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.
|
|
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
The
Chancellor's single greatest act of vandalism in almost
nine years in office has been his wanton destruction of
Britain's private retirement industry. By slapping a massive
tax on pension funds, now worth
£7.3billion a year, he has helped to turn
the best private retirement industry in Europe into a basket-case
in perpetual crisis. Together with the adoption of European
accounting rules - which make it much riskier to operate
a company pension scheme - hundreds of firms have shut their
final salary plans to new employees and slashed benefits
to existing staff. From
Allister Heath: "I've seen the future and its grey"
in THE SPECTATOR - April 15, 2006
Nine
years ago the British people were sold a fantasy of clean
and competent government of principle and honesty. Its shiny
wrappings stripped away, the product now reveals its true
nature: Personal greed, arrogance, incompetence, shamelessness,
rash warmongering and an inability to accept - as is clear
to almost everyone else - that it is time to go. Editorial
- The Mail on Sunday, May 28, 2006
|
April
8, 2009 (1407 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 3271 US - 140 UK - >650,000? civilians - 25 media
This
site has had 
visitors
Brown’s pension tax bombshell has forced up council tax,
claim Tories
April
4, 2007
Gordon
Brown has been accused by Conservatives of imposing a second stealth
tax in order to cover the cost of his £100 billion pensions
tax levy on local authority finances.
As
the Labour Party launched its local election campaign, senior
Shadow Cabinet members warned that councils have been saddled
with huge additional bills to cover the rising costs of their
staff pension funds hit by the Chancellor's tax.
And
both Philip Hammond and Caroline Spelman have pointed out that
while local authority staff and other public sector workers continue
to enjoy protected pension benefits, millions of private sector
workers and pensioners have no choice but to pay out more in the
increased council tax bills while their own pensions have suffered
badly from the savage Brown pensions tax.
Mr
Hammond, the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary protested: "As
the secret advice from his own civil servants warned, Gordon Brown's
tax raid on pension funds has robbed workers and pensioners of
security in retirement. Not only do they face smaller pensions,
but pensioners face a second hit from soaring levels of council
tax as a result of the tax on town hall pensions.
"This
is a second stealth tax on pensioners and hard-working council
tax payers who deserve far better."
And
Mrs Spelman, the Conservative Shadow Local Government Secretary,
said: "Under Labour, council tax has almost doubled, with
councillors rather than Gordon Brown getting the blame. Council
tax payers are now paying the equivalent of £177 a year
just to bankroll town hall pensions.
"Labour's
stealth taxes are sucking funds away from frontline services,
and putting pressure on councils to cut back services like weekly
rubbish collections and local libraries. Labour's record in local
government is simple – pay more and get less."
Their
comments came after it emerged that the Treasury's secret advice
on Labour's pensions tax revealed that Gordon Brown was warned
that local councils would face soaring costs thanks to the tax.
Since the gold-plated, final salary town hall pension scheme is
directly funded from councils' stock market investments, council
taxpayers foot the bill from reductions in pension fund values
due to the abolition of advanced corporation tax relief. The Treasury
documents predicted an ongoing annual cost to town halls of up
to £500 million a year.
Meanwhile,
the total cost to council employers of town hall pensions - excluding
police officers, firefighters and teachers - has now soared from
£1.2 billion a year in 1997 to £3.2 billion a year
last year – equivalent to £177 a year per council tax-paying
household in England and Wales.
The
local government watchdog, the Audit Commission, has warned that
"someone will have to start bailing out the funds…and
that someone is most likely to be the local taxpayer".
As
the Chancellor sought to brush off the mounting criticism of his
pensions tax raid, his Conservative opposite number George Osborne
issued five questions Mr Brown must answer to justify his decision
to abolish dividend tax relief on pensions. They are:
1.
In 1997, why did he not clearly state the risk he was taking by
abolishing dividend tax relief on pensions, in spite of the warning
it would cost pension funds £75bn?
2.
Estimates for the damage done to pension funds put the final cost
at around £100billion: what is his estimate?
3.
Did the Chancellor overrule opposition from the Prime Minister's
office to force through his decision, as the Prime Minister's
then Economic Adviser Derek Scott has implied?
4.
Why did he describe the move as "the right decision for investment"
when his own officials said at the time "the view of the
economists is that overall the reform would be broadly neutral
in terms of the amount of investment"?
5.
Why did the Treasury refuse to release the pension tax documents
for almost two years and, when this position became untenable,
finally release them late on a Friday afternoon, just before MPs
quit Westminster for the Easter Parliamentary recess and as the
Chancellor was leaving the country?
If you have suggestions
for additional subjects, or material to include in the pages linked
to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.
