How ironic that it has taken the arrest of Damian Green, the Shadow Immigration Minister to provoke David Cameron into describing the police as “Stalinesque“. Because his party has sat on its hands whilst this Labour government has consistently removed the rights and civil liberties of every single person in this country. What is Cameron’s problem, does he think he is a cut above the rest of us, that the draconian, Big Brother Britain laws introduced to control the citizens of this country shouldn’t be used against a member of parliament? Pathetic little man, it was Cameron’s job to keep this control obsessed government in check, he failed, now one of his minister pays the price. Bloody good job if this is what it has taken to wake Cameron and his party from their self-induced slumber.

For what it is worth, I completely agree, the police action was outrageous, but what did Cameron expect? On his watch, New Labour has introduced a raft of measures and legislation designed specifically to allow the state to control, spy and monitor every one of its citizens. This includes, but is not limited to tracking our vehicle movements through ANPR or CCTV cameras; indulging in recording, monitoring and commenting on our most personal details on a health service database; or having voyeuristic access to very email, text message and call we make. Then to compund this abuse of power by making the information available to up to 800 separate agencies, including private companies. Just yesterday, Jacqui Smith ordered 10,000 Tasers to be used against the people of this country, with the stated intention of arming 30,000 front line officers and barely a murmur from Cameron’s compliant party of opposition.

The police in this country have been given unprecedented powers, akin to that of a repressive police state, not the police “service” of a first world country and yet they are asking for even more. This government has pandered to their every whim, like a lovesick teenager, not the objective supervising team they are supposed to be. It was as if government ministers were in awe and the police no longer want to detect or investigate crime, preferring to monitor everyone and wait for them to make a wrong move.

Take a look at what has happened over the past 35 years in the police service. Foot patrols became mobile patrols, mobile patrols became poorly trained ‘plastic’ policemen. The ‘plastics’ were given uniforms that have been deliberately modeled to make it difficult to determine whether it is a PCSO or a proper copper. The traditional baton was enhanced with pepper spray, which is now going to be supplemented with the life threatening Taser guns. No wonder they need to go around in cars! Could Cameron’s Conservative party not see a pattern emerging here? If he is smart enough to be proposed as the next prime minister, why was he no so bright as to see what was coming, or perhaps he thought it didn’t apply to his sort!

We are told by government ministers that crime has been falling, especially violent crime, so why do the police have a need for such violent weapons to combat a smaller threat. News that every front line officer is to be provided with a Taser is unprecedented, what has happened here, have the police officers lost their bottle? There was a time when being a police officer meant you had to have courage, now police officers routinely hide behind their computer screens, desks and ridiculous health & safety rules that inhibit policing and risk to a level akin to crossing a busy road.

God forbid that police officers should have to leave their comfortable cars or offices to a investigate crime or risk getting hurt in the line of duty. What type of police officer feels the need to have an array of weapons which include a baton, pepper spray and a deadly taser gun before he or she will go outside and meet what is a relatively law abiding public? Under this government, the police have been allowed to determine which crimes they investigate, so for example, victims of burglaries and vandelism must accept a crime number, with no investigation. With very few exceptions, everyone that I know that has had to report a crime or interface with the police have come away appalled at their lack of commitment or unwillingness to investigating crime. The fact that anyone going to a police station to report a crime is expected to deal with a civilian is indicative of where the police have gone wrong. Bottom line Cameron, is the police service needs to be hauled in, they have quite simply go too big for their boots.

Gordon Brown claimed that his would be an open government. Whilst his ministers may not like the leaking of certain documents, if it is in the public interest, they should not be using the police as a weapon of state to punish those concerned. After all, if there was no national security risk, just a possibility of a minister being embarrassed or caught out in a lie, why the need for anti-terrorist officers. The claim that no minister knew the police were going to arrest Damien Green really pushes at the fringes of credibility.

But I feel the need to point David Cameron in the right direction. The problem is when government provides such a wide definition of a law. For example, Green was arrested on arrested on “suspicion of conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office and aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office“. Now that encompasses just about everything. By the same token, this government has used similar, broad definitions to destroy many of the civil liberties and rights to privacy of the individual in this country under the guise of anti-terror laws. Cameron’s party wanting to appear tough on crime and terror legislation have been compliant to the extent that they could be accused of being complicit in the whole sorry state of affairs.

Our police service now has unprecedented powers, passed to them by a compliant government, that was intent on achieving state control. Damien Green has now become a victim of Big Brother Britain, his boss doesn’t like it and neither do we! Perhaps Cameron and co, will now realise how the public feel about the removal of our rights by opposing new legislation and offering to repeal similar, uneccessary acts. I am personally delighted that one of Cameron’s MP’s has had the opportunity to feel first hand the affects of a repressive state.

