Wednesday, February 11, 2009
New Poll - In Your Personal Opinion, has Jacqui Smith Abused The MP's Expenses System?
Please register your vote in the poll on the top left of this blog. You can elaborate within the comments section of this post, if you so choose.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
One For The Future
Remember the name Karen Lumley. According to UK Polling Report here, Karen is running as the Conservative candidate against Jacqui Smith in Redditch.
Karen's Website is here, and if you want to email your support, you can at karen@tellkaren.com.
I now look forward to the General Election for a new reason. It will be Jacqui Smith who will give us a "Portillo moment" [to be re-dubbed a "Smith Moment."] Watching Jacqui Smith getting booted unceremoniously out of office will probably bring the biggest cheer of the night. The fact is, for all the money she has taken, and despite her contempt for the electorate and the tax payer, there is absolutely no getting out of having to stand before the returning officer and facing the person that has beat you.
I can't wait.
Smiths downfall will be the symbolic moment of the election that will haunt the Labour Party for many years to follow.
The moment that sticks in my mind from the 2005 election, and i think will stay with me forever was when George Galloway delivered his "Tony Blair.................This...Is for Iraq" Speech. I hope Karen's team have something suitable apt lined up.
Karen's Website is here, and if you want to email your support, you can at karen@tellkaren.com.
I now look forward to the General Election for a new reason. It will be Jacqui Smith who will give us a "Portillo moment" [to be re-dubbed a "Smith Moment."] Watching Jacqui Smith getting booted unceremoniously out of office will probably bring the biggest cheer of the night. The fact is, for all the money she has taken, and despite her contempt for the electorate and the tax payer, there is absolutely no getting out of having to stand before the returning officer and facing the person that has beat you.
I can't wait.
Smiths downfall will be the symbolic moment of the election that will haunt the Labour Party for many years to follow.
The moment that sticks in my mind from the 2005 election, and i think will stay with me forever was when George Galloway delivered his "Tony Blair.................This...Is for Iraq" Speech. I hope Karen's team have something suitable apt lined up.
OMG - Where Has Tractor Stats Gone??!!
Update: 19:20: I see Advanced Media Watch and Obo have also asked the question... Come back Tractor Stats!!
Who Is Backing Gordon Brown?
Gordon Brown Quotes:
So, do people share your views Gordon?.....
What about Ed Balls? Well, let’s look at who he is first. He worked for the Financial Times as an economic leader writer (1990 – 1994), before going on to work for Gordon Brown in 1994 in the then Shadow Cabinet. After Labour won the 1997 election he worked for the then Chancellor (again, one Gordon Brown) in a position called “Chief Economic Advisor” where he allegedly earned the title “The most powerful unelected man in Britain”.
It would be fair to say then, that Ed Balls is intimate with Gordon Brown, familiar with the internal workings of the treasury department, the Government and of the national economic position.
Last night, Ed Ball told a Labour conference that these were "seismic events that are going to change the political landscape". He also said the current economic situation is "more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s" (See here.)
Oh dear. That doesn’t sound very supportive of Mr Brown or this Labour Governments official position.
Ok, well let’s look at someone else then… how about Nikolas Sarkozy. Well again let’s look at who he is. He is the democratically elected President of France (means he won an election of the whole country, Gordon may not be familiar with this concept).
Any way, what did Mr Sarkozy have to say on Gordon Browns Economic competence? Surely as a European leader, he will look at what Gordon brown was quick to do, and follow his leadership.
Oh dear. Well let’s look at the IMF then. They have effective control on the world’s supply of money, they must recognise that “Gordon Brown has not only saved the world….” Ooops, he didn’t mean to say that did he.
Anyway, the IMF know what they are talking about, they must agree that the UK is well positioned economically. They have a report here. Oh, I forgot, they placed the UK at the very bottom in their outlook of developed nations, and are predicting that the UK economy will shrink by 2.8% in 2009.
Ok, maybe these are too specific. How about House owners?
No, wait, house prices have fallen an average of £22,000 per house hold in the last year or so.
What about the Unions? They love Labour Prime Ministers.
Hmm, forgot, they though when Gordon Brown said “British Jobs for British Workers” he was going to do that. He didn’t thell them that the EU won’t let him.
Labour voters?
Well, admittedly they might be hard to find now, as only 28% of the electorate is considering voting for Labour.
Polly? Getting mixed signals from Pol. Best not disturb her today; she is getting a bit of a kicking today from her readers.
My Blogs readers… No, wait, this is getting embarrassing… I almost forgot, but 92% of them want Brown to resign.
What about Gordon Browns Cabinet, they must support him and his claims on the economy…
Let’s see, The Foreign Secretary? No, that’s David Miliband, he was going to run a campaign against Gordon Brown Last year. Nobody, not even Gordon Brown thinks David Miliband trusts Grodon Brown.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary? Well she is supportive, but then again she is making massive amounts of money from the position Gordon put her in, she would have to back him, he is probably keeping a public enquiry from her door.
Jack Straw? haven’t heard from him in a while… hmmm, wonder where the Justice Secretary is?
Ed Balls? No, done that one already.
Labour MP’s. They will of course support their leader. They have to, it’s their job to, and they wouldn’t want to make dear Gordon cry again. Come to think of it, a lot of them will be out of a job soon, they are probably less happy..
I t seems I may am struggling to find a credible example of somebody who will back Gordon Brown’s economic policies, and actually for him to remain as Prime Minister. Is there anybody left that does?
Oh wait of course there is. I forgot, there is the BBC and the EU.
"at root our economy is better placed to weather the global storm than it was in
the seventies, the eighties and the nineties". – To North West of England
Business Leaders (see here.)
"It's a financial global recession everybody knows and started out of America,
we are having to deal with the fall out. We are better placed in Britain than we
have been in the past and are better placed that many other countries" – BBC
Interview (See here)
So, do people share your views Gordon?.....
What about Ed Balls? Well, let’s look at who he is first. He worked for the Financial Times as an economic leader writer (1990 – 1994), before going on to work for Gordon Brown in 1994 in the then Shadow Cabinet. After Labour won the 1997 election he worked for the then Chancellor (again, one Gordon Brown) in a position called “Chief Economic Advisor” where he allegedly earned the title “The most powerful unelected man in Britain”.
It would be fair to say then, that Ed Balls is intimate with Gordon Brown, familiar with the internal workings of the treasury department, the Government and of the national economic position.
Last night, Ed Ball told a Labour conference that these were "seismic events that are going to change the political landscape". He also said the current economic situation is "more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s" (See here.)
Oh dear. That doesn’t sound very supportive of Mr Brown or this Labour Governments official position.
Ok, well let’s look at someone else then… how about Nikolas Sarkozy. Well again let’s look at who he is. He is the democratically elected President of France (means he won an election of the whole country, Gordon may not be familiar with this concept).
