Michael Martin wastes more money

As expected the High Court has ruled that details of Additional Costs Allowance claims of several MPs must be made public. Martin knew there were no grounds to challenge the original decision by the Information Tribunal, but used our money to go to court anyway.

Over £100,000 later and with additional costs of over £33,000 loaded on to the bill, Martin is now considering an appeal - at yet more cost to the taxpayer. It is disgraceful.

The public has a right to know how its money is spent by MPs on their personal interests such as second homes. Describing a request to learn how our money is spent is not "unlawfully intrusive", it is our democratic right.

MPs must not be allowed to be a law unto themselves and use our money without proper scrutiny. Any appeal is merely a delay of the inevitable and a further waste of our taxes. As vested self interest goes, Martin and his cronies are a case study bar none.

It is time to drain the Parliamentary swamp of greedy pigs with their snouts in the trough. Martin should be the first shown the door. He must be challenged at the next election by someone on an anti sleaze ticket.

Nick the Builder, can he claim it?

Nick the Builder, yes he can! And he did! Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg finally published his expenses for running a second home, more than a month after he called for MPs to publish theirs voluntarily. We learn on the BBC that his house in Sheffield:

had been in a "neglected condition" when he bought it and needed the work to make it fit for normal use - money was spent on repairing his garage, redecorating his living room and tiling his kitchen wall.

Guido, who has been chasing the publication of Clegg's expenses since his forthright demand for MPs to reveal all, puts Clegg's expenses in perspective as he explains what was claimed:

Additional Costs Allowance he claimed £23,083.00
100% of the maximum £23,083 legally allowed.

Incidental Expenses Provision claim £20,926.63
98% of the maximum £21,339 legally allowed.

It is heartwarming, is it not, that Nick Clegg manages to claim more in expenses than most people in this country earn in salary each year. No doubt the hard pressed taxpayer was at the forefront of his mind as he signed his expenses forms and submitted them to Parliament's finance team.

But let us not forget that Clegg is a man of the people. It is just that some of the people are more equal than others. Hopefully Clegg is pleased with the decor in the living room and the tiles in the kitchen. A quick thank you to the taxpayers of Great Britain will not go amiss.

Whitewash in Whitehall

If anyone wondered whether the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards could be relied upon to clamp down on the abuse of public money by MPs, the answer has been revealed. No.

Quite how Speaker Michael Martin's wife can be deemed to have been "reasonable" in spending £4,000 of taxpayers' money on taxis is beyond me. Quite how a 'housekeeper' is an 'official' is beyond me.

It is all too clear that for too many MPs life in the Commons is about what you can get out of it, rather than service to the public. Evidently some are much more equal than others. Once again the Standards watchdog is shown to be toothless in the face of the public purse being plundered.

Has rising fuel cost enabled Labour tax cut?

Without the slightest recognition of the irony of his actions, Alastair Darling has done what the government has been saying it could not do and increased personal tax allowances by £600 (for one year only) - at a cost of £2.7 billion - to offset the abolition of the 10% starting rate of income tax. Each time it was suggested that increasing the personal allowance was a way to resolve the issue, Gordon Brown and his cronies said there was no money to do it. Suddenly, after finding themselves behind in the polls in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election and under fire from their own backbenchers, the change to the personal allowance magically became possible.

Anything that enables people to keep more of their own money should be welcomed. But this measure is not being paid for by reducing the burden of Big Government. It is effectively an unfunded tax cut that has cost the government more money than simply leaving the 10% tax rate in place. People with medium incomes not only benefit from the original cut in income tax to 20%, but also from this increase in the personal allowance.

But one way or another, you can be sure Labour will find a way of taking the money back from us. People will be no better off and disposable income will not increase. This measure is only enabling people to keep what they were having taken from them via last year's Brown budget.

Maybe the soaring cost of fuel has boosted the Treasury coffers sufficiently to cover the cost of this measure for a year. The amount of VAT collected at the pumps and through energy bills rises with each petrol, gas and electricity price hike. The government might decry fuel poverty, but it is the pain of those least able to afford rising gas and electricity prices that is giving the government the increased tax receipts that make this personal allowance increase possible. The poor, it seems, are still being screwed by Labour.

Government response to economic crisis

While people rightly discuss the speculation about how far house prices might fall and the effects on the economy of the credit crunch - and Labour's inability to stimulate the economy having wasted our tax pounds - Caroline Flint's briefing notes tell us how the government will manage the effects of economic difficulties in Britain (click to enlarge)...


