The Chancellor Needs Tax Advice

taken from http://cloudedyellow.wordpress.com

It has come to light that the Chancellor, Alistair Darling has taken tax payers money to pay for personal accountancy advice. He is not the only one, you may recognise some of the other offenders; Jacqui Smith, Hazel Blears, David Miliband, James Purnell, Douglas Alexander, Geoff Hoon and Hilary Benn. It is strange how the same names appear to crop up again and again. The money is not the worrying fact from this, it is a terrifying thought that the man who is responsible (along with Brown) for living in an orgy of government debt which costs more than state education per annum on servicing the interest alone, cannot even submit a simple tax return! We really have no hope if this is the case. Could the accountants not advise him on how to run the economy at the same time?

The only solution is an election to clear all of this rot.

The Privy Council: Antiquated and anti-democratic

A privy council is a judicial and governmental body that dates back to feudal times and usually advises a monarch on how to exercise the royal prerogatives before carrying them out on their behalf. The Judicial Committee of HM’s Most Honourable Privy Council is one of the highest British courts and remains the highest court of appeal for all UK overseas territories, Crown dependencies and several independent Commonwealth countries, including Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Tuvalu, as well as the New Zealand states of Niue and Cook Islands. This may seem like a harmless relic that has survived the dissolution of the British Empire, yet its continued existence provides the government with an opportunity to bypass the mechanisms of democracy in a highly obscure manner.

There are currently 546 privy counsellors, all of whom are appointed for life and have usually been, or still are, ministers or senior members of Parliament, and can be recognised by their form of address (right honourable). The counsellors can make orders that circumvent Parliamentary scrutiny and still have the same force as democratically passed legislation. Evidently therefore, this is a vehicle for executive decisions that is open to abuse by any government that wishes to formally issue decisions in the name of the monarch. Commonly cited examples of its most high profile decisions include the eviction of Chagos islanders from their land during the late 1960s and the Blair government’s decision to allow its advisers to issue instructions directly to civil servants. Furthermore, privy counsellors are prioritised over democratically elected MPs to speak in the chambers of Parliament, and they are permitted to speak for longer if they wish.

Justice, the law reform body, has stated that very few members of the public understand the Council’s processes due to its lack of transparency and accessibility. The Council has the potential to take on the form of a constitutional court but this is unlikely due to its dysfunctional nature, which is charaterised by monarchic, judicial, governmental and ceremonial powers. A written constitution would clarify its role and greatly enhance transparency by eliminating the possibility of it being abused by governments wishing to undermine the Parliamentary processes of democracy.

Ten Questions for Silvio Berlusconi

1. Mr Prime Minister, how and when did you first meet Noemi Letizia's father?

2. During the course of this friendship how many times, and where, have you met?

3. How would you describe the reasons for your friendship with Benedetto Letizia?

4. Why did you discuss candidates with Mr. Letizia, who is not even a member of your party, the PDL?

5. When did you get to know Noemi Letizia?

6. How many times have you met Noemi Letizia, and where?

7. Do you take an interest in Noemi and her future, or support her family economically in any way?

8. Is it true that you promised Noemi you would help her career in show business or in politics?

9. Veronica Lario said that you “frequent under-age girls”. Do you meet with any others?

10. Your wife says that you are not well and that you “need help”. What is the state of your health?

African Aid - Economic reform is the real solution

The G8, the UK’s Commission on Africa and the UN’s Millennium Development Goals have collectively pledged to double the amount of aid sent to the poorest countries. The OECD has calculated international spending on aid before 2010 at $100 billion per year. Whilst many of these initiatives are attempting to tackle poverty and improve living conditions in developing countries, the knowledge and experience of aid-giving accumulated over the course of the last 50 years is not being used to improve the quality of aid, the methods employed to use it or to prevent the mismanagement of public resources.

