Thursday 25 November 2010
Irish structural deficit was fuelled by tax-breaks
by Stephen R Jones 25th November 2010The structural Deficit is totally of the Irish Governments making.
What will irk many in the UK, given that the Coalition Govt is helping with a loan of £7billion, is the fact that the Irish structural deficit was built up against a background of a large number of over generous tax-breaks. That is why the loan hurts, it is a bitter pill to swallow for many, even though it may be necessary to protect our closest trading neighbour.
These tax breaks include relief from Mortgage Interest payments, Rented accommodation and even membership of Trades Unions. I have given full details of these tax breaks in this blog.
Irish residents had the luxury of not paying any charges or rates for Water and Residential Property. Over the years these benefits, together with the tax break listed below would have been worth much more than the £7 billion loan that the UK is making to Ireland. Even during the golden decade of the Celtic Tiger years, welfare spending doubled.
Other benefits are much more generous than the UK. For example, the basic state pension in Ireland is the equivalent of £204 per week against a maximum of £97.66 in the UK.
In addition to the structural deficit, total Irish debt has mushroomed as the Irish Banks are virtually bust and guaranteed by the state. Many commentators have said that the 'bust' was partly due to the global banking crisis but more specifically it was due to reckless lending in a lax regulatory regime. The Irish Government will now have to deal with this financial calamity although their four year plan published yesterday only begins to tackle the available tax breaks.
In any case I believe this is all academic as without a devaluation Ireland has little chance of getting out of its financial mess. Default and exit from Eurozone seems the most realistic outcome.
Sample list of over generous tax-breaks
Rent-a-Room Relief
Where a room (or rooms) in a person’s sole or main residence is (are) let as residential accommodation, gross annual rental income, together with any sums received for the provision of meals or other services supplied in connection with the letting, may be exempt from income tax where the aggregate amount received in the year of assessment does not exceed the annual limit ( €10,000 for 2009 & 2010). Relief in respect of mortgage interest relief is not affected.
Childcare Services
Childcare Services relief is a scheme of tax relief for income arising from the provision of certain childcare services. When the gross annual income from the provision of childcare services does not exceed €15,000 in 2009 or 2010 the income is exempt from tax. The childcare service must be provided in the carer's home, not the children's home and no more than 3 children may be cared for at any time.
Rent Relief for Private Rented Accommodation
Relief is due at the standard rate of tax (20%) in the tax years 2009 and 2010 subject to the following upper limits: Personal Circumstances Tax Year 2009 Tax Year 2010
Single Under 55 max. €2,000 €2,000
Single Over 55 max. €4,000 €4,000
Widowed/ Married under 55 max. €4,000 €4,000
Widowed/ Married over 55 max. €8,000 €8,000
Tax Relief for Mortgage Loan Interest (Secured and Unsecured)
Tax relief for home mortgage interest (secured loans) is not given through the tax system but is instead granted at source (TRS). Mortgage repayments are reduced by the amount of the tax credit due. For example, if the interest element of your mortgage repayment per month is say €500, your mortgage lender will reduce your monthly mortgage payment by €100 per month. This reduction is the same as giving tax relief at the standard rate of tax (20%).
Trade Union Subscriptions
An annual flat rate allowance of €350 at the standard rate of tax 20% (tax credit €70) is available for Trade Union subscriptions paid in 2009 and 2010.
Tuition Fees
Tax relief at the standard rate of tax (20%) in the tax years 2009 and 2010 is available for certain tuition fees. The maximum limit on such qualifying fees for the academic years 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 is €5,000.
Wednesday 3 November 2010
Axe Killer John Hirst
Convicted axe killer John Hirst being interviewed by Andrew Neil.
Hirst has to be the most odious person ever to appear on Daily Politics Show
Hirst has to be the most odious person ever to appear on Daily Politics Show
Friday 29 October 2010
Sunday 25 July 2010
Labour Leadership - should Balls quit?
Charlie Whelan, political director of Unite and best mate of Ed Balls was, when it came down to delivering, unable to secure the union's support for Balls' leadership.It seems the hapless Balls is also well behind the front runners in all three electoral colleges. In the case of CLP nominations some are forecasting under 15% support.
