Crewe goes blue

It had been expected for some time after the problems Labour have made for themselves and the rest of the country and indeed it came to fruition, with Crewe and Nantwich being won by the Conservatives with a 17% swing from Labour to the Conservatives, reversing Labours previously safe 7000 vote majority. Given that Crewe and Nantwich was the 165th target seat for the Conservatives, Im sure there are 164 MPs feeling a little more under the weather, including South Thanet's Stephen Ladyman, with a tiny majority of 664. Apparently Labour is "solidly behind" Brown. I bet they are...all wielding knives.

Abortion changes through the back door

One of the most controversial issues in politics and a very topical one at present in the Westminster village (and Eastenders too) is that of abortion. A campaign is fighting to lower the limit for abortion to 20 weeks led by Conservative MP Nadine Dorries.

Firstly I disagree wholly with the manner in which the issue was brought up. The issue has been tagged onto the consideration of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (a controversial Bill in its own right) even though there are no clauses that directly change the law on abortion. Such a Trojan Horse tactic demeans the issue. Any changes made to the abortion law should be made through a separate Bill after full consideration of both Houses of Parliament and plenty of pre-legislative scrutiny. The issue is far too important to just tag on like this.

The basis of my view on abortion is essentially that it is the woman’s choice to make. I have no right to dictate if and when a woman can have an abortion as I will never have to make such a decision. However any changes to be made to abortion law would have to be made purely on the basis of substantial empirical evidence. Photographs of babies moving in the womb in my opinion aren’t good enough. I understand that DVDs of foetuses post abortion have been sent out to those seen as pro-abortion, a disgusting thing to do. Emotion must be removed from the debate. We need to follow the evidence. If such evidence exists showing the survival rates of premature births then there surely would be a case for a change to the limit. At present I am not persuaded that such a change is necessary. Those who support abortion aren’t child murderers with no understanding of the pain the foetuses suffer and those who are against abortion aren’t necessarily religious nutters stuck in the medieval ages forcing wayward parents to take children to full term as punishment for the sin of procreation. The woman making the choice very often will suffer psychological scarring and the decision to have an abortion will change their lives forever.

I propose just one amendment to bring the legislation up to date that surely couldn’t be that disagreeable. Those with minor disabilities such as cleft palate or hair lip can be aborted as late as 39 weeks at present. It seems strange that the rules should be completely different for those who have slight, almost cosmetic problems which surgery can routinely solve, whilst normal babies have tighter restrictions. I propose that the limit on abortion for those with minor disabilities should be brought into line with that of the normal abortion limit. It is a shame that David Cameron does not agree and has spoken publicly saying he believes that abortion should continue to be allowed for those with minor disabilities up to 39 weeks whilst favouring a cut of the normal limit to 21 or 22 weeks.

Abortion isn’t an issue that can treated lightly and I’m sure that the senior politicians who have publicly commented on the issue do not treat it as such. Any change that occurs must happen on the basis of evidence, not emotion, and should take as long as necessary to be done properly. Rushing to change abortion law will lead to a horrible situation that no one wants.

Drafting for salvation

Yesterday Gordon Brown announced the draft legislation programme, in essence the Government’s proposed legislation for the next Parliamentary session that will be kicked off with the Queen’s Speech in November. Last year the draft legislation programme was announced in July. It is a bag of the last remaining scraps that could be cobbled together. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue…

The Government has pushed this forward deliberately to attempt to build up some good momentum after the disaster of recent weeks and to try and save the Crewe and Nantwich by-election. We are so far away from November Brown could easily have delayed this by a few months without any harm being done to the programme or slowdown in public involvement in the process. It could have something to do with a critical report from the Parliamentary Select Committee for Public Appointments out yesterday, which said “It is not appropriate that Prime Ministers should be able to alter the structure of the civil service departments on a whim, and we do not understand why they should ever need to do so”. There was a radical change in the structure of Government departments when Brown came to power and done against a lot of frustration at the lack of scrutiny over such plans.

As with every Queen’s Speech under Labour, there is a raft of legislation to go before Parliament in this coming session. If this draft programme becomes the programme proper, as it probably will, there will be Whip driven processes restricting the length of time Bills can be debated and scrutinised for, leading for poorly written and inadequate legislation which will have to be revisited at a later date, taking more time away from holding members of the Government of the day to account for their policies or spending more time scrutinising the legislation that requires more time. Given that one such bill is designed to replace 10 pieces of immigration legislation, surely lesser issues can be put off to allow further debate on that and some of the other key pieces of legislation? Another Bill, the Equality Bill, will act to allow ‘equality of opportunity’ (a concept I will come back to in more detail at a later time) and to tackle discrimination in the workplace.

