Does anyone recall Labour’s e-petition site at the prime minister’s office?
Not that it was ever really much use, but it did at least allow people to blow off some steam and give the government some idea of what their more unpopular ideas and policies were. Maybe it did get them to back-pedal once or twice – who knows?
Well that was then and this is now. It was suspended before the general election, presumably because Gordon didn’t want any more heckling from the punters.
Dave and Nick the “Transparent Government” twins have apparently decided that, rather than be simply and quickly re opened, the e-petition site is to be moved to Direct Gov this year - some unspecified date this year, to be, er, imprecise. This came out in parliament in December.
It’s February now and it is still not working. Odd that, considering they already have a functional system that works fine bought and paid for out of our hard earned taxes. One wonders why they couldn’t just move the pages to Direct.gov?
Still if they had done they would probably be getting nasty e-petitions objecting to selling off the forests, or student fees, or scrapping the Ark Royal, or… maybe something upsetting like this.
What’s the betting they don’t hurry themselves too much to get it up and running?
Still nature abhors a vacuum as they say.
Showing posts with label Tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tax. Show all posts
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
Good money after bad
What is the point of politicians? I am sure they have their own reasons for being (Power? Money?) - but what is the point, the benefit, from the average citizens perspective?
Take David Cameron as an example. The EU wanted to increase it’s budget. As a negotiating position it suggested 5.9%. He was not going to stand for that – he said.
Now if you were thinking of buying something and there was a haggle possibility just you know the salesperson will ask double and let the unwary tourist knock them down and think they got a bargain. Did Dave never buy any jewellery for his wife in Greece?
This was of course readily agreed by the European Commission and rubber stamped by the European Parliament to keep the gravy high speed train rolling and would have cost the UK an extra £900m per year until it was put up again the following year.
The UK contributes a ridiculously large share of the operating costs of the EU. Who knows they might have been stupid enough to just go along with it.
So David Cameron makes militant noises and sets off apparently like St George himself to do battle with this hungry Wurm that nests on a pile of taxpayer’s gold.
Sadly the EU is an organisation it would be difficult to argue is fit for purpose, one who’s finances have, as far as I can tell, never been signed off as honest and above board by any accountants.
Put bluntly no accountant who wanted to stay in business, or to be able to portray themselves as honest, or marginally competent, is willing to chance their reputations and the prospect of doing time by signing off on them.
Now a question immediately occurs - well it would if you were not carefully steered away from it.
Why is it - when every European government is having to reduce their expenditure and operating costs - the EU feels the need to increase theirs, without apparently noticing everyone else is having to retrench.
So what was the result of all this tough negotiation, this rhetoric and spin? Was the budget actually cut, or even frozen - as it should have been if the EU reflected the states that make it up.
What did you expect? The budget was increased anyway of course, but by a mere 2.9% In real money 3% instead of 6%.
Dave Cameron is presumably not actually stupid so he must have some idea of the haggle, that suggests he knew quite well that 6% was a starting point. Maybe he thinks we are stupid.
The UKs massive contribution to the EU is a luxury it can’t afford, let alone increase. Even the EU recognised the UK had been rooked when it gave Thatcher a reduction in contributions, disguised as a face saving rebate. A rebate that Labour later pointlessly gave away big chunks of. Still it was only taxpayers money – plenty more where that came from.
How those European politicians must laugh when UK politicians turn up offering yet another opportunity to be fleeced yet again.
So Cameron comes back having committed the UK to pour a staggering extra £400,000,000 down the EU pissoire - and tries to spin that as tough negotiating! As some sort of great victory! Can’t afford too many more "victories" like that.
Getting back to that original question - What exactly is the point of David Cameron?
Take David Cameron as an example. The EU wanted to increase it’s budget. As a negotiating position it suggested 5.9%. He was not going to stand for that – he said.
Now if you were thinking of buying something and there was a haggle possibility just you know the salesperson will ask double and let the unwary tourist knock them down and think they got a bargain. Did Dave never buy any jewellery for his wife in Greece?
This was of course readily agreed by the European Commission and rubber stamped by the European Parliament to keep the gravy high speed train rolling and would have cost the UK an extra £900m per year until it was put up again the following year.
The UK contributes a ridiculously large share of the operating costs of the EU. Who knows they might have been stupid enough to just go along with it.
So David Cameron makes militant noises and sets off apparently like St George himself to do battle with this hungry Wurm that nests on a pile of taxpayer’s gold.
Sadly the EU is an organisation it would be difficult to argue is fit for purpose, one who’s finances have, as far as I can tell, never been signed off as honest and above board by any accountants.
Put bluntly no accountant who wanted to stay in business, or to be able to portray themselves as honest, or marginally competent, is willing to chance their reputations and the prospect of doing time by signing off on them.
Now a question immediately occurs - well it would if you were not carefully steered away from it.
Why is it - when every European government is having to reduce their expenditure and operating costs - the EU feels the need to increase theirs, without apparently noticing everyone else is having to retrench.
So what was the result of all this tough negotiation, this rhetoric and spin? Was the budget actually cut, or even frozen - as it should have been if the EU reflected the states that make it up.
What did you expect? The budget was increased anyway of course, but by a mere 2.9% In real money 3% instead of 6%.
Dave Cameron is presumably not actually stupid so he must have some idea of the haggle, that suggests he knew quite well that 6% was a starting point. Maybe he thinks we are stupid.
The UKs massive contribution to the EU is a luxury it can’t afford, let alone increase. Even the EU recognised the UK had been rooked when it gave Thatcher a reduction in contributions, disguised as a face saving rebate. A rebate that Labour later pointlessly gave away big chunks of. Still it was only taxpayers money – plenty more where that came from.
How those European politicians must laugh when UK politicians turn up offering yet another opportunity to be fleeced yet again.
So Cameron comes back having committed the UK to pour a staggering extra £400,000,000 down the EU pissoire - and tries to spin that as tough negotiating! As some sort of great victory! Can’t afford too many more "victories" like that.
Getting back to that original question - What exactly is the point of David Cameron?
Monday, 20 October 2008
Brown banks on the taxpayer to bail him out
It’s a funny old world as they say...
Sub prime lending by banks to people who were likely to default on their loans got the world into a terrible two & eight, now more sub prime borrowing, this time by the banks from the UK government is going to get us out of it, according to the newly endowed superhero of our times...
...who is about to be outed by theevil Lex Luthor Lord Mandleson as none other than mild mannered Gordon Broon.
It may do, but one suspects as much for psycological reasons as economic.
Who is really lending the dosh? The British Taxpayer is who. Why does the Government not have the readies to hand? Well one reason might be that Gordon sold off half the countries gold reserves precisely when the price of gold had bottomed out. Now of course it is riding sky high. Just like government borrowing that has now hit an all time high.