Balls's camp denied reports in today's Sunday Telegraph speculating that he will quit the Labour Leadership race. They insist he will fight on.
It is clear that the Trades Unions do not want Balls to lead the Labour Party, his fellow MPs and the PLP at large will likely pledge support elsewhere and the 200,000+ Labour members are not convinced by Balls.
It is clear also that the maths will not work for Ed Balls (thus his odds moving out to 40-1) and perhaps he would be better advised to quit the race and pledge support for another candidate. Diane Abbott perhaps!!!
Staying in the race against the odds may just reinforce the view, held by many, that Ed Balls is arrogant and self serving. Maybe though he just hasn't woken up and smelt the coffee yet.
Tuesday 13 July 2010
Lifted from Guido - Thanks Guido
Where’s Gordon?™ - Not “Humilated Enough” Clearly
With characteristically poor-timing, Gordon Brown showed his face in Westminster yesterday afternoon, just as the village had spent the morning digesting his less than dignified attempts to cling to power, as confirmed by Mandy.
He was all weird smiles at a drinks party in his honour at Labour HQ. Donors, Lord and Lady Prescott and the like. His wife apparently came too, which must have been nice for her after being dragged back up to Scotland. No expense was spared to honour the most unsuccessful Labour Prime Minister in the history of the party, though as a Scot you would hope Gordon understood the need for the cash bar to be in operation.
Saturday 5 June 2010
Labour's £1,800,000,000 spending spree
Labour's £1,800,000,000 consultants bill for the UK taxpayer
The Daily Telegraph
05 Jun 2010
THE Labour government spent £1.8 billion on consultants last year, according to official figures which have been made public for the first time.
A database of the country’s finances, known as “Coins” — the Combined Online Information System — has been opened up, giving access to 24 million entries in the Treasury’s accountancy books for the financial year 2008-09.
Coalition ministers and campaigners for open government hailed the publication as a major step in the process of opening up the state for voters and introducing more transparency by exposing to public scrutiny every spending decision made.
But while the database provides a unique insight into the every day running of government, there was criticism after the complex Coins system proved difficult and unwieldy for users to navigate. The figures show that the Department of Health spent nearly £500million on consultants, the most of any Whitehall department.
The Daily Telegraph
05 Jun 2010
Wednesday 19 May 2010
Balls, Miliband & Miliband in Numbers
These numbers are good as at Wednesday 19th May 2010.
They are completely meaningless but may just provide a measure of entertainment for political geeks that like numbers and stats.
Meliden.
They are completely meaningless but may just provide a measure of entertainment for political geeks that like numbers and stats.
Meliden.
Friday 14 May 2010
Sunday 2 May 2010
Tuesday 27 April 2010
Saturday 24 April 2010
Beware if you are an "ordinary voter"
Gordon is changing his Election strategy. He has decided that meeting groups of Labour activists and die-hard Labour supporters is not working. Rumour has it that he has somehow even managed to change the voting intentions of these groups.
He is now going to move on and meet more people in the "ordinary voter" category.
You will probably want to avoid being accosted by Gordon and here a few tips.
1. Do not go near or enter a marginal constituency.
2. Act on the safe-side, don't talk to anyone with a Scottish accent
3. Wear a Blue Vote for Change T-Shirt
4. If you overhear anyone saying "How old are you? It's nice here" over and over again - just run
5. Don't call any "phone-in" shows at local radio stations - GB might answer the phone
He is now going to move on and meet more people in the "ordinary voter" category.
You will probably want to avoid being accosted by Gordon and here a few tips.
1. Do not go near or enter a marginal constituency.
2. Act on the safe-side, don't talk to anyone with a Scottish accent
3. Wear a Blue Vote for Change T-Shirt
4. If you overhear anyone saying "How old are you? It's nice here" over and over again - just run
5. Don't call any "phone-in" shows at local radio stations - GB might answer the phone
Friday 23 April 2010
Thursday 22 April 2010
2nd Leaders' TV Debate - Who Will Win?
