Family courts operate in secret. That is they are not open to the public, nor indeed reporting. That means that they get no, or rather very little scrutiny.
Social services seem to operate on the basis of being too scared of some parents or careers, or perhaps too chaotic and over worked, to save some children from what with hindsight becomes obvious abuse, to being too keen to take children away.
There is very little scrutiny of the system whilst no one is dying horrifically. This leads to cases like this one, highlighted in a leader in today's Times by Camilla Cavendish. Let us make no mistake here, she reports it from a misandrists stand point labouring the plight of the mother yada yada, without much care for the pain the father is going through, but the facts are there all the same. A child is being deprived of it's parents because there is a suspicion that the father may have done something to another of his children by a different woman 10 years ago. He still lived with his other children and they were not taken away. Bizarre.
The child has been put up for adoption by Social Services. The case is winging its way to the European Courts.
There are two things that are fundamentally flawed here. Firstly the way in which the courts operate in secrecy, and secondly the prospect that a child may end up being adopted and therefore both parents and child deprived of each other for life before the case is finally finished. When the death sentence was abolished, a successful appeal would mean something, you could get released. When a child is adopted, that is it. You can't get them back. That you can then win on appeal and not receive justice is horribly perverse.
There are many things wrong with the family courts, and this is certainly one.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Labour isn't Working!
According to figures from this article in the Times today.
Youth unemployment is higher than in 1997, as are inflation and interest rates.
Wow.
It looks like Ken Clarke's legacy is being wasted.
Mark Senior will no doubt be along to tell us how Gordon Brown has done any minute now.
That said consumer debt on credit cards seems to be dropping which is a good thing, as long as it does not happen to fast leading to an economic slow down.
Youth unemployment is higher than in 1997, as are inflation and interest rates.
Wow.
It looks like Ken Clarke's legacy is being wasted.
Mark Senior will no doubt be along to tell us how Gordon Brown has done any minute now.
That said consumer debt on credit cards seems to be dropping which is a good thing, as long as it does not happen to fast leading to an economic slow down.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
The Domestic Violence that dare not speak its name
I listened to a piece on this mornings Today program on Radio 4. The plan is to build safe "panic rooms" for women so that they can be safe from domestic abuse should their male ex become a problem.
You can read the BBC's article on their website here.
Neither it, nor the government seem to mention domestic violence perpetrated by women on men. Not Once!
However I did note this article, prompted by Surrey Police which does make it clear that domestic violence is both man on woman and woman on man. You can read that article here. It is also the first time I have seen a domestic abuse poster featuring a battered male.
Whilst I am at it, in recent years I can only recall ONE NSPCC advert that did not feature a man as the abuser of his children, and that was recently. Most violence against children according to one study I heard about was a woman beating a child. (To be fair they get more contact time).
So let us stop this misandry, domestic violence is perpetrated by men and women against men women and children. It is clear that when a government has a Minister for Women who does not acknowledge women on men domestic violence in the language used, that government is dominated by misandrists.
Update 13:34
I forgot to mention also the women on women, and men on men domestic violence and sexual assault which also occurs in same sex households, which does not even get a look in to the point that even I forgot about it whilst writing the main article.
You can read the BBC's article on their website here.
Neither it, nor the government seem to mention domestic violence perpetrated by women on men. Not Once!
However I did note this article, prompted by Surrey Police which does make it clear that domestic violence is both man on woman and woman on man. You can read that article here. It is also the first time I have seen a domestic abuse poster featuring a battered male.
Whilst I am at it, in recent years I can only recall ONE NSPCC advert that did not feature a man as the abuser of his children, and that was recently. Most violence against children according to one study I heard about was a woman beating a child. (To be fair they get more contact time).
So let us stop this misandry, domestic violence is perpetrated by men and women against men women and children. It is clear that when a government has a Minister for Women who does not acknowledge women on men domestic violence in the language used, that government is dominated by misandrists.
Update 13:34
I forgot to mention also the women on women, and men on men domestic violence and sexual assault which also occurs in same sex households, which does not even get a look in to the point that even I forgot about it whilst writing the main article.
Nominations for Tony's last honours list!