Any way, what did Mr Sarkozy have to say on Gordon Browns Economic competence? Surely as a European leader, he will look at what Gordon brown was quick to do, and follow his leadership.
"The British chose a recovery plan by boosting consumer spending, notably by
cutting VAT by two per cent. It is plain to see that it has brought absolutely
no progress. "
Doesn’t sound very supportive, maybe we should look at what else he said…
"The reason is simple: because it's in people's heads. If the consumer no
longer consumes, he won't change just because we add or subtract one VAT point,
it's because he's scared for his future, he's scared for his job and says to
himself: 'I must save, because bad times are coming'.
"In France, we chose investment because when we put France into debt by
taking money to invest, in return we have assets, infrastructure. When you put
your country into debt to pay for operating costs, you have nothing in return
for your debt and you ruin the country.
"If the English did that it's because they don't have any industry
left. Gordon Brown cannot do what I am doing with carmakers [giving them up to 6
billion euros]... in construction and other industries, because they haven't got
any left."
Oh dear. Well let’s look at the IMF then. They have effective control on the world’s supply of money, they must recognise that “Gordon Brown has not only saved the world….” Ooops, he didn’t mean to say that did he.
Anyway, the IMF know what they are talking about, they must agree that the UK is well positioned economically. They have a report here. Oh, I forgot, they placed the UK at the very bottom in their outlook of developed nations, and are predicting that the UK economy will shrink by 2.8% in 2009.
Ok, maybe these are too specific. How about House owners?
No, wait, house prices have fallen an average of £22,000 per house hold in the last year or so.
What about the Unions? They love Labour Prime Ministers.
Hmm, forgot, they though when Gordon Brown said “British Jobs for British Workers” he was going to do that. He didn’t thell them that the EU won’t let him.
Labour voters?
Well, admittedly they might be hard to find now, as only 28% of the electorate is considering voting for Labour.
Polly? Getting mixed signals from Pol. Best not disturb her today; she is getting a bit of a kicking today from her readers.
My Blogs readers… No, wait, this is getting embarrassing… I almost forgot, but 92% of them want Brown to resign.
What about Gordon Browns Cabinet, they must support him and his claims on the economy…
Let’s see, The Foreign Secretary? No, that’s David Miliband, he was going to run a campaign against Gordon Brown Last year. Nobody, not even Gordon Brown thinks David Miliband trusts Grodon Brown.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary? Well she is supportive, but then again she is making massive amounts of money from the position Gordon put her in, she would have to back him, he is probably keeping a public enquiry from her door.
Jack Straw? haven’t heard from him in a while… hmmm, wonder where the Justice Secretary is?
Ed Balls? No, done that one already.
Labour MP’s. They will of course support their leader. They have to, it’s their job to, and they wouldn’t want to make dear Gordon cry again. Come to think of it, a lot of them will be out of a job soon, they are probably less happy..
I t seems I may am struggling to find a credible example of somebody who will back Gordon Brown’s economic policies, and actually for him to remain as Prime Minister. Is there anybody left that does?
Oh wait of course there is. I forgot, there is the BBC and the EU.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Expenses Row
I am not surprised at all that we have failed to see from our Home Secretary either an apology or a promise to refund the cash she has siphoned off the tax payer. Let's remember, the money she is taking is supposed to fund her second home. The purpose of contributing towards the cost of a second home is to help "ordinary people" who chose to run for Parliament, and are successful. It is intended to redress an imbalance and ensure that the Commons can be filled with, well, commoners. How many MP's do you know of today are there, that fit that bill?
The tax payer also pays for the upkeep of government houses. These houses are funded specifically so that senior members of the government who need to be stationed in London as much as possible can live there. These arenot flats, these are houses so that families can also be present and so staff be they security or domestic can also be accomodated. The cost is covered by the tax payer so that the Cabinet member again does not need to consider the costs that may otherwise be unaffordable to an "ordinary person".
These houses and expense benefits are supposed to be in place so that we can have a government and Parliament that best represents and best serves it's people.
If Jacqui Smith has not broken any rules, and from where I am looking, she has broken the rules; we need to have a very big look at all parliamentary expenses. It is surely not acceptable that the Home Secretary forgoes the already expensive, already paid for ministerial house so she can lodge with a family member and then draw further expenses from us tax payers to pay for her constituency home. If Jacqui Smith is only spending 3 nights a week at her sisters home, then she is spending 4 nights at her Redditch home and as such this can not be a second home as defined by the rules.
It used to be that MPs were accountable to The House for their actions, I wonder who it is we are waiting for to act before this can be investigated? I suspect there is a committee or another bloody QUANGO out there somewhere that will eventually be called in to obediently offer their interpretation of the obviously poorly worded rules.
What also of the cost of paying a £40,000 salary to Richard Timney? Mr Timney, despite the name is Jacqui Smiths husband. His job seems to be to write letters to media outlets defending Jacqui Smith; in doing so he neglects to mention his relationship with the Home Secretary. Not really money being spent benefiting the tax payer is it.
Mr Timneys job description is that of "Parliamentary Assistant". Really? how many days does he make it to Parliament then? Perhaps, if he were a "Constituency Assistant" I would be less suspicious. Again, I am sure this will not be investigated, there is probably just enough letter writing and dictation to defy censure.
People are absolutely sick to death of Political double-standards. The expenses system is failing to deliver cost benefits to tax payers, and is too easily defied. What is going on in Westminster that as soon as politicians roll up there they seem determined to claim as much money from us as possible.
If the additional cost of £200,000 for security is added to the alleged £116,000 and £40,000 in salary for a Parliamentary Assistant, who may or may not have been to parliament; the tax payer has afforded The Smith Family £356,000. When the police want a pay rise, or members of the security service, or immigration control or public servants of any of the Home Secretary's remit what is she going to tell them? How, is she going to justify not paying their wage demands, when in her own position she is free to profit so exuberantly? How far would that £356,000 gone in improvements in our schools, our fire stations, our security, our policing? What essential services have been cut so that our Home Secretary can milk the system?
You will not get an unforced apology from the Home Secretary because, I suspect, she personally believes she is entitled to get as much of yours and my money as is possible. The fact that she has voted consistently for legislation to make Parliament less transparent on the one hand, and pocketed stacks of cash in the other is not a contradiction to her. Jacqui Smith's contempt for the tax payer is total, and unapologetic. You will not get an apology and you will not get your money back. Remember that when you go to vote.
The tax payer also pays for the upkeep of government houses. These houses are funded specifically so that senior members of the government who need to be stationed in London as much as possible can live there. These arenot flats, these are houses so that families can also be present and so staff be they security or domestic can also be accomodated. The cost is covered by the tax payer so that the Cabinet member again does not need to consider the costs that may otherwise be unaffordable to an "ordinary person".