Most research conducted on the links between economic growth and development aid actually reveals a negative correlation between the two, thereby suggesting that aid does not have a stimulatory effect on growth. Africa has received over $1 trillion since 1950, with the average value of aid as a share of government spending being over 50% between 1975 and 1995. Per capita growth also decreased during this period, with many countries currently being poorer than when they achieved independence. Nevertheless, aid continues to be wrongly considered vital for attracting investments that are needed to sustain growth because the poorest countries lack the financial means to invest in their own development. Yet if this were the case, investment levels would have continually risen and, according to the World Bank, per capita GDP in most African states would be comparable with that of Portugal or Spain.

Development aid policies must therefore begin to consider which schemes work effectively and efficiently and which others should be abandoned. Much African aid during the past has been channelled into public consumption and current spending, rather than focusing on attracting foreign investment. Furthermore, this type of spending has had a negative impact on domestic savings and has therefore further debilitated poor countries. Many governments have also chosen to use aid for investment purposes in healthcare or education whilst reducing their own investment spending in the same areas. They then redirected the funds they saved by doing this onto public consumption and thereby eliminated any increase in net investment.

Aid donors must actively exert pressure on African governments to encourage them to reform their economic policies and abandon regulations that are hindering growth. Asian countries have become successful not through aid, but through their open economic policies that encouraged trade and foreign investment.

Michael Martin - He wants the police involved, but not to investigate the real criminals

Michael Martin, the man who is so proud of his 'working class background', is already on record in February 2008 for having spent his Air Miles accrued on government business in flying his children and family in business class to London. Guidelines issued by the Members Estimate Committee, which Martin chairs, states that "such air miles should be used by him to offset his own official travel costs."

£4000 was also spent in 2008 by his wife Mary Martin on taxis to 'buy food for receptions'.

Also in March 2008 it was reported by the Daily Telegraph that Martin spent £1.7 million of taxpayers money on refurbishing his house.

The same man allowed the parliamentary office of Damian Green to be raided by the police in November 2008. He was arrested and later freed and no charges were pressed. Martin was angry because it was believed information that was in the public interest had been leaked by the Tory. Damian Green claimed that arresting officers had searched his computer documents and emails for the key words "Shami Chakrabarti", indicating that his arrest was no doubt politically motivated. This is a tactic reminiscent of the East German Stasi, and Martin gave permission.

This man clearly has no morals, he is the epitome of a 'champagne socialist', and then he has the guile to say, "I have been a trade unionist all my life. I did not come into politics not to take what is owed to me." He is completely out of touch with reality and the public, and I for one believe that he himself believes that he is doing right. This video of his performance today is proof, look at the way he belittles Kate Hoey....The police should be invited to investigate, but not on the source of the leak to the Daily Telegraph, but to investigate this carpet bagging crook.

The Expenses Scandal: Some of the worst offenders

Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Michelle Gildernew, Pat Doherty and Conor Murphy - each claimed £21,000 in the last financial year and a total of £437,405 in second home expenses. They also paid £3,600 a month in rent for a flat which a local estate agent estimated should cost just £1,400, even though they never attended any sessions in Parliament.

Margaret Moran - spent £22,500 of taxpayers' money on treating the dry rot at her husband's seaside home.

Barbara Follett – claimed £25,000 for security patrols outside her home in Soho, London.

Francis Maude - claimed almost £35,000 over two years for a mortgage on a London flat located just a few minutes’ walk from a house he already owned and rented out.

Hazel Blears – avoided paying any capital gains tax on £45,000 profit made from the sale of property that was not classified as a “main residence”, thereby avoiding a bill of £18,000.

Gordon Brown - paid his brother Andrew, an executive at EDF Energy, £6,577 for cleaning at his flat over 26 months on the understanding that they shared a cleaner. The total claimed in four years by Brown was £73,056.

Alan Duncan – received £4,000 for gardening costs, including overhauling a ride-on lawnmower. He also spent £1400 a month on the mortgage interest on his home in Rutland.

Peter Mandelson – billed taxpayers almost £3,000 for renovations at his constituency home in Hartlepool, less than a week after announcing he would stand down as an MP. It was later sold, making a profit of £136,000.

Oliver Letwin - claimed more than £80,000 of expenses for a cottage in Somerset close to his Dorset constituency, since 2004. He also charged the taxpayer over £2000 to repair a pipe under his tennis court.