It is hard to see that Nick Clegg will do anything other than win tonight.
He has the initial lead and it is difficult to see where he will trip himself
Wednesday 21 April 2010
Saturday 27 March 2010
This week of lies
How low we've sunk, when the Home Office is caught issuing deceitful propaganda in a TV and radio campaign.
In a withering ruling, the Advertising Standards Authority bans the offending advertisement for its hugely misleading claim, repeated in Labour election literature, that 'neighbourhood' police spend 80 per cent of their time on the beat.
At best, this is contemptible spin, since the average officer spends just one hour in eight on the beat. At worst, it's a lie.
Policing pledge: The Advertising Standards Authority has banned the advert for its misleading claim about bobbies on the beat
But then isn't this all part of the casual mendacity in public life that we've grown used to under New Labour?
Take the Budget, in which Alistair Darling claimed he'd already found £20billion of 'efficiency savings' in the public sector.
As the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests, this is sheer fantasy.
If these vast sums are really being wasted, why haven't they been saved sooner? And how can reducing waste be presented as a spending cut, when the money saved is to be spent elsewhere?
Underlying this charade is the biggest lie of all: that the cuts needed to pay off our mountainous debts won't affect frontline services.
Really? Are ministers seriously telling us that departments such as defence and transport can withstand cuts of some 25 per cent each, with no consequences for our men in the field or the country's road and rail networks? Just how gullible do they think British voters are?
This week began with the squalid spectacle of former Cabinet members trying to abuse public service for private gain. Now it ends in a farrago of deceit.
All in all, another dismal week for integrity in British public life.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1261090/No-room-voters-European-Empire.html#ixzz0jMnKPZ1r
Thursday 18 March 2010
Your ‘downturn,’ their ‘upturn’
Still foolish enough to be in the private sector paying for the benefits of the public sector?
I can’t remember exactly when I first encountered a pop-culture jetpack. Was it James Bond’s, courtesy of Q, in Thunderball? Or was it some comic book? At any rate, I no longer have to wait for mine. Martin Aircraft of Christchurch, New Zealand, have put one into production, for the cost of a top-of-the-line automobile—or about $100,000. It’s not clear to me where you’d be able to fly it, since government air-traffic agencies don’t seem eager to contemplate a world of individual human flight patterns. But still: the Bond jetpack is belatedly here.
Other than that, the future seems unlikely to be quite as futuristic as expected. The problem facing the developed world isn’t so very difficult to figure out. We’re living beyond not just our means but everybody’s means. You can strap on your jetpack, but where would you go? In the United States, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute calculates that if the federal government were to increase every single tax by 30 per cent it would be enough to balance the books—in 25 years. Except that it wouldn’t. Because if you raised taxes by 30 per cent, government would spend even more than it already does, on the grounds that the citizenry needed more social programs and entitlements to compensate for their sudden reduction in disposable income.
In Canada, the average household’s debt-to-income ratio reached an all-time high in 2009. Credit-card holders at least three months behind with their payments increased by 40 per cent.
In Greece, public sector workers are rioting over the right to continue retiring at age 58.
In Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland, government spending accounts for between 73 and 78 per cent of the economy, which is about as high as you can get without embracing full-scale Sovietization. In the English city of Newcastle, three-quarters of the working population are employed by the government.
The state spends too much. The individual spends too much. The state hires too many people on whom it lavishes too many benefits. Those foolish enough to remain in the private sector have to pay for the benefits of the public sector, and thus fund both their basics (housing) and their baubles (plasma TVs) through debt.
Nobody is going to raise U.S. taxes by 30 per cent—or at least not in one fell swoop, not when American businesses already labour under the highest corporate tax rates in the OECD. Washington’s approach to the runaway train is to shovel more coal in, on the grounds that the precipice is most likely further away than it looks. In economic terms, I’m not sure you can even call this “Keynesian,” since John Maynard of that ilk would surely be surprised at the claims on the public purse in the name of “stimulus”: $71,623 of said stimulus went to pump monkeys in North Carolina full of cocaine. Don’t ask me why. Vital work, no doubt, and maybe even socially beneficial, in that every line of coke hoovered up some chimp’s schnozz is one less going up yours. Nonetheless, it’s not to be sneezed at. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. But, for coke-fiend monkeys, you need the best part of 72 grand.