These houses and expense benefits are supposed to be in place so that we can have a government and Parliament that best represents and best serves it's people.
If Jacqui Smith has not broken any rules, and from where I am looking, she has broken the rules; we need to have a very big look at all parliamentary expenses. It is surely not acceptable that the Home Secretary forgoes the already expensive, already paid for ministerial house so she can lodge with a family member and then draw further expenses from us tax payers to pay for her constituency home. If Jacqui Smith is only spending 3 nights a week at her sisters home, then she is spending 4 nights at her Redditch home and as such this can not be a second home as defined by the rules.
It used to be that MPs were accountable to The House for their actions, I wonder who it is we are waiting for to act before this can be investigated? I suspect there is a committee or another bloody QUANGO out there somewhere that will eventually be called in to obediently offer their interpretation of the obviously poorly worded rules.
What also of the cost of paying a £40,000 salary to Richard Timney? Mr Timney, despite the name is Jacqui Smiths husband. His job seems to be to write letters to media outlets defending Jacqui Smith; in doing so he neglects to mention his relationship with the Home Secretary. Not really money being spent benefiting the tax payer is it.
Mr Timneys job description is that of "Parliamentary Assistant". Really? how many days does he make it to Parliament then? Perhaps, if he were a "Constituency Assistant" I would be less suspicious. Again, I am sure this will not be investigated, there is probably just enough letter writing and dictation to defy censure.
People are absolutely sick to death of Political double-standards. The expenses system is failing to deliver cost benefits to tax payers, and is too easily defied. What is going on in Westminster that as soon as politicians roll up there they seem determined to claim as much money from us as possible.
If the additional cost of £200,000 for security is added to the alleged £116,000 and £40,000 in salary for a Parliamentary Assistant, who may or may not have been to parliament; the tax payer has afforded The Smith Family £356,000. When the police want a pay rise, or members of the security service, or immigration control or public servants of any of the Home Secretary's remit what is she going to tell them? How, is she going to justify not paying their wage demands, when in her own position she is free to profit so exuberantly? How far would that £356,000 gone in improvements in our schools, our fire stations, our security, our policing? What essential services have been cut so that our Home Secretary can milk the system?
You will not get an unforced apology from the Home Secretary because, I suspect, she personally believes she is entitled to get as much of yours and my money as is possible. The fact that she has voted consistently for legislation to make Parliament less transparent on the one hand, and pocketed stacks of cash in the other is not a contradiction to her. Jacqui Smith's contempt for the tax payer is total, and unapologetic. You will not get an apology and you will not get your money back. Remember that when you go to vote.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
My Stats (2)
Further to my post about my stats, here, just seen on Wikio that this blog is coming in at 305 on the politics blogs, which I think is quite a fair position for a blog that has been running about 2 months. (isn't it?)
Wikio, as I understand it measures success by links rather than hits. So thanks to everybody who has visited, and also thanks to anyone who has linked me in their directories and in their own posts.
I have put the Wikio widget up on the blog, so each month you can share in how well/poorly this blog is doing.
Wikio, as I understand it measures success by links rather than hits. So thanks to everybody who has visited, and also thanks to anyone who has linked me in their directories and in their own posts.
I have put the Wikio widget up on the blog, so each month you can share in how well/poorly this blog is doing.
A Reminder About Our Home Secretary
To quote TheyWorkforYou.Com, as seen here.....
How Jacqui Smith voted on key issues since 2001:
Voted strongly against a transparent Parliament.
Now there's a surprise!
How Jacqui Smith voted on key issues since 2001:
Voted strongly against a transparent Parliament.
Now there's a surprise!
After Thought
Perhaps the Government will now look at my proposal. MP's should not be allowed to claim on second mortgages, but should have council housing made available to them in London instead.
Here is the link to my original suggestion.
Here is the link to my original suggestion.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Home Secretary Is Ripping Off Tax Payers
Just seen this story at Guido's, here.
The Mail on Sunday is reporting that Jacqui Smith has been making allowance claims for a second home in London, which actually belongs to her sister.
It is though the Home Secretary has claimed the maximum claim possible, £24,006 p.a totalling approx £116,000 in allowances against her house in Redditch, where her husband and family live. This is because the Home Secretary has stated that that this is her second property as her main residence is in London. However, as the London house is actually owned by her sister, this is a breach of parliamentary rules and is strictly forbidden as she is effectively lodging at a family members house.
Had the Home Secretary lived in one of the ministerial homes that are made available to ministers, the tax payer may also have been spared and further £200,000 in the cost of additional policing, from when she stays at her sister's property.
It is an astonishing that such a key member of the government could be taking so much money in expenses and be unaware that she was breaching the rules. Mrs Smith, and her finances should be fully investigated and the extent of any impropriety detailed before the House of Commons. And if the evidence confirms a breach of the rules, the necessary, and appropriate discipline should be enforced.
There will no doubt be focus on what role the Home Secretary had within the governments recent attempts to exempt MPs from the Freedom Of Information Act in respect to publishing receipts of expenses. The Government was keen that MPs expenses not be published in any detail. This is a most perfect example of exactly why such rules should never be allowed. Transparency is a necessity is an open democracy. Contempt for accountability, is contempt of the voters.
I look forward to seeing Jacqui Smith on television tomorrow. Undoubtedly this whole incident will not be her fault. I will not be holding my breath that an apology will be forthcoming either. New Labour don't really do resignations on breach of principles (or rules), so we can expect a long drawn out drama on this. One more nail in the coffin of the Labour Party.
The Mail on Sunday is reporting that Jacqui Smith has been making allowance claims for a second home in London, which actually belongs to her sister.
It is though the Home Secretary has claimed the maximum claim possible, £24,006 p.a totalling approx £116,000 in allowances against her house in Redditch, where her husband and family live. This is because the Home Secretary has stated that that this is her second property as her main residence is in London. However, as the London house is actually owned by her sister, this is a breach of parliamentary rules and is strictly forbidden as she is effectively lodging at a family members house.
Had the Home Secretary lived in one of the ministerial homes that are made available to ministers, the tax payer may also have been spared and further £200,000 in the cost of additional policing, from when she stays at her sister's property.
It is an astonishing that such a key member of the government could be taking so much money in expenses and be unaware that she was breaching the rules. Mrs Smith, and her finances should be fully investigated and the extent of any impropriety detailed before the House of Commons. And if the evidence confirms a breach of the rules, the necessary, and appropriate discipline should be enforced.
There will no doubt be focus on what role the Home Secretary had within the governments recent attempts to exempt MPs from the Freedom Of Information Act in respect to publishing receipts of expenses. The Government was keen that MPs expenses not be published in any detail. This is a most perfect example of exactly why such rules should never be allowed. Transparency is a necessity is an open democracy. Contempt for accountability, is contempt of the voters.
