Angus Dei politico

The Eton Wall Game Coalition

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Tue, 10 May 2011 08:36:00 +0000

Below is the latest post from this Daft old Fart over on Orphans of Liberty which I have been kndly asked to add my rambling to.

Politics is a pain in the arse; there is the right, left, centre, centre-right, centre-left, upper left, lower left, upper right, lower right, upper centre, lower centre, Uncle Tom Cobley and Joe public.

The Eton dorm gang (otherwise known as the Coalition) are it seems making it up as they go along.

We have tousle headed Anne Milton one of the “Health Ministers” who thinks it is a spiffing idea to close off roads on a Sunday so that “children” can play.

She told MPs that the idea, which began in Colombia, could help tackle childhood obesity.

During a debate in Westminster Hall, Mrs Milton said: "On Sundays, they close certain streets so that everybody can play in them. That is an outstanding idea.

Think about it-Streets are normally lined with houses which happen to have gardens which the spawn can gallop about in, and that new fangled invention the “Park” is available for those that live in flats, or back to back terraces.

And the responsibility evading cry of “but our children won’t be safe if they go to the park” is bollocks, have you seen a dozen or so “youths” playing in the park? They are safer than the SAS locked up in barracks.

U-Turn Cam (David Cameron) came out with “If you want a modern, compassionate Conservative go for the real thing: that's me. I am it. It's what I think and believe. When I'm under pressure and the Daily Mail's having a go at me, I'll stick to my guns because that's what I believe in.”

Or in other words, no matter what anyone says I am right even if I am wrong and I will do as I want despite the ramifications.

Then we have Irritable Bowel Smith telling the unemployed that they should be offered incentives to move to areas where there are jobs.

Fair enough-ish if the unemployed want to leave their friends and family and take a job which will pay the minimum wage, and the people that move into their homes will be living in an area with no jobs, and we will end up with ghost towns empty of people, jobs and hope.

And of course George (reptilian alien in disguise) Osborne who spouted “Britain needs a simpler tax system which is simple to understand, where there are no loop-holes, where the very rich do not avoid tax by employing expensive accountants.”

Yeah right, who is your accountant George?

And Nick (hang dog) Clegg managed “Suzi Quatro seemed immeasurably cool to an eight year old. I found her music liberating and exciting as I danced around this tiny, tinny speaker with my brothers.”

Say no more.

What the hell has happened to Government?

It has become a "Bully", a "Furk", a “Calx”, a “Phalanx” of know nothing, non elected, inexperienced upper class twats that are so tunnel visioned they can’t see the damage they are doing to dear old Blighty.

And the “opposition” is just as useful.

Are you tired of politics? I know I am, tired of the endless vomit projected from the unknowing mouths of the MPs. Ministers, Secretary’s and anyone else who thinks that just being in power is the be all and end all of Government, tired of the pointless to-ing and fro-ing of piss poor policies that are issued and then put on hold because they weren’t viable to start with.

Whatever happened to statesmanship in politics, what happened to considered thought and policies that are in the public interest?

This Daft Old Fart doesn’t have a clue anymore.

Be careful where you stand

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:29:00 +0000

Not really a post today, more of a montage of unfortunate Poli-pictures.

Angus

An undecided grey voter

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:28:00 +0000

That’s me, with two weeks and a bit to the election I am still undecided who to give my X to.

I haven’t even had the pleasure of telling the canvassers to bugger off because there haven’t been any, the three main contenders are difficult to distinguish between, and they all seem to have the same policies with a few variations on a theme.

Do I want cuts in public spending, or will I settle for tax increases, can I live with higher costs for food, fuel, gas, electric and water, do I need an NHS that is still overburdened with pen pushers?

I used the Telegraph’s How should I vote calculator and it came out to UKIP, but I have doubts that they will be able to take enough seats to make a difference, I have considered an independent candidate but there aren’t any standing in my town, unless you call the Monster Raving Loony guy a “candidate”.

So at the moment I am stuffed, I don’t have a clue what to do, who to vote for or if I should bother to vote at all because it seems that it may make no difference at all who gets in.

Decisions, decisions.

Angus

Slapometer

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:27:00 +0000

Try this it will make you feel better.

Slapometer

Angus

Old farts in the driving seat

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:26:00 +0000

Being an old fart myself I think have the right to use the above headline.

There is some “interesting” research from the De Montfort University who predict that four out of 10 potential voters will be older than 55.

A "grey majority" is expected to turn out to vote in more than 300 constituencies, including 94 marginal seats in England, Scotland and Wales,

Age UK says that politicians need to show more commitment to older voters.

Snag is that a lot of “grey voters” such as myself do not have a clue who to vote for, there doesn’t seem to be any difference between the parties that are liable to get elected.

They all have the same policies but with slightly different ways of screwing us, I think the main ‘bugbear’ is the provision of care for old farts.

After working for 50 years and paying National Insurance the Government(s) wants us to stump up again so that we can have a decent drop of the Summer Wine.

This doesn’t seem right, they say that there will be more older people than there are young before long, and the problem with that is?

People of my generation have been brought up in the main to respect others, to work hard and look forward to a well earned retirement, but it seems that it is not to be that way; it seems that we are to be forced to retire later, and have the privilege of paying for it twice, if we become ill.

The pre-election “Governments” tell us that savings need to be made, mainly because of the mind numbingly stupid decisions by said pre-election “governments”, OK, let’s pull out of Afghanistan-billions saved, and out of the EU-hundreds of billions saved and let’s get rid of all the illegal immigrants-millions saved.

The Politicians need to listen, and to act on our needs, isn’t that what a Government is for?

Angus

How to chose who to vote for

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:26:00 +0000

Vote match

From the Telegraph.