If he had actually been canny or even prudent, as he likes to spin himself and hung onto it to a more opportune moment (almost any other time since, but now would have been good) maybe he could have got a good price for it and not hocked us all up to our eyebrows.
What strikes me as crazy is that there are people out there who believe the spin and feel safer with him in charge than anyone else.
Sub prime lending by banks to people who were likely to default on their loans got the world into a terrible two & eight, now more sub prime borrowing, this time by the banks from the UK government is going to get us out of it, according to the newly endowed superhero of our times...
...who is about to be outed by the
It may do, but one suspects as much for psycological reasons as economic.
Who is really lending the dosh? The British Taxpayer is who. Why does the Government not have the readies to hand? Well one reason might be that Gordon sold off half the countries gold reserves precisely when the price of gold had bottomed out. Now of course it is riding sky high. Just like government borrowing that has now hit an all time high.
If he had actually been canny or even prudent, as he likes to spin himself and hung onto it to a more opportune moment (almost any other time since, but now would have been good) maybe he could have got a good price for it and not hocked us all up to our eyebrows.
What strikes me as crazy is that there are people out there who believe the spin and feel safer with him in charge than anyone else.
Wednesday, 3 September 2008
UK’Stamp Duty’ suspended for 12 months
Has anyone noticed?
New Labour’s much trumpeted partial holiday on ‘Stamp duty’ (for non UK residents this is a sales tax imposed by the state on house sales) is, if it is of benefit to anyone, mostly likely to be of benefit in the north, which at least historically was demographically more New Labour friendly.
New Labour are talking about a holiday for stamp duty under £175K This should cover quite a few properties for sale in the North and proportionately far less in the South, due to regional differences in house prices. Any figures the Government states one suspects will be 'spun' averages.
Could it be that they calculate they have terminally burned their bridges already with the South, so they want to minimise the coming electoral debacle for at least some of their sitting MPs
House sales depend on chains, with new time buyers going in at the bottom of the market and the others in the chain trading up, How far up the chain will theis make a difference?
Of course if you can't get a mortgage in the first place – and that is the major actual problem with the housing market, mortgages having effectively dried up because of the credit crunch. Then what difference will reducing the sales tax of around £1.7K imposed on a few of the sales make?
And let’s not forget that any improvement in the housing market that may actually be had from this piece of spin will have to be paid for in reverse, at the end of the ‘holiday’ in a year’s time, when ther will be a corresponding rush then a step back down in sales.
New Labour’s much trumpeted partial holiday on ‘Stamp duty’ (for non UK residents this is a sales tax imposed by the state on house sales) is, if it is of benefit to anyone, mostly likely to be of benefit in the north, which at least historically was demographically more New Labour friendly.
New Labour are talking about a holiday for stamp duty under £175K This should cover quite a few properties for sale in the North and proportionately far less in the South, due to regional differences in house prices. Any figures the Government states one suspects will be 'spun' averages.
Could it be that they calculate they have terminally burned their bridges already with the South, so they want to minimise the coming electoral debacle for at least some of their sitting MPs
House sales depend on chains, with new time buyers going in at the bottom of the market and the others in the chain trading up, How far up the chain will theis make a difference?
Of course if you can't get a mortgage in the first place – and that is the major actual problem with the housing market, mortgages having effectively dried up because of the credit crunch. Then what difference will reducing the sales tax of around £1.7K imposed on a few of the sales make?
And let’s not forget that any improvement in the housing market that may actually be had from this piece of spin will have to be paid for in reverse, at the end of the ‘holiday’ in a year’s time, when ther will be a corresponding rush then a step back down in sales.
Saturday, 24 May 2008
The Eurovision song 'contest' rolls round once again
Tonight is the night of one of the greatest wastes of British TV taxpayer’s money in the entire year. The Eurovision Song Contest.
It is saved, mostly by the fact that watching the often frankly amazing performances appeals to the sneaking desire to watch a curiosity, combined by Terry Wogan’s gentle micky taking on behalf of us all.
Humourless European officials decry his efforts, whilst failing to grasp he is probably the only thing that keeps the opinion of the UK public in a mood of benign amusement - as opposed to outright contempt.
The 'contest' is intrinsically silly and unfair, it always has been. He does not need to make it look that way, he just uses the fact that it is to entertain us...
We all know we have very little chance of even doing well in it. We know we are not particularly popular with Europe as a whole, given our relationship with the US. But mostly it is the voting system and the blocks that doom all the old large western European nations.
Namely the Baltic and Balkan voting blocks.
Firstly each group tends, by accident, or design, to vote the high points largely exclusively for other members of ‘their’ block.
This, combined with the fact that a microscopic country that consists of several small towns, has the same voting power as a huge country with a population of multiple millions. Tends to give them a lock on the contest, no matter how good or more likely bad the particular entries happen to be.
It’s as if you were to give each county in the UK an individual vote and they all voted for the UK, and Irish entries.
How different would the results be it it were down to a simple total of all the votes cast for each entry, with no country being able to vote for it's own entry?
One suspects it won’t be much different for Andy Abraham tonight. One fears how good the song, or the performance, is will only have a peripheral impact on how well it actually does. The fact that I don’t come right out and predict it is more a triumph of optimism over experience than anything else. We shall see on the morrow…
It is saved, mostly by the fact that watching the often frankly amazing performances appeals to the sneaking desire to watch a curiosity, combined by Terry Wogan’s gentle micky taking on behalf of us all.
Humourless European officials decry his efforts, whilst failing to grasp he is probably the only thing that keeps the opinion of the UK public in a mood of benign amusement - as opposed to outright contempt.
The 'contest' is intrinsically silly and unfair, it always has been. He does not need to make it look that way, he just uses the fact that it is to entertain us...
We all know we have very little chance of even doing well in it. We know we are not particularly popular with Europe as a whole, given our relationship with the US. But mostly it is the voting system and the blocks that doom all the old large western European nations.
Namely the Baltic and Balkan voting blocks.
Firstly each group tends, by accident, or design, to vote the high points largely exclusively for other members of ‘their’ block.
This, combined with the fact that a microscopic country that consists of several small towns, has the same voting power as a huge country with a population of multiple millions. Tends to give them a lock on the contest, no matter how good or more likely bad the particular entries happen to be.
It’s as if you were to give each county in the UK an individual vote and they all voted for the UK, and Irish entries.
How different would the results be it it were down to a simple total of all the votes cast for each entry, with no country being able to vote for it's own entry?
One suspects it won’t be much different for Andy Abraham tonight. One fears how good the song, or the performance, is will only have a peripheral impact on how well it actually does. The fact that I don’t come right out and predict it is more a triumph of optimism over experience than anything else. We shall see on the morrow…
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Gordon’s stealth tax raid on the pensions of the poor
More of the ramifications of Gordon Brown’s infamous final budget slowly sink in. This time it’s the pensions of the less well off that take a pounding.