More legislation doesn’t mean better legislation. It means the complete opposite. As we’ve seen from the various defeats the Government has had in the courts over issues of immigration and terrorism, the Government needs to realise that by allowing more scrutiny of Bills going through Parliament, the law can be improved over and above what the Government itself wants. Just because the Opposition proposes an amendment, it doesn’t automatically make it a bad idea.

Once a con, always a con

Yesterday saw a volte-face by Brown and Darling as they increased the personal tax allowance by £600 to alleviate the problems caused by Gordon Brown’s last Budget as Chancellor. Alistair Darling has said that economics allows such a set of changes. Don’t be fooled for one second.

This was a wholly political move. A by-election in Crewe and Nantwich is coming just days away and Labour is facing defeat. Frank Field had a lot of support in his campaign to find compensation for the 10p losers, with the threat of losing its Finance Bill, which would lead to political crisis. Darling had already said that compensation would be explained at the Pre-Budget Report, but that’s not for months so the timing of this is obviously political, not that the Government will admit it. This is the same Government who said that the 10p band abolition wasn’t that bad and that no one was losing out (even Stephen Ladyman played that line).

The package is to cost £2.7 billion and paid for through increasing borrowing, which will lead to borrowing forecasts going out of the window. Labour has said for over a decade that it would borrow only to invest. This mini Budget will mean that rule is obliterated as this borrowing is not to invest as the rule intended. Labour has enjoyed deriding Conservative proposals on changes to taxes and government spending as being irresponsible or unfunded upfront changes. With the changes announced yesterday, Labour no longer has the right to accuse the Conservatives of making unfunded tax cuts and trying to make political capital out of it.

Labour has found a short-term response to a more long-term problem. Out of a Budget of over £550 billion, the Chancellor couldn’t find the money to redirect to the increase to the personal tax allowance, an increase which will count for this financial year only. Come next year the personal tax allowance will be cut back, leading to increased tax bills for all. This is a one year con by the Government, the same trick pulled off with the one year Council Tax rebate for pensioners before the General Election of 2005.

As I’ve proposed before, a radical cut back on the waste in Government spending would allow for a solid and permanent reduction in taxation on the working poor, without damaging frontline public services. But did Darling want to go anywhere near that strategy? Of course not. The strategy utilised by Labour through this apparent giveaway is to distract the public from its anger over the initial policy in order to get some stability. But in doing so, they’ve just bottled up more trouble for next year. The public know they can’t trust Labour and that there is always small print to watch out for, as ever Labour doesn’t let down on that regard.

This story has one moral. Don’t Trust Labour.

Doubting direct democracy

As part of the post election analysis, a number of senior Labour figures have commented in the papers. Hazel Blears is one such Cabinet Minister, coming up with some ideas for getting back on track in last weekends papers.

She preaches the mantra of direct democracy and ideas related to it like holding cabinet meetings in community centres and talking to the people. Such a series of ideas are silly since for one they aren’t genuinely meant.

I’m rather sceptical about direct democracy. I can understand the arguments in favour of mayors, but I disagree that having elected police commissioners will be of significant benefit to the community. Yes, it’ll mean that the winner of the election can be held to account against their promises, but unless there is full turnout, or at least a majority turnout, the commissioner will be selected by a very small number of people. Furthermore, the police commissioner will be spending more time doing public relations rather than dealing with crime. The police already get involved with communities, for example in nearby Salmestone Ward through PACT. Surely the point of a police force is to police communities, rather than constantly having to explain itself. As long as the selection procedure is rigorous, what is the point of a directly elected police commissioner? There is also the risk of having too many elections for too many things.

Hazel Blears talks about the use of petitions and how action can be in effect forced upon local authorities and even Parliament if enough signatures are received. The idea could have some going for it but on the other hand it could lead to some atrocious legislation coming before Parliament. I don’t agree with a recall mechanism for MPs, as proposed by Blears where for example if say 20% of the electorate agree, an MP can be forced to be re-elected, a situation which would mean highly marginal seats would be in constant election time.

Holding cabinet meetings outside of Downing Street is a non-starter and will never see the light of day. I’m certain the idea has already been dismissed by Gordon Brown. It would be a security nightmare and the public should have nothing to do with it. It’s an impossible gesture.

As for greater openness with the public and listening to what the public have to say, I don’t trust them for a second. They’ve been in Government for 11 years and they didn’t need to talk to the public to realise that abolishing the 10p band was a seriously bad idea. If power gets passed down, it gets passed down with conditions and restrictions upon the use of such powers, under the pretence of ensuring that abuse of such powers do not occur. Passing down power very often doesn’t actually happen.