Vote Match is a guide which helps you determine your preference for the 2010 UK General Election by matching your views on the issues most important to you with each political party's policies.

Start by selecting which UK nation you live in, and then answer the 30 statements by clicking on agree, disagree, open-minded or skip (if you want to ignore the statement entirely).

The issues - select which areas of policy matter the most to you - and which ones matter the least

The parties - select which parties you would be prepared to vote for (at least three).

Results - the results screen will reveal which party you agree with most, and other parties will follow in descending order. You can look at the responses from each party in more detail by clicking on their name.

Vote Match is intended as a guide only and is not intended to give you definitive answers on which way you should vote. We encourage you to look into the parties' policies in more detail and provide you with some pointers in the results section.

Four things to know about Vote Match:

• The aim of the tool is to raise awareness about the policy differences between political parties standing in an election and encourage people to vote.

• The statements are devised by an independent academic panel based in the politics department of Goldsmiths University of London.

• The political parties themselves fill out the answers to the statements.

• The project is politically neutral and has an Advisory Board chaired by Sam Younger, former chair of the Electoral Commission.

Vote Match is an Unlock Democracy project in association with: Telegraph.co.uk, Goldsmiths: University College London and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust.

You can access Vote Match Here; or rather you can’t because the page doesn’t load, but there is a picture at the top of the post so that you can see....... what you can't see.

Just like the Political parties, it doesn’t work.

Angus

Where has everthing gone?

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:25:00 +0000

Been a while since I posted on the Politico blog, RL and other things to blame.

I took a stroll around the Castle neighbourhood and town today, and the news is not good.

I am going to go into old fart mode here, ten years ago there was:

A “proper” paper shop.

A “proper” sweet shop

A chemist

A green grocer

A post office

Five pubs

All these amenities were within ten minutes walk of the Castle.

Today there are;-Two Pubs, and a “multi-store”/”convenience store, that’s it, bugger all else.

So I drove down the town and parked on the road after paying the road toll which I have paid many times over with my council tax. And I walked around what used to be a vibrant, busy Victorian “shopping centre”, and is now a deserted “modern mall”. There is a thing called the ‘Wellington Centre’ which was expanded with ‘The Galleries”, the Wellington centre now consists of a few shops-Boots, W H Smith (with integral “main Post Office”), Argos, Superdrug, Peacocks, New Look, Millets a Chinese Medicine do dah and assorted phone shops.

The new super duper Galleries is empty, WTF is going on? There is a project next to Tesco, just out of town to provide a Morrisons (bit of competition) a cinema (of which there were three and now there are none) and assorted cafe’s and restaurants (much needed), but the “Galleries” management is trying to stop it because they want all the trade in their expensive boring empty “centre”.

So who is to blame? The Gov, the Council, the “Management” or Uncle Tom Cobbly?

Personally I would go for the first three because “Uncle Tom” doesn’t exist, between them they have managed to cock up the economy, the town and the Castle neighbourhood, between them they have managed to take away the heart of my dear old town and replace it with a stone, and in doing so have made life worse for all who abide here, and used to enjoy the basic right to shop in a place that had a decent spread of emporiums.

Now it seems that no one goes to the town anymore, and it has become a place ruled by estate agents, fast food vendors, bars and bugger all else, I certainly won’t be using the “new” Aldershot town centre any more and sadly it seems that thousands of others have the same attitude.

Angus

Too little too late

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:24:00 +0000

Unemployed workers over the age of 50 will receive help to find jobs from a new, £10 million government programme.

It seems that the Dept of WitlessPillocks (DWP) and Work and Pensions secretary, Yvette Cooper (whoever she may be) have decided that the time has come to target the unemployed over fifties for “specialist help and retraining” because they are “too important to the economy to be abandoned to long-term unemployment or early retirement.” And are going to spend £10 million for them to have the chance of more help, and the choice of when to retire.”

Yeah right, funny that this spiffing idea has vomited forth from the “Gov” just before the election, funny that the “grey vote” is a fairly substantial proportion of the electorate, funny that suddenly after more than a decade “they” have decided that the over fifties are a priority.

Funny that.....well it isn’t funny it’s a bloody insult.

Angus

Double the CouncilTax-1.4 million visited bt bailiffs

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:23:00 +0000

Thanks to labour’s knobhead policy of inflation plus council tax rises there were 1.4 million households visited by bailiffs last year because of arrears.

Local councils in their kindness applied for more than three million court summonses, the number of families being pursued has risen by more than sixty percent over the past decade as council tax bills have risen sharply.

Local councils are thought to be turning more quickly to the courts to recover unpaid bills.

Caroline Spelman, the shadow secretary for communities and local government, said: “Thanks to Gordon Brown forcing council tax to double, a record number of families are now struggling to make ends meet.

"Three million households suffer the trauma of going to court due to council tax. One and a half million people now face a menacing town hall bailiff knocking at their door.

Oxfordshire magistrates issued 27,277 such orders last year and Liverpool Magistrates issued 62,608 orders.

In total, 3,121,089 orders were issued across England and Wales during the 2008-09 financial year – a rise of 700,000 in just three years.

The orders led to 1.4 million households being visited by bailiffs – a 69 percent rise since 1997.

More than 1,500 people were made bankrupt last year as a result of council tax debts.

The sharp rise in people getting into financial difficulty with their council tax bills follows big increases in the levy over the past decade.

The bill for an average home has more than doubled from £688 in 1997 to £1,414 this year.

In 2004, John Prescott, the then deputy prime minister, issued official guidance urging councils to make more use of bailiffs.

Bailiffs currently only have a right of “peaceful entry” for council tax debts and therefore can only enter people’s homes if invited.

However, legislation has been introduced which would allow bailiffs to break in – although the laws have not yet been formally introduced. But, fears are growing that bailiffs will be granted these powers in future.