I look forward to seeing Jacqui Smith on television tomorrow. Undoubtedly this whole incident will not be her fault. I will not be holding my breath that an apology will be forthcoming either. New Labour don't really do resignations on breach of principles (or rules), so we can expect a long drawn out drama on this. One more nail in the coffin of the Labour Party.
RBS To Pay £1bn In Bonuses
In a quite frankly shocking article, the Daily Telegraph has the story that RBS is set to pay out £1bn in bonuses to staff, just months after taking £20bn of tax payer cash to stay afloat.
This number may be a reduction in previous bonuses, but this will provoke outrage as loss making bankers are receiving bonuses from tax payers despite their banks bringing the nation to it's knees in debt. I add my voice to those who are outraged.
The government absolutely should have passed legislation to ensure that tax payers funds would be protected and not be used to pay bonuses to staff of failing banks; and that those banks would be immune from prosecution from employees, because of the exceptional nature surrounding the banks nationalisation. Can it not be enough that RBS employees still have jobs thanks to tax payer funds? Why is the government allowing this to happen?
This number may be a reduction in previous bonuses, but this will provoke outrage as loss making bankers are receiving bonuses from tax payers despite their banks bringing the nation to it's knees in debt. I add my voice to those who are outraged.
The government absolutely should have passed legislation to ensure that tax payers funds would be protected and not be used to pay bonuses to staff of failing banks; and that those banks would be immune from prosecution from employees, because of the exceptional nature surrounding the banks nationalisation. Can it not be enough that RBS employees still have jobs thanks to tax payer funds? Why is the government allowing this to happen?
Recommended Reading
Newmania talks about the BNP and BJ4BW here.
Frasier Nelson says we should not ignore poverty in our own country, here.
ConHome has a poll that shows the Lib Dems are eating into Labours share of the vote after yet another bad week for Gordon Brown, here.
After the controversy about Atheist bus signs, this has been doing the rounds on the blogosphere where you can make your own sign.
Iain Dale has been banned by “Beta” blog, LabourList. Iain tells the story here. Draper has been tagging Iain’s followers on Twitter (including yours truly, he has subsequently been blocked). Read about ‘Twittergate’ here.
Steve Green can only think of one word to describe Speaker Michael Martin, revealed here.
Iain Martin says that if Clarkson has to apologise for his remarks over Gordon Brown, then Margaret Thatcher is owed an apology from the BBC, here.
Letters from a Tory published a personal manifesto here and invites feedback here.
Guido points out to the Guardian, that they should practice what they preach on Tax, and Tax Aversion, here.
Daniel Hannan addresses the EPP concern regarding whether the Conservative Party will be staying or leaving the group, here.
Brits at their Best publishes a revealing letter from Elisabeth Beckett to the Queen about her contract with the people, here. (I am looking forward to any follow up on this post, on Brits at their Best). They also had a nice piece on the HMS Victory, here.
And of course, you are always guaranteed laugh over at Tractor Stats
Frasier Nelson says we should not ignore poverty in our own country, here.
ConHome has a poll that shows the Lib Dems are eating into Labours share of the vote after yet another bad week for Gordon Brown, here.
After the controversy about Atheist bus signs, this has been doing the rounds on the blogosphere where you can make your own sign.
Iain Dale has been banned by “Beta” blog, LabourList. Iain tells the story here. Draper has been tagging Iain’s followers on Twitter (including yours truly, he has subsequently been blocked). Read about ‘Twittergate’ here.
Steve Green can only think of one word to describe Speaker Michael Martin, revealed here.
Iain Martin says that if Clarkson has to apologise for his remarks over Gordon Brown, then Margaret Thatcher is owed an apology from the BBC, here.
Letters from a Tory published a personal manifesto here and invites feedback here.
Guido points out to the Guardian, that they should practice what they preach on Tax, and Tax Aversion, here.
Daniel Hannan addresses the EPP concern regarding whether the Conservative Party will be staying or leaving the group, here.
Brits at their Best publishes a revealing letter from Elisabeth Beckett to the Queen about her contract with the people, here. (I am looking forward to any follow up on this post, on Brits at their Best). They also had a nice piece on the HMS Victory, here.
And of course, you are always guaranteed laugh over at Tractor Stats
Friday, February 06, 2009
92% Of People Polled On this Blog Think Gordon Brown Should Step Down
My first poll has closed. Thanks to everbody who took part.
92% of people who took part, (35 of 38 People) resposnded yes when asked "Should Jack Straw Ask Brown To Stand Down As Leader, And Call An Immediate General Election For The Benefit Of The UK?"
There may be a centre-right bias on the blogosphere, and perhaps even more so here... but 92% is a compellingly high percentage. The poll was opened on 21st January and closed this morning.
92% of people who took part, (35 of 38 People) resposnded yes when asked "Should Jack Straw Ask Brown To Stand Down As Leader, And Call An Immediate General Election For The Benefit Of The UK?"
There may be a centre-right bias on the blogosphere, and perhaps even more so here... but 92% is a compellingly high percentage. The poll was opened on 21st January and closed this morning.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Help Needed
I have confessed before that my grasp of economics is not the sharpest, though I do feel I understand as much as the next lay person.
I am struggling to understand why the Bank of England has today announced a further cut in the base rate from 1.5% to 1%.
I understand that rate cuts are some times used as a tool to combat inflation, but there are large areas of the economy where prices are coming down, rather than up. I have not seen a report in the press that shows that Inflation is the greatest concern here.
A further rate cut can only punish savers whose rates will be cut instantly. Yet previous rate cuts have not been passed along in full to borrowers, this one probably will not be passed on in full either. The Bank of England, possibly at the Governments urging seems to be drastically trying to help those who have borrowed more than they can afford to repay; but it is doing so at the cost of the people who have been responsible and saved, many of whom have spent their lives paying off mortgages and are now trying to put money aside for themselves.
I am not suggesting that borrowers should not be helped, they should. But, isn't there a danger in helping too generously, those who have borrowed too much, some (by no means all) of whom have been reckless in the levels of debt they have undertaken. Where is the incentive for foreign investors and corporations to bring their cash to the UK? Why should thousands of ex-pats, living cheaply abroad in places like Spain leave their money in UK PLC when they can earn more interest on those savings abroad?
The line I am hearing is that the Government wants the banks lending to each other again. This seems a little dangerous to me, as that lending is based on the UK banks borrowing more. Surely, they banks need to be able to offer incentives for people to put their money in their banks or building societies and use that cash on providing loans at a higher interest than they are paying the saver. Why would a saver want to put their capital in the bank with such unattractive rates?
Anyway, like I say, economics are not my strong point, so feel free to point out if and where I am wrong... but if you do, please use language I can understand.
I am struggling to understand why the Bank of England has today announced a further cut in the base rate from 1.5% to 1%.
