OneGuyFromBarlick

Posted: **05 Oct 2013, 16:23**

I sometimes think about how great it would be, if the people of this country, whatever their background or belief, could all pull together, setting aside their own personal needs, for the greater good. However often we are reminded to consult our history, this is not about the past, this is about now!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted: **06 Oct 2013, 03:35**

Winston Churchill knew the value of history. He believed in learning the lessons from the past. Whatever tax efficient methods Milliband Sen. used, the Rothermeres used even more by preserving non-dom status and handing it down from father to son, does this prove anything about their patriotism? Have a look at the Noble Lord Ashworth and ask the same question!
From Wiki:
'In the 1930s Rothermere used his newspapers to try to influence British politics, notably being a strong supporter of appeasement towards Nazi Germany In the 1930s, he urged increased defence spending by Britain; his were the only major newspapers to advocate an alliance with Germany. For a time in 1934, the Rothermere papers championed the British Union of Fascists (BUF), and were again the only major papers that did so. Rothermere infamously wrote a Daily Mail editorial entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts", in January 1934, praising Oswald Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine". Rothermere visited and corresponded with Hitler. On 1 October 1938, Rothermere sent Hitler a telegram in support of Germany's invasion of the Sudetenland, and expressing the hope that 'Adolf the Great' would become a popular figure in Britain. He was also aware of the military threat from the resurgent Germany, of which he warned J. C. C. Davidson, then Chairman of the Conservative Party. Numerous secret British MI5 papers related to the war years, were declassified and released in 2005. They show that Rothermere wrote to Adolf Hitler in 1938 congratulating him for the annexation of Czechoslovakia, and encouraging him to invade Romania. He described Hitler's work as "great and superhuman".
The MI5 papers also show that at the time, Rothermere was paying an annual retainer of £5,000 per year to Stephanie von Hohenlohe, suspected by French, British and the Americans of being a German spy, as he wanted her to bring him closer to Hitler's inner circle. He also encouraged her to promote Germany to her circle of influential English contacts. She was known as "London's leading Nazi hostess". The secret services had been monitoring her since she came to Britain in the 1920s and regarded her as "an extremely dangerous person". As World War II loomed, Rothermere stopped the payments and their relationship deteriorated into threats and lawsuits, which she lost.'

Posted: **07 Oct 2013, 09:28**

On a day where people refused child benefit can have an effective tax rate of 73%, I do not begrudge anyone for having efficient tax affairs.

It would seem somewhat hypocritical, however, if someone doing it was also pontificating about the re-distribution of everyone else's wealth.

History is important Peter, because by knowing about it we can decide whether we wish to make the same mistakes again

Posted: **07 Oct 2013, 15:15**

Yes, but do we?!

Posted: **08 Oct 2013, 04:23**

Judging by the ignorance of recent history being displayed in the stimulus to the housing market and the use of litter-picking to punish people unemployed through no fault of their own, a bit of enquiry into the past would be a good thing.
The Tory papers are 'accusing' the Labour Party of moving towards being out and out left wing. Not unreasonable on the evidence but what basis is there for this being an accusation? Surely the Tories are 'out and out right wing' in the same terms. If this means more debate and stronger opposition this can only be a good thing, this is what democracy is all about. Further, in terms of improvements in society, look at the overall achievements of the Right and the Left over the years and decide which was the more egalitarian and effective in terms of benefit to society as a whole. My preference is for two parties strongly opposed to each other with the Liberals holding the middle ground. That way lies the best hope we have of balance, something that is sadly lacking at the moment.

Posted: **08 Oct 2013, 09:49**

Stanley wrote: the Liberals holding the middle ground

Quite a journey for them

Posted: **09 Oct 2013, 05:43**

Nevertheless that is their traditional role in politics. Your lot are well on the way to being slightly to the right of Genghis Khan! Personally, I never saw much wrong with Sidney Webb's original Clause Four. (1917) Read it and see if you can find fault with it.....
"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

Posted: **09 Oct 2013, 08:03**

Taken 8 years ago the message on the balloon appears to be a prophecy.