The Government says it has acted recently to cap council tax rises and keep bills down.

Thanks Tone and Gord, why is it that Council tax has soared with the house prices (plus inflation plus) and now that the prices have fallen bugger all is done to reduce them.

And don’t spout about the recession and the need to raise money, the Gov had plenty of money before the crash and pissed it away on quangos, consultants and expenses, leaving the poor sod in the street to fund Labour’s balls ups.

Let’s have a revaluation of houses at today’s prices and then start again.

Angus

Quango bango

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:22:00 +0000

The Gov has sneaked the news under the radar with the MP expenses “thing” taking precedence that spending on quangos, the controversial arms-length public bodies which control huge swathes of spending on areas like health and education, increased by a quarter over the last three years, from £37billion to £46.5billion

The figures were released without fanfare on the Cabinet Office's website last night.

A Cabinet Office report showed that spending on the quangos, or executive “non-departmental public bodies”, rose by £3.5 billion - or 7 per cent - to £46.5billion last year.

The latest figures mean that spending on the organisations has now increased by £10billion or 25 per cent over the past three years.

Of the £46.5billion, £38.4billion was funded directly by Government, with the remainder coming from a combination of fees, charges, levies and National Lottery and European Union funding.

The number of the public bodies fell from 827 to 790 between 2008 and 2009, but staff employed by the executive bodies increased from 92,500 to 110,000 people.

The figures, from the Cabinet Office’s Public Bodies, excludes executive agencies, public corporations, non-ministerial departments and many of the local and regional quangos created by Labour.

According to research by the Taxpayers’ Alliance, which campaigns against wasteful spending of public money, there were 1,152 quangos in the UK in 2008, costing the taxpayer £90 billion.

A spokesman for the alliance said: “The Government evidently felt this was a good day to bury the bad news about our bloated quango state.

"Despite all the rhetoric, these unaccountable bureaucrats continue to spend a huge amount of taxpayers’ money without any need to answer to the people.

“We could save billions by scrapping many of these bodies, and cutting down or amalgamating many others. It is time taxpayers’ were given control of how their own taxes are spent.”

Quangos cost the UK just £21.4billion in 1997/98, a year after Labour came to power promising a "bonfire of the quangos".

YE GODS! why do we have a government when all their work is farmed out to these money pits.

Yes there should be a “bonfire” and 600 plus MPs should be on it.

Angus

Fiscal responsibility-no choice

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 10:20:00 +0000

The name's Osborne: george osborne

The Guardian runs a piece this morning on George Osborne and his plans for an audit of the country's finances so that he can “begin the process of cutting public spending”, sounds good doesn’t it, and it makes George look as if he is on top of the game and is being pre-emptive and responsible.

The truth is that he has no choice; the ‘Fiscal Responsibility Act’ forces him to get his finger out and do his job.

Summary of the Bill

The Bill imposes a statutory duty on the Treasury to meet specific targets for the reduction of government borrowing and debt. The Government believes that this legislation demonstrates its commitment to ensuring the sustainability of the public finances. The Bill gives Parliament a greater role in fiscal policy.

Key areas

The Bill requires the Treasury to make sure that:

Government borrowing in each financial year between 2010/11 and 2015/16 is lower than the previous year, measured as a percentage of GDP
Government borrowing in 2013/14 is no more than half its 2009/10 level. A draft statutory instrument made under the Bill requires borrowing to be no more than 5.5 per cent of GDP in 2013/14
Government debt is lower in 2015/16 than in 2014/15, measured as a percentage of GDP

The Bill also requires the Treasury to report to Parliament in the Budget and in Pre-Budget Reports and to provide an explanation if the targets are missed.

So don’t get sucked in by the “Newlyweds” they have no choice, the only choice they do have is what they are going to do about taxes, indirect and direct, how much they are going to punish us for the politicians lack of control and foresight regarding the Economy.

Angus

An added cost to the Lisbon treaty

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:20:00 +0000

From the Telegraph-the whole thing.

MEPs are to receive an increase to their staff allowance that will see it climb to £220,000 a year to help them implement the EU Lisbon Treaty.

The European Parliament was forced to clean up the rules over the payment of staffing expenses last February following press exposure of MEPs misusing or abusing the allowance.

Despite the high-profile scandals, an internal document seen by The Daily Telegraph has proposed a nine per cent increase in the parliamentary assistance allowance "following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty".

"With more power comes more work," said a parliament official.

Marta Andreasen, a UKIP MEP and member of the European Parliament's budgetary control committee, said: "It is disgraceful that MEPs have just awarded themselves an extra 1,500 Euros per month. When the political class is held in such contempt to be awarding themselves extra money is incomprehensible."

MEPs can use the extra cash to employ extra staff or increase the salaries of existing assistants. The increase, which comes at a time of swingeing cutbacks and austerity in national public sectors, will take the annual allowance to £203,000 in 2010.

The Daily Telegraph understands that staff expenses will be further increased by another £16,000 in 2011, taking the total annual allowance to almost £220,000.

At least 17 British MEPs - including European Labour, Conservative and UKIP leaders - who returned to the parliament following elections last June use a loophole, known as la clause anglaise, to pay close relations, including wives and children, from the allowances.

The boost to staffing payments, already regarded as lavish by most outsiders, will come on top of a proposed recession-busting pay increase taking the annual salary of an MEP to almost £86,000.

Negotiations on the 3.7 per cent pay rise for all European civil servants, as well as MEPs, ended in deadlock yesterday after 10 EU member states, including Britain, expressed opposition to the legally binding wage increase.

Senior MEPs and the parliament's president have lobbied hard to insist that governments "must respect the law" as regards the indexed EU salary calculation.