News that Jacqui Smith feels obliged to order another 10,000 Tasers at a time when the government coffers are empty has to be worrying for the British public. Whilst we know that this government doesn’t really care about how much of our money they spend, because they can just put up our taxes, the timing is very interesting and surely cannot be a coincidence.

Alistair Darling has just announced that the government finances are in a complete mess (not his words of course), in fact, if the country was a business, it would almost certainly need to call in the administrators. The economic reality of this situation has already started to trickle down, resulting in higher taxes at a time when people can least afford it ( ignore the VAT stimulus con ), the loss of peoples homes, fewer jobs etc. A public backlash is almost inevitable, as soon as those that still insist on hero worshipping New Labour for ’shafting the rich’ realise that they too must pay a price. A very high one at that.

You might think that in a developed country, government would seek to reassure people and provide genuine support or advice at a time of national crisis. But there are two systemic problems preventing this. The first is this government has wasted so much of our money on social engineering projects and Big Brother Britain spying exercises, that there is nothing left. In fact it is worse than that, we have a massive public debt, over £1 trillion. So financial support is not a viable option, hence the reason this government introduced a ‘fiscal stimulus’ based on Alice in Wonderland economics, purchase taxes. If New Labour were serious about a fiscal stimulus package, they would have offered a reduction in direct taxation, which would at least be tangible.

The second issue is that this government has never engaged with the public. Instead they have bribed their own voters with tax credits and the like, whilst bullying all other sections of the community including business to pay for them. The Pre-Budget Report, was supposed to demonstrate that New Labour cares, but anyone with any nous will know that it is an elaborate con, all presentation and no substance….classic New Labour smoke and mirrors. The bottom line is we should always be wary of a government that wants to be your best mate when they have been shafting you for the past 11 years. In other words, this government only knows how to preach, bully, con and bribe. The government also knows that eventually, they will get caught out and that day is looming ever closer, so they must now return to type. Bring forward Big Brother Britain and force.

So what can we expect? Unlike 1984, we will not witness the police controlling protesters armed with batons and shields, instead, in Big Brother Britain, we shall have to contemplate our police force using Tasers against its own citizens. This is in spite of the fact that Tasers are claimed to have lead to the death of up to 300 people in America. They say timing is everything. Why else would Jacqui Smith place such a massive order for Tasers? It appears to me that they are anticipating some form of backlash and they intend to suppress it with deadly, uncompromising force. This will be no surprise to those that have seen the UK moving steadily move towards a police state, but for the rest and that will be the majority, it is likely to become something of a shock, no pun intended!

I have delayed writing about the Pre Budget Report because I was so angered by its content. Not so much for the state of the public finances, which most people expected, but the fact that we have yet another missed opportunity. The Gordon Brown touch was everywhere, because once again, it was about perception not reality and could never live up to its promise.

The principal part of this stimulus package was the reduction in VAT, which is estimated to cost £12.5bn over a period of one year. Which is what I shall concentrate on. Now, I would like to know how the government came up with a figure of £5bn, because we all know that sales are down, so is the estimate based on historical figures, or current sales? This is important, because the suggestion is that this £12.5bn is an injection of real cash into the economy, so a smoke and mirrors approach to presentation would just be a con and unforgiveable. Furthermore, if I had £12,5bn to spend I would have reduced direct taxation by 2.5% for a year not VAT.

VAT is a purchase tax, therefore in a sense, it is a voluntary tax and as a consequence no-one will feel any richer as a consequence of such small a reduction in retail prices. It is also essentially a luxury tax, in other words, it is added to non-essentials. Yes, I know that over the years this has been extended, but for the most part, it has to be remembered that there is no VAT on food, children’s clothes and so on. The VAT reduction would have had a direct benefit to people if it had been applied to fuel, but the government decided to raise duties to negate any benefit, they did likewise on alcohol, tobacco and spirits.

Many retailers have been offering massive sale offers, with cuts of up to 50% to tempt consumers to buy products in their stores, no doubt with differing levels of success. A reduction of 2.5% pales into insignificance set against this backdrop. Which is precisely my point, the VAT reduction had nothing to do with providing a fiscal stimulus and more to do with being able to brag about a big number, knowing full well that it would never cost as much as the forecasted figures. Moreover, it provided an excellent backdrop for the government to introduce new taxes on the basis that the ‘VAT holiday’ would have to be paid for.