For those who cannot read the text circled above, this is the wording - including clumsy grammar - verbatim:

But it is vital that we show that at this time of uncertainty we show that we are on people's side:

Sheer brilliance. That should do it guys, thanks. If it is true that countries get the governments they deserve, what on earth did we do that was so bad?

Gordon's mobile phone in fear?

Which event is more likely to happen today?

1. Some kind hearted Cabinet colleague will offer Caroline Flint a folder in which to keep confidential briefing notes so they cannot be viewed by others
   
2. Gordon Brown will be getting acquainted with a new mobile phone after his current one meets an untimely end against an internal wall in 10 Downing Street

Now we know that house prices are expected to fall by 5 to 10 per cent “at best” this year and government experts have conceded to the Cabinet via Ms Flint that “we can’t know how bad it will get”. We have seen it in writing in Ms Flint's hot little hands. But worry not, because Ed Balls will be keen for the public to be reminded about Labour's economic miracle and amazing competence in ruining running the economy.

Maybe Alan Johnson and David Miliband will now be treated to a close quarters insight into one of Gordon Brown's "tempers of an indescribable nature" an experience that they seem to have uniquely missed out on thus far.

BBC wordplay on terrorism reports

Just imagine if an off-duty police officer got into his car in leafy Surrey and the car exploded because it was rigged with a car bomb. It would lead the news and spawn follow up stories. But if it happens in Northern Ireland the BBC's editors feel it only merits a single short online piece and about 15 seconds in the middle of a news round up. But this would appear to represent progress because at least it was covered, unlike some stories that are ignored and others that are played down. Even so, we need to get four paragraphs into the story before we discover who is being held responsible for this terrorist attack.

The BBC worldview is that Ireland should be united, so stories from Northern Ireland involving republican terrorists strive not to demonise these romanticised, gentle Irish freedom fighters. This probably explains why the perpetrators of this attempted murder of a British police officer are referred to as "dissident republicans" while on Radio 4 last night, loyalist Michael Stone - who attempted to enter Stormont to allegedly kill Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness was described on more than one occasion in reports as a "terrorist". The distinction is clear.

It is not just Northern Ireland where we see examples of language being used to downplay the reality of terrorist activity where it supports a "cause" the BBC approves of. The Israeli/Arab conflict is another case in point. A couple of weeks ago on the PM programme on Radio 4 listeners heard Hamas rocket attacks on Israel being attributed as usual to "militants". But one report stood out for its determined effort to avoid using the "T" word, as the reporter explained that if Israeli troops launched any offensive to tackle Hamas it would lead to Palestinian gunmen "increasing their militancy".

It is infuriating that we are forced to pay for this biased rubbish. Terror is terror, however the BBC likes to dress it up.

Labour set to lose Slough Council

Just one week after Labour took control of Slough in the local elections, an internal party row appears to have led to a series of defections to the Conservatives according to the Slough Observer:

Cllr Diana Coad, the Tory parliamentary candidate for Slough, has confirmed enough Labour councillors had defected to her party on Sunday to take control with the BILLD group when councillors next meet on Thursday at the mayor-making ceremony.

So thanks to this nasty little internal feud over who runs the Labour Group and is therefore Leader of the Council, it appears Slough is about to revert back to coalition control. It has to be said I feel uneasy about these developments if they turn out to be accurate.

Much as I want Labour to be comprehensively defeated, the fact remains these defecting councillors were elected under the Labour Party banner just one week ago. Yes there may be a strong personal element to the vote, but people made their choice knowing these were Labour candidates. A democratic choice was made and that may now be undone by a political disagreement just days after the election.

The honourable route for an elected councillor or MP to take if he/she chooses to leave their party or join another, is to resign and fight a by-election from their new platform to earn a mandate from the electorate. Defection is a personal decision and it denies the ward or constituency the democratic right to be represented by someone from their preferred political party. Some voters in Slough must be feeling very angry tonight and with good reason.

The broken Military Covenant

If this report in the Independent on Sunday is true then I hope it proves to be the final nail in Labour's coffin. It is abhorrent that some of our armed forces personnel are unable to even feed themselves because of the combination of low pay and schemes that force them to meet the cost of basic subsistence. The government and the MoD have allowed this to happen by allocating money to ridiculous projects at the expense of basic levels of care for our military personnel and timelt supply of equipment in theatre.

We have paid more in tax than ever before. Where in the name of all things holy has all the money gone? We have bugger all to show for it. To say Labour is not working is far too tame. Labour hates this country and is determined to undermine our place in the world. Its destructive policies and its desire to wreck our institutions and our social fabric have dragged this country down to a tipping point from which it desperately needs rescue. We do not have a government. We are run by a fifth column.