I don’t think the problem is one of not listening, as the Government has had a ream of inquiries, white papers, consultations, the Big Conversation, green papers, Commissions etc while in office. Their problem is one of competent action. They talk so much about radical action to deal with serious problems, but the implementation is often so shoddy, it spoils the point of taking action in the first place.

Loner

Frank Field is one of a handful of Labour MPs I pay attention to, others being Gisela Stuart (spoke very eloquently on Europe earlier this year), John McFall (Labour Chair of Treasury Committee who took no prisoners over the Northern Rock collapse) and the late Gwyneth Dunwoody. He has been the key Labour MP pressing for compensation over the 10p band and he is the only reason open revolt hasn’t occurred, having held back the angry MPs before the local elections from ripping down the doors at 10 Downing Street. He talks a lot of sense and honestly believed Brown was being genuine about compensation and has rightly spoken out against any breach of the promise. If Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling fail to find adequate compensation, a case could be made for a vote of no confidence, this issue being at the heart of Labour thinking.

So what does Brown do? Try to ensure that this compensation is as comprehensive and reaches as many people as possible and to keep in touch with MPs to ensure that they do not lose faith, or alternatively send out an underling to attack Frank Field as a loner and to doubt whether his “intentions were honourable” regarding the campaign? Yes readers, he went for option number 2 as Children, Schools and Families Secretary Ed Balls and Communities Secretary Hazel Blears attacked Frank Field. Normally such attacks by them pass without trouble, but this attack could lead to serious problems because Frank Field is respected by backbenchers. Calling Frank Field a loner over an issue like compensation for those losing out from the abolition of 10p band could bounce back badly since he isn’t the only one unhappy on the issue. Discipline in the Labour Party cannot and must not be established through ganging up on those with differing views. That leads to dictatorship of the Party and to certain defeat at the next General Election, should Brown make it. It’ll keep Labour out of Government for over a decade. Frank Field is a good man and doesnt deserve this treatment.

UPDATE: This morning Alistair Darling briefed the Cabinet on some of the compensation plans. As Ive said before, I am very sceptical that the compensation offered wouold be good enough. Itll lead to more people joining the Governments welfare state and having to go to HMRC like Oliver Twist.

Counting thrice

As I’ve commented before, further discussion of the Mayoral Ball incident isn’t necessary as the Standards Board had decided to take no further action. It implied that the parties concerned should sort it out between themselves, as grown ups do.

Both sides have had their fill over this incident, which I remind readers, occurred over a year ago, and I assumed that after the open letters from Cllrs Hart and Watkins which made serious separate unsubstantiated allegations about Cllr Ezekiel, that would be it and normality could be restored with Labour returning back to looking at the issues facing Thanet residents. Last nights Annual Council Meeting proved I was wrong.

Cllr David Green led a Labour challenge to Cllr Ezekiel’s re-election as Leader of the Council on the basis of his behaviour at the said incident. If the challenge was made on the basis of policy, of if Cllr Ezekiel's behaviour was sufficiently bad for the Standards Board to recommend action should be taken against him, I might be minded to agree with Cllr Green. Unfortunately this was not the case. He had to be interrupted at one point by the Chairman of the Council and reminded that the incident was a matter for the Standards Board who had come to a final decision.

If Cllr Clark for example feels so seriously about Cllr Ezekiel’s behaviour that he is unsatisfied by the decision by the Standards Board he should launch a lawsuit for defamation of character. Since this does not seem to be forthcoming, I hope Cllr Clark will speak to his colleagues and try to persuade them to back down their campaign. Cllr Green does not appear to have been involved in the incident at the time and when challenging Cllr Ezekiel’s re-election last night seemed rather reluctant about doing so, perhaps as if he didn’t really want to do it. I’ve not known Cllr Green to be reluctant before so such behaviour is highly unusual.

Some may consider my comments in the past on this issue an example of my Tory bias, a view I do not agree with. Cllr Ezekiel’s behaviour, if what the Standards Board has said is accurate, was unprofessional and shouldn’t have happened. I don’t consider it cause for the sack though. He had an election three weeks later and was re-elected. Does Cllr David Green disagree with the decision of the voters of Cliftonville East? A sincere apology is good enough for me. If there is a repeat of this, then further action could be justified.

There have been three attempts to revisit the incident since the Standards Board made their final decisions, three attempts too many. Labour, while making these moves, have ignored the issues mattering to Thanet residents, showing that their priorities are askew. I would like to see Labour explain what their alternative plans for regeneration and tourism in Margate are or how their financial proposals add up. They proposed a 2.1% council tax increase, obviously funded by cutting the staff budget by 10%, which indeed would raise more money than needed for the Council Tax cut itself, but since the £2.3m would not just suddenly appear out of thin air, Id like to know when the council tax shortage would be paid off and how the cutting of staff would be dealt with. How would housing policy be different under Labour?