Ask yourself this, if the government had £12.5bn to waste, why didn’t they put it straight into our pockets, by reducing income tax by 2.5%? A fiscal stimulus has as much to do with consumer confidence as it does ability to pay. If you want the public to feel wealthier, then the only way this can be done is by ensuring they have more  of their own money in their purse or wallet. That is tangible! But this had nothing to do with a desire to introduce a fiscal stimulus, it was only designed to con the British public into the believing the government were doing something. This will be an expensive failure because those that are in a position to buy products where VAT is applied will do so anyway and save 2.17%.  By contrast those that were not able to make the purchase will find that this 2.17% reduction will make no difference whatsoever.

Now lets take a look at another aspect of this ’smoke and mirrors’ tax con. The government has made this years increase in the personal allowance permanent and sold it as part of the fiscal stimulus. But all is not as it seems, because they had no choice. The only reason they increased the personal allowances this year was because of the last 10p tax con. They knew if they did not act to make this ‘tax concession’ permanent that they would have had a backbench rebellion which would almost certainly have lead to Gordon Brown being ousted in disgrace. Now that is almost a price worth paying!

Now here is the best part for the government. In exchange for introducing a highly questionable fiscal stimulus, in the case of VAT for just one year, they have been able to substantially increase their tax take. For example, the adjustment in duties to offset the temporary VAT reduction on fuel, tobacco, alcohol and spirits will remain in place after VAT has been put back up. So this is a very real and permanent price rise, not only that, it is worth remembering that the consumer always pays VAT on duties, yes, a tax on a tax.

Plus, they have announced an increase in National Insurance contributions of 0.5% on employers and employees. This will raise billions and is permanent! So, in comes the smoke and mirrors again, by setting this tax increase against the change in personal allowances, the government can claim that certain taxpayers are better off. But hang on a minute, the change in personal allowances was introduced because, according to the government, they made a mistake when they removed the 10p tax band, so this was only introduced to compensate for that error. In other words, it was already our money! Don’t think for one minute that this tax raising government don’t know that and so do the media, but they are so far up the backsides of the government, the media refuses to reveal the truth.

On top of this, the government have decided to introduce a higher rate of income tax and remove personal allowances for those earning more than £140k. This means that they will be £2,246.70 worse off in 2010/11 and £2,849.93 down the following year. Now many will say that doesn’t matter, because they are rich etc, etc.

But lets put this into perspective. Firstly, they already pay more tax in real terms than the average person, in fact someone earning £150k per year pays as much tax as 4 people on average earnings. Also, many, I accept not all, of these people are the very people that create employment and provide jobs for the rest of us. Often, they will have risked everything they own to set up a business which creates wealth for the country and jobs for the people. Under this government they have seen capital allowances slashed, corporation taxes on the rise, massive increases in business rates (money which is a direct taxation by the government on business) and now a much higher tax take from them in their personal capacity.

I do not and never would begrudge anyone earning those sorts of salaries where they have contributed to the wealth of this country by creating jobs and a contribution to GDP. Two things that are vital, no, absolutely essential to the wealth of every country in the world. We have already seen a number of companies moving their businesses to other countries, such as Southern Ireland, because the tax regime is so much better. Can you really blame them if they are hounded for being successful and punished with punitive personal and business taxes for creating jobs and wealth. We all need to get real, envy is a very dangerous thing and in this case, if there was an exodus of the very people that help create jobs and wealth, we would be finished as a first world country. This pre-supposes that we are not already as a direct consequence of Gordon Brown’s reckless mismanagement of our economy.

The other changes made by the Chancellor are hardly worth mentioning, because they are so insignificant… so I won’t. I will say this however, they Pre Budget Report produced virtually nothing for small and medium sized businesses. Given these account for 50% of our GDP and employs 12.5m people, this was a massive mistake and one we shall all be paying for over the next few months.

Never was there a greater need for an honest fiscal stimulus, but Gordon Brown could not resist conning the British public again. The VAT reduction had nothing to do with providing a real fiscal stimulus, because the affects have been so severely limited. Instead, he contemptuously used it to introduce massive tax rises, which were designed to allow him to claim that the countries tax receipts, PBR and balance sheet would not be as bad as would have otherwise been in future years. Alistair Darling even included an assumption that we would see strong growth in a little over a year, everyone knows that is justwishful thinking. Whislt no-one believes this argument it makes the government books look a little better. They have no shame.  As my old boss used to say, it is all jam tomorrow.

The most worrying aspect of all this is how many people actually fell for the biggest and most dishonest tax con in history. Gordon Brown and his motley crew make Robin Hood look like a philanthropist.

Whilst I am not surprised that two of the most inept women in politics (Jacqui Smith and Harriet Harman) are pushing a bill to allow a prosecution without intent, I am shocked that the rest of the cabinet have allowed them to announce it. I am of course referring to the proposal to change the law relating to prostitution and trafficking.

