The dangers of a Boris win

The outcome of the London Mayoral election poses dangers for both the Conservatives and Labour.

If Boris wins (which we should all hope and work for), then the Conservative-led coalition government will likely see this as a 'truer' reflection of public opinion on the government's performance, will take heart and will continue along the path, which sees them being led along by their Liberal-Democrat partners, ditching 'Conservative' policies along the way.  That this pathway is already strewn with botched and ill-thought out initiatives, won't deter them as they will believe that at the bottom of things, the 'people' really understand and approve of their direction - "otherwise, Boris wouldn't have been elected!"

They (the Conservatives) would be wrong.  The 'people' have taken it into their heads, ably facilitated by the BBC and an angry and hostile media, that the Conservatives are 'out of touch'.  It's not about knowing the price of a pint of milk or a loaf.  It's about competence and relevance.  The Conservatives are seen to present policies which enjoy, at best half-hearted support, from their own party and MPs, and which push the Lib Dem agenda while doing very little to help 'the people', only to see these 'policies' dissolve into farce before the ink on the press release is barely dry.

Drink-ups in breweries and managing a whelk stall, come to mind.

Ask yourself - How important is reform of the House of Lords or Gay Marriage or even the Leveson Enquiry to 'the people'?

I would suggest that most people are concerned with employment and the economy and security.

• Will their job remain?  
• Will their children get a job when they leave school or university, in the Summer?  
• When will they start to see pay rises that don't get immediately eaten up by higher taxes and prices?  
• When will energy costs come down?
• When will UK security be given a higher priority than European Court decisions?
• When will suspected terrorists, simply be deported?
• When will the benefits system reward work and penalize idleness? 
• Why are we closing public libraries in the UK while at the same time sending money overseas to open libraries (etc.) in other countries?
• Why are we supporting EU bail-outs while making cuts at home?

For Labour, a Boris win would likely present Ed Miliband with a leadership challenge but with Ed Balls or his wife, Yvette Cooper, as the leading contenders, Labour wouldn't see much of a change in its mis-guided and fundamentally flawed economic 'policy'.  Labour's lack of humility and unwillingness to admit they were wrong, coupled with a 'borrow, spend, borrow more, spend more' policy is seen by people for the economic idiocy that it is.

For Labour a win for Ken Livingstone would present a polarizing challenge as his divisive views are (thankfully) not widely shared within the Labour party and his radical polemics and utterances would cause the Labour parliamentary leadership, constant heartburn and embarrassment, as that leadership seeks to present itself as 'moderate'.  That's to say nothing of the impact, that his likely to be unfulfilled promises will have, on a dis-illusioned electorate.

For the Conservatives, a Ken win represents an opportunity (see above) but with their propensity for making 'government by gaffe' a way of life, having someone as media-savvy as Ken, just down the river cannot help.  Indeed if Ken wins and if he stays on message, he would be a painful thorn in the side of the Conservatives.

 

Lunacy - EU or Local Government - Take your pick

Fiddling while Rome burns, comes to mind!  And if Italy follows the Greek path, that may be prophetic!

Westminster and the media are very exercised (some might say obsessed) about what did or didn't happen about the BSkyB bid and the contacts that occurred between the government and News International.

Yes, this is the same takeover bid from which NI eventually withdrew!

There are rumours that the Government will also bow to 'New' Labour demands and set-up a public inquiry into the causes and lessons to be learned from the South Sea Bubble Company collapse and that Her Majesty's government will shortly apologize to the original Saxons (or maybe it will be to the Celts) for the activities carried out by the Norman ascendancy, since 1066! 

In the real world, life goes on.

The UK is back in recession, unemployment in Spain is more than 24% and, among under 25s, is more than 52% the Dutch government has fallen (over austerity cuts required to protect the Euro), France looks increasingly likely to elect a Socialist President, who comes with all the usual 'wealth destroying and grabbing' baggage  and British and American troops continue to needlessly die in Afghanistan

In the UK it has been reported that 3,097 local council employees received pay and perks packages in excess of £100,000 last year. Pay and perks includes salary, redundancy and pension payments and top-ups!