I understand that rate cuts are some times used as a tool to combat inflation, but there are large areas of the economy where prices are coming down, rather than up. I have not seen a report in the press that shows that Inflation is the greatest concern here.
A further rate cut can only punish savers whose rates will be cut instantly. Yet previous rate cuts have not been passed along in full to borrowers, this one probably will not be passed on in full either. The Bank of England, possibly at the Governments urging seems to be drastically trying to help those who have borrowed more than they can afford to repay; but it is doing so at the cost of the people who have been responsible and saved, many of whom have spent their lives paying off mortgages and are now trying to put money aside for themselves.
I am not suggesting that borrowers should not be helped, they should. But, isn't there a danger in helping too generously, those who have borrowed too much, some (by no means all) of whom have been reckless in the levels of debt they have undertaken. Where is the incentive for foreign investors and corporations to bring their cash to the UK? Why should thousands of ex-pats, living cheaply abroad in places like Spain leave their money in UK PLC when they can earn more interest on those savings abroad?
The line I am hearing is that the Government wants the banks lending to each other again. This seems a little dangerous to me, as that lending is based on the UK banks borrowing more. Surely, they banks need to be able to offer incentives for people to put their money in their banks or building societies and use that cash on providing loans at a higher interest than they are paying the saver. Why would a saver want to put their capital in the bank with such unattractive rates?
Anyway, like I say, economics are not my strong point, so feel free to point out if and where I am wrong... but if you do, please use language I can understand.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Am I A Left Wing Loony, Or A Right Wing Nutter...
I am probably the last blogger to be doing this, but I to have checked out where i sit on the political compass grid, and here are my results.
Economic Left/Right: 1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97
I am not too surprised with the result, though I thought maybe one or two boxes closer to the right.
Economic Left/Right: 1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97
I am not too surprised with the result, though I thought maybe one or two boxes closer to the right.Things like this are always interesting, so if you know of any similar (free) tests online, then leave a link in the comments and I will give it a go.
If you also want to see where you sit in comparison, click here.
Worryingly, there is no leading Political Figure depicted in my section of politics as per the Political Compasses website, (see below). Perhaps that is why I feel so unrepresented in the world of politics, and maybe we need more people in that part of the compass in the world of politics.
New Poll - Your Opinion Of Carol Thatcher
New poll on the blog. If you have an opinion you would like to share about Carol Thatcher you can on the poll or in the Comments Form.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Glenrothes Byelection Mystery
A potentially explosive story is covered by Guide here and by Political Betting here that may raise concerns that the result of the Glenrothes byelection may not have been accurate. This is fuelled by the announcement that the Marked registers has been lost.
Labour's Candidate Lindsay Roy won the seat with a majority of 6,737 votes, this was massively above what the polls were showing even on the day of the election where most polls had Labour on a slender lead.
John Beare, the SNP Convener for the Central Fife area asked the Kilcaldy Sheriff Court to see the marked registers in November. This is a list taken from people appearing at the ballot stations and the attendant will 'cross off' voters names as they vote. This does not record which way people voted, but it can be used to identify if electoral fraud has taken place. For example, the examination of these registers have in the past shown where dead peoples names and people no longer living in the UK have somehow managed to turn up and vote.
Despite the request being made in November, it has taken until the end of January for the court to reveal that this record has been lost.
The Guardian has a quote from Tricia Marwick here, the SNP MSP for Fife who says, "The marked registers are an essential element of any election campaign. They allow a check of who voted, but not how they voted, to confirm that the election was conducted properly."
"Without these records there is no evidence of either a fair or unfair election and that undermines the confidence of everyone who took part."
"It is almost beyond belief that a byelection which attracted media coverage throughout the UK, which delivered a surprise result and had a much higher turnout than anticipated now has no records to show who actually voted."
There is also a massive increase in number of postal ballots issued between the 2005 election and the byelection.
The SNP have demanded an independent enquiry as to the location of the register, and how it was lost. They maybe able to launch a legal petition to have the byelection held again through the courts. As Tricia Marwick says "there is no evidence of either a fair or an unfair election". I googled it, as I am curious to know if a successful challenge can be made, and I found this court leaflet which seems to imply a a challenge would be possible. Though the recommended time limit has lapsed this would seem to be entirely because of the delay from the Sheriff's Court in advising about the loss.
The byelection was being tipped as crucial for Gordon Browns leadership and a leadership challenge may have followed a Labour defeat.
Labour's Candidate Lindsay Roy won the seat with a majority of 6,737 votes, this was massively above what the polls were showing even on the day of the election where most polls had Labour on a slender lead.
John Beare, the SNP Convener for the Central Fife area asked the Kilcaldy Sheriff Court to see the marked registers in November. This is a list taken from people appearing at the ballot stations and the attendant will 'cross off' voters names as they vote. This does not record which way people voted, but it can be used to identify if electoral fraud has taken place. For example, the examination of these registers have in the past shown where dead peoples names and people no longer living in the UK have somehow managed to turn up and vote.
Despite the request being made in November, it has taken until the end of January for the court to reveal that this record has been lost.
The Guardian has a quote from Tricia Marwick here, the SNP MSP for Fife who says, "The marked registers are an essential element of any election campaign. They allow a check of who voted, but not how they voted, to confirm that the election was conducted properly."
"Without these records there is no evidence of either a fair or unfair election and that undermines the confidence of everyone who took part."
"It is almost beyond belief that a byelection which attracted media coverage throughout the UK, which delivered a surprise result and had a much higher turnout than anticipated now has no records to show who actually voted."
There is also a massive increase in number of postal ballots issued between the 2005 election and the byelection.
The SNP have demanded an independent enquiry as to the location of the register, and how it was lost. They maybe able to launch a legal petition to have the byelection held again through the courts. As Tricia Marwick says "there is no evidence of either a fair or an unfair election". I googled it, as I am curious to know if a successful challenge can be made, and I found this court leaflet which seems to imply a a challenge would be possible. Though the recommended time limit has lapsed this would seem to be entirely because of the delay from the Sheriff's Court in advising about the loss.
The byelection was being tipped as crucial for Gordon Browns leadership and a leadership challenge may have followed a Labour defeat.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Can Gordon Brown Pledge To Increase Trade With China?
The Times at the end of their piece regarding Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's speech at Cambridge today they say this:
Mr Brown said that his target was to increase British exports to China from £5 billion in 2008 to £10 billion in 2010. He added: “I believe that there is much scope for trade and investment to expand between our two countries even in these most difficult of times for the global economy.”
SkyNews.com have a similar line when they say:
Earlier, Gordon Brown had described the relationship between Britain and China as "a pivotal force" in helping the country through the recession.
"I believe that there is much scope for trade and investment to expand between our two countries even in these most difficult of times for the global economy," Mr Brown said.
"The strength of the relationship between China and Britain will be a pivotal force in helping us through the downturn and a powerful driving force behind our future growth and prosperity.