Now let me put my cards on the table. I do not and have never used a prostitute. Nor, do I pretend to understand why a woman would want to sell her body or a man pay for sex without the usual intimacy. That may make me a little square or old fashioned and I will accept that criticsm, albeit I have a right to my opinion. However, I do respect a woman’s right to sell her body if she wishes and a man’s to pay for sex if that is his will. Two consenting adults conducting a transaction that hurts no-one is none of my business. Therefore, whilst I must confess I do not fully understand the motivation for the two parties, I do not judge either party, nor do I say they should have the right to make that choice removed.

My concern here is the fact that these two cabinet ministers a peddling a piece of legislation that if introduced in its current form, will change some of the fundamentals of our criminal laws in this country and add nothing to the cause of vulnerable prostitutes. This is because Smith and Harman now intend to introduce legislation that will make it an offence if a man has sex with a woman who is under the control of a third party, such as a pimp, or has been trafficked or forced into prostitution against her will. Here is the issue, The home secretary has made clear that under the proposed legislation it will not be enough for a man to say “I didn’t know”. The new offence will include a “strict liability” test so that police will only have to prove that the man paid for sex, and that the woman had been trafficked. There will be no need to prove he knew it at the time.

In other words, even if the man asked the prostitute if she had been trafficked, was working under duress, or for a pimp and she says NO, if he pays for sex with her, he will still be guilty of an offence, which could even result in a prosecution for rape, which comes with a potential life tariff. Therefore, in spite of the fact that it could be argued that the man was diligent and had no intent, he could still be found guilty of one of the most serious offences on the statute book. Not only that, but if the Metropolitan Police figures are to believed, some 70% of prostitutes would fall into this category, which means a man seeking out the services of a prostitute has, in effect, a 70% chance of committing an imprisonable offence.

I am no law expert, but by introducing a “strict liability” clause into criminal law, (I believe it is already used in civil law), means a serious criminal offence can be committed without there being any intent. Now I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but this legislation means that even if a man asked the necessary questions and was given the appropriate responses, he is still playing a game of Russian Roulette, with odds that would not be lawful in a casino! Worst still, the man doesn’t even need to have sex in order to commit the offence, he just has to conduct the transaction. This type of law is without precedence in a developed country.

My other concern is, what message does it send out to women who have been raped in the conventionally accepted sense (sorry I couldn’t find a better way of describing this). Rape is one of the most abhorrent crimes on the statute book, yet here, a man can be charged and found guilty of rape, for having sex with a prostitute that has been trafficked or is under the control of a pimp, even if he believed this was not the case. Now compare this with a man that stalks and rapes his victim, or one where a young girl is fed with a date rape drug and subsequently raped, are these offences the same? Because theoretically the charge and sentence would be identical, just brought under different criminal Acts.

Without wishing to be melodramatic about the whole issue, is it not possible that some men will take the view that if they have a 2 in 3 chance of being charged with rape for having sex with a prostitute, that they may as well take their chances elsewhere? A ridiculous or plausible suggestion? This proposed legislation, it will achieve nothing. I strongly suspect that if the Police do bring prosecutions, that even though the judges are only there to intepret and implement the law, they may well demonstrate their contempt for this legislation when it comes to sentencing.

Even the English Collective of Prostitutes has rang the alarm bells saying that they believe it will make prostitutes more, not less vulnerable and run the risk of driving prostitution underground. In fact a spokesperson for the Collective even stated that they believe the governments claim that “most” prostitutes have been trafficked is a “complete fabrication”. Nicki Adams from the Collective is quoted as saying: “What we do know is that women from all walks of life, also working as teachers and students, are also working in prostitution. It’s consenting sex.”

One question I have is that if 70% of the women working as prostitutes have been trafficked or are controlled by pimps, why can’t the police go in and rescue them? By implication, the police are suggesting that they know that 2 out of every 3 prostitutes they find, will have been trafficked or under the control of a pimp. By not ’saving’ these women, they are in effect, allowing them to act as an Agent Provocateur. Quite frankly the whole thing is a complete mess.

Surely there is no logic in introducing a new law that attempts to create a situation where a man can be found guilty of a serious charge even though there may well be no criminal intent. My own view, is that the government should have been more forthright. If they wanted to make prostitution illegal, then they should have done so. Of course they wouldn’t because there would have been a massive backlash in what is accepted as the oldest profession in the world. This legislation if passed, poses a massive risk that if two consenting adults conduct a transaction for sex, one could face very, very serious charges. What will these men do in the face of such dire consequences, will they accept the risk, will they look elsewhere? I would hate to speculate what the consequences of this ill-though out, draconian, unwanted law would be.