Of this number, 880 earned more than the Prime Minister's salary of £142,500.  The numbers breakdown as

• 170  Earning between £142,500 and £150,000   
• 658  Earning between £150,000 and £250,000      
• 170  Earning more than £250,000        

Think about those numbers when you get your local Council Tax bill, this year.

Think about those numbers when you vote in the local elections,  for the incompetent fools that approve such outrageous pay deals.    

See my previous blogs about so called 'Green Energy' and the rip-off and madness that wind power represents and consider that during the recent periods of high wind, in the UK, most (likely to be all)  of this generating capacity was switched off!  That's right, not producing!  Seems that it was the 'wrong kind of wind'!

Spain continues to try and implement austerity cuts but the effect of the cuts is reducing the impact as they are in a downward spiral - more cuts = more unemployed = more welfare claimants = more cuts are required!

The one cut that isn't considered is the link between the Spanish economy and the Euro.  Absent this link, Spain would be able to default on its debt (yes that would undoubtedly lead to pain and anguish, globally, for poorly led banks) and it would then be able to manage its economy, itself, including by enjoying the benefits of a currency that is not tied to the German economy.

The benefits of the Euro accrue to Germany, as the exchange rate for the Euro is depressed because of the weaker economies but the German economy isn't weak, so its exports surge.  Conversely, the weaker economies are punished as borrowing rates diverge and soar.

The EU commission has proposed an increase of 7% in its budget, for next year.  This is apparently so that it can meet the obligations that it has entered into, on behalf of the EU citizens who never elected it, in the first place!  Put another way, I want to take more money from your pocket to spend on things that I consider important and since you can't do anything about it, I expect you to be quiet.

This is the same EU Commission and bureacracy for which the financial accounts have not been approved for the last 16 or more years.  Even for the bank bail-outs our political masters required that they followed some kind of due diligence but, these rules don't apply to our technocratic masters in the EU!

When I said you should be quiet, I mean don't ask your local politicians why you have local cuts in services.  Ask them to cut more so that they can send more money to Brussels!

Meantime, in Afghanistan, Service personnel continue to be exposed to danger and some pay the ultimate price to support the policy of the US and UK governments, which was met (Taliban fell, Bin Laden removed) years ago.  In the process, supporting a corrupt regime that takes (and privately banks) aid dollars from the West and then continues to pump drugs to the West to get more money.

So where is the Foreign Affairs focus, from the UK and US, at the moment?

• Afghanistan, where their military personnel are in harms way?  Don't be silly!  We have a timetable for withdrawal.  Nothing more is required.  Negotiations (sorry, I mean discussions) are underway with the Taliban.  Of course, since the Taliban know the dates of withdrawal, what do you think is their impetus to reach a negotiated political settlement?
• Iran - which may get nuclear military capability soon - some little focus.
• Syria - masses of attention on a country where the anti-government forces are not naturally pro-Western interests
• Libya and Egypt  - next to no focus in countries where, again, anti-Western forces are in the ascendancy.  

  So what's the answer?  I would welcome input.  I will put forward some ideas on a later post.

We used to say, when something crazy was proposed, that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.  I can't think of an appropriate metaphor but it seems to me that we on the outside are the 'lunatics' and those in the asylum are living the dream!

Questions on the Livingstone silence

I am wondering what we should deduce from the relatively deafening silence from politicians and media about Ken Livingstone and his treatment of income, taxes and NIC.

I can understand that perhaps they would not have the 'front' to be so hypocritical in publicly slamming such schemes (or do they call them wheezes?) but could it be that these 'pillars of society' and champions of transparency adopt similar tactics?

I don't see Conservatives and Lib Dems making political hay at the embarrassment of a tax avoiding political opponent.

Equally, I don't hear or read  Labour saying or writing anything.  They must be shamed at money being denied to the blessed NHS by such activities but not a peep from the Right or the Left.