Well, I wrote this article here, asking who would want to be on Tony Blair's resignation honours list and here are the nominations so far:
John Prescott (rumoured)
David Blunkett (Nominated by Ellee)
Stephen Hawking (By Ellee for *cough* genuine reasons)
Peter Mandelson ( Anonymous)
Alistair Campbell (ChrisD)
Any more nominations welcome.
Update: 11:54
Think of this as Tony Blair's disHonours List.
John Prescott (rumoured)
David Blunkett (Nominated by Ellee)
Stephen Hawking (By Ellee for *cough* genuine reasons)
Peter Mandelson ( Anonymous)
Alistair Campbell (ChrisD)
Any more nominations welcome.
Update: 11:54
Think of this as Tony Blair's disHonours List.
Family breakdown and government policy
Frankly there has not been enough discussion of Ian Duncan Smith's policy paper on Social Justice, entitled Breakdown Britain. You can find the website of the Center for Social Justice here, and the Breakdown Britain report here.
There is a huge amount government can do, for example as well as having a minister for women, or children why not have a minister for families?
Apparently according to this article in yesterdays Telegraph Gordon Brown is quoted thus:
"Gordon Brown said in his 1998 Budget that 'support should be based on family need – not family structure."
Which appears in part responsible for 200,000 families lying about their status to get more benefits. It seems to make sense to live apart, or at least to pretend to. What is more of a concern to me is how many of the 1.9 million families that do genuinely live apart do so in part because of crazy benefit or government related pressure?
There is no doubt, or at least there should not be that a stable family is the best place in which to bring up a child. We need to make it clear that stable families are supported.
People also equate living together with being married. After all, what bigger commitment is there than having children together?
Well, it has to be said that having children together is a big commitment, but it is a different commitment to being together in sickness and in health for richer or for poorer.
We do need to preach values.
There is a huge amount government can do, for example as well as having a minister for women, or children why not have a minister for families?
Apparently according to this article in yesterdays Telegraph Gordon Brown is quoted thus:
"Gordon Brown said in his 1998 Budget that 'support should be based on family need – not family structure."
Which appears in part responsible for 200,000 families lying about their status to get more benefits. It seems to make sense to live apart, or at least to pretend to. What is more of a concern to me is how many of the 1.9 million families that do genuinely live apart do so in part because of crazy benefit or government related pressure?
There is no doubt, or at least there should not be that a stable family is the best place in which to bring up a child. We need to make it clear that stable families are supported.
People also equate living together with being married. After all, what bigger commitment is there than having children together?
Well, it has to be said that having children together is a big commitment, but it is a different commitment to being together in sickness and in health for richer or for poorer.
We do need to preach values.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Tony Blair's last honours list- Will anyone want to be on it?
Well, you have to ask. After all the scandal and rumour surrounding the cash for peerages affair, you do have to wonder if any one will want to be on his last list when he resigns.
Rumour has it that John "Two Jags, Three Shags, Three Houses" Prescott will be in it, but will any one else.
Nominations please!
Rumour has it that John "Two Jags, Three Shags, Three Houses" Prescott will be in it, but will any one else.
Nominations please!
Sunday, December 17, 2006
The Liberal Democrats and the Politics of Envy
Thanks to Yellow Peril who pots on politicalbetting.com for a link to this article in today's Observer.
Apparently Vince Cable thinks the Goldman Sachs payouts are obscene. Well, lost of things are obscene like for example the cash for peerages affair and child pornography, but high bonuses are not on my list I am afraid.
What is even more of a concern is that Vince Cable is reported to be bleating about second home and share capital gains tax after 10 years. It drops to 10 percent. Presumably he would like to scrap that rule. However there is a reason why it is there, and that is to encourage people to hold on to investments for the long term rather than speculate in the short term. Changing the rule may well lead to a return to more short termism. It does help to think things through.
Apparently Vince Cable thinks the Goldman Sachs payouts are obscene. Well, lost of things are obscene like for example the cash for peerages affair and child pornography, but high bonuses are not on my list I am afraid.
What is even more of a concern is that Vince Cable is reported to be bleating about second home and share capital gains tax after 10 years. It drops to 10 percent. Presumably he would like to scrap that rule. However there is a reason why it is there, and that is to encourage people to hold on to investments for the long term rather than speculate in the short term. Changing the rule may well lead to a return to more short termism. It does help to think things through.