Michael Martin – spent £1.7million of taxpayers’ money on refurbishing his house. A further £4000 was spent by his wife on taxis to “buy food for receptions.”

Daniel Hannan on the American Constitution

It is amazing that Britain and the British people see themselves as a beacon of democracy, when there is no constitution, Lords are unelected, seats and lobbying can be purchased, there is no guarantee of free speech (the Home Secretary has now decided to ban more outspoken people) and our civil liberties are being further eroded on a daily basis.

A Response from an MEP about the Freedom of Speech Letter

In response to the letter (http://francisjcrystals.blogspot.com/2009/04/freedom-of-expression-in-uk-letter-to.html) sent to various MP's, MEP's and Lords, I am delighted to have a response from a local Labour MEP. This was the second letter as I asked for their views after an extremely non-committal first response.......

"I would like to make clear that I agree with the Home Secretary’s action. Ultimately, though, as I indicated in my earlier reply, this is a national matter.

If any of the injured parties feel that any EU law has been breached, they should refer the case to the European Court of Justice for a ruling. However, I must point out that European law permits member states to take action to prevent activities which may be detrimental to the interests of that country.

I hope this clarifies my position on these matters."

This is not as expressive as the letter from a particular Lord! (http://francisjcrystals.blogspot.com/2009/04/freedom-of-expression-in-uk-reply-from.html)
It seems that most politicians are scared to not tow the party line. This is surely the biggest problem with the modern parties, you cannot reach a position of power by going against the common policy. Critical thought and speech should be encouraged more.

How Banks Work

This interview featured in an edition of Punch Magazine over 50 years ago:

Q: What are banks for?
A: To make money.

Q: For the customers?
A: For the banks.

Q: Why doesn’t bank advertising mention this?
A: It would not be in good taste. But it is mentioned by implication in references to reserves of £249,000,000,000 or thereabouts. That is the money they have made.

Q: Out of the customers?
A: I suppose so.

Q: They also mention Assets of £500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. Have they made that too?
A: Not exactly. That is the money they use to make money.

Q: I see. And they keep it in a safe somewhere?
A: Not at all. They lend it to customers.

Q: Then they haven’t got it?
A: No.

Q: Then how is it Assets?
A: They maintain that it would be if they got it back.

Q: But they must have some money in a safe somewhere?
A: Yes, usually £500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. This is called Liabilities.

Q: But if they’ve got it, how can they be liable for it?
A: Because it isn’t theirs.

Q: Then why do they have it?
A: It has been lent to them by customers.

Q: You mean customers lend banks money?
A: In effect. They put money into their accounts, so it is really lent to the banks.

Q: And what do the banks do with it?
A: Lend it to other customers.

Q: But you said that money they lent to other people was Assets?
A: Yes.

Q: Then Assets and Liabilities must be the same thing?
A: You can’t really say that.

Q: But you’ve just said it! If I put £100 into my account the bank is liable to have to pay it back, so it’s Liabilities. But they go and lend it to someone else and he is liable to have to pay it back, so it’s Assets. It’s the same £100 isn’t it?
A: Yes, but….

Q: Then it cancels out. It means, doesn’t it, that banks haven’t really any money at all?
A: Theoretically……

Q: Never mind theoretically! And if they haven’t any money, where do they get their Reserves of £249,000,000,000 or thereabouts??
A: I told you. That is the money they have made.

Q: How?
A: Well, when they lend your £100 to someone they charge him interest.

Q: How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say five and a-half percent. That’s their profit.

Q: Why isn’t it my profit? Isn’t it my money?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that………

Q: When I lend them my £100 why don’t I charge them interest?
A: You do.

Q: You don’t say. How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say a half percent.

Q: Grasping of me, rather?
A: But that’s only if you’re not going to draw the money out again.

Q: But of course I’m going to draw the money out again! If I hadn’t wanted to draw it out again I could have buried it in the garden!
A: They wouldn’t like you to draw it out again.

Q: Why not? If I keep it there you say it’s a Liability. Wouldn’t they be glad if I reduced their Liabilities by removing it?
A: No. Because if you remove it they can’t lend it to anyone else.