PHOT0147.JPG

Posted: **09 Oct 2013, 08:10**

hartley353 wrote:the message on the balloon appears to be a prophecy

'UBB'? (couldn't spell 'UP'?)

Did you know that hot air ballooning contributes extravagantly to CO2 emissions? (Sorry Hartley & all, please ignore that...)

Posted: **09 Oct 2013, 09:27**

Stanley wrote:Nevertheless that is their traditional role in politics. Your lot are well on the way to being slightly to the right of Genghis Khan! Personally, I never saw much wrong with Sidney Webb's original Clause Four. (1917) Read it and see if you can find fault with it.....
"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

"Ability is of little account without opportunity" Napoleon Bonaparte

Posted: **09 Oct 2013, 09:28**

The lastest GDP predictions from the IMF:

Posted: **10 Oct 2013, 01:15**

Stanley wrote:.... Personally, I never saw much wrong with Sidney Webb's original Clause Four. (1917) Read it and see if you can find fault with it.....
"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

I think the earlier version ' From each , according to his ability , To each , according to his needs ' is a little more succinct. The phrase came into my head a few years back and I was annoyed to find I didn't invent it. Of course it still does not remove the politics , of 'assessing' needs , and figuring out whom has ability , and gives rise to the problem of the efficient worker subsidising the inefficient. ( either directly through the reward system or by a taxation or charity system )

Posted: **10 Oct 2013, 04:08**

Nowt wrong with that either but it isn't from Webb's original Clause Four.
See Wiki on the quote. (LINK)
"The complete paragraph containing Marx's statement of the creed in the 'Critique of the Gotha Program' (1837) is as follows: In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the slogan was common to the socialist movement and was first used by Louis Blanc in 1839, in "The organization of work". The origin of this phrasing has also been attributed to the French utopian Morelly, who proposed in his 1755 Code of Nature "Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society" ............."
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest.... Why do I get echoes of previous privatisations where the family silver was sold off when I see that the PO shares are vastly over-subscribed and many are expected to be sold immediately at a profit?
Latest news at 06:30 suggests demand for the shares is 15X and selling price will be almost twice the purchase price. Harold Macmillan will be turning in his grave.....

Posted: **10 Oct 2013, 08:25**

How come Gordon Brown was criticised for selling off Govt Owned Gold Reserves ( which produce no income , maybe a net capital gain dependent on inflationary events , metals demand and other un-guessables ) . Yet George Osborne considers selling Govt Owned services to be a good thing ( which potentially have both a generated income and capital growth ). Anyway if state ownership of many services is so bad , how come other nation-states investment arms own or control UK operations of Banks, Ports , Energy,Water , Waste Disposal and Transport ?

Anyway Royal Mail was nicely fattened up for slaughter ( Most Pension Obligations hived off to Government Liability Schemes , Headlines in Papers refer to price of Second Class stamp but mulitple changes to size limits for lower rates , increases in higher weight band prices , modifications to large contract agreements all did enough to increase revenues without trying to scare off too many customers that had choices for whom to use as delivery service ).

There was always a wheeze that state-owned business could use for investment in plant , machinery and vehicles - leasing - which enabled profit making banks to take on the assets as if their own , take the 1st year capital allowances offset against their CT and effectively payment from the entity worked out at around 5% (after tax) over general inflation which was still a bargain for the parties on equipment lasting up to 20 years when interest rates were bubbling around 10 to 12% and there were cash limits on borrowing. The loss in Corporation Tax was changed by a previous Conservative chancellor - Lawson , I think in the late 1980s when the accounting method was made to be on the financial effects of transactions , not the legal ownership of the items.

Posted: **10 Oct 2013, 08:29**

One wonders if the test of every Government policy should be , as desired by Conservative leader , David Cameron , at their most recent party conference.

" at long last and for the first time ever, a land of opportunity for all ".