Trade unions representing EU staff have threatened strike action and expensive legal action to uphold the pay rise.

A British diplomat said: "The proposed pay increase is seriously out of step with the current economic and financial situation and is not in keeping with the situation facing millions of other employees across the EU who have faced pay cuts or even lost their jobs this year. We had hoped that Community officials would recognise this."

As well as staff allowances, MEPs receive a "general expenditure allowance" worth over £44,000 without having to provide any receipts. While working in Brussels or Strasbourg, MEPs pocket a £265 cash subsistence payment, worth over £40,000 tax-free every year.

What recession?

Angus

Angus Dei on all and sundry

AnglishLit

Angus Dei-NHS-THE OTHER SIDE

“Accredited persons”

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:24:00 +0000

‘Snoopers creep’, it seems that law and order is not confined to the Police any more, it seems that under this so called labour ‘Government’ there is a small army of town hall spies and civilian snoopers who have the power to hand out fines and demand names and address has been built up.

Under the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme a chief constable can hand employees of local authorities or private companies limited powers such as handing out on-the-spot fines for offences such as disorder, truancy and littering, stopping vehicles for roadside tests and confiscating alcohol.

They have their own uniform and badge and can demand your name and address as well as take a photograph of you if you are being given a fine.

There are now 1,667 so-called "accredited persons" in England and Wales after an increased of a fifth in just a year – the equivalent of a small police force. There were just 945 in 2006.

A further 478 civilians have also been accredited under the scheme just to deal with specific motoring offences including no tax and roadworthy tests.

It means more than 2,000 individuals have police-style powers but are not directly accountable to a chief constable or the public.

Simon Reed, vice chairman of the Police Federation, said: "It seems like we are starting to get almost a third tier of policing. It is not quite a private police force but it is another tier and what control do we have over these people?

"They have got these powers and who are they accountable to? That is our concern and, quite rightly, the public should be concerned about that as well."

Chief constables were given the right to hand limited police powers to civilians under the scheme in the 2002 Police Reform Act. The aim was to give civilians working in the community safety to have more powers to deal with the public.

So far, 109 organisations are involved, including 31 private companies, as well as local authorities, housing associations, NHS trusts and the fire service.

Last year companies were urged to sign up to the scheme and even encouraged to use their involvement as a way of promoting themselves for "market advantage". A Home Office good practice guide at the time even admitted they are doing the jobs the police do not want to do.

It seems that we are living in a country that is becoming worse than a Police state, it is becoming a snoopers state, filled with ‘accredited persons’ accountable to no one and able to fine, photograph and add us to the growing databases of the “security services”.

Angus

Angus Dei on all and sundry

AnglishLit

Angus Dei-NHS-THE OTHER SIDE

To Con or not to Con, that is the question

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:56:00 +0000

Chancellor Alistair Darling has hit back at Tory claims his decision to increase some benefits in his pre-Budget report was a "pre-election con".

The claim came after it emerged Mr Darling did not set aside funding to pay for rises for more than one year.

Mr Darling told BBC Radio 4's Today the increases, in child and disability benefit, were "not temporary".

It comes as a think tank says the cost to families of paying back the national debt is £2,400 over eight years.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies said the pre-Budget report implies £15bn in spending cuts not yet identified by the government between 2011 and 2014 - which taken together with tax increases will impact on family finances.

The think tank says the government will have to cut 6.4% per year in order to protect schools, hospitals and increase overseas aid.

Defence, higher education, transport and housing are most likely to be hit, the IFS say.

In Wednesday's pre-Budget report, Mr Darling announced a 1.5% rise in child benefit and disability benefits from April - just weeks ahead of the expected date of the general election.

He also announced an above-inflation 2.5% increase in the basic state pension.

This was followed on Thursday by an announcement that jobseeker's allowance and incapacity benefits would rise by 1.8% from April next year.

Mr Darling said he was waiving the normal requirement to link the rise to the rate of inflation the previous September, as this would have led to the benefits being frozen because inflation was negative at that point.

What the Tories do if they win the next election in May or what will labour do if they call an election in March? Remember the chancellor’s statement “increases, in child and disability benefit, were "not temporary". “

Time will tell.

Angus

Angus Dei on all and sundry

AnglishLit

Angus Dei-NHS-THE OTHER SIDE

Divided Britain

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:58:00 +0000

As I sit here in my cold damp hovel, wrapped in blankets and three layers of clothing sipping my lukewarm gruel I wonder at the huge chasm that has opened up between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have not’s.

I watch the news and see yet another round of MPs expenses “scandals”; I see people who are rich compared to the majority of pensioners and young people, taking seemingly without compunction from the taxpayer to make their lives better while the rest of us are struggling to make ends meet.

I see a labour Government that has destroyed the economy and put millions out of work, and a Conservative party that has no real policies, I see indecision, and greed and the worst thing I see is lack of care.

The lack of care that extends deeply into our “democracy”, I see the Chancellor using the pre-Budget statement as an election ploy, trying to butter up the old and families with promises of more money, for a while at least.

I see a lack of police on the streets, and a crumbling NHS, I see thousands of overpaid public service managers and Government advisors, and I see the “leaders” feathering their nests so that they will be able to retire in comfort while ordinary people will have to work longer in order to “save money”.

I see a lack of intestinal fortitude from the Government over the ridiculously high bonuses paid to people who helped cause our problems, and I see a lack of urgency from the same government regarding the quality of life of the people that actually keep the country running-the workers.

I see overcrowded towns and roads, a lack of decent affordable housing, a lack of chances for the young, and a lack of consideration for the old.

I see thousands of patients dying in poorly run hospitals while senior management take home £150,000 plus each year, and I see the lack of justice because those that are responsible walk away with jobs and salaries intact.

