Working Tax Credits - Resolve is needed

What a state we have come to.  The government, in furtherance of a manifesto promise is seeking to reduce, with the long term aim of eliminating, Working Tax Credits. 

These are effectively subsidies paid to workers, who are not paid sufficient by their employers.  They were invented by Gordon Brown.  Brown was very adept at creating long fused bombs for successor Chancellors of the Exchequer.  In this crazy world of Brownomics, people get taxed highly and then get some of the tax that they have just paid, refunded to them.

The Conservative’s approach has been to increase the starting point when taxes commence.  This was a Liberal Democrat idea (also pushed by yours truly) however, the Conservatives, with a strengthening economy have taken this further than the Lib Dems dreamt of. 

This surely is the right way to go.  Lift more and more people out of tax, altogether and therefore make work pay, for those trapped on welfare.  Linking this with a reasonable National Minimum Wage means that gradually, the lower paid get to keep more, or indeed all of the money that they earn, and the government gets their hand out of the pockets of the poor and ‘nanny statism’ starts to recede.  How could it ever have been right, other than in the fantasy world of  socialistic policy, to take money from people through the wage packet and then give it immediately back? 

One can expect die-hard Socialists to support the continuance of such lunacy – big government is what they are all about – but one would expect better of Conservative MPs.  I repeat, the Conservative manifesto included clear reference to the plan to reduce the deficit and to do so, in part, with cuts to welfare payments.  Did these rebellious Conservatives think that David Cameron and George Osborne had discovered the source of Labour’s evergreen money tree?  That welfare would be cut and no one would feel any pain?  We need to get people out of the trap that Brown and Labour set for them.  Unfortunately, that means pain.  From a purely electoral perspective, what better time than at the start of a five year parliament?   

As a country, we need to stop people ‘gaming’ the system.  Refusing to work extra hours because to do so, would jeopardise their benefits.  As a country we cannot afford it, neither in terms of an over-bloated welfare bill nor in terms of lost efficiency and opportunities in the workplace.

Much as I hesitate to create further issues with this matter, maybe some of the effect can be mitigated by incentivising employers to pay more in salary and wages to the low paid.  Something that gets them to paying above the National Minimum Wage much earlier.  Maybe further reductions in employers National Insurance?  Working Tax Credits have acted as a subsidy from the tax payer to low-paying employers.  I doubt that even Labour didn’t intend that but this is a certain consequence.    It is estimated that low paid employees would need around 60-70p per hour extra, to make-up for the shortfall.  That ought to be possible!  Especially when one considers the years of the tax payer subsidy that employers have had!

Not for the first time, Labour is in a mess over Working Tax Credits.  Instinctively they oppose any welfare cut.  They just can’t help themselves.  However, they also understand that Brown’s lunacy has created both a welfare trap for people and a spending trap for successive governments.  So they find themselves in the position of opposing the reductions and yet not committing to reinstating them if they ever got back into power.  Typical Labour hypocrisy – vociferously oppose a measure while quietly hoping it goes through, so as to save yourself the bother of make the tough decision, in the future.

The SNP position?  Well of course, being socialist in nature, they too oppose it.  They are not too noisy about it though.  Maybe they are scared that some might say, if you are that bothered, why not use Holyrood’s tax raising powers and whack 3p on Income Tax, in Scotland and use the money raised to subsidise those Scots affected by the cuts. 

There is also mischief being made by the Liberal Democrats and, of course, Labour, in the House of Lords.  They are talking about amendments and opposing the government’s actions by voting against them.  At the moment the Conservatives do not have a majority in the House of Lords.  This could be quickly changed and it should be made clear to these foolish peers that this is something the Conservatives would do.  This might give those peers, pause for thought.  After all, a Conservative majority in the House of Commons, already exists, imagine how much more radical the Conservatives could be if they also had an active majority in the House of Lords!  Maybe something for the ultra-political George Osborne to consider?

These Lib Dem peers know that their proposed actions fly in the face of parliamentary convention.   The Conservative government was elected, into a majority government, on a manifesto that clearly included the prospect of welfare cuts.  Indeed, many commentators attribute the success of the Conservatives, in the election, to their economic policies and the competence demonstrated in the last five years.  The Lib Dems have long held the belief that the House of Lords needs reform, I fear that this is how that will achieve it, though I sincerely doubt this will turn-out well for them.