Id like to see a positive local Labour, with ideas on how to improve Thanet, without any pretence to gaining political advantage, or being cynical about it and just criticising ad nauseum without a coherent strategy. I say this as serious advice to local Labour. Stick to the core issues, ignore peripheral ones, show the residents what Labour stands for and how it would improve Thanet. Move on from the distractions of some time ago and get back on track.

Catching a break

If Gordon Brown thought that an announcement on cannabis will blow off the press and MPs wanting to continue its highlighting of Labour screw ups, it seems to be failing. New Labour architect Peter Mandelson has come out saying that scrapping the band was “a very big mistake”. Along with this the Mail has been fanning the flames over reform of abortion laws (I personally disagree that an issue as serious as abortion reform should be tagged onto the current HFE Bill which some are trying to) and Labour’s Scottish leader Wendy Alexander (International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander’s sister) tactical mistake in calling the SNP’s bluff over a referendum on independence. Newsnight also had a story last night about poor security at airports and how foreign workers do not require a CRB check to work airside (the relevant Minister did not like having to answer the questions). Labour’s only saving grace has been making the right call on cannabis, a decision they should never have made.

The SNP bluff was a strange situation because Wendy Alexander has operated completely independently of the rest of the Party and caught everyone off guard making an apparent U-turn on Labour’s previous refusal to support a referendum without even asking Gordon Brown for support. She made it very clear that she would now support a referendum immediately to sort the issue out, arguing that the SNP is delaying its pledge to hold a referendum, even though the delay will be till 2011, so still within the current Scottish Parliamentary term. She has clearly tried to jump the gun to pin the SNP down on anything to gain some initiative, but has been caught and knocked back badly. This is not the first time she’s been in trouble, having been caught taking an illegal Party donation. Brown did not give her his full support on the referendum issue so it seems she has some explaining to do. Furthermore, he seemed to have a different view on what she said to what everyone else seems to have heard

David Miliband desperately tried to avoid talking about his obvious leadership ambitions on Newsnight, even though he’s been doing speeches outside his own brief, a clear signal of intention. He cowered back into his seat and got very defensive. If he isn’t harbouring ambitions to be the next Labour leader then I’m Brad Pitt…

Reviewing reviews

While the public were out voting on Thursday and giving the Government a pounding at the ballot box for the abolition of the 10p tax rate, Ivan Lewis (Minister for Health) published a list of 7 Common Core Principles to Support Self Care. Apparently “The principles aim to help health and social care services enable people to have better control over and responsibility for their own health and well-being, working in partnership with health and social care professionals. The Common Core Principles are intended to support self care in its broadest sense by helping staff across health and social care develop the skills needed to provide people with access to appropriate training, information and support networks. They are aimed at, but not limited to, staff supporting individuals living with a long term condition or with complex needs”.

The 7 principles are:
* Ensure individuals are able to make informed choices to manage their self care needs
* Communicate effectively to enable individuals to assess their needs, and develop and gain confidence to self care
* Support and enable individuals to access appropriate information to manage their self care needs
* Support and enable individuals to develop skills in self care
* Support and enable individuals to use technology to support self care
* Advise individuals how to access support networks and participate in the planning, development and evaluation of services
* Support and enable risk management and risk taking to maximise independence and choice

So, the Government spent all that time, holding a consultation and doing the White Paper and their final list is the above?! This is an example of the waste which occured regularly in all departments. Is it really the case that social care workers at present don’t take the interests of the patients as the core issue and dont communicate effectively with the patients to let them know what choices they have? Was this consultation really necessary? Reviews like the above just waste time and resources and distract those on the frontline from doing their jobs. The list could have been rustled up pretty quickly by anyone with common sense.

This is symptomatic of a bigger problem for the Government inherent in its core thinking. It tries to do everything for everyone and in doing so becomes a controlling State. The Government protests that it is an enabling or empowering one which acts to help the most disadvantaged and most needy, but the Government is very slow to trust professionals, thus these reviews and this governing by committee style which leads to very slow action. While Im not advocating a return to sofa Government, there are times for reviews and there are times for action. The above example is perhaps a minor one but it’s a case in point on this.

Of course Governments should listen to public reaction, which it gets through its support base in the Party and press commentary which plays a key role as opinion leaders, but the first role of a Government is to act on the basis of its key principles and policies as set out in their manifestos or other documents. This dithering and delays before taking even common sense decisions just damages the Government.