Even if you’re not on federal cocaine, this is a grand time to be a government worker. You know that “economic downturn” you hear so much about? It goes away if you work for the government! Indeed, you get an economic upturn. USA Today reports that at the start of the “downturn” the U.S. Department of Transportation had just one employee earning more than $170,000 per year. Eighteen months later, it has 1,690. Another 1,690 federal orangutans with expensive drug habits would be a better deal for the taxpayer. A U.S. government employee gets an average $41,000—that’s not salary, that’s in additional benefits.
The new class war in the Western world is between “public servants” and the rest of us. In Greece, the bloated public service has leeched so much out of the economy that they’ve run out of Greeks to stick it to, and require an intervention by the European Union. Likewise, the debauched public sector of California is pinning its hopes on federal largesse. At a certain level, American public opinion understands this. It’s why Obama has fallen so far so fast. Fourteen months ago, it seemed like a smart move to make “trillion” a routine part of the Washington lexicon. Now all its many citations do is remind even the most innumerate that the Democrat project is a crock, and the word itself is merely shorthand for “money we don’t have and will never have.”
This isn’t “climate change,” dependent on this or that predictive model. This is the certainty of disaster. And yet the only certainty is that Western governments will continue to grow the state at the expense of the market: they will create more regulations requiring more agencies with more expensively paid public-service union employees. Not all of this growth will be intentional; much of it will happen under various desultory hiring and wages “freezes.” But, because government is immune to normal pressures, unless you’re actively shrinking it it always grows.
Much of the above is about numbers, costs, and other economic indices. But at least as telling is the psychology. A couple of years ago in this space, I quoted a reader who thought I should lighten up: “We’re rich enough that we can afford to be stupid.” This is presumably the thinking behind California public education. Its teachers are the highest paid in the United States, and its schools are among the worst. Since my reader’s cheery assurance, we’re a lot less rich but seem determined to be even more stupid. Americans spend more on education than anyone but the Swiss, and have the least to show for it. In London, New Labour ministers still fall back on stillborn invocations of “the knowledge economy” that will always make Britain an attractive place to do business because of the “added value” of its educated workforce. Are you serious? Have you set foot in an English state school in the last 15 years?
In The Time Machine by H. G. Wells, a fellow in late Victorian England saddles up the eponymous contraption, propels himself forward and finds himself in a world where humanity has divided into a small, soft, passive, decadent elite, the Eloi, among whom one can barely tell the boys from the girls, and a dark, feral, subterranean underclass, the Morlocks. This is supposedly Britain in the year 802,701 AD. That’s the only thing Wells got wrong: the date. If he’d set his time machine to zip forward a mere hundred years or so to the early 21st century, he’d have been bang on target. The historian Victor Davis Hanson thinks Wells’s tale sums up his fellow Californians, too. The new Eloi expect to be able to enjoy all the benefits of an advanced prosperous society while erecting a regime of sentimentalized regulation that will make its continuation impossible. The new Morlocks demand iPods and video games and other diversions they regard as their birthright but are all but incapable of making any contribution to the kind of society required to produce them. As for Canada, though not yet in the advanced state of decay of the formerly Golden State, those debt-to-income figures are following the same path. At the dawn of the Reagan era, America was the world’s largest creditor nation and its citizens had a 10 per cent savings rate. Not today. To Lord Keynes, a government treasury was not a family purse: the state, unlike the household, could go into debt to “invest.” Now, the family purse has caught up: governments and individuals alike borrow extravagantly—and to consume rather than invest in any meaningful sense.