Tamsin Dunwoody - the 'New BNP' candidate

Labour has officially become the nasty party. Yesterday Guido published a copy of a Labour leaflet being used in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election campaign, which I have just seen via Simon Chapman on Centre Right. It is one of the most negative leaflets I have seen in years. But it is the fourth 'question' on the leaflet - a spoof Tory candidate application form - that relegates Labour to little more than sewerage.

So this is the moral inversion Labour is turning in its attempt to rewrite history. It doggedly refused for a decade to control our borders and it allowed around two million people to enter this country. It refused to deport bogus asylum seekers yet targeted highly skilled migrants who actually benefit the country for expulsion. Then Gordon Brown bellowed "British jobs for British workers" having been the No.2 man in the government that encouraged people from overseas to migrate here. Now, having ignored repeated pleas to control migration, his party is promoting a policy akin to apartheid. This from the government that spoke of community cohesion.

Suddenly, with Labour in big trouble in the polls and given a richly deserved kicking in the local elections, it seeks to race to the bottom of the electoral cesspit by putting this leaflet out in less than affluent parts of Crewe. In places where people are struggling because of Labour's policies. Rather than accept blame for their policy failures, Labour is seeking to demonise foreigners, make them out to be the cause of people's struggles.

Labour is playing the race card against the very people Labour encouraged to come to Britain. Problems caused by immigration are not the fault of the migrants, but the administration that let them enter the country in an uncontrolled fashion in the first place.

There are clearly no depths Labour will not plumb to cling on to power. Migrants have now been made Labour's sacrificial bogeymen in a disgusting attempt to scapegoat them for the damaging effects of 11 years of Labour mismanagement and incompetence. I hope the people of Crewe see through this cynical and disgraceful ploy.

I cannot believe that Gwyneth Dunwoody would have allowed her name to be put to a leaflet like this. The fact that her daughter Tamsin has allowed her own name to be put to this suggests that the ballot paper should be altered to list her party as "New BNP". She and her campaign team are an utter disgrace.

42 day detention undone by police

Where to for Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith on their plans for 42 days detention without charge? They have repeatedly said the police think such a detention period is necessary and it is therefore justified. But there was never a consensus in the police service and even Labour's favourite political cop, Sir Ian Blair, has fatally undermined the only argument the government has to get support for the measure by saying recently:

“We have never put forward a case that there is evidence for an extension of the length of precharge detention.”

This was once again a case of Labour choosing to read what they liked into the reaction to their proposals. It was another refusal to listen, as the government swept itself away on another draconian flight of fancy in an attempt to infringe civil liberties to look tough on terror.

If the government was serious about dealing with terrorists it would refuse to be bound by EU regulations and the provisions of the Human Rights Act, which tilt the law in favour of terrorists fleeing justice in other countries, and sweep every last one of them out of this country. But rather than deal with the real issue of having to work within a legal framework imposed on this country by a foreign entity, Labour instead bogs itself down tinkering with the little bits of the legal system it can still influence - to the detriment of our civil liberties.

There are things the government could do that might make a difference in the ability of prosecutors to put terror suspects on trial, such as the use of intercept evidence and post-charge questioning. Yet it puts such tools to one side instead preferring to detain people without charge and inevitably failing to build a case against them because it will not enable such evidence to be admissible in court. Bear that in mind when Jacqui Smith tries to ram through her Bill by saying failure to support her means people are soft on terror.

Gordon Brown to join BBC?

In an interview about her forthcoming memoirs, Cherie Blair says Tony Blair is advising Gordon Brown on how to win the next General Election. This development and the hypocrisy that surrounds it is not surprising given Brown's utter incompetence and unsuitability for the job of Prime Minister. But surely Brown must be good for something? Given the sad passing of jazz legend and BBC Radio 4 presenter, Humphrey Lyttelton, maybe Brown would be able to help out the BBC as the perfect replacement for Humph as chairman of the show "I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue".

Labour's mea culpa fraud

Recent comments by Labour MPs suggest that voters are 'confused' by what the party stands for, or need the government to 'listen and learn' about their concerns, have been followed up by a claim that the public is owed an apology for 'mistakes' made by the government. It is clearly one of the most concerted and cynical spin operations of recent years - even by Labour's standards.

Labour has not left people confused. Last week showed there was no confusion at all. People see very clearly they have been taken for a ride, been taken in by empty promises and have a government that is pursuing its own damaging social engineering agenda to transform Britain into a basket case client state. It has not only wasted the ever rising amount of tax we pay, but has imported masses of cheap labour to hide the real effects of Labour policies on the economy. The game is up. The effects of uncontrolled immigration are there for all to see. As sour economic problems rear their head we see that there is no money in the pot to offset their effects. Despite the highest tax take in history and record spending our public services are in a desperate state compared to other countries. Where has the money gone?