Taxing alternatives

A short while ago I posted an article proposing a solution to the abolition of the 10p tax rate of abolishing tax credits and investing all savings into boosting the personal tax allowance substantially. Cllr David Green has proposed his own alternative solution to the abolition of the 10p rate, through a 7p increase on the 40p upper income tax band and giving the personal tax allowance a modest increase, or alternatively a lesser increase on the upper income tax band and an increase on capital gains tax.

The key flaw is that it is the ideologist rather than the more sensible and thoughtful part in Cllr David Green driving the policy, retaining high spending and high taxation, aimed directly at the ‘rich’, whose crime has been simply to have more money than the ‘poor’. Why should the Government punish those earning over £36,000 simply for earning a fair salary? I suspect he is falling into the same trap as Brown did by abolishing the 10p rate in the first place. He thought it’d be OK because of tax credits without having the foresight that there were so many who do not and cannot claim them. Taxing the rich is as ever a blunt instrument that will bludgeon everyone in that tax band, not just those City bosses who make up a tiny proportion of that section of Britain. He argues that the tax increase “won’t much damage the wider economy”, an argument that given the current financial climate could be seen to be optimistic. Lower incomes will get their tax relief but will have to spend that on paying off their own domestic bills or the credit cards such is the high cost of living. Those on higher incomes may well be able to cough up the taxes but they will have the same problems as those on lower incomes. It also ignores the economic rule known as the Laffer Curve where above a certain level, kicking up taxes can actually lead to lower tax revenues. Everyone is finding it hard, not just the poor and it is wrong to ignore those on middle earnings.

A key issue ignored is that of high levels of spending requiring such high taxation in the first place. We need effective public services and they need to be funded by the taxpayer, but that investment must be targeted where it is needed, rather than sprayed everywhere without consideration of the potential damage being caused by such profligacy. The Government plans on spending £618 billion of taxpayer’s money on the various departments in this financial year, with an eye wateringly high £169 billion on social protection. That’s over 27% of all Government spending going on benefits and other such spending and the equivalent of spending on defence, education, transport, housing and the environment combined. A radical spending review and sensible cutting back on the fat in public spending could lead to tens of billions freed up to allow changes to reinvigorate the economy. Furthermore, such changes can be made without hurting frontline public services.

Where is the ambition? An increase to the personal tax allowance of £1200 will undo some of the damage caused by Labour and will pay off some of the money the Treasury has stealthily taken from them through fiscal drag but effectively its just putting things the way they were and for some it will take a long time to get full recompense. In the meantime, Labour has blown the extra tax revenue already and has moved onto eating heavily into borrowing.

Cllr Green’s idea is based upon a flawed and outdated political concept and does nothing to tackle the frittering away of billions of taxpayers money by this Government. Back to the drawing board

Count to 10...

The Standard Board has spoken and made its decisions. Those who entered into that process need to stop seeking alternative restitution and move on. By posting open letters on the local blogs, they seem to be making the point that they were never going to trust to the Board and that they were always going to go for this unsavoury manner of getting their own back which indicates a lack of respect to the institutions that they involve themselves with. The open letters (which make some rather serious allegations of their own not discussed by the Board) is the first black mark against Labour on this issue, who should have plenty on their plate already trying to regain their losses from last year and holding the Council to account. I for one would like to know how they would improve Thanet.

I don’t care who started it. It must end now. I’ll be thoroughly disappointed if any Councillor tries making a smart arse remark about this pathetic incident, one that has received far more attention than it deserves. Some closer to the action on this one may well think I’ve no clue what I’m talking about and will ignore me as is their choice. However, as anyone who has ever gone for public office and seen the sharp end will know, once an incident has gotten to this point, to push further undermines the initial argument and just erodes your position. Best to be the first to pull from the fire and to receive small injuries, than to ignore advice to do so and burn yourself irreparably.

So the question is, who is going to be adult about it and move on?

Tories in Sunshine?

With Labour stumbling from crisis to crisis, attention is turning to the Conservatives with many pointing out the key weakness of a lack of narrative or sense of purpose about what they want to do. Its definitely not their only problem though.

Firstly they have a problem with policies. Not so much that they don’t have any, because they actually have a number of them. Their problem is that they need to communicate them clearer to the public so that the voters know straight away the aims of the Conservatives. Political anoraks like me know the policies but I would bet the average person in a pub couldn’t name 5 specific policies. Thought needs to be given to the policies as a package, which they seemed to be doing through the idea of social responsibility. However that idea seems to have been dumbed down in favour of the horribly clunky phrase “post-bureaucratic age”.

Disappointingly in some areas of policy there has been no announcement of the existence of a Conservative policy at all, for example looked after children is shadowed by Michael Gove who has never mentioned the issue in Parliament and has not brought the issue up with his team in order to discuss the Conservative position. I understand there is a review on the issue but if its anything like its report on social workers some time ago, there wont be a lot of coverage of it or discussion at any point afterwards.