One wonders why these things only seem to really dawn on people once they are actually happening to them, it would appear that people just don’t have the sense to get out from under a falling piano when they see one. Or simply don’t recognise what they are seeing until it is actually affecting them.
The government is always banging on about the ‘pensions hole’ after Gordon brown personally helped create it with his infamous £5billion-a-year state stealth raid on pensions in 1997 where he abolished tax relief on dividends paid into pension funds.
This lead to the collapse of hundreds of final salary pension schemes and resulted in huge numbers of workers being worst off. It means unless everyone now has to make a bigger contribution or there would be rather less in the pension pot than had been expected - and the state was worried about having to support this, after having caused it.
A bit like spending the rent money on gin and then worrying about the landlord’s knock on the door.
All of this would not be so much of a problem if the state ran an honest pension scheme, with real money in it, that the contributions were actually invested in - but no they have a system where those who pay taxes have to cover the cost of pension contributions out of their taxes, less workforce, less tax.
When Gordon brown combined the bands that applied to the lowest paid, the lowest tax bands from 10% and 22% both to 20% it affected the amount of tax relief on low paid pensions in some cases dropping it This means that any of the poor who actually gained anything out of the change to 20% who was investing say £200 a month now has to cough up almost £50 a year more (£48) just to avoid loosing ground on their pension pot.
So if Gordon Brown, or any of his NL cronies wants to shake your hand on the run up to the Local elections, keep your other hand on your wallet and check you still have your watch afterwards and if they tell you they care about the poor and lower paid remember pension contributions and the abolition of the 10% rate that has not gone away, despite the spin.
One wonders why these things only seem to really dawn on people once they are actually happening to them, it would appear that people just don’t have the sense to get out from under a falling piano when they see one. Or simply don’t recognise what they are seeing until it is actually affecting them.
The government is always banging on about the ‘pensions hole’ after Gordon brown personally helped create it with his infamous £5billion-a-year state stealth raid on pensions in 1997 where he abolished tax relief on dividends paid into pension funds.
This lead to the collapse of hundreds of final salary pension schemes and resulted in huge numbers of workers being worst off. It means unless everyone now has to make a bigger contribution or there would be rather less in the pension pot than had been expected - and the state was worried about having to support this, after having caused it.
A bit like spending the rent money on gin and then worrying about the landlord’s knock on the door.
All of this would not be so much of a problem if the state ran an honest pension scheme, with real money in it, that the contributions were actually invested in - but no they have a system where those who pay taxes have to cover the cost of pension contributions out of their taxes, less workforce, less tax.
When Gordon brown combined the bands that applied to the lowest paid, the lowest tax bands from 10% and 22% both to 20% it affected the amount of tax relief on low paid pensions in some cases dropping it This means that any of the poor who actually gained anything out of the change to 20% who was investing say £200 a month now has to cough up almost £50 a year more (£48) just to avoid loosing ground on their pension pot.
So if Gordon Brown, or any of his NL cronies wants to shake your hand on the run up to the Local elections, keep your other hand on your wallet and check you still have your watch afterwards and if they tell you they care about the poor and lower paid remember pension contributions and the abolition of the 10% rate that has not gone away, despite the spin.
Tuesday, 22 April 2008
Why Gordon axed the 10p tax rate
The current fuss and hot air generated by Gordon Brown’s axing of the 10p tax rate is truly amazing.
The New-Labour rebellion over it for one. These are the same planks that were making like performing seals with much clapping and ‘hear hear’s when their master and then leader in waiting, Gordon Brown, actually did the dirty deed in his last budget as chancellor.
What is also amazing is that most of the pundits and commentators only get half the picture. Gordon Brown may lack bottle to do stuff in the light of day, but he has considerable animal cunning and likes complex double and triple bluffs concealing much of what he does in the hope no one will ever notice, let alone call him on it.
A number of them have noted that the changes coincidentally leave those on low incomes with no children much worse off. They have all the pieces but seem to fail to fit all the pieces of the jigsaw together.
It also shows how few pundits read this blog ;-) as I pointed what follows out at the time.
So - let's set the picture and go over it again. Cue wobbly fade…
Before Gordo’s last budget there was much rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth over ‘Child Poverty’. New Labour had foolishly promised (though why breaking some promises should bother them more than others is not clear) to halve child poverty in Britain by 2010 - and there was no way they were going to meet that target.
Now New-labour were presumably too stupid to realise this is effectively impossible when they set this target. But because of the way the formula is calculated ‘Child Poverty’ is defined by a moving set of goalposts. If you were to somehow magically increase the household incomes of all families, every single one, who fall within the definition at midnight on Sunday - and then re run the figures the poverty line would have increased and you would still have children living in ‘poverty’. You can do the sums for yourself if you care to.
So what has this to do with the abolition of the 10p tax band? Well there is one way of getting a temporary boost to the child poverty figures. It is a matter of percentages. If you take from the really poor who it would take a lot of cash to lift out of actual poverty and give that to those who are not so badly off just below the ‘poverty’ line and only need a little to lift them out, then you can keep the goal posts more-or-less where they are and improve the figures no end. It works especially well if you mostly just take from those poor who have no children.
One suspects it is far from a coincidence that Gordon Brown, knowing he would be judged on New Labour's rash promises on ‘Child Poverty’ decided to do the one thing that could easily improve his figures and might be made to look like a tax cut. Rather like a magician drawing your attention to his right hand whist his left does the real trick.
So it looks suspiciously like just another, albeit particularly dodgy, case of New Labour manipulating figures to pretend to be accomplishing something.
If it is true then it shows the his truly cynical nature, the true depths to which he is willing to sink and puts the lie to any claims he may make to actually care about the poor.
The New-Labour rebellion over it for one. These are the same planks that were making like performing seals with much clapping and ‘hear hear’s when their master and then leader in waiting, Gordon Brown, actually did the dirty deed in his last budget as chancellor.
What is also amazing is that most of the pundits and commentators only get half the picture. Gordon Brown may lack bottle to do stuff in the light of day, but he has considerable animal cunning and likes complex double and triple bluffs concealing much of what he does in the hope no one will ever notice, let alone call him on it.
A number of them have noted that the changes coincidentally leave those on low incomes with no children much worse off. They have all the pieces but seem to fail to fit all the pieces of the jigsaw together.
It also shows how few pundits read this blog ;-) as I pointed what follows out at the time.
So - let's set the picture and go over it again. Cue wobbly fade…
Before Gordo’s last budget there was much rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth over ‘Child Poverty’. New Labour had foolishly promised (though why breaking some promises should bother them more than others is not clear) to halve child poverty in Britain by 2010 - and there was no way they were going to meet that target.