Swimming into view come rising powers—India, Brazil, China and others, all with problems of their own, but not wedded to the proposition that great nations can squander both their inheritance and their children’s future without cost. Decline is a choice. The selfish pampered profligates of the postwar West made theirs, and for good measure and to ward off the day of reckoning consigned their kids and grandkids to it, too. It would seem to me unlikely that the next generation will be willing or so easily diverted by electronic novelties to reduce themselves to serfs in a vain attempt to sustain an unsustainable system. So something will happen: Greek riots? Total societal collapse? Best to keep the jetpack fuelled and ready. If you can find somewhere to go. by Mark Steyn on Thursday, March 18, 2010 8:40am
I can’t remember exactly when I first encountered a pop-culture jetpack. Was it James Bond’s, courtesy of Q, in Thunderball? Or was it some comic book? At any rate, I no longer have to wait for mine. Martin Aircraft of Christchurch, New Zealand, have put one into production, for the cost of a top-of-the-line automobile—or about $100,000. It’s not clear to me where you’d be able to fly it, since government air-traffic agencies don’t seem eager to contemplate a world of individual human flight patterns. But still: the Bond jetpack is belatedly here.
Other than that, the future seems unlikely to be quite as futuristic as expected. The problem facing the developed world isn’t so very difficult to figure out. We’re living beyond not just our means but everybody’s means. You can strap on your jetpack, but where would you go? In the United States, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute calculates that if the federal government were to increase every single tax by 30 per cent it would be enough to balance the books—in 25 years. Except that it wouldn’t. Because if you raised taxes by 30 per cent, government would spend even more than it already does, on the grounds that the citizenry needed more social programs and entitlements to compensate for their sudden reduction in disposable income.
In Canada, the average household’s debt-to-income ratio reached an all-time high in 2009. Credit-card holders at least three months behind with their payments increased by 40 per cent.
In Greece, public sector workers are rioting over the right to continue retiring at age 58.
In Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland, government spending accounts for between 73 and 78 per cent of the economy, which is about as high as you can get without embracing full-scale Sovietization. In the English city of Newcastle, three-quarters of the working population are employed by the government.
The state spends too much. The individual spends too much. The state hires too many people on whom it lavishes too many benefits. Those foolish enough to remain in the private sector have to pay for the benefits of the public sector, and thus fund both their basics (housing) and their baubles (plasma TVs) through debt.
Nobody is going to raise U.S. taxes by 30 per cent—or at least not in one fell swoop, not when American businesses already labour under the highest corporate tax rates in the OECD. Washington’s approach to the runaway train is to shovel more coal in, on the grounds that the precipice is most likely further away than it looks. In economic terms, I’m not sure you can even call this “Keynesian,” since John Maynard of that ilk would surely be surprised at the claims on the public purse in the name of “stimulus”: $71,623 of said stimulus went to pump monkeys in North Carolina full of cocaine. Don’t ask me why. Vital work, no doubt, and maybe even socially beneficial, in that every line of coke hoovered up some chimp’s schnozz is one less going up yours. Nonetheless, it’s not to be sneezed at. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. But, for coke-fiend monkeys, you need the best part of 72 grand.
Even if you’re not on federal cocaine, this is a grand time to be a government worker. You know that “economic downturn” you hear so much about? It goes away if you work for the government! Indeed, you get an economic upturn. USA Today reports that at the start of the “downturn” the U.S. Department of Transportation had just one employee earning more than $170,000 per year. Eighteen months later, it has 1,690. Another 1,690 federal orangutans with expensive drug habits would be a better deal for the taxpayer. A U.S. government employee gets an average $41,000—that’s not salary, that’s in additional benefits.
The new class war in the Western world is between “public servants” and the rest of us. In Greece, the bloated public service has leeched so much out of the economy that they’ve run out of Greeks to stick it to, and require an intervention by the European Union. Likewise, the debauched public sector of California is pinning its hopes on federal largesse. At a certain level, American public opinion understands this. It’s why Obama has fallen so far so fast. Fourteen months ago, it seemed like a smart move to make “trillion” a routine part of the Washington lexicon. Now all its many citations do is remind even the most innumerate that the Democrat project is a crock, and the word itself is merely shorthand for “money we don’t have and will never have.”