Secondly, they lack depth in numbers of frontbenchers good enough to be able to be effective Cabinet Ministers. This has become very plain to see with those pushed to appear on TV and has also been evident in exchanges in Parliament. Cameron understandably doesn’t want to have to reshuffle his team but too few are on top of their briefs and have been very quiet outside of Parliament leading to very high ‘Don’t Know’ figures in ConservativeHome.com surveys.

There seems to be a distinct lack of drive and energy. While Labour looks like it is losing the will to lead the country, the Conservatives don’t seem to be gunning for it, seemingly happy to wait. Tortoise tactics may well work, but given how quickly the political tide can turn, the Conservatives really need to seize the moment and explain to the public why they should give their support. Being not Labour really isn’t enough.

Self-inflicted crises still occur, from the grammar school policy farce, arguments over tax to the leadership’s policy of undermining of local Associations through preferring equality over meritocracy with regards to MEP and Parliamentary candidate selection. Cameron and Osborne’s attack on Brown and Darling over the 10p tax rate faltered when the response came “So what would you do?” helping Brown avoid a case of happy slapping at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday. This is linked to the first problem. The Conservatives have had plenty of time to consider what they would do and to come up with a solid package of their own in response, but it seems at present they are more than happy to complain and shout about how bad it is but with pledged tax cuts for those who would be impacted by IHT (a number falling due to the house price falls) and those with shares, the message about helping the poor is compromised.

The chances of a Conservative victory at the next General Election are certainly on the up but there are serious questions of credibility as a Government-in-waiting hanging over them.

Time Flies...

Today marks the 2nd anniversary of moving to Cliftonville. It’s certainly been a change of scene but the community has been far more friendly and welcoming than I expected. One of the things that showed that despite the unsightly appearance of parts of Cliftonville, generally the area was nice and the people well meaning, was sitting on the steps of the house currently being rebuilt on the corner of Surrey Road with a tenant of the Leslie Hotel, drinking beer and chatting about the area.

A consultation is doing the rounds regarding development in Cliftonville. Anyone who hasn’t already done so, please give your views to TDC. The consultation can be found pretty easily on the Council website. It seems a pretty solid report, though aspects of it could be improved. Given the serious issues Cliftonville faces, I would prefer it if a tighter line was taken for the time being.

Double Whammy

The arguments over the 10p income tax band continue with Brown begging Labour MPs to hold firm. You know when it’s serious when Denis McShane (former Europe Minister and Labour hardcore loyalist) is in front of TV cameras to fly the flag for Brown. It looks bad inside the Commons Chamber and it looks bad outside it.

“Fiscal drag” is an issue linked to this. In short, it’s where increases in wages are greater than increases in the personal tax allowance. The personal tax allowance is automatically linked to the Government’s preferred inflation figure (around 2.5%). Wages have increased by somewhere closer to 4%. Due to this imbalance, many peoples incomes will increase above the personal tax allowance limit and will end up paying tax for the first time, or will end up paying more in tax, even though they are working the same number of hours. The National Minimum Wage is a case in point, having increased way above inflation since its creation.

The brilliant thing as far as the Treasury is concerned is that it gets more tax revenue without having to actively tax for it and therefore having to point out how and why the public is suddenly paying more tax, leading to such outrage as we are seeing from many low paid workers and Labour MPs. It’s part of the reason why the problems with the wider public finances has held back as long as it has. The bad thing is that the Government forgot that the economic cycle cannot be abolished. At some point there has to be a downturn and the Government needs to have sound finances to ensure they can ride it out. Their high spending has left public finances in a less than pristine state, particularly dangerous if the downturn is delayed.

The Government has realised this but only as the credit crunch slammed into the American housing market and has found itself rushing to restrain public sector workers wage increases, with multi-year deals at a mid-2% increase. The Unions though aren’t happy, giving the Government another problem since Labour needs the Unions onside in light of a General Election in the next two years.

Fiscal drag has been of enormous benefit to the Treasury, giving it billions of pounds it could have used to balance the books. Removing the 10p band simply makes the problem of fiscal drag worse by beating the low paid again.
___________________________________________________

Stephen Ladyman MP has commented on the “fuss” saying “it is wrong that even this small group should be worse off” and that he will be bringing his concerns of this group to the Chancellor. Will he explain why he didn’t bring these concerns up before and instead voted in favour of the changes without question when they came through Parliament last year?