I have lived in a country where prostitution is legal. Women work from brothels which are licensed and controlled. This takes most, albeit not all, prostitutes off the street. It means the police know where they are and the authorities can keep an eye on things. Charities have access to the prostitutes and can raise the alarm if anything is untoward. The public do not have to put up with prostitutes walking the street or industrial estates at night. Prostitutes are in a relatively safe and protected environment. The prostitutes earn a living and the men get to have sex with a consenting partner, albeit for sex. Legislation can no more stop prostitution than it can prevent drug use. Introducing a law that seeks to criminalise sex with a prostitute in this way is an appalling use of the legislature and a clear abuse of power.

I am fortunate that I do not live in an area frequented by prostitutes. So I can say in all honesty, they don’t bother me. A transaction that takes place out of sight, between two consenting adults is okay with me. I don’t find it objectionable. On the other hand, girls that have been forced into prostitution by a pimp or trafficker are entitled to expect the protection of the law. The police have existing powers to prosecute the pimps and traffickers. If so many girls fall under this new legislation, then it must be easy pickings for the police. So why don’t they get off their backsides and prosecute the scum that would seek to profit at the expense of these victims of crime? The police in this country have gone soft, they don’t want to have the problem of investigating and proving crime anymore, they just want the laws changed so that virtually everything we do or say can lead to a prosecution and now, if this bill becomes law, there won’t even have to be intent.

I recently heard Harriet Harman give an interview in which I was reminded that her position in government is that of Minister of Women. Now, I have to confess that I can’t remember what subject she was being interviewed on because to be honest, whenever she comes on TV, I find she has little of interest to say and therefore, I just switch off, mentally that is!

Quite apart from whether or not Harriet Harman is the right person to represent women, other than of course the fact that she is one, I am left wondering why women need their own minister? If I were a woman, I would find it quite patronising that this politically correct Labour government felt that women were so weak or under-represented, that they needed their very own Minister for Women. The reality is, today more and more women are in powerful and highly influential positions, they have achieved this, with the notable exception of politics, on merit. So why did this government believe that women should be sectioned off and dealt with as if they were ‘different’ rather than equals? Surely this weakens the cause, if you can describe it as such, rather than strengthens it?

I believe it is as wrong to practice positive discrimination as it is to practice any form of discrimination. The implication that women need a minister to represent their individual interests whilst men do not is simply ludicrous. I ask myself, what next, a Minister for Fat People, a Minister for Drug Users, a Minister for Transsexuals? Quite frankly it is ridiculous. In my opinion, this is not about equality, it is about discrimination, it is to suggest that women are incapable of fighting their corner.

I have seen a number of TV programmes recently where every successful women interviewed stated that gender was not an issue. Furthermore, they made clear that they did not want people (specifically men) to believe that they got where they were based on the fact that there were different rules for women. But based on the fact that their success was through merit. Quite rightly so. I can honestly state that when I was looking at recruiting or promoting people, I did so on ability and merit, not gender or race and I know many, many people that adopt a similar philosophy.

The other problem is when you create a job such as Minister for Women, you find that the minister is having to scratch around for something to do, in other words, they feel have to create new legislation to justify their jobs. In a recent example, I recall the Minister of Women speaking up for the rights of prostitutes and guess what? The prostitutes when asked, made clear that they felt the Minister of Women had no idea what they needed and worst still, the proposed legislation was likely to end up with the prostitutes being less protected than if the minister did nothing. Needless to say, in this particular example, the Minister of Women claimed she knew better because all the prostitutes she has spoken to said something different.

I do not deny that there was a need in the past to introduce legislation that ensured women were treated equally and I believe for the most part, that legislation and education has achieved that goal. There is now a risk that legislation for the sake of legislation will have a detrimental affect as will, for example, suggesting that women should be placed in certain positions based on gender rather than ability. It will weaken what was an otherwise perfectly reasonable, legitimate and worthwhile cause.

One example in terms of politics, is David Cameron’s suggestion that women should be selected to stand for parliament based on gender because they are under-represented, rather than because they are the best candidate. I can say, with all honesty and humility, that it would not bother me what race, or gender a candidate was, provided I felt that they could represent my interests. David Cameron’s actions may be politically correct, but they set back the cause of women by decades, the last thing women want to believe is that men are questioning whether they achieved their position based on being the best candidate or their gender. It is as much about perception as it is reality.

Just in case any women out there decide that this post is anti-women, I would ask them to read it again, I am for equality, not against and I am against any form of discrimination, be that against women or men.

Now, whilst I fully accept that this will not make one jot of difference to the current Labour government it is nonetheless, symbolic given it demonstrates that the government will have an uphill struggle to introduce identity cards. Scottish MSP’s do not believe ID cards will increase security or deter crime and quite frankly, nor do I. I don’t find myself agreeing with many Scottish MP’s at the moment, but I am more than happy to applaud their stance on this particular issue.