"We know from previous downturns that a retreat to narrow, short-term protectionist policies would only serve to deepen the global recession and we must not and will not allow that to happen again."
As I understand it, the UK is not in a position to unilaterally make trade deals with a non-EU country as this is an exclusive competency of the European Commission. In fact, before his ennoblement this was the area headed up by Peter Mandelson.
I may be wrong, I will be happy to hold my hands up if I am, (though I don't think I am.) I happen to think that one of the best ways to to put the UK on a path to economic recovery is by enhancing trade with Asia. There is a lot of currency stockpiling in Asia, especially China, by selling to them goods and services that they require, their cash becomes our cash.
So why are The Times and Sky quoting Gordon Brown, instead of challenging him on this? Gordon Brown and Chinese PM Wen Jiabao are free to make as many pledges as they like because they cannot possibly act upon them and the MSM seems unwilling to scrutinise. This, while workers are striking after his inability to act upon his pledge to deliver "British Jobs for British Workers".
Perhaps, and this maybe considered somewhat cynical; but perhaps the £10bn number is not a pledge, but has already been forecasted, and Gordon Brown is simply attempting to take credit for the increase. Maybe, just maybe, Peter Mandleson was able to make that number known to the Government, and the Government is taking trying to take credit for it.
What do you think? Am I a crazy cynic, or am I about right here?
00:05 Amendment: Colours went a bit crazy, plus changed an "If" to an "In" to make more sense.
Mr Brown said that his target was to increase British exports to China from £5 billion in 2008 to £10 billion in 2010. He added: “I believe that there is much scope for trade and investment to expand between our two countries even in these most difficult of times for the global economy.”
SkyNews.com have a similar line when they say:
Earlier, Gordon Brown had described the relationship between Britain and China as "a pivotal force" in helping the country through the recession.
"I believe that there is much scope for trade and investment to expand between our two countries even in these most difficult of times for the global economy," Mr Brown said.
"The strength of the relationship between China and Britain will be a pivotal force in helping us through the downturn and a powerful driving force behind our future growth and prosperity.
"We know from previous downturns that a retreat to narrow, short-term protectionist policies would only serve to deepen the global recession and we must not and will not allow that to happen again."
As I understand it, the UK is not in a position to unilaterally make trade deals with a non-EU country as this is an exclusive competency of the European Commission. In fact, before his ennoblement this was the area headed up by Peter Mandelson.
I may be wrong, I will be happy to hold my hands up if I am, (though I don't think I am.) I happen to think that one of the best ways to to put the UK on a path to economic recovery is by enhancing trade with Asia. There is a lot of currency stockpiling in Asia, especially China, by selling to them goods and services that they require, their cash becomes our cash.
So why are The Times and Sky quoting Gordon Brown, instead of challenging him on this? Gordon Brown and Chinese PM Wen Jiabao are free to make as many pledges as they like because they cannot possibly act upon them and the MSM seems unwilling to scrutinise. This, while workers are striking after his inability to act upon his pledge to deliver "British Jobs for British Workers".
Perhaps, and this maybe considered somewhat cynical; but perhaps the £10bn number is not a pledge, but has already been forecasted, and Gordon Brown is simply attempting to take credit for the increase. Maybe, just maybe, Peter Mandleson was able to make that number known to the Government, and the Government is taking trying to take credit for it.
What do you think? Am I a crazy cynic, or am I about right here?
00:05 Amendment: Colours went a bit crazy, plus changed an "If" to an "In" to make more sense.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
My Stats
I saw that Iain Dale has published what he is referring to as his StatPorn on his site. Congratulations to Iain for having a fantastic month.
I thought I might show myself up a little and publish my stats as well. First though, a short history of my short history.
My inaugural post was published on 29 Nov 2008, it was a simple welcome and statement of a few aims. My next post was not until 2nd December when I posted a few thoughts on Independent Candidates. Blogging was a little light in December as I attempted to find my blog voice. December also saw a busy month at work and at home and as I still work full time it a was a month for finding balance.
It was not until the 16th December that I discovered and installed Google Analytics, thus the following data is for information captured since then.
December 2008 Stats
I thought I might show myself up a little and publish my stats as well. First though, a short history of my short history.
My inaugural post was published on 29 Nov 2008, it was a simple welcome and statement of a few aims. My next post was not until 2nd December when I posted a few thoughts on Independent Candidates. Blogging was a little light in December as I attempted to find my blog voice. December also saw a busy month at work and at home and as I still work full time it a was a month for finding balance.
It was not until the 16th December that I discovered and installed Google Analytics, thus the following data is for information captured since then.
December 2008 Stats
Not terribly impressive compared to other blogs I am sure, but I was not disheartened. The spike was when Iain Dale included me in his regular list of Ten New Blogs announcements and I got so traffic as Iain's readers popped over to see my site during the Christmas Break. Thank you Iain for the link.
So, for December I had 256 Visitors, of which 199 were Absolute Unique Visitors and 331 Page Views.
The linking sites though were made up as follows.
1. Iain Dale's Diary 164 Hits
2. Total Politics 2 Hits
3. SNP Tactical Voting 1 Hit
I also had 11 hits via Google searches, all via keywords in articles that are on the blog.
The most read posting in December was my reaction to a BBC news report is saw on TV, and is here.
January 2009 Stats
January has seen an increase in general traffic and a much bigger increase in traffic from varying sources as other blogs have started to link to this blog.
In January the links on my page have increased in number as I have found more and more blogs that I have found interesting. There has also been an increase in the number of posts I have put up and an increase in reader interaction through comments, the reactions boxes and the poll.
I have also been reading up on a few things that I hope have made the blog more enjoyable and/or interesting. For instance I am now able to embed images from Internet video sites so I have posted a few videos that I have found or been pointed to on You Tube. I have also joined Twitter, and have been updating there mostly when I am posting an article to the blog.
January has again been a month of balance between work, blog and home life. However I managed to post 54 times, (compared to 13 in Dec, and 1 in Nov).
In January I have had 807 Visits, of which 447 are Absolute Unique Visitors and 1,371 Page Views.
The linking sites though were made up as follows.
1. (+2) SNP Tactical Voting 43 Hits (Up 42 Hits)
2. (New) Tractor Stats 38 Hits
3. (-2) Iain Dale's Diary 27 Hits (Down 137 Hits)
4. (New) Politigg.co.uk 22 Hits
5. (New) Unenlightened Commentary 16 Hits
6. (New) My Telegraph.co.uk 14 hits
7. (New) Letters from a Tory 11 Hits
8. (New) Biased BBC (via links on cover it live sessions) 10 Hits
9. (New) Bloggers4UKIP 6 Hits
=10. (New) 10 Downing Steet by Lord Elvis 5 Hits
=10. (New) Timrollpickering Blog 5 Hits
Total Politics drops out of the list with 0 hits for January.