Meanwhile whilst our boys are dying in the field the Defence budget is cut
Yes, according to this story in today's Sunday Telegraph the MOD is looking to save £1 billion.
You just could not make this up.
It should be noted that is to keep the MOD on budget, with cuts already announced rather than a new cut, but it is clear that there is not enough cash being spent on these wars to win them.
Hat tip to Alex on politicalbetting.com for the link.
You just could not make this up.
It should be noted that is to keep the MOD on budget, with cuts already announced rather than a new cut, but it is clear that there is not enough cash being spent on these wars to win them.
Hat tip to Alex on politicalbetting.com for the link.
Cash for Peerages, Another Sunday morning update.
Well, I posted an article on Saturday about the cash for Peerages Saga. It seems it is on the front of Sundays Telegraph, Times and Independent. That won't make for happy reading in Labour circles.
Broadly the thrust of the stories I have seen is that Lord Levy's friends are still saying he won't be a fall guy, this time with knobs on. Blair is failing to endorse Levy in public or private (how do they know about all the private bits?) All in the Telegraph here. The peerage nominations in question were for public service according to the nomination papers from the Independent here. Of course some senior aids to be questioned again from the Sunday Times here.
The most interesting one is the Independent on Sunday revisiting the nomination papers because it indicates that Tony Blair *cough* told the Police something which later turned out to be incorrect.
The line that they were nominated for "party service" looks holed well below the water line, unless service means giving cash. Yates of the yard will be sending someone round for another chat with our Tony. Mark my words.
Update 10:46
Forgot to mention this article in the Observer. Sources say that Gordon was involved in attempts to honour Ronnie Cohen and Wilf Stevenson.
Labour is leaking against itself. Expect fireworks over Christmas as journalists look to fill their pages and people who are bitter about yesterdays leaks provide tomorrows.
(hat tip to Mike Smithson of Politicalbetting.com for the link to the Observer article)
Broadly the thrust of the stories I have seen is that Lord Levy's friends are still saying he won't be a fall guy, this time with knobs on. Blair is failing to endorse Levy in public or private (how do they know about all the private bits?) All in the Telegraph here. The peerage nominations in question were for public service according to the nomination papers from the Independent here. Of course some senior aids to be questioned again from the Sunday Times here.
The most interesting one is the Independent on Sunday revisiting the nomination papers because it indicates that Tony Blair *cough* told the Police something which later turned out to be incorrect.
The line that they were nominated for "party service" looks holed well below the water line, unless service means giving cash. Yates of the yard will be sending someone round for another chat with our Tony. Mark my words.
Update 10:46
Forgot to mention this article in the Observer. Sources say that Gordon was involved in attempts to honour Ronnie Cohen and Wilf Stevenson.
Labour is leaking against itself. Expect fireworks over Christmas as journalists look to fill their pages and people who are bitter about yesterdays leaks provide tomorrows.
(hat tip to Mike Smithson of Politicalbetting.com for the link to the Observer article)
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Cash for Peerages, When will the Canaries Sing?
I said in this post here that as it looked like six people may end up being charged over the cash for honours affair, then some one will start singing. I thought it might be at the trial. I may have been wrong.
This article in the Times suggests that Lord Cashpoint Levy's and St. Tony Blair's accounts do not tally. That means that Yates of the Yard will want to have another word with Lord Levy, or rather get some more written statements from him, because that is what he seems to have been doing so far. I wonder how convenient he now finds his office fire of late last year?
If Yates pressures the right people, who it looks like Tony has dropped in it, then they may well have to give up more information to save their own skins. That will mean of course that Tony Blair may well be questioned again, and if so it may well end up being under caution.
In other news I was listening to the Today programme on Radio 4 yesterday morning when I heard Tony Wright, Chairman of the Public Administration Committee of the House of Commons say this:
What is also interesting is that Gordon Brown has issued a statement to the Telegraph on Saturday here denying the story raised by Channel 4 news on Wednesday which I commented on here. It seems Gordon and his cronies are worried that "elements" in the Labour party are trying to tie him into the sleaze. Depending on how that goes expect more infighting soon. It seems though that the statement issued by Number 11 was also approved by Number 10, so it may not be a direct fight between Gordon and Tony but a scrap amongst the acolytes. Should be fun all the same!