I see a country that is in a shambles because of the lack of leadership and avarice, whose only answer seems to be “tax it” and all will be alright, unknowing that the less people have the less they will spend and this will delay the “recovery”.

Sometimes I think I see too much, sometimes I wish I were like the politicians-blind.

Angus

Angus Dei on all and sundry

AnglishLit

Angus Dei-NHS-THE OTHER SIDE

Got an hour or so to waste?

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:33:00 +0000

Then take a look at this from the BEEB, it is probably better than the Pre Budget report on BBC2 at the moment.

Angus

Angus Dei on all and sundry

AnglishLit

Angus Dei-NHS-THE OTHER SIDE

Pre-Budget report: what to look out for

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:31:00 +0000

Here is what to look out for when Alistair Darling delivers the pre-Budget report on Wednesday.

The threshold for paying inheritance tax – currently set at 40 per cent – is due to rise with inflation to £350,000 in April, but the Chancellor is likely to announce in the pre-Budget report that it will be pegged at £325,000 in an effort to create a dividing line with the Tories.

David Cameron has pledged to abolish inheritance tax for everyone except millionaires. The Tories promised to enact the necessary legislation in their first term.

Forecast: Threshold frozen at £325,000. Likelihood: 7/10

Alistair Darling has instructed officials to draw up plans to target bankers with a windfall tax to sate growing public anger at excessive bonuses. Two windfall options - a tax on employee bonuses, and a tax on bank profits - are on the table. Any measure would apply to all banks operating in Britain, including overseas firms, and would rake in substantially more than £1 billion a year for two or three years.

George Osborne has called for the Treasury and the FSA to prevent banks paying bonuses entirely in cash, arguing that traders would be less willing to take short-term risks if they received much of their bonus in shares in their company. While saying that he "wouldn't rule out" a windfall tax on bonuses, the shadow chancellor yesterday said he preferred measures to prevent banks from limiting their tax exposure by setting future profits against current losses.

Forecast: One-off tax on large bonuses. Likelihood: 6/10

A new top rate of income tax of 50 per cent on earnings over £150,000 comes into force next April. The Chancellor could lower the threshold to include those paid more than £100,000 a year, but this is thought unlikely. The accountants Ernst and Young have predicted that he could introduce a new 60 per cent band for people earning more than £500,000, raking in an extra £2 billion a year. More realistically, the accountants Grant Thornton have calculated that an extra 70,000 people a year will to be dragged up into the 40 per cent tax bracket as Darling freezes the personal allowance on which no tax is due, despite rising average earnings.

George Osborne says that he opposes the new 50 per cent tax rate but has not pledged to abolish it – at least for the first few years of a Tory government. Despite opposition from business groups the Conservatives have said that the upper bracket will remain in place for much of their first term, and won't be scrapped while lower paid groups are also struggling with other tax hikes.

Forecast: Threshold of new 50 per cent rate reduced to £100,000. Likelihood: 3/10

Profits on capital investments, including the purchase of second homes, are currently taxed at just 18 per cent. This is far less than most people pay in income tax and is seen as rewarding speculation. The accountants BDO say that Darling may address this discrepancy by increasing CGT to at least 20 per cent, and possibly up to 40 per cent for some short-term gains. Receipts from CGT have fallen sharply during the recession – the taxman is expected to take £2.2 billion over this financial year, down from £7.85 billion the year before – and raising the rate would help fill the hole in the public finances.

A commission set up by the Tory party to investigate possible reforms to the tax system in 2006 also proposed closing the gap between CGT and income tax rates. Osborne is said to be in “listening mode” about whether businesses would welcome such a change.

Forecast: CGT increased to 20 per cent. Likelihood: 5/10

The question of whether the tax system should be used to reward and promote marriage will be a hot issue during year's general election campaign. Harriet Harman, the deputy Labour leader and minister for women and equality, will say in a speech this week that tax breaks for married couples, which are backed by the Tories, would reward wealthy middle-aged men on their second or third marriages at the expense of single mothers and divorced women. With the cost of introducing tax allowances for married couples calculated at £5 billion a year, Darling is unlikely to announce a change in Labour policy.

What Tories would do: Women who do not work will be able to transfer their personal tax allowance to their husband, saving families between £1,295 and £2,590 a year. The policy is designed to encourage mothers to stay at home and look after their children, as it would have no benefit for couples both of whom work.

Forecast: Darling makes a point of attacking Tory policy as unfair and uncosted. Likelihood: 9 /10

The Chancellor will announce a number of measures to cut public spending in an effort to reduce in the deficit. Hundreds of millions of pounds will be saved by shelving part of the NHS computer database programme, which has already cost more than £12 billion. He will also flesh out plans to move more civil servants out of London and cut the salaries of the highest paid public sector bosses by 20 per cent over the next three years. Certain budgets within departments – cancer care, teaching, police numbers and transport infrastructure – will be protected from across-the-board cuts, meaning other areas will be hit with savage reductions of up to 20 per cent. Darling is also expected to disclose that the Britain's deficit will rise to more than the £175 billion he predicted, but not reach £200 billion...

What Tories would do: They have promised more aggressive action to reduce central government spending than Labour, while ring-fencing NHS and international development budgets. "This country is virtually bust," Osborne said yesterday. "If we don't deal with those debts then we are not going to have the sustainable recovery and the jobs that this country so desperately needs at the moment."

Forecast: Legislation committing government to halve deficit within four years. Likelihood: 10/10

In last year's pre-budget report Darling cut VAT from 17.5 per cent to 15 per cent in an effort to stimulate consumer spending. That reduction is due to expire on New Year's Day, although the Chancellor has been lobbied by retailers to push the date back. Ernst and Young accounts have predicted that he may consider extending the discount for another three months, then claw back the money by setting VAT at 20 per cent when it is reimposed. Estate agents are also calling for the stamp duty holiday, which affected properties worth between £125,000 and £175,000, to be prolonged beyond Jan 1.