Q: But if I wanted to remove it they’d have to let me?
A: Certainly.

Q: But suppose they’ve already lent it to another customer?
A: Then they’ll let you have some other customers money.

Q: But suppose he wants his too….and they’ve already let me have it?
A: You’re being purposely obtuse.

Q: I think I’m being acute. What if everyone wanted their money all at once?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that they never would.

Q: So what banks bank on, is not having to meet their commitments?
A. YOU GOT IT!

Russia and the EU - A partnership for the future

In order for Russia to recuperate its geopolitical influence and its standing amongst the American and Chinese powers it will have to forge new relationships with the most willing European countries, namely France, Italy, Spain and especially Germany. Russian ties with Germany have strengthened considerably over the past year, particularly in the area of business. Siemens recently ended a cooperation agreement with the French nuclear power group Areva to create a rival venture with Russian group Rosatom, thereby bringing to an untimely end a successful Franco-German company that had become the world leader in the design and construction of nuclear power plants. Meanwhile, it is widely believed that President Medvedev aims to gain from this relationship by eventually proposing a pan-European security treaty that will destabilise NATO or render it ineffectual and by attempting to reformulate the Euro-Atlantic partnership along the Moscow-Berlin/Paris-Washington axis.

America’s current perception of Europe is that it is neither a problem nor a resource and that it is sufficiently stable and powerless so as not to merit any particularly special attention. Russia, on the other hand, is considered by the Obama administration as worthy of re-establishing a working partnership that acknowledges “the importance of Russian cooperation in achieving essential American goals: from preventing Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, dismantling al Qaeda and stabilizing Afghanistan, to guaranteeing security and prosperity in Europe”, as included in the ‘Report from the Commission on U.S. Policy Toward Russia’ (see full report here). It also states, on page 7, that “Without deep Russian cooperation, no strategy is likely to succeed in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear terrorism, and nuclear war.” Furthermore, it recognises on page 9 that “Washington should not expect that it can attempt to create its own sphere of influence on Russia’s borders while simultaneously seeking a constructive relationship with Russia.”

Russia’s influence is already being felt strongly across Europe in the energy sector. The continent’s energy security was severely threatened in January 2009 as a result of the Russian-Ukrainian gas crisis and the untrustworthy and secretive system of gas trade. This event damaged its reputation as a reliable supplier of energy to Europe that could have helped it forge a new relationship with the European Union. Despite this, energy interdependence with Russia is an inescapable fact for much of the continent. However, Russia should be aware that it still has a lot to lose in alienating the EU member states. The EU and Russia will inevitably need to cooperate in the future to compete with the emerging economies of China and India, and Russia also needs access to the European markets, investment and technologies to allow it to modernise. Russia’s foreign policy must therefore abandon its hostile, conservative stance towards Europe, and the EU must also regularly welcome and encourage all forms of cooperation from Russia, whilst restoring cohesion of its policies among the member states.

Clandestine Immigration to Europe: Resolute action at last

For the first time, clandestine immigrants trying to reach the Italian island of Lampedusa have been stopped and returned to Tripoli by the Italian police forces. A total of 227 migrants were denied access to the island following negotiations between the Libyan and Italian authorities. This action is believed by Italian Interior Minister, Roberto Maroni, to mark a turning-point and a historic result in the fight against illegal immigration. Such a solution, which foresees the repatriation of illegal immigrants to their point of departure, regardless of whose waters they are found in, will also resolve the diplomatic row between Italy and Malta that started over this matter.

However, Médecins Sans Frontières has stated that forced repatriations constitute an illegal act that has never been sanctioned by Italian or international legislation. A spokesman from MSF Italia has said that in May 2005 the European Court of Human Rights condemned repatriations carried out by the Italian government as they were deemed detrimental to immigrants’ rights to seek asylum, “Sending people away from Italy without identifying them or granting them access, for those having the right, is illegal behaviour that contravenes asylum procedures as well as national and international legislation.”