So I assume that allows any individual to stand for the position of head of state - if so - then DC is not that far away from the criticised stance of Milliband's Father ?

(and that the RM privatisation denied the opportunity to anyone with less than £750 floating around spare to participate)

Posted: **10 Oct 2013, 10:16**

HMRC wrote:In 2013-14, the best-paid 1 per cent of workers will contribute 29.8 per cent of all income tax, the figures show.

To qualify for that top 1 per cent, an individual would have to have an income of £160,000 a year. People who earn more than £1 million a year will contribute 11.8 per cent of all tax

Posted: **10 Oct 2013, 12:01**

The price of fuel is set to increase by 8%. ie: £2 per week or say £100 per year. But assuming your total income is £150 per week and every penny is spent which may include £30 on food. Does this mean that you have to stop eating for over 3 weeks in the year to make up the shortfall? I would be delighted to be one of those who contribute towards the 29.8% tax take.

Posted: **11 Oct 2013, 04:14**

A good point P and, boring though it may be to some, a natural consequence of government losing (or giving away) the Commanding Heights of the Economy! The SSC rise of 8.2% average (Note the weasel word average, in some southern areas it is almost 10%) is the precursor of other companies following suit. It seems to me to be blindingly obvious that a rise of this magnitude is driven more by a defective market where collaborative price-fixing is the norm than normal supply and demand. There is the further complication of the ability of large multi-national companies like BG to assign profits to different parts of the business in such a way as to make any assessments difficult. The only reliable marker is the overall profit but even that can be obscured. This not a fair market and it has no concept of social responsibility.
There is only one hint of a silver lining for an old social democrat like me, the fact that this compounds the Tory difficulties with the Labour pledge to freeze energy prices. I freely admit that I don't see how that policy, in the end, can make any difference to energy prices but in electoral terms the SSC price rise is a gift to the Labour campaign. Mr Cameron will have to think very hard to come up with an answer in time for 2015!
But all this leaves aside the reality, that the poorest people who pay the largest proportion of their income for essential service have had their real inflation jacked up again and remember that we haven't seen the end of the cuts, another £18billion is it before the election? And no room for any respite after that whoever gets political control. In Mr Osborne's terms this is the economy turning a corner.....
I have always advocated treating some essential services (Energy, NHS, Education, Transport) as a Public Good and accepting the fact that even if they run at a loss, the complete cost-benefit effect is to reduce expenditure in other areas like benefits and oil the wheels of society. It also gives the poorest a chance to lead a normal life instead of being bighted by dire poverty. How much will that cost the country in the long term? Take just one 'small' example, how will this effect demands on the NHS?
Polls in the US show the Republicans at lowest rating since 1984. Another poll allocating blame for the budget impasse came out with 53% blaming Republicans and 31% the Democrats. General opinion is that the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot and this could be the reason why opposition to Obamacare has been dropped in relation to the budget talks and last night's meeting in Washington was notably free from petulant comments from the Republicans. The US economy appears to have been saved again!

Posted: **11 Oct 2013, 07:26**

On the question of energy prices.

Concur with the criticism of blatant market fixing and vertically integrated companies shunting costs round to maximise profit/minimise tax etc...

But, have we learned anything from when they tried to control prices in California? Didn't generators shun a regulated wholesale market, offer their energy on the 'spot market' (my term), prices shot up and power plants shut down with massive power cuts to boot?

Also, investors are needed for huge investment in new generating capacity; will there be enough return to make it worth their while?

The brutal fact is that energy (and the cost of CO2 emissions) will gobble up more and more of our weekly wage, or GDP or however you want to measure it. (Unless cheap fusion - or an unknown fuel source - comes on stream.)

One side effect of increased costs is that it sharpens the mind and hopefully reduces the squandering of irreplaceable resources; the more fossil fuel is left in the ground, the better.

On austerity and cuts...

I'm dyed in the wool Keynesian.