You can read more on the Cash for peerages saga here.
This article in the Times suggests that Lord Cashpoint Levy's and St. Tony Blair's accounts do not tally. That means that Yates of the Yard will want to have another word with Lord Levy, or rather get some more written statements from him, because that is what he seems to have been doing so far. I wonder how convenient he now finds his office fire of late last year?
If Yates pressures the right people, who it looks like Tony has dropped in it, then they may well have to give up more information to save their own skins. That will mean of course that Tony Blair may well be questioned again, and if so it may well end up being under caution.
In other news I was listening to the Today programme on Radio 4 yesterday morning when I heard Tony Wright, Chairman of the Public Administration Committee of the House of Commons say this:
"I have taken the view that this police investigation has been a kind of shock to the system and, on the whole, a good one, I am not sure that any further public benefit will be served by this going any further. I think the benefit from it has now been obtained."To which I say:
"Bog off and stop trying to influence the Police in an important investigation!"There is also more in today's Telegraph here.
What is also interesting is that Gordon Brown has issued a statement to the Telegraph on Saturday here denying the story raised by Channel 4 news on Wednesday which I commented on here. It seems Gordon and his cronies are worried that "elements" in the Labour party are trying to tie him into the sleaze. Depending on how that goes expect more infighting soon. It seems though that the statement issued by Number 11 was also approved by Number 10, so it may not be a direct fight between Gordon and Tony but a scrap amongst the acolytes. Should be fun all the same!
You can read more on the Cash for peerages saga here.
Mentioned in Dispatches!
Just thought I would mention that someone at ITN's Channel 4 news emailed me yesterday to say that I had been mentioned in their blog! See here.
Also of note, is that according to Dizzy, here, John Prescott's "website has received 2771 unique hits since August. This blog did that in 3 months! (And traffic is growing here) So this blog is more popular than John Prescott's website, fantastic! Mind you I suspect a lot of blogs are more popular.
Also of note, is that according to Dizzy, here, John Prescott's "website has received 2771 unique hits since August. This blog did that in 3 months! (And traffic is growing here) So this blog is more popular than John Prescott's website, fantastic! Mind you I suspect a lot of blogs are more popular.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Cash for Peerages, Tony Blair questioned
So much for pure than pure!
Had some one said that Tony Blair would be questioned as part of a police inquiry in to a criminal investigation of corruption a year ago, surely people would have laughed!
They are not laughing now, though they seem to be trying to spin this as some sort of result. Further more Chanel 4 reports that maybe as many 6 people will be charged. Expect them to sing like canaries at trial, hence Yates of the Yard making sure no one has any last minute recollections at trial (as happened in the Burrell Trial, see here)
Let us just be clear, no sitting Prime minister has ever been questioned by the Police before!
Guido seems to have got hold of No 10's media grid for the day, here and it seems they were hoping to have such a busy news day that no one would notice things like the 2500 Post Office closures, the cancelling of the Serious Farce Fraud Office investigation into BAE and corruption as well. It appears not to have worked. And it appears they wanted to bury bad news under the Diana inquiry. Hmm...
What seems worse for labour is that the Sun has for two weeks been very negative on Gordon Brown. I am no fan of the Murdoch press, but this is an interesting development.
The BBC has this here. I also recommend reading Guido above and here and Iain Dale here and here.
Had some one said that Tony Blair would be questioned as part of a police inquiry in to a criminal investigation of corruption a year ago, surely people would have laughed!
They are not laughing now, though they seem to be trying to spin this as some sort of result. Further more Chanel 4 reports that maybe as many 6 people will be charged. Expect them to sing like canaries at trial, hence Yates of the Yard making sure no one has any last minute recollections at trial (as happened in the Burrell Trial, see here)
Let us just be clear, no sitting Prime minister has ever been questioned by the Police before!
Guido seems to have got hold of No 10's media grid for the day, here and it seems they were hoping to have such a busy news day that no one would notice things like the 2500 Post Office closures, the cancelling of the Serious Farce Fraud Office investigation into BAE and corruption as well. It appears not to have worked. And it appears they wanted to bury bad news under the Diana inquiry. Hmm...