Now New-labour were presumably too stupid to realise this is effectively impossible when they set this target. But because of the way the formula is calculated ‘Child Poverty’ is defined by a moving set of goalposts. If you were to somehow magically increase the household incomes of all families, every single one, who fall within the definition at midnight on Sunday - and then re run the figures the poverty line would have increased and you would still have children living in ‘poverty’. You can do the sums for yourself if you care to.
So what has this to do with the abolition of the 10p tax band? Well there is one way of getting a temporary boost to the child poverty figures. It is a matter of percentages. If you take from the really poor who it would take a lot of cash to lift out of actual poverty and give that to those who are not so badly off just below the ‘poverty’ line and only need a little to lift them out, then you can keep the goal posts more-or-less where they are and improve the figures no end. It works especially well if you mostly just take from those poor who have no children.
One suspects it is far from a coincidence that Gordon Brown, knowing he would be judged on New Labour's rash promises on ‘Child Poverty’ decided to do the one thing that could easily improve his figures and might be made to look like a tax cut. Rather like a magician drawing your attention to his right hand whist his left does the real trick.
So it looks suspiciously like just another, albeit particularly dodgy, case of New Labour manipulating figures to pretend to be accomplishing something.
If it is true then it shows the his truly cynical nature, the true depths to which he is willing to sink and puts the lie to any claims he may make to actually care about the poor.
Friday, 18 April 2008
WHO seeks to persecute law abiding drinkers
“A New world authoritarian order?” He types, from his secret, heavily armed bunker, somewhere in Texas ;-)
Sounds rather like what ‘they’ would like to brand as the stuff of paranoid right wing survivalist imagination – but is it really?
Consider the UN’s World Health Organisation (WHO) Who say: “health is a shared responsibility, involving equitable access to essential care and collective defence against transnational threats.”
One suspects they would have used the word ‘collective’ in place of shared if they hadn’t used it later in the sentence.
Their ‘commissar’ of substance abuse is one Dr Vladimir Pozniak, Coordinator of the Psychoactive Substance Abuse programme.
They have produced a report published in the magazine New Scientist.
Basically the report argues that because of the bad effects produced by alcohol on non-drinkers (third party damage), i.e. Drunks occasionally becoming violent, destructive or noisy. That these effects of over indulgence in alcohol should be vilified like the so-called ‘dangers’ of passive smoking. Presumably with the aim of creating similar draconian legal controls.
The last time I looked drink driving was illegal in much of the world. As is criminal damage and assault.
That law abiding people should be effectively punished for drinking because of the mere possibility of it impacting on someone else. They emote about violence and damage to unborn children, the latter presumably from pregnant women drinking excessive alcohol.
This smacks of the Fascist-Lite, excessive authoritarian legislation for something that is already covered by law approach, so beloved of New-Labour.
WHO’s proposed solution? Why penalising everyone who dares to want to have an alcoholic drink. The wider “medical community” allegedly backs this.
Effectively nothing less than punitive taxation, artificial price controls and state restrictions on availability - on a global scale.
Who pays for this organisation? The taxpayer that’s who…
Sounds rather like what ‘they’ would like to brand as the stuff of paranoid right wing survivalist imagination – but is it really?
Consider the UN’s World Health Organisation (WHO) Who say: “health is a shared responsibility, involving equitable access to essential care and collective defence against transnational threats.”
One suspects they would have used the word ‘collective’ in place of shared if they hadn’t used it later in the sentence.
Their ‘commissar’ of substance abuse is one Dr Vladimir Pozniak, Coordinator of the Psychoactive Substance Abuse programme.
They have produced a report published in the magazine New Scientist.
Basically the report argues that because of the bad effects produced by alcohol on non-drinkers (third party damage), i.e. Drunks occasionally becoming violent, destructive or noisy. That these effects of over indulgence in alcohol should be vilified like the so-called ‘dangers’ of passive smoking. Presumably with the aim of creating similar draconian legal controls.
The last time I looked drink driving was illegal in much of the world. As is criminal damage and assault.
That law abiding people should be effectively punished for drinking because of the mere possibility of it impacting on someone else. They emote about violence and damage to unborn children, the latter presumably from pregnant women drinking excessive alcohol.
This smacks of the Fascist-Lite, excessive authoritarian legislation for something that is already covered by law approach, so beloved of New-Labour.
WHO’s proposed solution? Why penalising everyone who dares to want to have an alcoholic drink. The wider “medical community” allegedly backs this.
Effectively nothing less than punitive taxation, artificial price controls and state restrictions on availability - on a global scale.
Who pays for this organisation? The taxpayer that’s who…
Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Diana Inquest ‘unlawful killing’ by Driver and Paparazzi
The result is in for the inquest on Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed. The latest figure I heard for UK public money spent in relation to the deaths to date is £10 million. The chance of this being the final figure is I would suggest vanishingly small. This presubably does not include French Taxpayers money also spent.
The decision? What most rational individuals had concluded was the case within a very short time.
A driver who was under the influence in a heady atmosphere who liked to pump his own self importance by dropping hints. A ravening pack of paparazzi. An escape plan that didn’t come off and probably didn’t allow for the drivers impairment and was agreed not allowing for it. All these factors came together disastrously and randomly with a difficult section of road resulting in a crash.
The driver’s condition, behaviour and the behaviour of the paparazzi being the primary causes and being so reckless, so negligent, ("gross negligence") as to be unlawful.
The driver paid the ultimate price for his folly along with two of his passengers and is beyond the reach of the law. The paparazzi have successfully muddied the waters so it is impossible to tell with sufficient certainty who out of them were to blame enough to be prosecuted with any hope of success.
There are already indications that Mohammed Fayed is not satisfied with this result - But then he never will be satisfied with anything that fails to absolve him, if it’s the truth or not.
The fact is that driver of the vehicle who according to best evidence had drunk a fair bit and was on pills, was his man. He had apparently OK’d the plan that resulted in the crash with Fayed Senior. It seems that Dodi Fayed also checked in with him and agreed it.
Mohammed Fayed is, in a significant part, much of the reason the investigation has dragged on for so long and cost so much. The ‘if onlys’ must be eating at him and one can’t help but sympathise, for all that his behaviour in court and out, in relation to the matter, appeared so bizarre - But that doesn’t entitle him to cause the waste of any more public money.
Leave it to the tin foil hat squad now. If Mohamed Fayed chooses to become one with them then that is his mistake and his choice.
The decision? What most rational individuals had concluded was the case within a very short time.
A driver who was under the influence in a heady atmosphere who liked to pump his own self importance by dropping hints. A ravening pack of paparazzi. An escape plan that didn’t come off and probably didn’t allow for the drivers impairment and was agreed not allowing for it. All these factors came together disastrously and randomly with a difficult section of road resulting in a crash.
The driver’s condition, behaviour and the behaviour of the paparazzi being the primary causes and being so reckless, so negligent, ("gross negligence") as to be unlawful.
