Silent Majority Speaks
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
|
October
4, 2006 (1257 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 2736 US - 119 UK - >300,000? civilians - 25 media
October
9, 2006 (1262 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 2744 US - 119 UK - >300,000? civilians - 25 media
Sorry,
run that by me again .......... (Gordon)
Brown's
pension raid 'cost savers £100bn'
By
Becky Barrow - Business Correspondent - Daily Mail, October 16,
2006
Gordon
Brown's ruthless raid on pension schemes has cost the country's
savers at least £100billion, a report claimed yesterday.
For the first time, the devastating impact of the Chancellor's
controversial tax grab in 1997 has been revealed.
He
scrapped the tax relief on dividends paid into pension funds just
a few weeks after Labour came to power. Shadow Home secretary
David Davis has described the move as one of the 'great scandals
of the last decade'.
The
report, from Terry Arthur, Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries,
warns the decision has cost Britain's pension savers at least
£100billion. This is equal to the entire annual economic
output of Ireland, or 50 years of Tesco's annual profits at £2billion
a year.
For
every one of Britain's 20 million people currently saving into
a pension scheme, it means they will retire on less money. To
make matters worse, Mr Arthur warns his calculation is on the
cautious side. Even £150billion may be a 'conservative estimate,'
he says.
A
former pensions adviser to Number 10 said yesterday that the abolition
of the tax relief had dealt a body blow to many pension schemes.
Dr Ros Altmann said: "Gordon Brown saw pension funds as an
easy target - so he raided them. He either doesn't understand
private pensions or he doesn't care about them, which is hardly
prudent."
Before
1997, a pension fund could, for example, be paid £80 in
dividends and get £20 in cash back from the Treasury in
tax relief. On Budget Day, 3 July 1997, Mr Brown axed the tax
relief. The change took place immediately. At the time, most people
ignored the move, considering it a tedious technicality.
Until
recently, it had been thought that the tax grab had cost about
£6billion a year, but Mr Arthur fears this figure is much
higher. Even at this level, it would cost every worker who pays
into a pension about £300 a year, or £6 a week, according
to accountants, Grant Thornton. If the £100billion figure
is accurate, this is equal to £5,000 for every person who
is currently saving into a pension scheme in this country.
Shadow
Chancellor George Osborne said: "His pension raid was one
of his first and worst acts as Chancellor. Pensioners will be
paying a heavy price for many, many years to come."
The
sudden cut in pension fund income has played a key role in the
closure of final-salary schemes. By 2012, it is estimated that
the majority of Britain's big businesses will have axed these
gold-plated pensions for existing workers, according to the pension
consultants Lane Clark and Peacock.
Mr
Arthur said: "What happened in 1997 represented an enormous
and ongoing raid on the assets of UK company pension schemes."
A
Treasury spokesman rejected Mr Arthur's report, saying: "This
methodology totally fails to recognise that, by establishing a
stable macro-economic framework and cutting corporation tax alongside
reforms to remove the distortionary impact of dividend tax credit,
the government created better conditions for investment and growth,
hence greater investment opportunities for pension funds."
Sorry,
run that by me again .......... (Gordon)
The
Treasury's defence of Gordon Brown's 1997 action on pension
fund tax credits are weasel words, trying to persuade
us of a conceptual roundabout. Apparently, pension funds
are supposed to enjoy the benefits of the enhanced prospects
created for their investments by the abolition of their
tax credits.
This
is like telling a bunch of pensioners whose money has
been stolen that the thieves will be heading straight
for the supermarkets where they money they spend will
boost sales and help reduce prices for everyone.
Letter
to the Daily Mail from C.R.Palmer, Bulwell, Notts. - October
20, 2006
|
If you have
suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include in the
pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.
|