My posts elsewhere show my despair at the impact of local government cuts to people in Pendle (within a couple of years, there will have been a two thirds reduction in Pendle Council's income... 63% cut). So far, the impact has been staved off by using reserves built up in previous decades (how pleased am I that Pendle's bank balance was far healthier than other councils), and efficiency savings (or sometimes, inefficiency savings - it's not very efficient that many staff are paid for just three days a week - the cracks are beginning to show if you know where to look).

But we'll use £2m+ of reserves to keep things going this year alone. With income down another £2m+ next financial year, it doesn't take a maths' GCSE to work out that the reserves will soon be gone.

I've been a councillor throughout Thatcher's decade and the decades since, I've heard endless Council Treasurers and Finance Officers warn that the money will soon run out. Experience has shown me that a policy of 'something will turn up' combined with a go get attitude can stave off undesirable cuts.

But, with both Labour and the Tories hell bent on 'austerity' spending levels, there's no hope in sight of any changes before or after the next general election.

Get ready to depend on The Big Society (I don't think).

Posted: **11 Oct 2013, 08:03**

Andrew Stephenson's column in BET this morning carries the headline: "Economy looks set to get better now." My question is "For whom?" I get so angry reading this man's regurgitation of the party line every week with no mention of the fact that thousands of his constituents are making themselves ill worrying about how to keep warm and fed. I despair for the vulnerable and young parents struggling to raise families on inadequate wages. We live in a country of Two Nations.

Posted: **11 Oct 2013, 08:35**

Tardis wrote:
HMRC wrote:In 2013-14, the best-paid 1 per cent of workers will contribute 29.8 per cent of all income tax, the figures show.

To qualify for that top 1 per cent, an individual would have to have an income of £160,000 a year. People who earn more than £1 million a year will contribute 11.8 per cent of all tax

All Tax ? ( do they mean income only , or all taxes paid by individuals - attributable VAT etc ) By taking income tax only the quote does not recognise the contributions of Stamp duties , VAT and other taxes impacting on moderate and lower income earners. One could also read it that Over 70% of income tax is paid by individuals earning less that £160,000. ( and a fair amount of those pay substantial amounts of national insurance contributions which are at present levied only up to an annualised weekly limit ).

Posted: **11 Oct 2013, 09:01**

David Whipp wrote:On the question of energy prices.

investors are needed for huge investment in new generating capacity; will there be enough return to make it worth their while?

The present rate of installation of solar panels on public and new buildings is incredibly slow , while it wont solve all energy problems , every marginal generated capacity will help , while its expensive , it is a good labour spend of which a good 50% would return to the government if some further funding can be found , in terms of income tax etc generated. - Oh and sorry I forget , Much of the lack of capacity is directly as a result of the tory - led privatisation policies ( I worked with former Demand Forecasters and Capital Planners from the Gas Board (and sucessors ) , and CEGB , activities that were broadly abandoned under those (un)economic policies ) So , will every person who says that the Thatcher policies were a good thing be prepared to put up the funds ( for no return ) for renewables generation ?

David Whipp wrote:The cost of CO2 emissions) will gobble up more and more of our weekly wage

Unless , as seems to be implied by George Osborn , that some of the targets will be ignored. Anyway if we were serious about CO2 emissions and levels consideration of further destruction of the Brazillian Atlantic rainforest for example ( an eco-system and CO2 sink ) by mining companies for yet more 'cheap' iron-ore should be on the political agenda, asking the small individual to make impossible financial penalties when others are making serious amounts of money CONTRIBUTING to CO2 level increases is more than unjust and unfair.

David Whipp wrote:One side effect of increased costs is that it sharpens the mind and hopefully reduces the squandering of irreplaceable resources; the more fossil fuel is left in the ground, the better.

Unless its lignite ( cos its cheap , and dirty ) , or fracking ( cos that will bring lower energy costs - we are told

David Whipp wrote: The impact of local government cuts to Pendle

I have a suggestion that there could be meaningful cash savings and better service if some services could be jointly outsourced by Pendle/Burnley and Ribble Valley - particulary waste collection , legal services and transactional services.