The driver paid the ultimate price for his folly along with two of his passengers and is beyond the reach of the law. The paparazzi have successfully muddied the waters so it is impossible to tell with sufficient certainty who out of them were to blame enough to be prosecuted with any hope of success.
There are already indications that Mohammed Fayed is not satisfied with this result - But then he never will be satisfied with anything that fails to absolve him, if it’s the truth or not.
The fact is that driver of the vehicle who according to best evidence had drunk a fair bit and was on pills, was his man. He had apparently OK’d the plan that resulted in the crash with Fayed Senior. It seems that Dodi Fayed also checked in with him and agreed it.
Mohammed Fayed is, in a significant part, much of the reason the investigation has dragged on for so long and cost so much. The ‘if onlys’ must be eating at him and one can’t help but sympathise, for all that his behaviour in court and out, in relation to the matter, appeared so bizarre - But that doesn’t entitle him to cause the waste of any more public money.
Leave it to the tin foil hat squad now. If Mohamed Fayed chooses to become one with them then that is his mistake and his choice.
Thursday, 3 April 2008
Royal Mint monkey with UK coinage
The Royal mint has proudly announced a complete re design of Britain’s coins. To which the immediate response is why?
It is the first change in coinage since decimalisation was imposed on the UK in 1968 and will no doubt be accompanied by similar confusion in the elderly.
Clearly this will be more expensive than simply leaving the coinage as it is and appears to bring no benefit whatsoever. Business as usual for the British State under New-Labour then.
The Royal Mint’s chief executive Andrew Stafford, came up with the pathetically inadequate excuse (I bet he’ll get an unreasonably huge productivity bonus at the end of the year too) that:
"We had to make sure that the coin design was true to the heritage of British coins and gave fresh inspiration and modernity to something that has been in existence for 40 years."
Doh! No - You didn’t: “Fresh inspiration”? “Modernity”? I am not usually drawn to using such language in ‘print’ but... What absolute Bollocks!
As far as I know there was no universal clamour to change the existing coinage. It works perfectly well as currency, we all recognise it. How about changing all the road signs while you are at it, or switching to use a different alphabet while you are at it.
Apparently they had a competition (a pretty quiet one by the looks of it) and someone came up with re cycling the idea they used to use with card collections like the ‘Man from Uncle’ and ‘Batman’ ones of yore, part of a picture on one side that you need the complete collection to assemble.
Apparently the winning design was inspired by the thought of drunks in pubs trying to assemble the image.
So presumably Stafford feels that the heritage of the British State is fractured , maybe he is not so wrong there.
How about Britannia? That is certainly true to the heritage of British coinage, maybe with a raised hemline and a kick ass attitude a-la girl power?
Or better still - how about not wasting taxpayers money on an utterly pointless exercise? How about, just for once, not 'fixing' something that isn’t broken.
It is the first change in coinage since decimalisation was imposed on the UK in 1968 and will no doubt be accompanied by similar confusion in the elderly.
Clearly this will be more expensive than simply leaving the coinage as it is and appears to bring no benefit whatsoever. Business as usual for the British State under New-Labour then.
The Royal Mint’s chief executive Andrew Stafford, came up with the pathetically inadequate excuse (I bet he’ll get an unreasonably huge productivity bonus at the end of the year too) that:
"We had to make sure that the coin design was true to the heritage of British coins and gave fresh inspiration and modernity to something that has been in existence for 40 years."
Doh! No - You didn’t: “Fresh inspiration”? “Modernity”? I am not usually drawn to using such language in ‘print’ but... What absolute Bollocks!
As far as I know there was no universal clamour to change the existing coinage. It works perfectly well as currency, we all recognise it. How about changing all the road signs while you are at it, or switching to use a different alphabet while you are at it.
Apparently they had a competition (a pretty quiet one by the looks of it) and someone came up with re cycling the idea they used to use with card collections like the ‘Man from Uncle’ and ‘Batman’ ones of yore, part of a picture on one side that you need the complete collection to assemble.
Apparently the winning design was inspired by the thought of drunks in pubs trying to assemble the image.
So presumably Stafford feels that the heritage of the British State is fractured , maybe he is not so wrong there.
How about Britannia? That is certainly true to the heritage of British coinage, maybe with a raised hemline and a kick ass attitude a-la girl power?
Or better still - how about not wasting taxpayers money on an utterly pointless exercise? How about, just for once, not 'fixing' something that isn’t broken.
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
PM’s Kiss of death for Martin
It’s been looking as though the red faced one, Michael Martin, Speaker of the house of Commons, bearer of the huge chip on his shoulder, would be able to ride out the scandal over his expenses - Especially as he is in charge of investigating them himself…
“Oi me! Did you do it?”, “Wot me guv? Naah.”, “Well that’s OK then, I’m convinced”.
Martin is the chairman of the Commons members estimate committee, who are conducting a ‘root-and-branch’ review of expenses following the discovery of Derek Conway’s dodgy expenses.
And we wondered why he had been so keen on blocking details of MPs' travel expenses being published under the Freedom of Information Act…
His spokesman, Mike Granatt, has now resigned for ‘ethical reasons’ apparently after cottoning on to the fact he had been parroting what has delicately been described as ‘incorrect information’ concerning actual details of Martin’s wife’s taxi fares.
No stranger to being accused of playing fast and loose with taxpayers money - in October 2007, Martin was criticised for blowing over £20K of taxpayers' money on lawyers to silence negative press coverage. Being a ‘class warrior’ didn’t put him off employing posh libel firm Carter-Ruck .
Martin must surely realise that if people criticise his conduct it could simply be because they genuinely find his conduct is open to question, still class is always a good smokescreen, bound to guarantee a knee jerk reaction with the more bigoted left.
But he may be doomed after all, as Gordon Brown has given him his backing. Talk about the kiss of death ;-)
“Oi me! Did you do it?”, “Wot me guv? Naah.”, “Well that’s OK then, I’m convinced”.
Martin is the chairman of the Commons members estimate committee, who are conducting a ‘root-and-branch’ review of expenses following the discovery of Derek Conway’s dodgy expenses.
And we wondered why he had been so keen on blocking details of MPs' travel expenses being published under the Freedom of Information Act…
His spokesman, Mike Granatt, has now resigned for ‘ethical reasons’ apparently after cottoning on to the fact he had been parroting what has delicately been described as ‘incorrect information’ concerning actual details of Martin’s wife’s taxi fares.
No stranger to being accused of playing fast and loose with taxpayers money - in October 2007, Martin was criticised for blowing over £20K of taxpayers' money on lawyers to silence negative press coverage. Being a ‘class warrior’ didn’t put him off employing posh libel firm Carter-Ruck .
Martin must surely realise that if people criticise his conduct it could simply be because they genuinely find his conduct is open to question, still class is always a good smokescreen, bound to guarantee a knee jerk reaction with the more bigoted left.