What seems worse for labour is that the Sun has for two weeks been very negative on Gordon Brown. I am no fan of the Murdoch press, but this is an interesting development.
The BBC has this here. I also recommend reading Guido above and here and Iain Dale here and here.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Cash for Peerages, Gordon Brown in the frame!
I just heard a story on Channel 4 news about a certain Ronnie Cohen being given an honour forced through by the Treasury against the advice of officials!
Strangely Guido covered Ronnie Cohen's links to Gordon Brown here in October, though his information did not seem quite so specific as Channel 4's.
Ronnie Cohen has provided Labour with quite a lot of funds as well as funding some of Gordon's pet projects. You would have to wonder if he contributed to Gordon Brown's blind trust now wouldn't you.
Alex Salmond was getting on his high horse about it as well. Well Alex, don't do that, just put in a complaint to Yates of the Yard!
I will update with more links to more news stories as they become available.
Strangely Guido covered Ronnie Cohen's links to Gordon Brown here in October, though his information did not seem quite so specific as Channel 4's.
Ronnie Cohen has provided Labour with quite a lot of funds as well as funding some of Gordon's pet projects. You would have to wonder if he contributed to Gordon Brown's blind trust now wouldn't you.
Alex Salmond was getting on his high horse about it as well. Well Alex, don't do that, just put in a complaint to Yates of the Yard!
I will update with more links to more news stories as they become available.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Bob Piper stops blogging - for now
Apparently according to this post on his blog he seems fed up with the storm over the racism row. So he has for now decided to give it a break.
I hope he changes his mind. There are some quite simple rules to blogging. If you try to offend some people expect to have them come and bite back. If that is a problem try not to offend.
That said some times offending people can and is justified, in which case you had better stick to your guns.
Still sometimes you can make points with out resorting to sound bites and being offensive. I'd rather hoped that is what the blogosphere could be. We get enough silly soundbite diatribes in the MSM with out doing it the same way here.
Still the row may have some upsides. Unity at Minitrue has come up with this explanation of why he posted the original which is really good and despite its length well worth the read.
I hope he changes his mind. There are some quite simple rules to blogging. If you try to offend some people expect to have them come and bite back. If that is a problem try not to offend.
That said some times offending people can and is justified, in which case you had better stick to your guns.
Still sometimes you can make points with out resorting to sound bites and being offensive. I'd rather hoped that is what the blogosphere could be. We get enough silly soundbite diatribes in the MSM with out doing it the same way here.
Still the row may have some upsides. Unity at Minitrue has come up with this explanation of why he posted the original which is really good and despite its length well worth the read.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Is Bob Piper Toast?
Many people will have noticed that a certain Labour councillor for Sandwell one Bob Piper who's blog is here has received much flak for a post on his blog using an image from the Ministry of Truth (Does he realise just how Orwellian that is?) here.
Bob has now taken it down.
However the storm looks set to continue. In many replies on his blog it seems clear he has offended people. Fair enough politics does, however what caused him to take down the article appears to have been his Labour group leaders comments as reported by the BBC here rather than him coming to his senses on his own. What also seems clear is that Councillor Bob will be reported to the Standards Board for England and possibly to the Commission for Racial Equality as well. An adverse finding by the SBE or CRE will finish him.
Could it possibly get any worse for Councillor Bob?
Bob has now taken it down.
However the storm looks set to continue. In many replies on his blog it seems clear he has offended people. Fair enough politics does, however what caused him to take down the article appears to have been his Labour group leaders comments as reported by the BBC here rather than him coming to his senses on his own. What also seems clear is that Councillor Bob will be reported to the Standards Board for England and possibly to the Commission for Racial Equality as well. An adverse finding by the SBE or CRE will finish him.
Could it possibly get any worse for Councillor Bob?
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Councillor Bob Piper in racism row!
Dizzy has covered it here and here. Apparently he has been mentioned on the BBC. It is all over a picture he copied from the Ministry of Truth, (again covered by Dizzy)
There are many things to be irked about over this and many others have said it, but what is really getting my goat is that after having got to top spot for political blogs on rankingblogs.com (See here) then being quite some way ahead I have a quick peak and Bob's old blog has stolen my spot! (See here)
I'll sulk in a corner for a while ;)
Any one fancy getting me a mention on telly?