Labour does not and never has done 'listen and learn'. It thinks it knows best. If people disagree they are sneered at and treated with contempt. Even in the fall out to last week's election results, Labour is saying one thing while doing another. It will not listen. We have had the "Big Conversation" and more recently the "Citizen Juries". Where was the listening? Where is the recognition of public rejection of the Lisbon Treaty and anger at the refusal to honour its own pledge for a referendum? Labour defaulted back to 'we know best' mode - not because they know best but because Labour is putting its own agenda before the wishes of the public. It can wear different clothes, but the mentality has not and will not change.

Labour MPs like Ivan Lewis think we should be told they are sorry for their 'mistakes'. A mistake is something unintentional. It is an action, decision or judgment which produces an unwanted or unintentional result. But Labour's policies have produced the wanted and intended outcomes Labour sought. Labour has achieved what it wanted to achieve. The only thing Labour did not intend to happen was for people to rebel and reject its agenda and consequent mismanagement. Nothing that has happened in the last 11 years has been a mistake. We have seen the true face of Labour's socialism and the reverting to type as the big taxing, big spending, low delivery party of British politics.

The Labour Party MPs are not interested in reversing their damaging policies. They believe in those policies and reject any suggestion that they were wrong. No, the Labour MPs are trying to save their own skin because they want to keep telling us what to do. They enjoy it. They crave being a political elite that 'does to people' rather than does for people. Do not be taken in by the spin and the deceptions. Keeping Labour guarantees more of the same. Like everything about New Labour, this current mea culpa is just another fraud.

There go the Unions again

The Telegraph has an article in which we learn businesses and the wealthy should pay more in tax, according to Labour's powerful trade union donors:

The GMB, which has given the party £1.4 million in the past year, wants the cap on National Insurance lifted so that higher-salaried workers pay more.

Unite, the biggest union, which donated £3.5 million last year, is demanding a review of taxes to increase the revenue from businesses.

Once again envy and class politics rises to the fore. When a GMB official stated: "The broadest shoulders should carry the heaviest loads," it was not because of a shortage of public spending. It was because of the lazy thinking that leads socialists to believe that a higher salary means there is surplus money that should be confiscated by the state. It ignores the fact higher paid people pay more in income tax because of the 40% band. It ignores the fact their council tax bills are much higher for living in a higher banded property. It ignores the higher National Insurance contributions taken from earning.

For all this extra taxation, those who pay it do not derive any greater proportion of utility from the services that it helps provide. But never mind. The unions think there is all this money sloshing around and believe it should simply be taken away. Again, not because of any shortage of public spending. Just look at the billions Labour has frittered away for little noticeable benefit.

The reason all these billions have had little effect on improving services is because of those same trade unions resisting reform. They share a lot of the responsibility for trying to maintain wasteful practices and insisting members get paid more for doing less. They view business as a collection of charities that should hand all profits over to the workforce. The business owner must take the blame if things go wrong, the workers must take all the rewards if things go right.

The union mentality is that risk takers and decision makers who often stake everything to create a business, create employment opportunity and bring success, are deserving of nothing because the want a bigger reward. If the unions want more money in the pot to squander, why not press the government to get some of the 5 million people who are not in employment, education or training into work and contributing to the Treasury? Of course that will not happen - because this is all about the union wanting to kick anyone they feel is in a class above their own, even though their perception is often completely wrong.

As someone who grew up on a council estate, who went out and found work, who developed skills so I could stay in work rather than rely on a state handout, and who recently got off my arse and started a business - and is thinking of how to grow it beyond a one-man operation in the next couple of years and provide employment and development opportunities and increase rewards - why should I be taxed even more money than I already pay while other people are allowed to sit at home without contributing anything? What incentive do I have to take on the extra work, worry and risk when what I am creating will be treated as a cash cow? Maybe a union official will care to explain.

26%

(Image from ConservativeHome)

YouGov gives the Conservatives a massive 26% lead over Labour in their poll conducted for The Sun. There must be no complacency. If the Conservatives are to translate this 26% lead into a General Election victory then more must be done to earn a mandate from the electorate.

We must focus our attention on those issues that matter most to the voters. We must set out our stall and give positive reasons to vote for a Conservative government - not simply rely on public anger with Labour. It is time to forget the centre ground. We need to concentrate on the common ground, the space we share with the electorate.