
clearly protected in law and this will remain the case'.
2003:
Government again ignores suggestions to strengthen the
protection of MFR
Mar:
Pensions regulator OPRA says trustees can stop members
leaving pension schemes due to falling stock markets.
April:
Shelf-maker Dexion fails. Members' money locked into scheme
by OPRA ruling.
2004
May: Government finally offers limited compensation, 24
years after legislation should have been put in place,
in the form of the Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS).
Nov:
Parliamentary Ombudsman launches inquiry into Government
misleading workers over security of their pensions.
2005
April : Pension Protection Fund launched as safety net
covering members of final salary schemes.
Dec:
FAS finally makes its first payments to 13 victims
2006
March: Parliamentary Ombudsman publishes
report finding Government guilty of maladministration.
|
In
a five-year campaign, Money Mail has called for victims of pension
wind-ups to be compensated in full by the Government. We believe
that the Financial Assistance Scheme, grudgingly introduced by
the Government before the 2004 General Election, in fundamentally
flawed. It is too complex, its scope is not wide enough, and the
payments being offered are too small.
But
even here, the Government has dragged its feet. It's taken more
than a year to make the first payments and even now has so far
paid just 27 people. Meanwhile, people are dying while waiting
for their money. Others, who have toiled in exhausting manual
jobs, are working into retirement, pushing tired bodies to the
limit when they should be relaxing and enjoying the fruits of
their labours.
It
cannot be emphasised too strongly that these people are NOT layabouts
or scroungers. It was not their desire to be going cap in hand
to the Government. They worked hard and they saved hard, putting
an average of £50,000 into their pensions. They have been
let down by employers who failed to honour their obligations and
governments who failed to ensure the necessary legislation was
in place to protect them.
The
Ombudsman's report quotes the Prime Minister's forward to the
ministerial code, which refers to the 'bond of trust' between
the British people and their government. 'It seems to me that
citizens should be entitled to expect that the publications of
official bodies - do not mislead them," she adds.
But
mislead them the government and its agencies did, consistently
referring to guarantees and the safety of final salary pensions.
A guide to pensions issued by City regulator, the Financial Services
Authority in 1999, refers to the 'guaranteed' benefits of final-salary
pensions not once, but several times. One such reference asserts
that final-salary schemes 'give you a guaranteed pension'.
The
Government also consistently ignored advice to issue warnings
on the risks involved with pensions. Perhaps worst of all were
the decisions to follow advice to weaken the minimum funding requirements
which offered basic protection to pension savers - then ignore
advice to strengthen them. Pensions minister Jeff Rooker admitted
in 2000 that the man in the street could get a false impression
that the minimum funding requirement guaranteed solvency. He himself
had been under that impression - yet still the Government did
not issue a warning that this was not the case.
Overall,
this report is a damning indictment of successive governments
who again and again gave misleading information about the safety
of pensions and failed to protect the interests of long-term investors.
Now, as thousands endure lives blighted by the failure of their
pensions, the Government is once again refusing to accept responsibility.
Imagine
if the private pension industry behave in this way. When private
companies mis-sold pensions, they were ordered to pay compensation
totalling over £11billion. Those that dragged their feet
were heavily fined. The Government has broken a basic pact of
trust. It asked people to save for their retirements and gave
false assurances that their savings would be safe.
Now
it is seeking to run away from its responsibilities. This scandal
presents a challenge to Gordon Brown. Money Mail urges him to
give these hard-working people the pensions they have earned.
If you have
suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include in the
pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.