Update: 21:33
Bob Piper has taken his post down. You can visit Bob's blog here. Prague Tory originally started the outrage rolling here meanwhile the first pratt and originator was The Ministry of bollocks Truth here.
There are many things to be irked about over this and many others have said it, but what is really getting my goat is that after having got to top spot for political blogs on rankingblogs.com (See here) then being quite some way ahead I have a quick peak and Bob's old blog has stolen my spot! (See here)
I'll sulk in a corner for a while ;)
Any one fancy getting me a mention on telly?
Update: 21:33
Bob Piper has taken his post down. You can visit Bob's blog here. Prague Tory originally started the outrage rolling here meanwhile the first pratt and originator was The Ministry of bollocks Truth here.
Is this why Gordon's tax figures are wrong?
As I have said in previous comments on the pre budget report Gordon Brown sets his own growth target and meets them when he marks the paper. Vince Cable said as much in his response to the pre budget report in the House of Commons. However where Gordon Brown tends to fall down and can't mark his own numbers is how much he has raised in tax compared to forecast. Many other commentators have noticed as well. He almost never gets as much tax in as he thought.
The question has to be why?
Well here are two situations where tax has been avoided. There is the often covered in Private Eye Mapely Steps PFI scandal where the Treasury buildings were sold off to a PFI firm in a tax haven who laughably have pleaded poverty and lack of profit to Select Committees in the House of Commons who are now not paying large amounts of tax.
Then there is this article in the Independent on Sunday which shows that even Labour want to avoid having stamp duty paid at the full rate on the sale of it's old head quarters!
So the government and the governing party are involved in tax avoidance. No wonder tax receipts are down!
Hat tip to Mystic Moon on Polliticalbetting.com for pointing out the Independent article.
The question has to be why?
Well here are two situations where tax has been avoided. There is the often covered in Private Eye Mapely Steps PFI scandal where the Treasury buildings were sold off to a PFI firm in a tax haven who laughably have pleaded poverty and lack of profit to Select Committees in the House of Commons who are now not paying large amounts of tax.
Then there is this article in the Independent on Sunday which shows that even Labour want to avoid having stamp duty paid at the full rate on the sale of it's old head quarters!
So the government and the governing party are involved in tax avoidance. No wonder tax receipts are down!
Hat tip to Mystic Moon on Polliticalbetting.com for pointing out the Independent article.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Is Gordon to be coronated?
It is interesting that there seems to be some buzz around the story that some Labour MP's want to scrap the post of deputy leader of the Labour party. The reason? They seem to think that an election for deputy leader would be divisive and expensive. You can read the BBC story here.
but hold on a minute. If the deputy leader election is held at the same time as the leaders election then it won't cost much more. So what is going on? Do they want Gordon to have a coronation?
Frankly I can't see it as there are a number of members of the cabinet who would stand if they thought they could win. However if they don't run, and John McDonnell does not get his 44 signatures then perhaps the squeeze will be on to save money.
Only one question remains. Who has put them up to it? Answers on a postcard!
but hold on a minute. If the deputy leader election is held at the same time as the leaders election then it won't cost much more. So what is going on? Do they want Gordon to have a coronation?
Frankly I can't see it as there are a number of members of the cabinet who would stand if they thought they could win. However if they don't run, and John McDonnell does not get his 44 signatures then perhaps the squeeze will be on to save money.
Only one question remains. Who has put them up to it? Answers on a postcard!
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Pre Budget Report, early comments
It's going to take some time to come up with a considered opinion on this one. The news papers have done a lot of work on this and financial journalists will have done lots of work on this before hand. You can read the report yourself here.
Two things strike me. Firstly the language is so obviously partisan like Gordon howling his rubbish from the very pages you read, rather than the dry report report that I was expecting. The other is the ever increasing Public Sector borrowing requirement, which has risen above forecast and is rising as a percentage of GDP. According to the report it will continue to rise until 2010 when it seems that they claim it will level off at 38.4% of GDP.
Gordon Brown has made much of his so called prudence. I can't see it here. If you still need to increase borrowing after 57 continuous quarters of growth you are either not collecting enough tax or you are spending too much.