What Tories would do: The party has criticised Labour's surprise VAT cut as an ineffective and expensive gesture. Reports this summer indicated that senior figures in the shadow cabinet were considering plans to increase the rate to 20 per cent within weeks of coming to power.

Struggling firms would be allowed to defer their VAT bills for up to six months, while the Tories have also pledged say they will abolish stamp duty for nine out of ten first-time buyers.

Forecast: Darling confirms that VAT will go back up to 17.5 per cent next month. Likelihood: 8/10

With one in five young people currently unemployed, the Government is expected to announce £2.5 billion has been set aside to extend a scheme to provide training or an internship for anyone between the ages of 18 and 24 has been out of work for 12 months. Yvette Cooper, the Work and Pensions Secretary, said that this "big further push" should ensure that young unemployment begins to fall in the second half of 2010.

What Tories would do: Money earmarked for unemployment benefit would be diverted to provide tax breaks to support the creation of new jobs. They are also calling for the government's various schemes to provide small firms with access to capital to be simplified. The Conservatives proposed a £50 billion nation loan guarantee system during the height of the recession, but are now calling for "failed" Government alternatives to be overhauled, with less red tape.

Forecast: £2.5 billion to train the long-term youth unemployed. Likelihood: 9/10

And of course the usual: Petrol and diesel prices up, fags up, booze up, car tax up. MOTs up, food up, gas and electricity up, wages down, productivity down, economy down, morale down, depression up, and bankruptcies up, makes you proud to be British doesn’t it?

Angus

Angus Dei on all and sundry

AnglishLit

Angus Dei-NHS-THE OTHER SIDE

Angus Dei politico

NO SHIT!!

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:11:00 +0000

In an effort to make today “have a laugh day” here is a snippet of news from Westminster:

MPs at the House of Commons were hit with a strange short of shortage, after the building came dangerously short of loo roll paper.

In an episode that left officials suitably red-faced, the Palace of Westminster had at one stage on Tuesday morning just two packets left in the whole building.

The company who supplied paper admitted they had a problem with their supplies, but it remained unclear what caused it.

First disclosed in a blog by the Daily Telegraph’s political reporter James Kirkup, commons sources said there were only two packets left to re supply the entire parliamentary estate.

After MPs and Peers were left desperate by the lack of paper, frantic staff rushed throughout the building in a vain attempt to locate any remaining lavatory paper.

As news of the unusual crisis spread through Westminster, some MPs were so desperate for paper they even sent staff to the local Tesco Metro across the road to replenish stocks.

Some reports even suggested that some raided the women’s lavatory, where the supply had yet to run out.

The company responsible for supplying the paper, KGB – Kevan and Gina, Brown – admitted there was a problem with supply.

“There has been an issue with supplies,” a company spokesman said.
But it will be sorted out as soon as possible.”

They could not say what had caused the shortage.

With the amount of crap that comes out of Parliament I am not surprised, mind you they could always use the Lisbon Treaty for all the good it is.

Angus

Angus Dei on all and sundry

AnglishLit

Angus Dei-NHS-THE OTHER SIDE

They still haven’t got it yet, have they?

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:35:00 +0000

Dozens of MPs are thought to be refusing to pay back public money they were paid in excessive parliamentary expenses claims.

Sir Thomas Legg, the retired senior civil servant who audited all MPs’ claims since 2004, has been sending out final requests for tens of thousands of pounds worth of claims to be repaid.

He sent all MPs a letter of findings last month, stating whether they needed to repay money, were in the clear, or if he required more information. He gave them three weeks to respond before receiving a bill.

He has already received about £1 million in repayments, including more than £12,000 from Gordon Brown for cleaning and gardening claims deemed to have been excessive and further repayments from David Cameron and Nick Clegg, the Tory and Lib Dem leaders.

But it is thought up to 50 MPs are thought to have refused to respond or told Sir Thomas that they will not pay back the money, delaying his final report.

Sir Peter Viggers, the Conservative MP for Gosport who was found by the Daily Telegraph to have attempted to claim £1,600 for a duck house, was asked by Sir Thomas to pay back more than £40,000.

Sir Peter, who was ordered to step down at the next general election by David Cameron, was reported to be refusing to pay back the money. He declined to comment yesterday.

Frank Field, the former Labour minister, had said he would not repay almost £7,000 in claims for "housekeeping costs" and other household bills deemed excessive by Sir Thomas. Mr Field said yesterday: "I am awaiting Sir Thomas's final conclusions."

Frank Cook, the Labour MP for Stockton North, earlier said he would tell Sir Thomas to “p--- off” over his demand that the MP pay back £980 in utility bills. He was also asked to repay money for a fridge.

He also declined to comment yesterday.

Bernard Jenkin, the Tory MP for North Essex, who appealed after being asked by Sir Thomas to repay £63,250 that he claimed to rent a second home from his sister-in-law, has not heard back.

Commons rules changed in 2006 to bar MPs from renting from family members, but Mr Jenkin said he had been assured by officials that he could continue claiming allowances for the house.

Mr Jenkin, who received the largest bill from Sir Thomas of all MPs, said yesterday: “Sir Thomas Legg has not yet responded to my representations. I will repay whatever is finally recommended at the end of the process.”

Gordon Brown, David Cameron, the Conservative leader, and John Bercow, the Commons speaker, all told MPs they should abide by Sir Thomas’s recommendations in an attempt to end the expenses scandal.

A spokesman for Sir Thomas did not respond to a request for comment.