The BBC and indeed the print media seem reluctant to pursue the stench of hypocrisy and are leaving all the running to the 'twitteratti'.


Truly we live in strange times

With Ken 'left' of Ed Miliband, what do you think would be being said by Ken, if the roles were reversed.  What would Ken be saying of a Conservative or Lib Dem in a similar position?

My view? 

This isn't a time for genteel politeness.  This is the time for Ken Livingstone's political career to be justifiably killed off in order to put us all out of his misery!

Livingstone Tax and Hypocrisy = Less NHS

Based on the figures produced by the Ken Livingstone campaign, I believe that the biggest saving he has made is actually in National Insurance Contributions both for himself and his company.

Add to that the shielding of income by then paying the other company shareholder (his wife) through a dividend rather than income and the savings just add-up.

Here is the data from the Ken Livingstone Campaign

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Income from Employment £131,000 £21,645 £5,710 £5,700 Interest Income £16 £137 £18 £33 Dividend Income £6,667 £55,556 £63,333 Pension Income £5,242 £21,483 £25,502 Sub Total Income £131,016 £33,691 £82,767 £94,568 Tax on Earned Income £44,122 £4,864 £18,453 £22,691 Tax on Dividends  £1,260 £10,500 £11,970 Total "Tax"  £44,122 £6,124 £28,953 £34,661 The Tax on Dividends figures are 'odd'.  It is not clear what they represent - Income Tax paid on dividends received, in which case they seem very low - or maybe Corporation Tax paid by Silvetta Ltd. Anyway, let's have a look at these numbers as HMRC would have looked at them and, based on the incomplete data provided, would have presented as a Tax Return calculation. 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Total 2008 to 2011 Income from Employment £131,000 £21,645 £5,710 £5,700 £33,055 Interest Income £16 £137 £18 £33 £188 Dividend Income £0 £6,667 £55,556 £63,333 £125,556 Dividend Tax Credit @ 10% £667 £5,556 £6,333 £12,556 Pension Income £5,242 £21,483 £25,502 £52,227 Sub Total Income £131,016 £34,358 £88,323 £100,901 £223,582 Less Personal Allowance £5,225 £6,035 £6,475 £6,475 £18,985 Net Taxable Income £125,791 £28,323 £81,848 £94,426 £204,597 Tax at Basic Rate 10% £223 £0 £0 £0 £0 Tax at next rate 22% or 20% £7,121 £5,405 £5,442 £6,247 £17,094 Tax at Higher Rate £36,476 £0 £0 £0 £0 Tax on Dividends at 32.5% £2,383 £19,861 £22,642 £44,886 Tax Charged £43,820 £7,788 £25,303 £28,889 £61,980 Less Tax Credit at 10% £667 £5,556 £6,333 £12,556 Total Tax Due £43,820 £7,122 £19,748 £22,555 £49,425 Effective Rate 33.4% 21.1% 23.9% 23.9% 23.4% The Livingstone Campaign have included the year 2007/08 income into the table. This seems to me to be irrelevant, other than its inclusion makes the overall 'effective  tax rate' appear higher.  For the whole of that year, Livingstone was employed as  London Mayor and all information suggests that Silvetta Ltd didn't then exist.   Now, let's take a look at what would have happened had Livingstone not declared dividends but instead had paid the same dividend as income and paid tax through PAYE, like you or me. 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Total 2008 to 2011 Income from Employment £131,000 £28,312 £61,266 £69,033 £158,611 Interest Income £16 £137 £18 £33 £188 Dividend Income £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Dividend Tax Credit @ 10% £0 £0 £0 £0 Pension Income £5,242 £21,483 £25,502 £52,227 Sub Total Income £131,016 £33,691 £82,767 £94,568 £211,026 Less Personal Allowance £5,225 £6,035 £6,475 £6,475 £18,985 Net Taxable Income £125,791 £27,656 £76,292 £88,093 £192,041 Tax at Basic Rate 10% £223 £0 £0 £0 £0 Tax at next rate 22% or 20% £7,121 £5,531 £7,480 £7,480 £20,491 Tax at Higher Rate £36,476 £0 £15,557 £20,277 £35,834 Tax on Dividends at 32.5% £0 £0 £0 £0 Tax Charged £43,820 £5,531 £23,037 £27,757 £56,325 Less Tax Credit at 10% £0 £0 £0 £0 Total Tax Due £43,820 £5,531 £23,037 £27,757 £56,325 Effective Rate 33.4% 16.4% 27.8% 29.4% 26.7% You will see that for the three years in question, Livingstone saved £6,900.  However, he and his company then went on to save National Insurance Contributions. Here the personal and Corporate savings really add-up.  The figure is in excess of £25,000 If these numbers are wrong and someone on the Livingstone campaign wishes to contest them, there is always the right of reply.  Absent that, I must conclude that the use of Silvetta Ltd has lowered the tax and NIC take for the UK.  How many NHS employees or Teachers would £32,000 pay?
It isn't just the minimizing of tax and NIC payments, when the country is struggling, that sticks  in the craw.  It is the blatant hypocrisy of someone who castigates others when they do the same and berates the government for not spending enough (of the money that they gather in taxes and continue to borrow!!)
If you like your hypocrisy served with the rankest of flavours - vote Ken.
If your nose can't stomach the stench, vote for one of the others. Oh! That Pension income.  That suggests that Ken would require a pension pot of around  £450 -500,000 to fund it.  This then accumulated while a public servant.  How big is your pot? Note also, that we haven't seen the accounts of Silvetta Ltd and don't know who is funding them.  Suggestions of Iran TV and Venezuela sometimes surface but as with so much about this, we just aren't being told.