David Whipp wrote: Experience has shown me that a policy of 'something will turn up' combined with a go get attitude can stave off undesirable cuts.

Sometimes this has been through Labour inspired particulary Bid Funds for projects , and in other areas European Union Funding.

David Whipp wrote:Get ready to depend on The Big Society (I don't think).

Likewise; things like The Big Society depend on the likes of active pensioners ( due to many national changes these are becoming older , and less well off , forcing more into paid work = less time for volunteer projects ) , and non-working marriage partners - whom likewise have been hit with central govt policies.

You also alluded to Town Councils and similar being exempt from the 2% limit on increase in council tax, although I advocate that efficiencies in shared services can be found , at the same time more things are better delivered at the local level , so working out what can ( legally ) be transferred downwards ( you have already mentioned the Civic Hall - which always seemed under-promoted in Pendle control ) , might be a better thing for the regional areas of England.

Posted: **11 Oct 2013, 09:36**

Mentioned on another thread , but probably better here.

Tardis wrote:At a local level, the people can decide what they wish from their services and those bodies do have the facilities to raise their own revenues.

How , Annual referenda on every budget line ? Like national elections we are presented with assorted coloured buckets of promises , aspirations , commitments . And each elections we have to choose one of those bucket fulls , even if some of the stuff in one of those buckets we didnt like , or would have preferred something else out of a different bucket. Then anyway over time either the bucket holder fails to get out the stuff over time , leaving the promise undone , or circumstances change and the aspiration cannot be delivered , or someone else comes along and tells us the bucket was the wrong shape or whatever and we cannot have what we wanted anyway.

I have been thinking of a little solution , in respect of service delivery.

Conservatives are fond of 'Vouchers' for things like child-care and so on , rather surprisingly Labour have not been. With the increase of things (in London ) effectively electronic value cards for bus travel ( oyster on which the national pensioners bus travel pass is also working when issued in london ) , I feel this could be extended to a number of services with assorted values ( eg hours of usage , access to library services , social care for eldery ). Some values would be 'free' as part of national or council tax entitlements but with flexibilty of how , where , and with whom , the 'free' service access could be spent. Other services could be topped up ( or withdrawn from free if the card holder was deemed to have a high income [ like child benefit , free school meals , etc ] .

So swipe points at the entry to Victory Park or Letcliffe Park would determine the levels of daily usage , ( and anyone who hadn't swiped would be penalised - that should deter some of the undesirables ). Roadside card readers for monitoring use of free on street and off street car parks . Use of nursery and school places , applications for planning development and so on , the list could be endless but provide data on what people really want or need.

Posted: **11 Oct 2013, 10:52**

I see they are looking for a new Deputy Speaker.
One of the candidates is one Brian Binley. I thought I remembered him from the time of the expenses affair. Yes - I did - this is from wikipedia, and he seems to have announced that he won't be standing again in 2015 due to ill health.

"On 17 June 2009 it was revealed that Binley had claimed over £50,000 in expenses, renting a flat from his own company, BCC Marketing.[11] Two months after beginning to rent the flat, expenses rules were changed to clarify that MPs could no longer rent properties from businesses in which they had an interest. Binley appealed to the Speaker of the House Michael Martin, whilst still claiming for the flat. Binley lost his appeal after two and a half years, during which time he still claimed for the flat in question. Binley has not had to repay the £57,000 he received while the Speaker deliberated.[12]

Looks like an ideal candidate to preside over the Westminster circus.

Posted: **11 Oct 2013, 13:39**

So swipe points at the entry to Victory Park or Letcliffe Park would determine the levels of daily usage , ( and anyone who hadn't swiped would be penalised - that should deter some of the undesirables ).

Good God you'll have George Orwell turning in his grave! (George Orwell / Eric Arthur Blair. Who would have thought that!)

OneGuyFromBarlick

POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER

Re: POLITICS CORNER