The reality is, identity cards are a genuine, tangible and unacceptable threat to the civil liberties and right to privacy of British citizens. No government minister has told the people of this country howID cards will deter crime and reduce the risk of terrorism, only that they will. That is not the way to sell a programme like this. However, as we all know, this government does not believe in asking, only telling, so they intend to introduce these cards come what may, simply because they are arrogant enough to believe that government knows best. Can anyone watch Jacqui Smith bumbling and stuttering away and say, with any conviction, that they feel safer with her at the helm? I think not, she is out of her depth, ill-informed and an appalling communicator.

Richard Baker a Labour MSP, no I hadn’t heard of him either, said “There’s nothing extreme or unusual in the introduction of ID cards and the kind of data which will be on them.” There is nothing clever in attempting to mislead the public. This government have already made clear that they intend to include a mass of data on ID cards, from bio-metrics, though to health and financial details. These little cards will end up being our own ‘police tags’. It has nothing to do with deterring crime and combating terrorism and everything to do with government attempts at controlling the people of this country. They can sod off!

Already, in what has become an all consuming quest to control and punish the people of this country, this government has indicated the “penalties” that will be applied if people fail to provide the government with updated details for their ID cards. Even though ID cards haven’t been launched for the masses yet, we are bombarded with our likely punishment for non-compliance. We are being treated like naughty schoolchildren, not adults capable of making decisions and running our own lives. Government ministers say that the penalties are not there to raise revenue and for once I believe them, instead, they are there to punish those that would dare to resist the will of our masters in government. In other words, by introducing fines and making non-compliance a criminal offence, they are seeking to control the will of the people of this country through fear, many people will doubtless be able to draw a parallel with a police state.

Phil Booth, national coordinator of NO2ID sums it up very well, “There is some very nasty stuff buried in the fine print of this consultation document. Basically, you have to tell them everything they want to know about you under threat - and pay for the privilege.”

Any party in power that would seek to introduce a programme against the will of the public is not fit for government. The bottom line is terrorists and criminals will always find a way around ID cards, just as they have been able to forge passports, drivers licenses and any other identity document you care to mention. The government know this, therefore, we should all be asking ourselves, what is the real game plan? This particular issue is not about party politics, it is about individual freedom, the rights of people in this country to not just be free, but to feel free.

Through its policies and inept handling of the economy, this government has removed our financial freedom. With the introduction of a raft of so called ‘anti-terror’ laws, they have already removed many of our civil liberties and rights to privacy. They now seek to go even further. ID cards, NHS Database, ContactPoint, DNA database to name but a few. It is time for us all to not only call a halt to all this, but to insist that any future government and MP’s undertake to repeal many of these destructive, draconian, obtrusive and unreasonable laws. If the main opposition parties refuse to take up the mantle, then perhaps there is a very good case for the public to support and vote for independent MP’s rather than those affiliated with a particular political party. In fact, I would very much like to see more independent MP’s put themselves forward with a local manifesto. Perhaps the bloggers should unite!

News that the Data Communication Bill has been shelved will be welcomed by all those that have campaigned against it. Needless to say, the government claim that it has nothing to do with those that are against this Big Brother Britain bill and everything to do with the fact that MP’s need to concentrate on the economy.

I suspect it has far more to do with the fact that the government needs a controversial bill like a hole in the head, the estimated cost of £12bn is going to be criticised in the current climate and they want to clear the decks for an early election to take advantage of Labour’s poll bounce. Whatever the case, it is unlikely that any attempt will be made to reintroduce the bill until 2011 and hopefully, by that time, New Labour will be history. Predictably, the police are complaining that it will hinder their efforts to fight crime and terrorism, well perhaps if they got off their backsides and did what they were paid to do, there would not be a need to spy on 65m people.

The police in this country have more powers than virtually any other country in the world and yet they still whine. They also have 167,000 police officers, but I have to confess, I haven’t seen one in the last 2 weeks, plenty of community support officers, but no real coppers, no wonder they want to spy on us all. This bill should actually be scrapped and its predecessor, which provides many of the same rights, save a legal requirement that service providers must keep the information for 2 years, should be repealed. Only then can we be certain that state sponsored voyeurism is being rolled back.

News that David Cameron has divorced himself and the Conservative party from Labour spending plans is both welcome and long overdue. As too, is the announcement, that the Conservative party supports a return to responsible public spending. However, once again, David Cameron talks prudence, but fails to provide any tangible suggestions, yet another missed opportunity and evidence of political cowardice. News commentators must be getting as bored as the public are of another soundbite which lacks any detail.