The amusing this is why the hole in the public finances is getting bigger though. It is because of lower than expected tax revenues. Gordon always seems to get his growth forecasts right (though he sets the estimate and as Vince Cable said yesterday, marks the paper) he always seems to over estimate the tax take. Perhaps the growth figures are just wrong?
Also oil companies investment in the North Sea seems to be down since they had a massive windfall tax slapped on them. Never mind the years of risk taking to get the oil or the times when oil has been only just profitable to produce in the North Sea, make a healthy profit for the risk then you get slapped with a tax. Shame Gordon can't do that to the PFI firm who owns the treasury buildings, they are in a tax haven!
Of course green taxes as a percentage of the tax take are still way less under the Conservatives, but then what did you expect.
Two things strike me. Firstly the language is so obviously partisan like Gordon howling his rubbish from the very pages you read, rather than the dry report report that I was expecting. The other is the ever increasing Public Sector borrowing requirement, which has risen above forecast and is rising as a percentage of GDP. According to the report it will continue to rise until 2010 when it seems that they claim it will level off at 38.4% of GDP.
Gordon Brown has made much of his so called prudence. I can't see it here. If you still need to increase borrowing after 57 continuous quarters of growth you are either not collecting enough tax or you are spending too much.
The amusing this is why the hole in the public finances is getting bigger though. It is because of lower than expected tax revenues. Gordon always seems to get his growth forecasts right (though he sets the estimate and as Vince Cable said yesterday, marks the paper) he always seems to over estimate the tax take. Perhaps the growth figures are just wrong?
Also oil companies investment in the North Sea seems to be down since they had a massive windfall tax slapped on them. Never mind the years of risk taking to get the oil or the times when oil has been only just profitable to produce in the North Sea, make a healthy profit for the risk then you get slapped with a tax. Shame Gordon can't do that to the PFI firm who owns the treasury buildings, they are in a tax haven!
Of course green taxes as a percentage of the tax take are still way less under the Conservatives, but then what did you expect.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Iraq a mess Official - The Iraq Study Group report
You can read the report for your self here. It looks like some real Conservatives are taking on the situation and looking to work out a solution.
In many ways of course it is far too late as we need not have got in this mess in the first place. You can read my article on why we are in this mess here, and other articles on Iraq here.
What I was most interested in though was the recognition by the presidential nominee for Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitting that America was not winning the war in Iraq. Amusingly Tony Blair when asked if he agreed said yes of course. I doubt he would have said that last week
You do have to wonder why it was that Rumsfeld decided to use the minimum number of troops possible to take Iraq. I have a theory that Donald what a pratt Rumsfeld thought that if he could take Iraq on a shoestring in terms of troops the Neo Cons could make the case for effectively building an empire.
What Rumsfeld missed though was that firstly the age of empires is in essence passed and secondly the worlds greatest empire, ours was built on a lot more than force and mouth. It was built on guile, cunning, statecraft, bribery and things that were Machiavelli still alive at the time would have caused him to rewrite his famous work, "The Prince". Of course all Rumsfeld brought to the table was the sort of stupidity that can only be born out of a high intellect and breath taking arrogance.
When I have read the report fully I will comment further.
In many ways of course it is far too late as we need not have got in this mess in the first place. You can read my article on why we are in this mess here, and other articles on Iraq here.
What I was most interested in though was the recognition by the presidential nominee for Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitting that America was not winning the war in Iraq. Amusingly Tony Blair when asked if he agreed said yes of course. I doubt he would have said that last week
You do have to wonder why it was that Rumsfeld decided to use the minimum number of troops possible to take Iraq. I have a theory that Donald what a pratt Rumsfeld thought that if he could take Iraq on a shoestring in terms of troops the Neo Cons could make the case for effectively building an empire.
What Rumsfeld missed though was that firstly the age of empires is in essence passed and secondly the worlds greatest empire, ours was built on a lot more than force and mouth. It was built on guile, cunning, statecraft, bribery and things that were Machiavelli still alive at the time would have caused him to rewrite his famous work, "The Prince". Of course all Rumsfeld brought to the table was the sort of stupidity that can only be born out of a high intellect and breath taking arrogance.
When I have read the report fully I will comment further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