Strange that, when it comes to telling us what to do you can’t stop MPs talking, but when it comes to explaining why they are refusing to reimburse us for money they have ripped off they are suddenly silent.

As I said in the headline “they still haven’t got it yet” have they?

Angus

Angus Dei on all and sundry

AnglishLit

Angus Dei-NHS-THE OTHER SIDE

Why am I not surprised?

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:16:00 +0000

The Quango which runs the Legal Aid system is wasting millions on unnecessary administration and overpaying lawyers, the National Audit Office has found.

And “suggested” that the Legal Services Commission should cut back on its administration budget, and questioned why it was overpaying lawyers with millions of pounds in fees.

The NAO warned that there were “risks to value for money from the way the Legal Services Commission administers and procures legal aid for criminal cases”.

The report found that the commission "should do more to understand the market for criminal legal aid to make the most of its ability to control price and quality".

Last year, it found the Quango overpaid solicitors on criminal and civil legal aid cases by an estimated £25 million. In the same year it spent £1.1billion on criminal legal aid.

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, added: “The Commission needs to address this as a priority to make sure that it is paying a fair price for legal aid services that both sustains a competitive supplier base and provides value for money.”

A survey of solicitors by the NAO found that more than a third thought the Commission was “unhelpful” while 29 per cent of solicitors believed the Commission “did not fully understand the legal system”.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow Justice Secretary, said: “This is a savage indictment of this government’s mismanagement of the legal aid budget.

"Criminal legal aid cost over £1billion last year, but the taxpayer is getting poor value for money. The government doesn’t understand the market for legal services and consistently fails to spend money effectively.”

Lord Bach, the Legal Aid minister, said he was disappointed that "control systems" at the commission had "led to a substantial number of overpayments.

"I have therefore asked the Commission to put in place an action plan to recover these amounts and to impose tighter controls to ensure claims are more effectively scrutinised to prevent repetition."

Last night the Government ordered the Commission to reclaim the overpaid fees, which amounted to £25million last year.

No recession for legal aid lawyers then, at our expense of course.

Angus

Angus Dei on all and sundry

AnglishLit

Angus Dei-NHS-THE OTHER SIDE

More Value for Money

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:06:00 +0000

A new ‘broadband tax’ to fund fast internet access will attract VAT and be applied to each phone line, leaving nearly two million households paying up three times the £6 announced by the government.

Plans by Revenue & Customs show that ministers will apply the tax to each phone line rather than per customer — affecting more than 1.7 million homes with more than one phone line — and will also add VAT to the cost.

A document, leaked to the Conservatives and reported in The Times, shows the Treasury stands to gain a further £30 million annual windfall by applying VAT to create a tax upon a tax.

The levy, billed as ‘50p a month’ when it was announced in June, has also widened to include high-speed fibre-optic connections in addition to standard copper lines.

A household with one line for phone calls and another for internet or fax use would pay 50p a month on each line plus VAT, a total of £14.10. Users with three lines, many of whom work from home, would pay £21.15.

The CBI said businesses would need to pay their share of the cost of improvements to Britain’s broadband infrastructure but called on the government to “clarify exactly how the charges will apply to individual businesses with multiple lines.”

Ministers hope the levy will raise up to £175 million a year to fund fast connections for rural areas that currently suffer from sluggish or non-existent broadband access.

A government spokesman told the newspaper: “We do not comment on the contents of leaked documents. It is vital for jobs and growth that Britain has a world-class digital infrastructure. Next-generation broadband brings a range of innovative services and applications with wide business, health and social benefits.

“We want everyone to experience the opportunities that next-generation broadband offers, which is why we plan to introduce a 50p levy on all fixed lines to help the market to access homes and businesses in hard-to-reach areas.”

And as we are going to pay for this, do we get a cut of the profits or a reduction in charges?

Angus

Angus Dei on all and sundry

AnglishLit

Angus Dei-NHS-THE OTHER SIDE

British Bollocks Corporation

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:18:00 +0000

I really get pissed of by Numptys like Mark Thompson, the director general of the BBC who vomit forth statements such as “viewers care more about repeats” than the exorbitant salaries paid to executives.

Figures released by the corporation disclosed the top 100 are paid an average of £199,316 – comfortably exceeding the Prime Minister’s £194,250 salary.

With bonuses and other entitlements, the executives’ average package is more than £214,000 a year – almost 10 times the average British salary.

Mr Thompson’s total pay package last year was £834,000, which is more than 20 times the average salary. The same senior staff also claimed £175,000 in expenses in the first three months of the financial year.

But one senior executive told the Daily Telegraph that there was to be no action on pay because the corporation’s private data showed that salary and expenses were way down the priority list of licence payers.

The BBC released the salary and expenses figures last week to try to live up to the demand that public bodies should be more transparent and open. But the move backfired as the Tories said the scale of the pay packages and expenses were “insulting” to the public, while the Liberal Democrats said licence-fee payers would be “gobsmacked”.

The director general is also adamant that the BBC will not bow to pressure from MPs to publish the salary details of its “talent” such as Jonathan Ross, Sir Bruce Forsyth and Graham Norton.

When was this poll? Why wasn’t I asked for my opinion? Does anyone know of someone who participated in the said poll?

The BBC (British Bollocks Corporation) has been on the slide for some years, programme quality has lessened, and yes there are more repeats, but the knobs at the top don’t have to watch them because the salaries they are paid allows them to subscribe to satellite TV, unlike many of the license fee payers who are struggling to eat because of the £139.50 per year or £11.63 per month which could be put to much better use than the £834,000, per year or £69,500 per month paid to “Mr” Thompson.

The BBC (British Bollocks Corporation) is supposed to be a public service, not a golden goose egg for the unworthy.