This isn’t “climate change,” dependent on this or that predictive model. This is the certainty of disaster. And yet the only certainty is that Western governments will continue to grow the state at the expense of the market: they will create more regulations requiring more agencies with more expensively paid public-service union employees. Not all of this growth will be intentional; much of it will happen under various desultory hiring and wages “freezes.” But, because government is immune to normal pressures, unless you’re actively shrinking it it always grows.
Much of the above is about numbers, costs, and other economic indices. But at least as telling is the psychology. A couple of years ago in this space, I quoted a reader who thought I should lighten up: “We’re rich enough that we can afford to be stupid.” This is presumably the thinking behind California public education. Its teachers are the highest paid in the United States, and its schools are among the worst. Since my reader’s cheery assurance, we’re a lot less rich but seem determined to be even more stupid. Americans spend more on education than anyone but the Swiss, and have the least to show for it. In London, New Labour ministers still fall back on stillborn invocations of “the knowledge economy” that will always make Britain an attractive place to do business because of the “added value” of its educated workforce. Are you serious? Have you set foot in an English state school in the last 15 years?
In The Time Machine by H. G. Wells, a fellow in late Victorian England saddles up the eponymous contraption, propels himself forward and finds himself in a world where humanity has divided into a small, soft, passive, decadent elite, the Eloi, among whom one can barely tell the boys from the girls, and a dark, feral, subterranean underclass, the Morlocks. This is supposedly Britain in the year 802,701 AD. That’s the only thing Wells got wrong: the date. If he’d set his time machine to zip forward a mere hundred years or so to the early 21st century, he’d have been bang on target. The historian Victor Davis Hanson thinks Wells’s tale sums up his fellow Californians, too. The new Eloi expect to be able to enjoy all the benefits of an advanced prosperous society while erecting a regime of sentimentalized regulation that will make its continuation impossible. The new Morlocks demand iPods and video games and other diversions they regard as their birthright but are all but incapable of making any contribution to the kind of society required to produce them. As for Canada, though not yet in the advanced state of decay of the formerly Golden State, those debt-to-income figures are following the same path. At the dawn of the Reagan era, America was the world’s largest creditor nation and its citizens had a 10 per cent savings rate. Not today. To Lord Keynes, a government treasury was not a family purse: the state, unlike the household, could go into debt to “invest.” Now, the family purse has caught up: governments and individuals alike borrow extravagantly—and to consume rather than invest in any meaningful sense.
Swimming into view come rising powers—India, Brazil, China and others, all with problems of their own, but not wedded to the proposition that great nations can squander both their inheritance and their children’s future without cost. Decline is a choice. The selfish pampered profligates of the postwar West made theirs, and for good measure and to ward off the day of reckoning consigned their kids and grandkids to it, too. It would seem to me unlikely that the next generation will be willing or so easily diverted by electronic novelties to reduce themselves to serfs in a vain attempt to sustain an unsustainable system. So something will happen: Greek riots? Total societal collapse? Best to keep the jetpack fuelled and ready. If you can find somewhere to go. by Mark Steyn on Thursday, March 18, 2010 8:40am
Wednesday 17 March 2010
Tuesday 16 March 2010
Monday 15 March 2010
Time for another admission. Brown's Bungled Bank Job
Gordon Brown has today, finally admitted that, under his watch, bank regulation was for not fit- for- purpose. His really big error was stripping the Bank of England of it's powers to regulate UK Banks. He should now admit that this was huge error.
Gordon Brown continues to this day to be in denial and will not accept this was a great mistake. Time to make another admission Gordon.
Here is the TIMELINE to the biggest bank bungle ever.
This timetable shows how the cock-up occurred.
January 1997. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair discuss with Eddie George plans to offer Bank operational independence. Removal of supervisory role is raised but George is assured nothing will happen without consultation.
April 1997. Brown decides to offer Bank a package by giving it independence but taking away supervision.
2 May 1997. Brown discusses approach with Treasury officials. Last-minute intervention by senior civil servant persuades him to drop idea of withdrawing supervision.
5 May. Brown informs George of Bank's operational independence. He says there will be no decision on supervision without consultation.