But he may be doomed after all, as Gordon Brown has given him his backing. Talk about the kiss of death ;-)
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
Fayed’s much heralded Inquest ‘evidence’, all bluster, no substance
Well many of us may have been waiting for some sort startling evidence backed revelations from Mohammed Fayed yesterday, especially those with a penchant for tinfoil lined hats.
If so we were all doomed to disappointment. He had not a shred of it. Zip. Nil, Nought.
One begins to suspect the only conspiracy was on the part of Mr Fayed. That it may all have been some sort of elaborate wind up on Fayed’s part, at the taxpayers expense, designed to allow him to bad mouth as many people as possible under the immunity provided by the court. It strikes one more as a sort of elaborate fingering the nose at the British State, perhaps in revenge for imagined, or even real, slights – But done with your and my money.
His claims are so convoluted and complicated, involving so many people and such random impossible chances and coincidences, that it is difficult to imagine that even he gives them any real credence.
It would simply not be possible for such a vast conspiracy to have hung together for ten weeks, let alone all these years, without concrete evidence, in large amounts leaking big time. If it were there to be had it would have been by now. Also some of the supposed bedfellows are beyond belief – The French and British security services for instance ;-) who would believe that?
Mr Fayed’s research/evidence seems to have led him to believe Prince Philip was German. His views on the subject as expressed in court are not what might necessarily be interpreted as politically correct racially speaking. Whilst prince Philip probably has some German blood from Prince Albert, his grandfather was King George I of Greece and he was born Prince of Greece, so presumably he is more Greek than German and should not be condemned for being either. Prince Philip saw active service for this country throughout WWII.
Mr Fayed has had his expensive joke. His performance and claims have been so risible one wonders, as a lay person, if he may even have laid himself open to contempt.
The proceedings should now be brought to as speedy conclusion as possible, with as little further waste of hard earned taxpayers money as possible.
If so we were all doomed to disappointment. He had not a shred of it. Zip. Nil, Nought.
One begins to suspect the only conspiracy was on the part of Mr Fayed. That it may all have been some sort of elaborate wind up on Fayed’s part, at the taxpayers expense, designed to allow him to bad mouth as many people as possible under the immunity provided by the court. It strikes one more as a sort of elaborate fingering the nose at the British State, perhaps in revenge for imagined, or even real, slights – But done with your and my money.
His claims are so convoluted and complicated, involving so many people and such random impossible chances and coincidences, that it is difficult to imagine that even he gives them any real credence.
It would simply not be possible for such a vast conspiracy to have hung together for ten weeks, let alone all these years, without concrete evidence, in large amounts leaking big time. If it were there to be had it would have been by now. Also some of the supposed bedfellows are beyond belief – The French and British security services for instance ;-) who would believe that?
Mr Fayed’s research/evidence seems to have led him to believe Prince Philip was German. His views on the subject as expressed in court are not what might necessarily be interpreted as politically correct racially speaking. Whilst prince Philip probably has some German blood from Prince Albert, his grandfather was King George I of Greece and he was born Prince of Greece, so presumably he is more Greek than German and should not be condemned for being either. Prince Philip saw active service for this country throughout WWII.
Mr Fayed has had his expensive joke. His performance and claims have been so risible one wonders, as a lay person, if he may even have laid himself open to contempt.
The proceedings should now be brought to as speedy conclusion as possible, with as little further waste of hard earned taxpayers money as possible.
Monday, 18 February 2008
New Labour nationalises Failed bank Northern Rock
It’s the ‘general election that never was’ all over again. New Labour have spent so long pratting around, unable to make a decision over the inappropriately named Northern Rock (more like a millstone round all our necks) that they have now left themselves with no option but to nationalise it, ‘temporarily’.
Not content with exposing the taxpayer to £55 million liability, in a spectacular example of Nick Leeson-onomics, New Labour have gone double, or nothing - ramping the exposure up to £110 million!
This matter will no doubt see some considerable comment so I shall limit my myself to observing that this averages around £3,500 for each taxpayer. Personally, if I had any choice in the matter at all, I could think of a few things I would rather have spent £3,500 of my hard earned cash on.
Not content with exposing the taxpayer to £55 million liability, in a spectacular example of Nick Leeson-onomics, New Labour have gone double, or nothing - ramping the exposure up to £110 million!
This matter will no doubt see some considerable comment so I shall limit my myself to observing that this averages around £3,500 for each taxpayer. Personally, if I had any choice in the matter at all, I could think of a few things I would rather have spent £3,500 of my hard earned cash on.
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
Diana Death enquiry pushed to £6 Million and rising
It emerges that £6 million has been spent investigating the death of the Princess of Wales – and that is only so far. You can be absolutely sure the final figure will be considerably more than that .
Why? Largely because one sad grieving old man, being fed what people think he wants to hear by people who can collect money from him, plus some fully paid up members of the tinfoil hat squad, will never accept an outcome that does not fit in with their pre conceived conspiracy theories.
No matter how many enquiries, investigations, whatever, they will not be satisfied with the truth they will only be satisfied with what they want to hear, what they sadly imagine to be the truth.
Any reasonable person can not escape the fact that this junket has gone on long enough – far too long and spent far too much taxpayer’s money.
No body with a realistic understanding of the world can imagine anyone would plan an assassination like that. That is the stuff of convoluted best selling novels. There were simply too many random factors at play and too many witnesses.
Much of what happened that night was clearly chance resulting from decisions made on the fly by Dodi Fayed, his driver and the random actions of the paparazzi. No one in their right mind would rely on so many random factors coming together to plan for them.
One can empathise with Mr Fayed for thinking the way he does and he may have some excuse.
He employed the driver, his beloved son made many of the key decisions that lead to the accident. He will be desperate to believe it was anyone or anything, other than himself, or his son that may have been responsible for this sad accident.
His idea of the way Royal families behave may be influenced by how certain middle eastern royal families who actually govern their countries do react and judge their honour. It would be understandable if a grieving old man, a man who’s understanding of the way some things work in the UK may be less than clear, were to project what he is familiar with, his expectations, on another princess.
With the best will in the world it is difficult to equate the plain speaking Prince Philip with King Khalid.
If Mr Fayed wishes to continue to flog a dead horse indefinitely perhaps it would be better done at his own expense rather than the put upon British Taxpayer’s.
Why? Largely because one sad grieving old man, being fed what people think he wants to hear by people who can collect money from him, plus some fully paid up members of the tinfoil hat squad, will never accept an outcome that does not fit in with their pre conceived conspiracy theories.
No matter how many enquiries, investigations, whatever, they will not be satisfied with the truth they will only be satisfied with what they want to hear, what they sadly imagine to be the truth.
Any reasonable person can not escape the fact that this junket has gone on long enough – far too long and spent far too much taxpayer’s money.