I also had 114 Hits via Google. By far the highest return was from the search term "wiki leaks" with 72 hits, here is a selection of a few of the more bizarre, and frankly in some cases I am not sure how my blog was linked
Alex Massie
Janet Hartley + Resign
"Peter Mandleson" cumbria January 2009
gay chicken 4
lembit opik
pic of egon quigg from x factor
tbw sarkosy
I would like to thank all of the other Bloggers who have linked to this site, and also say that I have seen that a few other blogs have linked to me late in January and I would imagine they will get a mention in the February Stats.
A couple of highlights in January have been for me where my blog has been referred or given mention via a link. So thanks to Letters From a Tory for including me as a link on your First Class Posts on Friday (30th January) and also to fellow newbie blogger Oliver @ Olivers Blog for his article here, which picked up on my post asking Where Is The Public Outrage & Protest?
I also had my busiest day on 17th January when I had 115 page views.
My ongoing hope, I guess the same as all bloggers, is to get some increases in traffic as the year goes on; and for me personally I would like to see more comments & reactions being left as that was why I started the blog initially. The pipe-dream is that blogging could one day replace my current full time work. This will be a very long way off based on current readership levels, but an ambition none the less.
Government Advocates Population Controls
Just been over at The Times, when I saw this story.
Jonathon Porritt who chairs the Government's Sustainable Development Commission, and was formerly the Chairman of the Green Party has come out in favour controlling population growth in the UK through contraception and abortion. He does so because he feels that parents who have more than two children are being irresponsible by creating an unbearable burden on the environment.
A report from the commission will recommend that the Government must reduce population growth through family planning. Porritt is quoted in The Times as saying,
“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,”
“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”
I am not sure where these people feel they get the right to dictate such measures to anybody at all, let alone aspire to make this Government Policy the sheer temerity and inappropriateness would normally be sufficient to see a popular uprising.
However, I really hope that Gordon Brown listens to the advise of the "unapologetic" Porritt, because it is perhaps the most ludicrous advice that a Western European government is ever likely to receive. The way the Times has reported this implies that the report serves warning to the Government of the dangers of overpopulation, yet does not speak to immigration policy or the other elephant in the room, The EU which dictates the free movement of people within its own external borders.
I look forward to seeing this Government say that it wishes to join Iran and China in implementing a restriction on the number of births allowed to UK families, whilst simultaneously leaving the policies of the EU unchallenged so that families from anywhere else can move to the UK and have as many children as they like.
I wonder what feminists like Harriet Harman and Hazel Blears will make of such a policy, especially as they are Gordon Browns favourites to advocate Government policies on TV. Surely this a direct contradiction upon a persons right to choose, and any policy that advocates population control is incitement from the state upon young women to commit infanticide.
I can't wait for Government ministers to appear on TV and be asked which of their kids they would have aborted in support of their new socialist doctrine. That will really spice up Question Time. Of course, The BBC will have to carry this debate, as the report is making recommendations from Porritts commission to improve the environment.
The Optimum Population Trust, for which Porritt is a patron has however answered what must be one of humanities most pressing and searching questions. How much Carbon will the average person burn in their life time, in comparison to the number of trees required to offset that persons Carbon Footprint. They say the answer is two-and-a-half acres of Oak Trees which they compare to a size the same as Trafalgar Square.
Perhaps when the population policy is flouted by those allowed to exempt it (I am guessing, Labour Politicians, Green Party Advocates, Full Members of The Optimum Population Trust) perhaps they can be forgiven from breaking that law if they plant enough trees.
It could be the policy announcement that will forever seals in the minds of the many just how loony this Labour Party has really become.
Jonathon Porritt who chairs the Government's Sustainable Development Commission, and was formerly the Chairman of the Green Party has come out in favour controlling population growth in the UK through contraception and abortion. He does so because he feels that parents who have more than two children are being irresponsible by creating an unbearable burden on the environment.
A report from the commission will recommend that the Government must reduce population growth through family planning. Porritt is quoted in The Times as saying,
“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,”
“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”
I am not sure where these people feel they get the right to dictate such measures to anybody at all, let alone aspire to make this Government Policy the sheer temerity and inappropriateness would normally be sufficient to see a popular uprising.
However, I really hope that Gordon Brown listens to the advise of the "unapologetic" Porritt, because it is perhaps the most ludicrous advice that a Western European government is ever likely to receive. The way the Times has reported this implies that the report serves warning to the Government of the dangers of overpopulation, yet does not speak to immigration policy or the other elephant in the room, The EU which dictates the free movement of people within its own external borders.
I look forward to seeing this Government say that it wishes to join Iran and China in implementing a restriction on the number of births allowed to UK families, whilst simultaneously leaving the policies of the EU unchallenged so that families from anywhere else can move to the UK and have as many children as they like.
I wonder what feminists like Harriet Harman and Hazel Blears will make of such a policy, especially as they are Gordon Browns favourites to advocate Government policies on TV. Surely this a direct contradiction upon a persons right to choose, and any policy that advocates population control is incitement from the state upon young women to commit infanticide.
I can't wait for Government ministers to appear on TV and be asked which of their kids they would have aborted in support of their new socialist doctrine. That will really spice up Question Time. Of course, The BBC will have to carry this debate, as the report is making recommendations from Porritts commission to improve the environment.
The Optimum Population Trust, for which Porritt is a patron has however answered what must be one of humanities most pressing and searching questions. How much Carbon will the average person burn in their life time, in comparison to the number of trees required to offset that persons Carbon Footprint. They say the answer is two-and-a-half acres of Oak Trees which they compare to a size the same as Trafalgar Square.
Perhaps when the population policy is flouted by those allowed to exempt it (I am guessing, Labour Politicians, Green Party Advocates, Full Members of The Optimum Population Trust) perhaps they can be forgiven from breaking that law if they plant enough trees.
It could be the policy announcement that will forever seals in the minds of the many just how loony this Labour Party has really become.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
More Strikes Coming?
The Times is reporting that nuclear power plant employees will vote Monday morning on whether to join engineering, construction and maintenance staff in strikes over the apparent exclusion of contracts to UK nationals in favour of cheaper alternatives from within the EU.
The unions despite being supporters of the Labour Party and in general of the EU are not altogether happy with the UK position within the EU. Trade Unionists Against The EU Constitution joined up with The Democracy Movement and I Want A Referendum to organise a lobby of Parliament last February.
The TUAEUC have carried on their campaign and are campaigning for a NO vote in the second Ireland referendum this year.
Gordon Brown only has himself to blame for uttering the line "British Jobs For British Workers". The fact is Gordon Brown can not deliver British Jobs for British Workers because this would be against EU law. However, by stating that he would do this (and he must have known at the time that this is impossible, which adds to the stupidity of the statement) he was using a line designed to attack his enemies, in the hope that his supporters would not kick up a fuss when it is not delivered upon. The BBC (in the linked report) were not shy to say opponents branded it dog-whistling and racist.