Sorry David, but it doesn’t take a genius to work out that government must live within its means, nor a rocket scientist to determine that anything borrowed today, will inevitably have to be paid back tomorrow. Now I know that Gordon Brown is too inept to gauge this concept, but the public, for the most part are not. As a consequence, David Cameron sounds like a preacher rather than a politician and is getting very close to patronising the public and that could be political suicide. Opposition parties must provide alternatives, not state the obvious. We all know what is wrong, what we need is to know that those people in a position to make a difference if elected, are full of ideas and initiatives, not just truth and consequence. We are adults Mr Cameron, don’t talk at us as if we are children, because it will cost you the opportunity to get into power.

David Cameron is petrified of identifying which areas would be in his sights if the Conservative party was voted in. The problem is, even though we know that Gordon Brown is inept and self-obsessed, he also comes across as strong, self-assured and as a leader. By contrast, David Cameron comes over as weak, scared of his own shadow and patronising. To lead, people must have the courage of their convictions, in life it is important, in politics it is essential. If Cameron does not tell us what areas will be targeted, the people of this country will be suspicious of him and he will leave a void where the Labour party can claim that the reason he is saying nothing is because he has no idea what he would do and/or he intends to cut so called essential services, such as education and health.

If David Cameron wants to dip his toe in the water, he could easily start with agreeing to shelve, or better still cancel many of the unpopular information technology projects this government has announced or are already underway. These include, but is not limited to the Big Brother Britain database estimated to cost the taxpayer some £12bn, this should be cancelled altogether, the NHS database, estimated to cost in the region of £32bn, must be shelved in the short-term and re-considered in the medium term, based on a genuine cost versus return basis. Other database systems, that this government has so badly commissioned, budgeted for and managed should also be shelved until such time as the economy recovers, this would include everything related to ID cards. The public would rather have tax cuts than a Big Brother Britain database, you don’t need a poll to tell you that!

There are also the costs associated with a bloated European Union and an overseas budget of some £5bn. None of these affect education or health, so no real political fallout. The LibDems have also suggested limiting the pension tax allowance for higher wage earners from 40% to 20%, maybe this has some merit. Tough, but perhaps for the greater good. In fact there are a whole raft of areas where this government has wasted and continues to waste taxpayers money and have nothing to do with health or tax.

There are other areas that a tough, conviction politician might also consider and that is the massive costs of the highly lucrative public sector, final salary pension schemes which are paid out of tax revenues rather than a pension fund. The bloated public sector, now home to 1 in 5 employed people, or the thousands of quangos that have been set up a government, drunk on massive tax revenues brought about by a boom and stealth taxes.

If the people of this country are to survive relatively intact from the consequences of this recession, then a fiscal stimulus is necessary, It is no good tinkering around the edges and there is no point in stating that “the cupboard is bare”. People must be able to eat, no-one will ever vote in a party that states that they must starve to death for their own good. A proper stimulus package, that includes a substantial reduction in direct taxation, even if it is short-term (2-3 years), is essential, it is okay to fund this through cuts, but whatever the medium term costs, the people of this country need this stimulus now, as do small business. There is no point in looking back at previous recessions, this one is different. More people are employed by small business than ever before, people have higher levels of debt than ever before, more people own their own homes, there are more people on pensions than ever before and the individual is taxed at a higher rate that ever before.

Small and Medium sized businesses need a stimulus package, thus far, the Conservative policies demonstrate a real ignorance of the needs of this sector, which employs some 12.5m people and accounts for nearly 50% of our GDP. Delays in paying VAT and small NI holidays are too little and will help no-one, it is tinkering, not encouraging. David Cameron needs to get down and dirty with small business if he is to understand their needs, not conduct a whistle stop tour for a TV programme. He needs to accept that he and most of his shadow cabinet know nothing about small businesses and their needs, but he cannot ignore such an essential part of UK Plc.

From an outsiders perspective, David Cameron appears to be hiding in Gordon Browns shadow, because he is so scared of his own. Cameron is intent on substituting rhetoric for policies, but what the public want to hear is, if elected, what will the Conservative party do for our country and the people of this country. Cameron is concerned that the Conservative party failed to win the past two elections because of their tax cutting policy, but that wasn’t the reason. It was because the public could see through the veneer, we could see that it was still a party that was not ready for government. I would not have said this 3 months ago, but today, I believe that in spite of the way Gordon Brown has destroyed this economy, he could still win another election simply because the Conservative party is too scared to tell us how they will get this country back on track and make a commitment to reduce taxes through a reduction is waste.

Gordon Brown has waged a vendetta against traditional Tory voters, so called middle income earners, they have been savagely and disproportionately squeezed for higher taxes. The highest earners have been left alone and the low income earners have benefited enormously. The balance has been lost, middle England has been shafted and Cameron needs to commit to redressing this imbalance. It is middle income earners that have paid for Gordon Brown’s social engineering experiments and it is middle income earners that will revolt against New Labour if there is a viable alternative.