6 May. Brown announces decision at press conference but hints that supervision will be examined.
8 May. Cabinet meets to discuss Queen's Speech contents. Reform of Financial Services Act which would revamp City regulation receives low priority.
14 May. Queen's Speech leaves out reform of FSA but includes bill enabling Bank's independence.
15 May. Brown's advisers suggest regulatory reform can be accelerated by linking it to Bank legislation.
19 May. Brown tells George bank supervision will be transferred to an enlarged SIB. George and other Bank officials are enraged by what they see as a betrayal of trust.
20 May. Brown announces reform to Parliament.
21 May. George tells press he considered resigning. His remarks are used by a Brown adviser to stir up campaign against George.
22 May. City bankers offer public support for George. Pound falls on fears he will be replaced.
23 May. Government officials attempt to patch up rift.
Gordon's self confessed lax regulation also allowed both AIG and Lehman Bros to transact trillion dollar risks in London that were not allowed in the USA.
Meliden - Updated Wed 14th April 2010
CANDIDATES TURN LEFT
Labour's Scary Candidate List
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) Whatever it is, he’s against it. As an MP between 1997 and 2005, he voted against his own government more than 80 times, rebelling on the Iraq war, university fees and benefits cuts. He previously worked for the Morning Star, the communist-linked newspaper, and is now political officer of Unite, the BA strike union.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham Erdington) Harriet Harman’s husband is deputy general secretary of the increasingly militant Unite. Came to prominence as the organiser of the year-long strike at the Grunwick film processing laboratories in the 1970s, a dispute marred by violent clashes. Replaces Sion Simon, once a political columnist for the Tory-supporting Daily Telegraph.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) President of the hard-line National Union of Mineworkers. During the miners’ strike he was arrested half a dozen times. Replaces Denis Murphy, a generally loyal former coalminer who campaigned on local issues.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) A member of the Grassroots Alliance — “committed to redistributing wealth, income and power from the few to the many” — beat Georgia Gould, daughter of Tony Blair’s pollster Phillip Gould, to secure the nomination. Describes herself as a “left-wing activist” on her Twitter page.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) May dress and sound like a Blairite, but do not be fooled. He sits on the management committee of Compass, the left-wing group that has called for a renationalisation of the railways and a ban on all outdoor advertising. Replaces Keith Hill, a moderate former minister.
Lillian Greenwood (Nottingham South) Greenwood, an official for Unison, the public services union, and a member of the left-wing Compass group, describes herself as a campaigner for “workers’ rights”.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) Adviser to Ken Livingstone, former mayor of London, Qureshi stood unsuccessfully in his former seat of Brent East in 2005, when the human rights lawyer launched a strong attack on the Iraq war.
Nancy Platts (Brighton Pavilion) A former official for the TSSA transport union, she was selected after playing up her opposition to the Iraq war, identity cards and privatisation, which won her plaudits in the hard left Morning Star newspaper.
MPs criticise Trevor Phillips
Equalities watchdog chairman Trevor Phillips has today been criticised by an influential group of MPs and peers.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) raised serious concerns over Mr Phillips' leadership and questioned Harriet Harman's decision to push through his reappointment without a contest.
The report follows the resignation of six commissioners from the Equality and Human Rights Commission in 2009. The resignations were a protest at Mr Phillips' continued chairmanship.
Surely he now has to resign.
Adonis calls on Unite to stop Strike
LORD ADONIS yesterday became the first Cabinet Minister to speak out against the trade union behind the British Airways strike, accusing it of “threatening the future” of the airline.To the fury of Unite, the Secretary of State for Transport described the seven days of walkouts planned this month by thousands of cabin crew as “deplorable” and “totally unjustified”. The minister, a moderate Blairite, became the first senior member of the Labour government to break ranks and blame the union – one of the party’s biggest financial backers – for the industrial action.He immediately faced an angry reaction from Unite, whose political director, Charlie Whelan, is a close ally and former spokesman of Gordon Brown. Mr Whelan was recently identified as one of Downing Street’s “forces of hell” who briefed against anyone who dared oppose Mr Brown.Union officials were said to be “livid” at Lord Adonis’s “uninformed” and “blundering” intervention. They contacted Downing Street to insist ministers should not blame them for the industrial action, which could affect 500,000 BA passengers.The row highlights the close relationship between Labour and Unite — the union has donated £11million to the party in the past three years.Mr Whelan has begun working closely with the Prime Minister and the Labour Party in the run-up to the election Source Daily Telegraph15/03/10
Sunday 14 March 2010
The Observer Magazine, 14 Mar 2010. Pages 38 - 39
Sarah Brown, The Propagandist Wife. Samantha Cameron, The Working Wife.