The UK needs these cuts to go ahead.  Not just to be able to better balance the books but more importantly to wean people off of welfare benefits.  Conservatives must hold firm and do the right thing!

Cameron's wrong demands

We learn today of the issues which David Cameron is pursuing in the renegotiation of the UK's membership of the European Union.  They are, as quoted in the Sunday Telegraph:

1. Forcing Brussels to make “an explicit statement” that Britain will be kept out of any move towards a European superstate. This will require an exemption for the UK from the EU’s founding principle of “ever closer union”.
2. An “explicit statement” that the euro is not the official currency of the EU, making clear that Europe is a “multi-currency” union. Ministers want this declaration in order to protect the status of the pound sterling as a legitimate currency that will always exist.
3. A new “red card” system to bring power back from Brussels to Britain. This would give groups of national parliaments the power to stop unwanted directives being handed down and to scrap existing EU laws.
4. A new structure for the EU itself. The block of 28 nations must be reorganised to prevent the nine countries that are not in the eurozone being dominated by the 19 member states that are, with particular protections for the City of London.

That's it.  Nothing on the key issues that are impacting Britain's relationship today.  Nothing, for example on the subject of immigration and the free movement of peoples.  Nothing on the refugee crisis.

Let us though, examine these in more depth.

Why do we need any kind of 'explicit statement' from Brussels?  Is Britain a sovereign nation or not?  Does Britain really need the permission of the European Union to not join in the 'European Project' for ever closer union?  Who exactly could force us into a European superstate?   I seem to recall that the UK has stood against 'ever closer union' a few times, already in history - Waterloo, 1914-18 and 1939-45 spring immediately to mind.

The reality though is that any such statement will be meaningless.  The whole modus operandi of the EU is to achieve movement towards ever closer union by any means possible.  Don't believe me?  Consider, what were Britons told about the first referendum that was held, in 1975?  We were joining a Common Market.  This was a trading bloc.  No mention that we were signing-up to an EU Foreign Service or an EU army or EU anything but that is where we have come to.

So, 'an explicit statement that the Euro is not the official currency of the European Union'.  We are demanding, banging the table, crossing our arms and refusing to talk about other things unless the European Union issues a statement of the bleeding obvious.  Really?  We are going to stamp our feet in order to get the EU to confirm what anyone with access to the internet could establish in a couple of nanoseconds - as I just did!

ec.europa.eu › European Commission › Economic and Financial Affairs7 Aug 2015 - The introduction of the euro in 1999 was a major step in European integration. It has also been one of its major successes: more than 337.5 million EU citizens in 19 countries now use it as their currency and enjoy its benefits. The euro is not the currency of all EU Member States.

The euro - European Commission

Of course, I would seriously question - along no doubt with more than a few Greeks, Irish, Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese  - the Euro being a 'major success' but that's another discussion.

With demand #3 we are starting to get somewhere.  This is a demand that is an absolute must. The United Kingdom has to have the power to pass its own laws - and only the democratically elected government of the UK can pass these laws.  Not at the behest of or on orders from the European Union.  Only when the UK parliament has debated and voted and decided upon proposed laws, should they become the law of the UK.  Not because the unelected bureaucrats from Brussels say that a law must be passed but because the elected representatives of the people of the United Kingdom vote for it.  I half-apologise to those pro-EU readers who will be offended by that four-letter word - vote - but until the EU adopts democracy, I have to keep using it as in my view, Britain and not Greece,  'invented' democracy (Take a look at Daniel Hannan's excellent 'How we invented freedom and why it matters') 

The fourth demand - relating to a revised power structure simply follows on and is an absolute requirement, from #2.  Since we know very clearly, that the Euro is not the official currency of the EU, then obviously the power  structure and organisational apparatus has to reflect that.

I gather, that David Cameron will, if he gets his own way on these four demands, consider that he has 'batted well' for Britain and he will then campaign for a Yes vote, for Britain to remain in the EU.  Not me though. Since the demands are largely false, to begin with and, let's face it, should be extremely easy for the other EU members to accept (#3 probably less so) then the whole re-negotiation is seen for the farce that it is.  

I know that the Euro federalists consider that the free movement of labour is a condition sine qua non of membership.  They equally want an EU superstate and they are not going to get that.  So, this free movement issue needs to be discussed.  

