The Liberal leader has announced a plan to raise personal allowances to £10,000. Welcome to the real world!! He is only catching up with something I have been proposing for a couple of years now.
The idea that someone on the minimum wage and working 40 hours a week should pay £2,000 in tax yet received tax credits to offset this is Bizarre in the extreme, but that is how Gordon Brown's mind works.
Simplification of the system by removing the need for tax credits can save a fortune in government costs, so removing the poorest from the tax system altogether will actually reduce government spending.
Of course there are two problems with the Liberal ideas. Firstly the party is divided. There is a significant number of them, Edinburgh West Liberal MP included, who have formed a left wing group within the Liberal party to oppose the "right wing faction" consisting of Nick Clegg and Vince Cable. Secondly there is no prospect of the Liberals forming a government, therefore his ideas are pointless unless implemented by a Conservative Government.
Since this is an idea that I was proposing long before the Liberals jumped on the bandwagon, better to elect the real thing who can have a positive influence to make it happen.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Thursday, 16 April 2009
I'm sorry (well sort of)
Gordon Brown is reputed to have said today regarding the smeargate affair ....
"I am sorry about what happened... I wrote to those people affected, expressing deep regret, and the person responsible went immediately... I take full responsibility for what happened. That's why the person who was responsible went."
Interesting comments these. Note that he says he is sorry about what happened (translated - I'm sorry my right hand man got caught).
He takes full responsibility (does he? What has he done to take responsibility? Sack someone else, someone he appointed and who he has had as a trusted advisor for almost ten years?)
That's why the person responsible went (Went? Went where? It is not clear that he has left the civil service.)
The fact of the matter is that while Gordon Brown may well be telling the truth when he says he did not know about the emails, those around him acted in the way they did because of the tone set by the leader, Gordon Brown.
What this affair has brought to light is that far from bringing a new spin free regime to politics, he has been exposed as scheming double dealing bully and completely lacking in any sort of moral compass.
"I am sorry about what happened... I wrote to those people affected, expressing deep regret, and the person responsible went immediately... I take full responsibility for what happened. That's why the person who was responsible went."
Interesting comments these. Note that he says he is sorry about what happened (translated - I'm sorry my right hand man got caught).
He takes full responsibility (does he? What has he done to take responsibility? Sack someone else, someone he appointed and who he has had as a trusted advisor for almost ten years?)
That's why the person responsible went (Went? Went where? It is not clear that he has left the civil service.)
The fact of the matter is that while Gordon Brown may well be telling the truth when he says he did not know about the emails, those around him acted in the way they did because of the tone set by the leader, Gordon Brown.
What this affair has brought to light is that far from bringing a new spin free regime to politics, he has been exposed as scheming double dealing bully and completely lacking in any sort of moral compass.
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
Apologies- due and not
Over the past few days we have seen the McBride scandal emerge.
This is a man who worked in Downing Street in the heartof Gordon Brown's government operation. The tone and content of the planned smears are frankly abhorrent and exposes a rottenness at the heart of government.
Gordon Brown says that he knew nothing of the emails. That may well be true, we have no way of knowing. What is clear however is that Gordon Brown has set the tone of the office that allowed those working for him to believe that they were doing the right thing by him in planning to smear political opponents and their families. In that sense, he knew all right. He set the tone, he set the scene.
What is really bizarre however is the Liberal Democrats who have popped up demanding that David Cameron apologise for the actions of a former candidate in Watford. This is nothing more than blatant opportunism as bad as the Governments shenanigans.
Clearly what happened in Watford was outrageous, and it was dealt with both by the party and the full force of the law. To draw any sort of parallel beyond that is simply crazy.
This is a man who worked in Downing Street in the heartof Gordon Brown's government operation. The tone and content of the planned smears are frankly abhorrent and exposes a rottenness at the heart of government.
Gordon Brown says that he knew nothing of the emails. That may well be true, we have no way of knowing. What is clear however is that Gordon Brown has set the tone of the office that allowed those working for him to believe that they were doing the right thing by him in planning to smear political opponents and their families. In that sense, he knew all right. He set the tone, he set the scene.
What is really bizarre however is the Liberal Democrats who have popped up demanding that David Cameron apologise for the actions of a former candidate in Watford. This is nothing more than blatant opportunism as bad as the Governments shenanigans.
Clearly what happened in Watford was outrageous, and it was dealt with both by the party and the full force of the law. To draw any sort of parallel beyond that is simply crazy.
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
Bob's blunder
You have to wonder about the judgement of Asst Commissioner Bob Quick that he carries sensitive documents where they can be seen.
Surely anyone handling sensitive documents would know that you do not compromise operations in this way. If he didn't think, then you have to question his competence.
That home secretary Jacqui Smith is standing by him only serves to emphasise her own incompetence and lack of judgement.
The fact of the matter is that both should now resign.
Surely anyone handling sensitive documents would know that you do not compromise operations in this way. If he didn't think, then you have to question his competence.
