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 18, 2006 (1043 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 2317US - 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 |
Why
does he hold the middle classes in such contempt?
A
top economist on how Gordon Brown doesn't give a damn for middle
England's pensions or savings
by
Martin Vander Weyer - Business Editor of 'The Spectator'
Daily
Mail, March 24, 2006
Now
that he's had his teeth done, Gordon Brown's style advisers have
clearly told him to smile. You could see him making pained efforts
to do so every few seconds during his round of post-Budget television
appearances. But he could not hide the hostile glint in his eye.
Whenever
he was asked a question that related to the aspirations of Middle
England - to keep a little more of their earnings and savings
out of the hands of the state, to retire without financial worries,
to pass on what they can to their children - the body language
was loud and clear.
As
far as this Prime Minister-in-waiting is concerned, the middle
classes should be grateful he has not taxed them even harder than
he has, to pay for his extravagant vision for schools, hospitals
and benefits for 'hardworking families' lower down the social
scale.
As
for inherited wealth, it is an offence to his Presbyterian socialist
conscience, and he plainly detests it.
So
it was - as usual in Brown's style of Budget presentation - that
the small print accompanying Wednesday's speech contained a vicious
little sting in the tail for tens of thousands of well-off families
who have simply sought to mitigate inheritance tax bills by use
of trusts.
They
have done this either to preserve assets for their children and
grandchildren - for school fees - until they reach the age of
25, or to provide income for surviving spouses, while allowing
the assets themselves eventually to pass untaxed to the next generation.
Punishing
They
will now be taxed on these assets on entry into, and exit from,
the trust, and every ten years in between. This is the worst kind
of sting: it applies retrospectively to existing trusts, as well
as to new ones, punishing people who took the trouble to put their
affairs in order on a basis that was fully permissible under the
previous tax code.
It
is essentially a gesture, and a warning. It raises only £30million
for the Treasury - barely enough to buy the stationery for one
of Brown's many useless welfare-to-work wheezes - but it makes
a point for the middle classes to take to their hearts.
When
you die, whatever you have managed to accumulate from a lifetime
of work and saving is not yours to dispose of, but the state's.
The state will tell you how little of it you can hand on to your
heirs. The state will tell you how little of it you can hand on
to your heirs.
Likewise
with inheritance tax itself; the increase in the threshold from
£275,000 to £325,000 over four years is derisory,m
falling at least £100,000 short of the level at which it
should be to have kept abreast of house price inflation over the
past decade. According to Brown, only 6% of estates now exceed
the threshold.
But
it is blindingly obvious what he is up to: within a decade, that
percentage will have multiplied and a very large number of families,
particularly in the Conservative-voting South-East, will find
themselves parting with 40% of the additional equity built-up
in their parents' houses.
As
to the argument that inheritance tax ought to be abolished - because
it taxes assets that have already been taxed as income or capital
gains, and because it threatens middle-income families more than
the truly rich, who can afford the best avoidance advice - Brown
dismisses that one with an arrogant wave of the back of his hand.
Even
more arrogant, and perhaps even more illustrative of his contempt
for the middle classes, was his refusal in the Budget and subsequent
interviews to address himself to the pensions crisis - never mind
own up to his central role in it.
The
destruction of the final-salary-based private-sector pension system
creates the prospect of a less comfortable and secure retirement
for millions of people, and one of the catalysts for it was Brown's
notorious £5billion-a-year tax on pension funds in 1997.
The
destruction of the final-salary-based private-sector pension system
creates the prospect of a less comfortable and secure retirement
for millions of people, and one of the catalysts for it was
Brown's notorious £5billion-a-year tax raid on pension funds
in 1997. That made it harder for companies to meet their pension
commitments, and by driving share prices down it damaged savings
across the board.
Chaos
Even
more chaos has been caused by financial regulatory insistence
that pension funds should invest heavily in government gilt-edged
stock, which is supposed to be safer than shares. For technical
reasons, that has actually driven pension fund valuations even
lower - but it happens to suit Brown rather well, because he can
issue more long-dated debt to fund his public spending sprees.
No wonder, perhaps, that Brown shows no inclination to grasp the
pensions nettle.
He
has refused to accept responsibility for the fate of 85,000 people
whose pensions were destroyed when their employers went bust -
despite strong criticism of the Government's role in their affair
by the parliamentary ombudsman, Ann Abraham.
Pressed
on pensions this week, he referred airily to 'the review that
is now in progress'. It was a shamefully negligent response to
a huge and pressing problem - but a problem that chiefly affects
the social strata Brown cares least about.
Meanwhile,
his pet scheme, the stakeholder pension - designed to encourage
the savings habit at every level of society - has been so woefully
undersubscribed that it is almost forgotten. His new rules for
self-invested personal pensions ( he already reversed once) await
crucial clarification, which he did not bother to offer this week.
Mean
His
ISA allowances for tax-free saving are too mean to make much difference
to anyone; and all his other investment allowances, set and re-set
in this and nine previous Budgets, are so impenetrably complex
that only the sharpest-pencilled accountants have even attempted
to grapple with them.
The
idea that lower, simpler taxes are the only way to encourage everyone,
whatever their wealth, to make better provision for themselves
and their families is dismissed as anathema.
It
is a sorry record. But if the twisted grin is now a feature of
Gordon Brown's repertoire, the straight apology is not. He is
never going to resort to the kind of confessional gambit that
Tony Blair leaned from Bill Clinton. He is never going to say:
"Look, Middle England, the fact is that I've spent too much
of your money to little useful effect, so forgive me if I have
to tax you more rather then less."
Instead,
the explicit challenge in his Budget speech was: "I could
cut taxes, but I choose not to." And the subliminal message
was: "I could let you keep more of your own income and savings
for your retirement and your children, but I choose not to do
that, either - because, in my heart of hearts, I despise everything
you stand for."
If you have
suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include in the
pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.