No body with a realistic understanding of the world can imagine anyone would plan an assassination like that. That is the stuff of convoluted best selling novels. There were simply too many random factors at play and too many witnesses.
Much of what happened that night was clearly chance resulting from decisions made on the fly by Dodi Fayed, his driver and the random actions of the paparazzi. No one in their right mind would rely on so many random factors coming together to plan for them.
One can empathise with Mr Fayed for thinking the way he does and he may have some excuse.
He employed the driver, his beloved son made many of the key decisions that lead to the accident. He will be desperate to believe it was anyone or anything, other than himself, or his son that may have been responsible for this sad accident.
His idea of the way Royal families behave may be influenced by how certain middle eastern royal families who actually govern their countries do react and judge their honour. It would be understandable if a grieving old man, a man who’s understanding of the way some things work in the UK may be less than clear, were to project what he is familiar with, his expectations, on another princess.
With the best will in the world it is difficult to equate the plain speaking Prince Philip with King Khalid.
If Mr Fayed wishes to continue to flog a dead horse indefinitely perhaps it would be better done at his own expense rather than the put upon British Taxpayer’s.
Thursday, 31 January 2008
British MPs may be banned from employing family members.
In the wake of the Derek Conway affair there are calls for MPs to be banned from employing family members.
Whilst many of us have little time for MPs in general it seems a little OTT to ban them from employing family members. Who they employ should just be more transparent and accountable. There should be some check that the work is actually carried out and the pay reasonable for it.
It has not been unknown for an MP to marry their secretary. Are they to be forced to sack them if they do and would that not contravene their rights?
There are other family businesses that work well enough and no one questions at all. The problem here is that public money is involved. Still we allow MPs to set their own wages and hours. To some extent this is as open to abuse as the employing of family members.
Surely a member of an MP’s family who was actually doing what they were paid for, at a fare rate, would be more likely to have the MP’s interests at heart, be more loyal, trustworthy and discreet, far less open to being turned by a reporter.
Maybe parliament should have something like (dare I say it), an HR department, to oversee the employment contracts, wages, expenses and hours - to keep things more honest and above-board on a more formal basis.
Whilst many of us have little time for MPs in general it seems a little OTT to ban them from employing family members. Who they employ should just be more transparent and accountable. There should be some check that the work is actually carried out and the pay reasonable for it.
It has not been unknown for an MP to marry their secretary. Are they to be forced to sack them if they do and would that not contravene their rights?
There are other family businesses that work well enough and no one questions at all. The problem here is that public money is involved. Still we allow MPs to set their own wages and hours. To some extent this is as open to abuse as the employing of family members.
Surely a member of an MP’s family who was actually doing what they were paid for, at a fare rate, would be more likely to have the MP’s interests at heart, be more loyal, trustworthy and discreet, far less open to being turned by a reporter.
Maybe parliament should have something like (dare I say it), an HR department, to oversee the employment contracts, wages, expenses and hours - to keep things more honest and above-board on a more formal basis.
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
New Labour claim to be close to hitting MRSA targets
In 2004, the Health Secretary at the time, John Reid, set a target of slashing MRSA rates in half by March 2008, though the exact details were never exactly defined beyond the sound-bite level. Only last year the Department of Health felt this, even as ill defined as it was, was unattainable, according to a leaked memo.
Now it seems the Government are briefing the BBC that it will consider the infections target met if there are 963 cases, or less in the quarter April to June 2008.
There is more than one way to use statistics.
Recorded honestly they are like looking in the mirror when you get ready in the morning. They give you accurate feedback, allowing you to see if your hair is sticking up, or not - and allowing you to either ensure it is, or brush it down, depending on your taste.
Then there is the ’lies, damned lies and statistics’ way, so beloved of the State and developed to previously unheard of levels of sophistication under New Labour - where they fiddle what is measured and how it is measured, in order to bamboozle the voters into the impression that the Government have actually accomplished something.
This method will generally not work in industry when analysing sales (except occasionally at shareholder meetings - but not often, as shareholders tend to pay attention and remember as it is their money at risk), as it persistently results in disastrous decisions and the company in question going bust.
In the case of the State/public sector however, the positives generally outweigh the negatives - The reward for conning the voters is re-election, or advancement. Any losses can always be made up in increased taxation.
This might not necessarily be so if the Government were actually honourable ;-) or genuinely identified themselves with the citizen. If more of them were of ‘us’ instead of ‘them’, or if actually achieving something were more important than only appearing to do so, say because of an unavoidable reality check.
Now it seems the Government are briefing the BBC that it will consider the infections target met if there are 963 cases, or less in the quarter April to June 2008.
There is more than one way to use statistics.
Recorded honestly they are like looking in the mirror when you get ready in the morning. They give you accurate feedback, allowing you to see if your hair is sticking up, or not - and allowing you to either ensure it is, or brush it down, depending on your taste.
Then there is the ’lies, damned lies and statistics’ way, so beloved of the State and developed to previously unheard of levels of sophistication under New Labour - where they fiddle what is measured and how it is measured, in order to bamboozle the voters into the impression that the Government have actually accomplished something.
This method will generally not work in industry when analysing sales (except occasionally at shareholder meetings - but not often, as shareholders tend to pay attention and remember as it is their money at risk), as it persistently results in disastrous decisions and the company in question going bust.
In the case of the State/public sector however, the positives generally outweigh the negatives - The reward for conning the voters is re-election, or advancement. Any losses can always be made up in increased taxation.
This might not necessarily be so if the Government were actually honourable ;-) or genuinely identified themselves with the citizen. If more of them were of ‘us’ instead of ‘them’, or if actually achieving something were more important than only appearing to do so, say because of an unavoidable reality check.
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Quote of the Day
” The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing .”Jean Baptiste Colbert
” Taxation is just a sophisticated way of demanding money with menaces .”Terry Pratchett
UK Local Tax Hiked above inflation yet again
Council Tax bills have been on the rise, consistently and generally above inflation for years.
This year they are expected to rise by around 4% with some nearly as high as 5%.
There is always much acrimony between local politicians claiming that central government are; reducing the contribution they make to local funds fro taxpayer’s money and in many cases drafting, or rubberstamping, EU legislation that increases their costs.
The State meanwhile always mutters darkly of capping local expenditure and complains there is no excuse for ‘excessive’ Council tax Hikes.
Personally I have noticed absolutely zero improvement in the services I receive. In fact it is arguable they have actually deteriorated, especially rubbish collection.
Whatever – They are all politicians. I noticed when the poll tax was introduced quite a few local authorities took the opportunity to hit local residents in the pocket with a big hike they would have taken stick in local elections for otherwise and blamed Central Government and Margaret Thatcher.
Well they can’t conveniently blame Maggie now.
The fact is that we are paying more and more tax and it is rising by well above inflation. It may be that Central Government’s the inflation figures are effectively lies, the ‘basket’ being carefully tweaked by New Labour.