Can Scots count and/or consider?

In respect of the subject of Scottish Independence, a consultation exercise was launched by the UK Government.  Presumably on the basis that this being a subject the power over which is reserved to Westminster.

At the same time, the Scottish Parliament initiated a consultation exercise.  Presumably because Alex Salmond and the SNP thought they should have some say.  Or perhaps this was just an exercise in more mischief making?

Anyway, the exercise by the UK government ended in March and the results have been analyzed and issued.

The Scottish Parliament consultation ends in May 2012 and unbelievably it will then take 4 months for the underwhelming volume of responses to be counted and analyzed.

• We know that the Scots can count.
 

• We know that they can read

• We know, from history, that they can analyze data

So, why will it take four months?

Okay, so part of the time will be spent eliminating the comments of Anonymous  responders.  These were not allowed under the UK consultation as this could open the way to abuse and an unreflective view.  Belatedly, the Scottish Government agreed to eliminate these 'anon' responses amid accusations of such abuse and possible multiple responses by over-zealous Nationalists.  I know such abuse couldn't happen but better to be safe than sorry!

The total level of responses, including 'anons', is so far around 12,000.  Let's say that in the remaining 6 weeks or so, this gets a spurt on and the number rises to 50,000 or Scotland goes consultation-crazy and there are 100,000 responses, surely, these could be counted and analyzed within a month?

One gets the idea, that this is yet another delaying tactic from Alex Salmond to delay the question being posed until it meets a timeline that the SNP are pushing.

Time then for the UK Government to intervene.  After all, only Westminster has the actual legal authority to initiate a referendum.  Indeed, if they did so swiftly, they could save the Scottish people the unlikely to be inexpensive cost of this 'counting exercise'  which we are told will be contracted out.

I have yet to hear from any supporter of the SNP, any valid reason why, it takes less than 5 months to establish the rules for a referendum on the Scottish Parliament and conduct the exercise and then the count yet, the SNP, a party that has been craving a vote on Scottish independence for 40+ yeas (maybe longer), is so unprepared for it, that they want to wait 30 months before asking the people of Scotland.