Budget Blowback

The big news story this past weekend is surely the angst of Labour MPs directed at Gordon Brown over the abolition of the 10p starter income tax band. 6 Parliamentary aides have expressed serious anxiety at the change (one of which has to be persuaded by Brown not to resign over the issue) and even David Blunkett has spoken out. Brown is said to be angry that this flared up while he was in America, as if public objection to Government policy should only be shown while he is in the country. Downing Street has made it clear there are no concessions to be given such as increased tax credits despite (Treasury busybody) Angela Eagle’s comments to “watch this space”. Chancellor of the Exchequer Darling has said that he cannot re-write the Budget but that in future budgets it might be possible, which for me doesn’t exactly sound like reassurance for those who lose out as a result of the changes.

The thinking behind the policy is that it pays for a tax cut for Middle England who get a 2p cut in their income tax. It also gets the added benefit of giving the pensioners a one time only increase on their winter fuel payments. Unfortunately it has the side effect of doubling tax on the lowest paid. The Government has argued that the band abolition isn’t that bad since those who lose out immediately can offset it with tax credits. All fine and dandy you’d think. Well that would be true, if you are in a position to claim them. Not everyone earning below a certain level of income can claim them. People like me for example. I have no children and work less than 30 hours a week, therefore I don’t qualify.

I don’t consider myself a burden upon the country. If anything the Government must surely make a profit on me since I barely use public services. Ive used health services twice in the last 5 years and both times were blood donations. I do not rely on welfare of any kind and I follow the rules, however stupid they may well appear and yet I have to pay double income tax so that the middle earners can keep more of their money. What gives?

There is an easy solution to this, which has been around for sometime, recommended by Lord Forsyth in a report for the Conservatives a couple of years ago and which is sensible, cutting back heavily on administration and streamlining the tax system hugely. Abolish tax credits and kick the personal tax allowance up substantially, immediately removing the poor from the tax system. There is little logic in demanding more tax revenue from the poor, only to give it back to them in the form of tax credits, which many who can claim do not. Just cut out the middle man and let the poor keep their own money. Economically, increasing taxation at the present economic situation isn’t sound since it will slow public spending, one of the constants that has kept the economy afloat when other economies have stuttered worse.

The abolition of the 10p band is completely against Labour’s principle of helping the poor and I hope local Labour will come out and admit that the changes will leave many poor residents out of pocket. Preaching about tax credits and the national minimum wage is using the two schemes as a smokescreen and is a terrible way to treat the public who deserve honesty at this time.

Gwyneth Dunwoody

Last night Gwyneth Dunwoody, Labour MP for Crewe and Nantwich, died aged 77. She was Chair of the Commons Select Committee for Transport and entered Parliament in 1966.

It’s a terrible loss to Parliament. Even I as a small 'c' conservative blogger recognise her honesty in debate irrelevant of her own Party’s line and will miss her speeches. Her speech from the debate on scheduling of the Commons ratification of the Lisbon Treaty only a few months ago was one of the best speeches Ive ever seen. She spoke brilliantly about the changes that had happened to Parliament over the years and how what might appear to be side issues or trivialities, can actually be really important and that the processes of Parliament should not be undermined. I don’t usually have much time for Labour MPs, but for her I always paid attention.

There aren’t many MPs in Parliament like her, putting people before Party. She will be missed.

42 Days Later

In the News of the World the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith spoke out at the threat terrorism makes towards Britain and in effect asking for parliamentary support for the Counter Terrorism Bill currently before the Commons. The most contentious clause enables suspects to be held for 42 days without charge, well above any other comparable country and above the current 28 day limit brought in not that long ago.

Given recent court cases which have gone against the Government with regards to control orders and pre-charge detention (Lotfi Raissi’s life was torn apart and he was physically attacked and yet he was completely innocent of all accusations), you’d think that the Government would ensure that the legislation was watertight. Sadly it appears they will just bulldoze it through without amendment. This Government has a long and undistinguished history of this.

Lets be in no doubt, if there is a substantial case for such powers the opposition would be far lesser, but as the Second Reading of the Bill showed, the case is very small indeed with key players outside of the Westminster village rejecting the need for such powers. The Director of Public Prosecutions, who would have to approve the 42 day detention order, has been on record to say that there isn’t really a case for it. As David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary has said, “if the 28-day point is reached, and a policeman has a reasonable suspicion and expects to find the evidence in the 42-day period that the right hon. Lady wants, he can charge”. There is no explanation as to where the 42 days power has come from. Why 42?

The Government has assured MPs that Parliament will have to approve each 42 day extension, within 30 days of a request. That’s not much of an assurance if Parliament must meet at some point during that 30 day period, while someone languishes in a cell, without a charge to their name and that Parliament will not be privy to the full details of the case (understandable really, but its still a farce). An extension can be granted upon “reasonable suspicion”. So no proper evidence of a crime, just a thought that maybe the person has done something illegal? The burden of proof is far too low and available to abuse. Parliament having to deal with such a process would also mean the divide between the legislature and the judiciary being broken. This provision is a worrying idea which destroys key parts of our unwritten constitution and will allow abuse by the Governing party.