Never the less - someone is responsible… Where is the money going?
This year they are expected to rise by around 4% with some nearly as high as 5%.
There is always much acrimony between local politicians claiming that central government are; reducing the contribution they make to local funds fro taxpayer’s money and in many cases drafting, or rubberstamping, EU legislation that increases their costs.
The State meanwhile always mutters darkly of capping local expenditure and complains there is no excuse for ‘excessive’ Council tax Hikes.
Personally I have noticed absolutely zero improvement in the services I receive. In fact it is arguable they have actually deteriorated, especially rubbish collection.
Whatever – They are all politicians. I noticed when the poll tax was introduced quite a few local authorities took the opportunity to hit local residents in the pocket with a big hike they would have taken stick in local elections for otherwise and blamed Central Government and Margaret Thatcher.
Well they can’t conveniently blame Maggie now.
The fact is that we are paying more and more tax and it is rising by well above inflation. It may be that Central Government’s the inflation figures are effectively lies, the ‘basket’ being carefully tweaked by New Labour.
Never the less - someone is responsible… Where is the money going?
Tuesday, 16 October 2007
Lots more 20 mph limits, many to have ‘safety’ camera revenue raisers
The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (Pacts) want to institute many more 20 mph zones and are arguing for average speed cameras to be installed in them.
They say Local Authorities are keen to introduce them.
Not half (as they say), set to a hair trigger they could be a highly lucrative new source of stealth taxation on the motorist.
Apart from the desire to take your money, what is one of the main ‘drivers’ for this further state persecution of motorists?
What else but NU-Lab Government targets. It this case of reducing deaths and serious injuries on the roads. Sounds laudable enough, but don’t they all. I guess they don’t believe their own “If you hit me at 30 mph…” propaganda any more…
More to the point - exactly what proportion of those killed, or seriously injured, on the roads are actually in a 20 or 30 mph zone when it happens?
Also how exactly do the define ‘serious’? Is it the same sort of trick they use reckoning ‘problem’, or ‘binge’ drinker figures?
Lies, damned lies and politician’s statistics.
It would probably be even more effective if they made it law that any cars in the zone required a person walking in front of them with a red flag. They could make it compulsory to hire a, council provided and licensed, trained flag bearer. They could then hire out the unemployed as flag bearers a condition of collecting their benefits.
Several birds with one stone including a massive reduction in unemployment figures and the ability to tax all motorists using the area if they exceed the speed limit by one and a half miles an hour or not.
Let’s hope they don’t think of that…
They say Local Authorities are keen to introduce them.
Not half (as they say), set to a hair trigger they could be a highly lucrative new source of stealth taxation on the motorist.
Apart from the desire to take your money, what is one of the main ‘drivers’ for this further state persecution of motorists?
What else but NU-Lab Government targets. It this case of reducing deaths and serious injuries on the roads. Sounds laudable enough, but don’t they all. I guess they don’t believe their own “If you hit me at 30 mph…” propaganda any more…
More to the point - exactly what proportion of those killed, or seriously injured, on the roads are actually in a 20 or 30 mph zone when it happens?
Also how exactly do the define ‘serious’? Is it the same sort of trick they use reckoning ‘problem’, or ‘binge’ drinker figures?
Lies, damned lies and politician’s statistics.
It would probably be even more effective if they made it law that any cars in the zone required a person walking in front of them with a red flag. They could make it compulsory to hire a, council provided and licensed, trained flag bearer. They could then hire out the unemployed as flag bearers a condition of collecting their benefits.
Several birds with one stone including a massive reduction in unemployment figures and the ability to tax all motorists using the area if they exceed the speed limit by one and a half miles an hour or not.
Let’s hope they don’t think of that…
Friday, 5 October 2007
Conservatives bounce back after Party Conference
According to the Guardian Gordon Brown’s reportedly huge lead against ‘The Party formerly known as the Conservatives’ has dramatically reduced. This could in turn reduce the likelihood of a snap election.
A new ICM poll puts Nu-Lab on 38%, neck and neck with the PFKAT Conservatives also on 38%, with the Fib Dems trailing on 16%.
Those within NU-Lab in favour of a snap election are suggesting that the shift in the party’s relative standings is a blip down to the PFKATC Conference that the Broon went to such efforts to eclipse and upstage.
They will also be buoyed by the fact that much of the improvement in the opposition’s position seems to have been at the expense of Ming the Merciless’ Fib Dems.
They must be calculating that, as some of Broon’s economic chickens come home to roost, over the next six or more months, their chances of yet another term will proportionately decrease.
On the down side there is also the skeleton in their cupboard of their broken manifesto promise over the EU Constitution/’Treaty’, that, if willing, the opposition should be able to use to great effect. Also they will need some time to work out how to trash newly revealed opposition policies, and be wondering if they could do a proper job in time for a snap election.
Some of Nu-Labs more marginal incumbents are no doubt feeling a bit wobbly right now. They must be aware that if there is a snap election Nu-Lab may well take a hit, even if they can retain a majority - and this will be at their expense.
It will be interesting to see if Broon tries to go against his nature and steal the idea of raising the level that inheritance tax kicks in at. He will probably not be able to cope with a one million limit though – too painful.
However much it is, any at all is still stealing money from dead people, who already paid tax on it anyway - morally, not a lot different from stealing the cash out of the pocket of a heart attack victim dying in the street. Still, that’s politicians for you.
A new ICM poll puts Nu-Lab on 38%, neck and neck with the PFKAT Conservatives also on 38%, with the Fib Dems trailing on 16%.
Those within NU-Lab in favour of a snap election are suggesting that the shift in the party’s relative standings is a blip down to the PFKATC Conference that the Broon went to such efforts to eclipse and upstage.
They will also be buoyed by the fact that much of the improvement in the opposition’s position seems to have been at the expense of Ming the Merciless’ Fib Dems.
They must be calculating that, as some of Broon’s economic chickens come home to roost, over the next six or more months, their chances of yet another term will proportionately decrease.
On the down side there is also the skeleton in their cupboard of their broken manifesto promise over the EU Constitution/’Treaty’, that, if willing, the opposition should be able to use to great effect. Also they will need some time to work out how to trash newly revealed opposition policies, and be wondering if they could do a proper job in time for a snap election.
Some of Nu-Labs more marginal incumbents are no doubt feeling a bit wobbly right now. They must be aware that if there is a snap election Nu-Lab may well take a hit, even if they can retain a majority - and this will be at their expense.
It will be interesting to see if Broon tries to go against his nature and steal the idea of raising the level that inheritance tax kicks in at. He will probably not be able to cope with a one million limit though – too painful.
However much it is, any at all is still stealing money from dead people, who already paid tax on it anyway - morally, not a lot different from stealing the cash out of the pocket of a heart attack victim dying in the street. Still, that’s politicians for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)