The Observer Magazine
14 Mar 2010
L
Saturday 13 March 2010
Poll Narrows -David Cameron is still trusted by voters more than Gordon Brown on three key issues
A surprising 34 per cent of voters think that Britain’s interests would “best be served” if the election resulted, as most polls now predict, in a hung parliament, despite warnings that such an outcome would gravely hamper the country’s ability to recover from its economic woes and record deficit. More than half (56 per cent) want one party to win a clear majority.
Labour and Lib Dems being disingenuous on UK Economy
Alistair Darling is set to take official public sector net debt breaking through the £1 trillion barrier. This does not include the £500 billion plus bailout of UK banks and pre-election support for General Motors announced today.
From figures published February 18th 2010, UK public sector net debt was £848.5 billion. (or 59.9% of National GDP) – Source: Office National Statistics
The government has used fanciful growth forecasts of UK GDP growth returning to trend growth of 2.5% per annum by 2011. This is unlikely as even the Prime Minister has stated the UK is still in "Choppy Waters". This leaves the forecast growth rates of 0.6% for 2010 well behind.
This opens up a potential black hole in Britain's finances that implies that actual official government borrowing will be some 50% or more higher than he will announce in this month's budget.
The Lib Dems support this level of borrowing . Both Parties know this situation cannot continue.
BOTH PARTIES SHOULD START TO TELL THE TRUTH.
From figures published February 18th 2010, UK public sector net debt was £848.5 billion. (or 59.9% of National GDP) – Source: Office National Statistics
The government has used fanciful growth forecasts of UK GDP growth returning to trend growth of 2.5% per annum by 2011. This is unlikely as even the Prime Minister has stated the UK is still in "Choppy Waters". This leaves the forecast growth rates of 0.6% for 2010 well behind.
This opens up a potential black hole in Britain's finances that implies that actual official government borrowing will be some 50% or more higher than he will announce in this month's budget.
The Lib Dems support this level of borrowing . Both Parties know this situation cannot continue.
BOTH PARTIES SHOULD START TO TELL THE TRUTH.
Hammond: Liberal Democrats are all over the place on the economy
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/6545/
Friday 5 March 2010
Gordon Brown’s cuts ‘cost lives of soldiers’
Gordon Brown’s cuts ‘cost lives of soldiers’
So says General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank who adds
Soldiers’ lives were lost in Iraq and Afghanistan because Gordon Brown failed to fund the Army properly when he was Chancellor, a former chief of the defence staff said yesterday.
The Prime Minister is due to appear before the Iraq inquiry today at 10am.
General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, who led the Armed Forces from 1997 to 2001, toldThe Times: “Not fully funding the Army in the way they had asked . . . undoubtedly cost the lives of soldiers. He should be asked why he was so unsympathetic towards defence and so sympathetic to other departments.”
The families of servicemen who died on the front line in lightly armoured Land Rovers are already demanding to know why the Government did not send troops out with more helicopters and stronger vehicles.
Brown on Chilcot - Will he deny this story?
In a withering assessment of the “doomed” state of the military, the recently retired Lt Gen Sir Graeme Lamb said that the SAS had been denied even Vietnam-era equipment that could have saved lives.
Monday 4 January 2010
Wednesday 30 September 2009
Gordon Has Lost It - Time to Leave Gordon
He has lost the plot. I thought he was manic and menacing on BBC this morning with Sian Williams. I thought he was going to attack her.
This is the man in charge of any of our potential Nuclear launches.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)