Angus

Angus Dei on all and sundry

AnglishLit

Angus Dei-NHS-THE OTHER SIDE

Safety begins at home

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:50:00 +0000

You may have noticed that I have not posted for a while, the reason is here.

Some of the world's poorest countries are to receive a cash injection of £1.5m from the UK government to help improve road safety.

Road accidents are now a bigger cause of death than malaria in developing countries, with one person dying on the roads every 30 seconds.

The funding will pay for pedestrian crossings and better road markings.

It was announced at the first ministerial global road safety summit, which was held in Moscow.

Minister for Development Gareth Thomas said the road safety statistics in developing countries were "shocking".

"I want to see this funding make a real impact on reducing casualty numbers where it's needed most. It will help with implementing basic safety measures," he said.

"Statistics show that the UK has some of the safest roads in the world. We must use our expertise to help developing countries meet the safety standards that we take for granted."

Use our expertise yes, but not our money.

Angus

Angus Dei on all and sundry

AnglishLit

Angus Dei-NHS-THE OTHER SIDE

Baron Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham, Lord President of the Council, First Secretary of State,

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:27:00 +0000

Oh yes; we mustn’t forget “Deputy prime Minister” in all but Double H’s (Harriet Harmon) mind.

It seems that the “Prince of Darkness” has just been awarded yet another ‘title’-Politician of the Year in the Thread needle/Spectator Parliamentarian of the Year awards..

Other inane awards are:-

Newcomer of the Year was Ken Clarke, who has been around since Adam was a lad.

Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, became Survivor of the Year, in recognition of the exemplary way in which he saw off the attempt by Ed Balls to take his job.

Lord Adonis, the present Transport Secretary, was made Minister to Watch. He said that the country has had 36 transport secretaries since the war, half of whom served for a year or less, which is why we have such an excellent transport system.

James Purnell, who got Resignation of the Year for leaving his post as Work and Pensions Secretary, and who might have toppled Gordon Brown had Lord Mandelson not rushed to the Prime Minister’s rescue, said his career was going really well until the Spectator started being nice about him, and requested that this now stop.

The only deserved accolade was for Joanna Lumley and the Gurkhas who won the award for Campaigner of the Year, but Miss Lumley generously gave the politicians a chance to shine by sending a message that she had a prior engagement in Newcastle.

Don’t blame you Joanna; I would rather be in Newcastle than next to the “dark prince”

Angus

Angus Dei on all and sundry

AnglishLit

Angus Dei-NHS-THE OTHER SIDE

Gord justifying MOD bonuses

noreply@blogger.com (Angus) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:55:00 +0000

Yesterday I posted a short piece on MOD bonuses, now it seems that Mr Brown has found the need to justify those bonuses.

Gordon Brown said he will "examine" any questions raised over the bonuses paid to civil servants at the Ministry of Defence.

Referring to the £47 million paid out in bonuses this year alone, the Prime Minister said that some of the recipients had been out to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speaking as he visited an engine manufacturing plant in Gillingham, Kent, Mr Brown said: "If there are any questions asked over the bonuses, I will examine them.

"I've got to say that some of the people who have received help have been working out in the field and people that have been supporting people out there.

"We want to send a message of support to our armed forces."

Official MoD figures showed a total of £287,809,049 has been paid out in bonuses to civil servants since 2003, the year Britain went to war in Iraq.

The figures, released yesterday, have sparked anger among the families of soldiers who have been killed fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, said the civil servants deserve millions of pounds of bonuses because they face the same risks as troops on the frontline in Afghanistan.

Mr Johnson said that this year’s MoD bonuses were justified because some civilian staff from the ministry go “into the front line”.

The MoD said the bonuses were paid for “exceptional performance” but military families and campaigners said they cannot be justified when troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan.

The £47 million covers just the first seven months of the financial year. The MoD said yesterday that the bonuses would average less than £1,000, but a senior civil servant could pick up £8,000.

A total of 232 British service personnel have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001. More than 1,000 have been seriously wounded.

A total of 50,000 civil servants have been given bonuses this year.

Speaking to GMTV, Mr Jonhnson suggested that officials are also risking their lives for their country.

Civil servants had to go "into the front line" to develop mechanisms to protect troops from improvised explosive devices, he said "When they do that my understanding is they work 17, 18 hours in Afghanistan They don't get overtime for that - they get a bonus to compensate.

He added: "I instinctively feel that as much as we can... should be going to our front line troops. But I wouldn't suggest that civil servants doing that very difficult and sometimes dangerous job should just be told 'you don't get any extra reward for that'."

There are 85,000 civil servants at the MoD — one for every two active soldiers, the highest level among the Allied nations — and about 50,000 will get a performance bonus this year.

Last year, the department had 95 employees who were on a salary of more than £100,000. A private in the Army can be paid as little as £16,681 a year, with a bonus of £13 a day for serving in Afghanistan.

British troops are dying in Afghanistan at a rate not seen since the Falklands conflict and polls indicate that voters are turning against the mission. Commanders have said that some deaths could have been avoided if there had been more helicopters available.

The bonus payments have risen sharply even as the MoD’s record has come in for growing criticism. In 2003-04, total bonus payments were £24.9 million.

Many of this year’s bonuses were paid in August, as the department was trying to cut £20 million from the budget of the Territorial Army.

Keep at it Gord you may even convince yourself, but you certainly won’t convince me.

However; here is a comment from Yesterday "The MoD bonuses are imposed on the staff by a cabinet office ruling, which says that a bonus element must be included in any pay deal.What it really means is the minute pay increase for MoD civilians is mostly payed as a bonus which means it is not pensionable.It is the usual spin/lies by the media/government to inflame public opinion to agree with the policy to cut public services..."

Both sides.

Angus

Angus Dei on all and sundry

AnglishLit

Angus Dei-NHS-THE OTHER SIDE