A part of the Government’s case has been the argument known as the “Armageddon Defence”, that is if Armageddon is to come surely we need all powers at hand just in case we need them. Which is why the Government has the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Its bringing up an extreme example to justify heavy actions. A desperate attempt to get support that is more of a sixth form debating tactic rather than parliamentary debating.

It has been a complaint long held by many brilliant MPs on both sides of the Commons that legislative scrutiny has rescinded in the past decade. When the Government get the First reading done, they already have the schedule for the progress of the Bill prepared so that they know exactly when the Bill will be debated and when the guillotine drops on them. The process leads to bad legislation.

As I have outlined, parts of this Bill will have a dramatic impact on this country and all with good intentions, but as anyone will point out, some of the worst horrors on the planet have been done with good intentions borne in mind.

Death of Dreamland

Margate needs as much help as possible with Westwood sucking the life out of the High Street and Northdown Road. The fire at Dreamland has dealt a crushing blow to any hopes of a recovery for the town. I don’t care who was responsible for the fire itself though Im sure readers have a good idea of who they think would be in the frame. The fact is that the Scenic Railway has been severely damaged and with it Margate itself.

It’s now a free for all as far as housing development at Dreamland is concerned. The Scenic Railway and its Listed status was the only obstacle. Unless the Scenic Railway can be rebuilt to the way it was, the Local Plan barrier to full development on the site no longer has any force.

Margate is dying. All the good things from Margate I remember from my childhood are fast disappearing with no substantial replacement. What is left for children in Margate today and why is so little being done to sort it out?

Albion Bookshop closure

As numerous other blogs have noted, Margate isn’t what it used to be. The Council struggles to find a solution to this to what appears to be little effect, unless you own a café... Yesterday saw the announcement that the Albion Bookshop in Cliftonville is to close by the end of the year. A stalwart of Northdown Road having been there for over 50 years, it has suffered from the “pressures of harsh economic reality” and the end is nigh. It’s very disappointing to see such notices up in the windows, to see another established business having to close and another blow on an already battered area which needs as much help as possible.

I really like the Albion Bookshop, just about the only shop in Thanet selling a decent range of chess books. A number of chess books I own have been bought from there and I wonder where I will have to go now. Friendly staff, always up for a chat with a large range of books and perfectly happy to help if the customer has any queries or problems. One of the few shops in Clifonville I use, but not for much longer.

UPDATE:

Today (Saturday 5th April) EDJ Greengrocers on Northdown Road closes to move to Nash Farm near Westwood Cross. Another loss to Cliftonville...

Out of sight, out of mind?

A consultation is to soon begin on plans to force retailers to conceal displays of cigarettes in an attempt to cut under age sales of cigarettes. The idea was thrown around last year so this looks like they are going for it.

The idea though is pointless and will not deal with the problem. Legislation on this bans the purchase of alcohol for a third party who is underage. However with regard to cigarettes, such proxy sales are perfectly legal. If children want them all they have to do is ask an adult, maybe the parents, to get them and that’s it. The idea is banning public display of cigarettes to cut cigarette use is going to do nothing to deal with the real issue. Lord Darzi, Minister for Health has said that the Government will not be changing the law to clear this up as it would be “unenforceable”. Trading Standards surely could have an extended role to check proxy sales. Simply getting shops to have to find extra space for cigarettes to hide them would lead to extra burden, logistically and in cost as well. Small shops are under enough stress as it is with the Treasury pounding them again and again for more money (the Budget has a number of such instances) and the result of the policy will be that shops will cut down the number of brands they sell, leading to a cut in tax revenue for the Treasury. If access to cigarettes is such a problem, why not just ban the sale of tobacco products completely?

Furthermore, if cigarettes are a product so harmful that it should be removed from view, where does it stop? Logically speaking, alcohol should be removed from view, and so must all other age restricted goods, such as some computer games, DVDs and CDs with Parental Warnings attached to them. Top shelf magazines will have to be removed from view and so must anything else which could, in the long term, be harmful to children through obesity, such as sweets, crisps, cakes and soft drinks. Newspapers with adult content can damage children psychologically and encourage delinquent behaviour and therefore should be removed from view. Scratchcards and other National Lottery equipment will have to be removed from view as well.

Of course perhaps Im exaggerating and in reality theres no chance of the above happening. But if the Government are starting with cigarettes, what else is next and where does it end?