According to the Interior Ministry, 37,000 clandestine migrants arrived on Italian shores in 2008; a 75% increase from 2007. Whilst forced repatriations may break asylum laws, they represent the only effective and proportional method to protect Europe from illegal immigration and uphold Italian and Maltese national security.

E-Petition for First Amendment Style Freedom of Speech

After recently discussing the virtues of the US First Amendment and the need to enact similar legislation in the UK, I wish to publicise the following petition:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/free-speech-act/

Spanish photographer, Emilio Morenatti, is currently exhibiting photos at the first International Festival for the Freedom of Expression in Cadiz that show the horrifying realities lived by women in Pakistan, all of whom were sprayed in the face with acid; one by her husband, another by a group of men in order to settle a dispute, another by her cousin four days after she married someone else and another whose attackers were aided by her teacher:

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/04/30/lafotodelasemana/1241071105.html

Such photographs must serve to remind Europe that its freedom of expression must not be eroded by political correctness or the lobbying of religious minorities. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Somali-born Dutch politician, observes that the history of women's liberation in Europe, which has included the legalisation of abortion and the penalisation of rape in marriage, is at risk of being reversed by an increasing number of European elites that believe it is better to respect the cultures and religions of minorities rather than uphold the values of our legal system for all inhabitants. This belief has led to women's shelters employing mediators from the Islamic community that effectively return women to obeying their husbands and to all the other circumstances of abuse from which they were trying to escape, rather than teaching them to become self-reliant.

Democracy and theocracy cannot coexist, and for this reason there must never be a dual legal system whereby religious minorities can claim exemption from the mainstream laws governing the majority that defend and uphold civil liberties.

A Tribute to Thatcher

In honour of the 30th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister, under similar circumstances to those we experience now under the Labour monster, the following is as pertinent as ever:

Featured Today on Iain Dale's Diary

We are very pleased to have featured on Iain Dale's Diary today!

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/05/ten-new-blogs-part-46.html#links

Waste of Time, Waste of Money – ID cards

At the minimum cost of £5.8 billion by current government estimates, which on their track record will no doubt over run massively, one would think that they must have a good reason for this scheme. It is claimed that identity cards will stop terrorists, catch criminals and prevent fraud. This is a problem where the costs involved are not the most salient issue. Once again, a serious infringement on civil liberties is worth preventing. We should not fight against this on the basis of the money that can be saved, as true freedom cannot be valued in financial terms.

We are entering a ghastly period where ever more power is being shifted towards the control of the state. Every day we are drawing more and more parallels with George Orwell's 1984. Many European states have national ID cards; however none has the National Identity Register (NIR) that is desired by the British Government. The NIR will eventually have us all finger printed and eye scanned and it also envisages recording our DNA on file. Can this sensitive data really be entrusted to a government that has a track record of leaving confidential files, carrying thousands of people’s personal information, on trains and in taxis?

Such a scheme will inevitably treat us all like criminals that are guilty until proven innocent, thereby fundamentally altering the premise upon which our justice system has always operated. How long would it be until this data was sold or until it falls into private hands? Imagine what could be done if pharmaceutical companies obtained an entire nation’s DNA records and used the information to profile and scaremonger citizens into buying pre-emptive treatments. How is an ID card supposed to prevent terrorism? Terrorists do not operate in the confines of the legal system and there will be plenty of ways to circumvent the bureaucratic rules.

Having one document containing all of our details will make it easier for criminals to steal our identities! The ID card will increase police powers, as there will be more reason for us to be stopped and searched when they become compulsory to carry. Furthermore, an ever increasing number of public and private services will require our identity to be checked before use and as such, the government will be able to monitor our activities even more. It is not widely published, but the automatic plate recognition cameras installed throughout the motorway network and in most UK town centres are already watching us use our cars. There are 50 million number plate scans made every day and each is stored on the Police National Computer for five years.

Evidently, the government wishes to know everything about us. The NIR will hold fifty categories of information and, to add insult to injury, it will be private companies that set up these systems, with the first ID contract being awarded to Thales SA, a French defence contractor. For innocent citizens, is this really a matter of having nothing to hide or do we in fact have even more to fear?