I really do not understand what Gordon Brown and his communications team were trying to achieve when he borrowed a campaign line from the BNP, but whatever that aim was, it has backfired. There will be no sympathy on the Left if he tries to quash these strikes, especially as they are striking for something he has promised.
I hope that these strike lead to a wider dialogue about the EU and exactly how much control the EU has over our laws and our lives. The strikers are marching because the Unions members are not getting employed. But, [it would seem] the employers are not breaking EU law, The UK Government cannot change the law or make any accommodations - so how can the strikes be resolved? Either these companies break EU law which leaves them open to prosecution, or the UK Government does which leaves itself open to EU Fines or the strikers accept the case as is and back down... that third option does not seem likely.
It also raises other questions of accountability. It used to be in this country that if you had a complaint you could write to your MP or to a councillor. In industrial disputes you could strike, you could if you got enough people to agree with you force for changes to be made.
That is no longer the case. What can any person or group do if we do not like or agree with a directive from the European Commission? The answer is absolutely nothing. Seriously, there is absolutely nothing any citizen, or group of citizens anywhere in the EU can do if you disagree with the European Commission. You could petition your MEP to raise it in the EU parliament, but an MEP has very little sway, if they get the opportunity to speak they are limited to one minute. The EU Parliament is also very unlikely to challenge the European Commission. It is unlikely that they would even raise this issue because it is a important part of the common market and of establishing a Common European Nationality.
So I am not sure how these strikes will play out, but, there is the potential these strikes could lead to unrest and things could get more hostile, as it is impossible to deliver upon the strikers demands. Hopefully it will open the eyes of many voters about where the laws of this country are actually made, and how powerless the UK Parliament really is in areas of "EU Competencies".
The unions despite being supporters of the Labour Party and in general of the EU are not altogether happy with the UK position within the EU. Trade Unionists Against The EU Constitution joined up with The Democracy Movement and I Want A Referendum to organise a lobby of Parliament last February.
The TUAEUC have carried on their campaign and are campaigning for a NO vote in the second Ireland referendum this year.
Gordon Brown only has himself to blame for uttering the line "British Jobs For British Workers". The fact is Gordon Brown can not deliver British Jobs for British Workers because this would be against EU law. However, by stating that he would do this (and he must have known at the time that this is impossible, which adds to the stupidity of the statement) he was using a line designed to attack his enemies, in the hope that his supporters would not kick up a fuss when it is not delivered upon. The BBC (in the linked report) were not shy to say opponents branded it dog-whistling and racist.
I really do not understand what Gordon Brown and his communications team were trying to achieve when he borrowed a campaign line from the BNP, but whatever that aim was, it has backfired. There will be no sympathy on the Left if he tries to quash these strikes, especially as they are striking for something he has promised.
I hope that these strike lead to a wider dialogue about the EU and exactly how much control the EU has over our laws and our lives. The strikers are marching because the Unions members are not getting employed. But, [it would seem] the employers are not breaking EU law, The UK Government cannot change the law or make any accommodations - so how can the strikes be resolved? Either these companies break EU law which leaves them open to prosecution, or the UK Government does which leaves itself open to EU Fines or the strikers accept the case as is and back down... that third option does not seem likely.
It also raises other questions of accountability. It used to be in this country that if you had a complaint you could write to your MP or to a councillor. In industrial disputes you could strike, you could if you got enough people to agree with you force for changes to be made.
That is no longer the case. What can any person or group do if we do not like or agree with a directive from the European Commission? The answer is absolutely nothing. Seriously, there is absolutely nothing any citizen, or group of citizens anywhere in the EU can do if you disagree with the European Commission. You could petition your MEP to raise it in the EU parliament, but an MEP has very little sway, if they get the opportunity to speak they are limited to one minute. The EU Parliament is also very unlikely to challenge the European Commission. It is unlikely that they would even raise this issue because it is a important part of the common market and of establishing a Common European Nationality.
So I am not sure how these strikes will play out, but, there is the potential these strikes could lead to unrest and things could get more hostile, as it is impossible to deliver upon the strikers demands. Hopefully it will open the eyes of many voters about where the laws of this country are actually made, and how powerless the UK Parliament really is in areas of "EU Competencies".
Friday, January 30, 2009
Gordon Brown Should Have Paid Attention To Tony Blair During PMQ's
He might have learnt a few things. Instead he was doing this....
Strikes At Morning Star Newspaper?
The Guardian is reporting here that a dispute over wages may be brewing up at the Morning Star after management imposed a 3% pay rise on staff, escalating an existing dispute regarding pay.
Some of the 16 Journalists that work for the Star only earn about £18,000 p.a. all of them are members of the National Union of Journalists.
Political Editor John Haylett earlier this month backed the papers management decision by saying the pay offer was "Generous in a climate where newspapers were closing and staff being retrenched." He Continued by saying "We think the National Union of Journalists is completely out of step with realities."
Journalists are fed up with the low pay and being told each year that they are special cases. The whole episode is soured further by the knowledge that an anonymous consortium recently pledged £500,000, spread over 3 years, to help with the papers running costs. There was however a caveat that the cash could not be used to bolster journalists wage packets.
The imposition of the pay deal has been criticised by Jeremy Dear of the NUJ who is accusing the Morning Star of undermining the collective bargaining process with the "Unilateral Imposition" of the pay deal.
The 16 Journalists are already balloting on strike action, with the result due on 5th February. Perhaps the workers should rise up and throw of the shackles of injustice?
The Morning Star was founded in 1930 as the Daily Worker, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party of Great Britain. The name changed in 1966 to the Morning Star.
The paper also has an online edition which can be viewed here.
Some of the 16 Journalists that work for the Star only earn about £18,000 p.a. all of them are members of the National Union of Journalists.
Political Editor John Haylett earlier this month backed the papers management decision by saying the pay offer was "Generous in a climate where newspapers were closing and staff being retrenched." He Continued by saying "We think the National Union of Journalists is completely out of step with realities."
Journalists are fed up with the low pay and being told each year that they are special cases. The whole episode is soured further by the knowledge that an anonymous consortium recently pledged £500,000, spread over 3 years, to help with the papers running costs. There was however a caveat that the cash could not be used to bolster journalists wage packets.
The imposition of the pay deal has been criticised by Jeremy Dear of the NUJ who is accusing the Morning Star of undermining the collective bargaining process with the "Unilateral Imposition" of the pay deal.
The 16 Journalists are already balloting on strike action, with the result due on 5th February. Perhaps the workers should rise up and throw of the shackles of injustice?
The Morning Star was founded in 1930 as the Daily Worker, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party of Great Britain. The name changed in 1966 to the Morning Star.
The paper also has an online edition which can be viewed here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)