In the recent refugee crisis, Angela Merkel had indicated Germany's willingness to take in 800,000 refugees.  A few days afterwards she started to row back on this but the message was received very loudly and very clearly by the invading hordes in Turkey, Lebanon and Libya.  What often gets lost in the consideration of this story is that these refugees almost 100% want resident status.  This then means that they can travel to and work in any other EU member country.  I am not suggesting that all 800,000 will come to the UK, but it absolutely cannot be right that any of them, should be able to come to Britain.  Clearly this would call for discussion on the creation of a different category of resident - native resident - born in the particular EU country prior to 2000 or to parents born in an EU country prior to 2000, say, and temporary resident which would include all of the refugees and economic migrants.  This latter group would not have the rights for free movement.  If Mrs Merkel wants to take in 800,000 refugees, fine, but don't expect the UK, Netherlands, Italy, Spain etc., to become economically or in any other way responsible for Germany's lunacy.

Another issue that needs to be negotiated is for the UK (or any other member state) to be able to conclude its own trade treaties with nations outside of the EU.  Also, its own military alliances.  In brief, to be able to act like the independent sovereign nation, which it is.  

I opened this piece by talking about Cameron's four demands.  For me the question is much simpler.  One simple requirement (well, simply stated, anyway).  The return to the UK of all of those powers that have been ceded to or taken by, the EU since we joined back in 1973.  To those who will say that it is unfair for Britain to have the advantages of EU membership without having to follow the rules, I say.  I agree!  Britain needs to comply with EU regulations but only, repeat only, when and where those regulations have been implemented by the UK parliament (and post referendum, all such directives and rules, laws and regulations, must be voted upon, again.)

For me, timing is also important.  Part of these negotiations must include a timeline.  If the decision is taken to leave the EU, then this must be implemented within 12 months of the date of the referendum.

Finally, given the EU's reluctance to accept the will of the people and past referenda, there can be no re-run at the behest of Brussels.  If the British people vote to leave, we leave.  

What think you? 

America's next President

This is principally aimed at the candidates that are vying for the highest office in America.  In fact, it is directed towards those seeking the Republican nomination.  Maybe think of it as as kind of 'what's needed' list.

First and foremost - integrity.  Under the previous Clinton Administration, America and the world became accustomed to disingenuous and evasive answers to straight-forward questions.  Under the Obama regime, the spineless American media mostly hasn't even bothered to ask questions.  They have accepted the froth pushed out by the mendacious White House.  Given the close familial ties between senior White House staffers and media personnel, that is perhaps, not too surprising.  So the next President needs to be honest (examples are below) and to actually talk to the American people and those in the rest of the world - not read scripted lies and half-truths from an autocue.

Secondly, have a plan to tackle the deficit.  Here is where some of that honesty is required.  The next President needs to tell America that it has to stop living beyond its means.  Americans must be told that it is not acceptable to impoverish their children, grand-children and great-grandchildren.  They need to know and understand that America must not only eliminate its deficit but must also reduce its debt.  That means a budget that matches revenue from taxes, with expenditure.  On the expenditure side, some of that money must go towards paying down the US National Debt.

This is where a GOP led Congress comes in.  The House and Senate must put the national interests ahead of those of their own district's/State's.  Many of these Republicans have been elected - some repeatedly so - on a ticket of being 'fiscally prudent and responsible'.  Well there isn't much prudence or responsibility in stuffing the US Budget with your own pork-barrel wants.

Of course, any President or even any nominee, telling Americans that they need to tighten their belts will face strong, even rabid opposition.  The choice though is simple and stark - rein back spending now or sit back and watch America's continued decline, on all fronts.  Sit back, do nothing and see more and more Americans on food stamps - more than 49 million, at the moment (and climbing) and they are not all immigrants!

Part of this also requires addressing the immigration issue.  How, when America is broke - and believe me, a country with the debt levels that America has, is broke - how can America afford to bring in more and more immigrants? Legal or illegal is doesn't matter, America just doesn't have the resources to fund these people.  The biggest part of this problem lies with illegal immigration.  It sounds crazy to have to say this but the in-coming President must understand that when he or she swears the oath of office, part of protecting the US Constitution means upholding the laws of the United States.  So the southern border must be closed and such closure must be enforced by appropriate forces - military, Homeland Security and local law enforcement, until such time as primary security devices - otherwise known as a very high wall and such - are in place.   Allied to this must be the expulsion of illegal immigrants already in the USA.  Absolutely no amnesty.  Let me say that again, No Amnesty  - it is so very wrong to reward law-breaking.