Fair Fuel petition

I’ve signed up to www.fairfueluk.com – the nation’s leading campaign group fighting for a cut in tax on petrol and diesel.  If you are as angry as I am at the scandalously high prices please help them by signing up yourself and forwarding this message to your contacts.  Unbelievably, the Government is ploughing on with its plan to add another 16p a gallon in fuel taxes this summer.  FairFuelUK needs to dramatically build up its supporter base to fight for this fuel tax rise to be scrapped.  Signing up is free and takes just a few seconds.  The campaign is backed by the RAC, The Fuelcard Company, and the two trade bodies that represent the UK’s 20,000 leading road freight companies.

Anti Growth Agenda

 Think back a short while, to the latest UK Budget and the weeks leading up to it.

The one thing on which all seemed to agree was the need for the budget to promote growth so as to assist in reducing the levels of unemployment and getting the UK economy off of the sick-bed.  A by-product of growth, would be the ability to reduce the UK's very high borrowing needs.

Now take a look at this video, courtesy of The Commentator blog. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NL3KNFOJ3Y

It is scary that these people are funded by UK Taxpayers (that's you and me!) and to promote a policy that is, with its anti-growth slant, in direct contradiction to the stated aims of the UK Government.  This anti-growth stance seeks to shrink the UK economy and that of the rest of the world, particularly those less developed countries.

Very worryingly, we see Caroline Spelman, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the Coalition government spouting off and supporting the anti-growth agenda and the discredited climate change theocracy.

• What happened to 'joined-up' government?  
• Which is the Coalition's policy - Pro-Growth or Anti-Growth?  
• Climate realist or trying to put the wheels back on the broken down and dis-credited and dishonest  'man made climate change' bandwagon?

Postscript:
For those not familiar with Caroline Spelman, it was she who in 2009, during the expenses issue  it was reported that Spelman had received £40,000 for cleaning and bills for her constituency home; this was despite her husband claiming it was their main home. In 2008 she reportedly over-claimed hundreds of pounds towards her council tax.

On 6 June 2008, Spelman was the subject of controversy when it was suggested that for around twelve months from May 1997 she paid her child's nanny, Tina Haynes, from her parliamentary staffing allowance, contrary to the rule governing such allowances and fears of the misuse of them. Spelman claims that her nanny also acted as her constituency secretary and was paid from the public taxpayers' purse for this aspect of her further employment. Haynes confirms that occasionally she would answer phone calls and post documents but initially she denied such happenings when interviewed on BBC Two's  Newsnight via telephone. The accusations came at a time when Conservative Party leader David Cameron had tasked Spelman with reviewing the use of parliamentary allowances by Conservative MPs and MEPs in the wake of the Derek Conway affair.   The allegation against Spelman came shortly after two Conservative MEPs, Giles Chichester (Leader of the Conservatives in the EU Parliament) and Den Dover (Conservative Chief Whip in the EU Parliament), were forced to resign amid claims they misused their parliamentary allowances. However, Spelman was not urged to resign by party leader, David Cameron. She referred the matter pertaining to herself, her nanny and parliamentary funds toJohn Lyon the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
New revelations were exposed on the BBC's Newsnight programme that nine years previously Mrs Spelman's secretary, Sally Hammond, complained to the Conservative Party leadership that she was using Parliamentary allowances to pay her nanny and that the arrangement with the nanny was over a two year period and not one.

In March 2009, the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee ruled Mrs Spelman had misused her allowances to pay for nannying work in 1997 and 1998.

Retweet the Government

The government is proposing to bring forward legislation that will require ISPs to hold all electronic correspondence sent by all people (Tweets, E-Mails, Facebook posts, etc.) for two years.  The proposal seems to be that the detail would only be made available under a court order, but who the communications are between, will be available to the state security services, at all times.

Of course this is draconian and many might say that the terrorists can consider themselves as winners, when we have nothing, such as free speech and privacy, left to defend.

Maybe though, we should get this programme kicked-off now.

Maybe we should voluntarily include government departments and ministers on all of the tweets that we send - every single one of them to as many government would-be snoopers as we have the addresses of. 

Maybe we shouldn't leave out those local government bodies either.  This might save them having to spy on us with all those CCTV cameras.

The good thing about this re-defined Big Society, is that we all get to contribute!

Or maybe, we could just say NO!  While we still can?