That home secretary Jacqui Smith is standing by him only serves to emphasise her own incompetence and lack of judgement.
The fact of the matter is that both should now resign.
Freedom of Speech
One would have thought that a Liberal MP would be in favour of freedom of speech. Sadly this is not the case. Edinburgh West MP John Barrett has voted down free speech (!) in the latest Bill going through Parliament (Criminal Justice & Immigration Act) which will mean that ordinary folk will be dismissed and bullied for voicing their beliefs in work and every aspect of life.
Strange how the Liberals seem to have more in common with repression than liberalism.
Strange how the Liberals seem to have more in common with repression than liberalism.
Monday, 6 April 2009
MP's expenses
What an embarrassment!!!
Every day the press brings us yet another story about MP's (and MSP's) apparently abusing their expenses. Initially it was back bench MP's, now each member of the cabinet from Gordon Brown downwards is being implicated in sleaze. http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-does-brown-claim-second-home.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/david_hughes/blog/2009/04/06/if_only_alistair_darling_was_as_good_with_the_nations_finances_as_with_his_own
Even the Liberals are at it. The MSP for West Edinburgh charges us 49p for each time she visits her constituency office. A journey of 1 mile. Now lets be clear, this is entirely within the rules, but come on... Doesn't this smack of desperation, or penny pinching, or more likely milking the system for all it's worth?(Sunday Times 5th April 2009)
Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, not to mention Geoff Hoon and Jacqui Smith have all designated their main residences as their second homes in order to claim expenses. Again it's all within the rules, but I have to ask is it in the spirit of the rules?
There is a saying that if it looks like fish and smells like fish, it probably is fish.
Surely the system of MP's expenses was set up in order to ensure that the costs of being an MP were properly reimbursed, and not to allow them to feather their nests as seems to be the pattern. All within the rules of course!
I am employed in business, and as part of my job I claim expenses. The principle I work to is that no one should ever be able to question what I claim, because it should be obvious that the claim is both legitimate and within both the rules and the spirit of the rules. In other words I will not leave myself open to a charge of abusing the system. Quite apart from the reputational issues, most commercial organisations will sack anyone abusing their expenses.
What I say therefore is this. If the people of Edinburgh West choose me to represent them in parliament at the next election I promise that I will not abuse the rules relating to expenses in any way that gives the impression that I am feathering my nest at the tax payers expense.
I will claim only what is reasonable, properly incurred and I will not twist the system for example, to redesignate my Edinburgh home as a second residence in order to claim extra allowances.
In short I will seek to be the Honourable member for Edinburgh West.
Perhaps if more MP's remembered that they are supposed to be honourable members we wouldn't have the stench of corruption that is all pervading at present.
Every day the press brings us yet another story about MP's (and MSP's) apparently abusing their expenses. Initially it was back bench MP's, now each member of the cabinet from Gordon Brown downwards is being implicated in sleaze. http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-does-brown-claim-second-home.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/david_hughes/blog/2009/04/06/if_only_alistair_darling_was_as_good_with_the_nations_finances_as_with_his_own
Even the Liberals are at it. The MSP for West Edinburgh charges us 49p for each time she visits her constituency office. A journey of 1 mile. Now lets be clear, this is entirely within the rules, but come on... Doesn't this smack of desperation, or penny pinching, or more likely milking the system for all it's worth?(Sunday Times 5th April 2009)
Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, not to mention Geoff Hoon and Jacqui Smith have all designated their main residences as their second homes in order to claim expenses. Again it's all within the rules, but I have to ask is it in the spirit of the rules?
There is a saying that if it looks like fish and smells like fish, it probably is fish.
Surely the system of MP's expenses was set up in order to ensure that the costs of being an MP were properly reimbursed, and not to allow them to feather their nests as seems to be the pattern. All within the rules of course!
I am employed in business, and as part of my job I claim expenses. The principle I work to is that no one should ever be able to question what I claim, because it should be obvious that the claim is both legitimate and within both the rules and the spirit of the rules. In other words I will not leave myself open to a charge of abusing the system. Quite apart from the reputational issues, most commercial organisations will sack anyone abusing their expenses.
What I say therefore is this. If the people of Edinburgh West choose me to represent them in parliament at the next election I promise that I will not abuse the rules relating to expenses in any way that gives the impression that I am feathering my nest at the tax payers expense.
I will claim only what is reasonable, properly incurred and I will not twist the system for example, to redesignate my Edinburgh home as a second residence in order to claim extra allowances.
In short I will seek to be the Honourable member for Edinburgh West.
Perhaps if more MP's remembered that they are supposed to be honourable members we wouldn't have the stench of corruption that is all pervading at present.
Friday, 20 February 2009
Identity Cards
The Government is often keen to tell us that for those with nothing to hide, the ID cards offer nothing to fear.
If that is the case, why has the government fought disclosure of the interim reviews for five years?
If that is the case, why has the government fought disclosure of the interim reviews for five years?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