Consider, for a moment.  The Department of Homeland Security has a budget in excess of US$38 billion.  A significant part of their brief is to 'secure and manage' the border.  Does anyone think that they have done a good job on that, in recent years?  They have effectively facilitated the invasion of illegal immigrants.  Does anyone really think that Daesh and Al Qaeda have not managed to slip terrorist murderers across the border, when it has been so porous?  As with politicians and the media in Europe, Obama and the press would have you ignore the evidence of your eyes and instead believe that all of the invading force are women and children!

Immigration brings thoughts of foreign relations.  I don't want to be too radical but America's next President needs to remember that the USA's allies are friends.  Ignoring them, bypassing them is not the way to treat them.  How did it come to pass that America finds itself allied itself with Iran?  A country that immediately after ending its dancing on the streets of Tehran, following the so called 'Iran Agreement' , then has its leader, the war-monger Khameni, calling for 'Death to America'.  How can America abandon Israel, simply because its Prime Minister doesn't suck-up or kow-tow to the narcissistic Obama?  Isn't it enough that Obama abases the USA with his bowing down to the terrorist supporting Saudis and Qataris?

In addition to remembering which countries are America's friends the next President should also bring basic negotiating skills to the table.  Giving nuclear weapons to Iran will surely be Obama's true legacy but so will abandoning millions of Cubans to continued servitude under the oppressive Castro regime.   The next President needs to remember that Iran's development of inter-continental missiles does not represent a threat to Israel.  They are aimed at the USA!

The next President will have a full domestic agenda, clearing-up the mess that is ObamaCare and the socialistic Common Core programme but he or she should not ignore foreign affairs.  North Korea, like Iran has become emboldened under Obama - indeed it is hard to think which enemy of the USA hasn't - but the next President cannot afford to further alienate ~America's traditional allies.

The next President needs to have a sense of proportion.  John Kerry and Obama might consider Climate Change, or whatever it is being called this week, to be the greatest threat to national security but the true greatest threat is terrorism in all its guises - the state-sponsored variety from Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the enemy within.  This fifth column, which seeks to impose shariah law in America, is led by the Council on American Islam Relations (CAIR).  These people are falsely recognised as 'moderates'.  The regularly cover-up for what the media then calls ' the excesses ' of Islamic behaviour.  The truth is that these are not 'excesses'.  They are the realities of Islam.  These media fools, and their fellow-travellers in Washington, think that one can coexist with Islam.  They ignore the plight of Christians in the Middle East, who, as I write  are being eliminated, every hour of every day (if that comes as a surprise to you, blame the media's blindness!)    Homosexuals are thrown off of buildings - the media and Obama says nothing.  Women are stoned to death for adultery because they 'allowed'  themselves to be raped and America's President says nothing.

I mentioned earlier, that the next President needs to restore integrity to the office.  Hand in hand with that is honesty and demanding that of others.  Liberals or Progressives, call them what you will, have mis-appropriated the English language and have, for too long, been allowed to get away with blatant hypocrisy.  The oppose the death penalty for convicted criminals, they oppose racism and then they support the murder of unborn children, which is the largest killer of America's blacks.  They don't just support abortion, they want the state to fund it.  They do this because they believe in it but they don't accept that others are very opposed to it and certainly are against paying for it.  That's the Liberal version of freedom of speech.  You can have freedom of speech, so long as you agree with their views.  If you don't, you are a racist, homophobe or right-wing or a fascist, etc..

To wrap-up, in the same vein, can anyone say what it is that homosexuals want?  By all studies, they represent a small percentage of the population - 3-5% in Western countries.  Initially they wanted to end discrimination that they were subjected to.  This they have largely achieved and yet now they want more.  Don't know what it is that they want  but they want more!  They want to not be persecuted for the sexual choices, that's fair enough, I guess.  Why then do they want to provoke and persecute people that have very deeply held religious beliefs in opposition to homosexuality?  Why is it okay to support homosexuality but not okay to oppose it.  And, fundamentally, why do these very same Liberals that are so pro-homosexuality,  also also silent on the atrocities that are perpetrated against homosexuals, by Muslims, around the world, not just in the Daesh areas of Syria and Iraq..  Hopefully, the next President will 'call-out' these hypocrites and bring honesty to the White House.