A Conservative Party victory with a healthy majority is assured if David Cameron can commit to, and tell us how or when he will; return power to the people, by repealing the draconian, civil liberty busting, intrusive legislation that has been brought in by this present government., cancel the information technology projects that have been ill-thoughout, are way too costly and with questionable returns, address the thorny issue of public sector, final salary pension plans which this country cannot afford., reduce bureaucracy and the obsession with state control and voyeurism., address the issue of 2.5m people on long term sick benefits, deal with the situation where people are better off living on benefits than they are working and making a contribution, illegal immigration. There are a whole raft of policies that would, for the most part, receive majority support.

The Labour party has created a nanny state, where too many people are now reliant on state aid and support. Many believe it is a fundamental right, even if they haven’t contributed anything. Much is said about “free education” or “free health services”, it is not free, at least not to those that pay for it. Social responsibility is about encouraging people to stand on their own two feet, providing a safety net, not an easy opt out. There must be less state intervention, less nanny state and this will lead to a natural reduction in the level of taxes required to fund it. Cameron, you need to grasp the nettle, have the courage of your convictions and put a package of measures in place that reduces waste, reduces taxes, reduces state aid and above all reduces state control over its citizens.

If David Cameron cannot win an election in this current climate, then he never will, nor does he deserve to. If he is not willing to spell out his policies in detail, stand by them and sell them, then he should not be leading the Conservative party, he must stand aside and allow a real politician to take over. Cameron would not last 5 minutes in a real business, because no CEO would accept rhetoric over substance, ideas but no plan, smooth talk but a lack of backbone. David Cameron needs to learn to become a man, a leader of men and a politician who is willing to announce, stand by and sell his policies.

Unless David Cameron starts to put flesh on the bones, he will reach a point where no-one will be listening, Gordon Brown is shrewd enough to know that, he knows that Cameron will become his own worst enemy. Gordon Brown also knows, that fear drives politics, if the public fear that Cameron doesn’t know what to do, then they won’t elect him. If the public fear that Cameron’s policies are so unpalatable that he cannot outline them, then they won’t elect him and Gordon Brown will fuel that fear, by filling the void and telling us how the Tory party will cut services, such as health and education. David Cameron is being outmaneuvered by Gordon Brown and he can’t even see it, that is shameful, because the public want change, but we have to be able to see what that change is, before we can support it. If the public stops listening to Cameron and an election is called, then he will surely lose it and he would only have himself to blame, whilst the rest of us will have to pay the price.

Gordon Brown has been thrusting himself about the world stage as he tries, unsuccessfully in my opinion, to appear like a sort of financial guru. I honestly believe that many world leaders are laughing at him behind his back. Only someone as naive and self-obsessed as Gordon could run around having virtually single-handedly destroyed the UK economy and think he is King Economy. The man is a fool, but then most objective British citizens already know that. Anyway, let me get to my point.

As we all know, the Labour government spin machine always leaks its own announcements early so that they can guage ‘public opinion’, normally expressed by what the newspapers say (rather than the public), before making any final tweaks to their policy announcements. However, if the leaks are to be believed it looks, once again, that Gordon Brown is going to continue with his social engineering project, otherwise known as Robin Hood from Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.

It would appear that Gordon Brown does not believe that everyone is suffering as a consequence of his handling of the economy for the past 11 years and the subsequent recession. Oh, no, Gordon Brown from his taxpayer funded home in Downing Street, believes that it is only those on “low incomes” that are in need of tax breaks. What world is he living in? He has spent 11 years long years targeting so called middle income earners with his tax increases, using this section of the community to fund his extravagant, cost-loaded experiment to re-distribute wealth. Now having squeezed the middle income earners until they are bordering on relative poverty, he has now abandoned them, by saying that any tax breaks will be targeted at “low income earners”.

During New Labour’s reign, top earners have remained relatively neutral in terms of total tax take, low income earners have benefited dramatically through allowances, tax breaks and various forms of income support and middle income earners have been seriously and relentlessly shafted. Now, he has got away with it so far, because the golden goose did not really feel all the affects of his shafting, as a consequence of a booming economy and the relative wealth created by higher house prices. That of course is no longer the case. As the economy starts to contract, the golden goose is starting to feel the pinch and because they were the primary target for revenue raising, they are feeling it more than any other section of the community. In spite of this, Gordon brown in his cosseted environment, turns his back on the very people that have funded his social engineering experiements.

Now I know that Gordon Brown needs to guarantee his core vote, many of whom will come from the lower earners and rightly so, because lets face it, they have been the only winners over the past 11 years. But he needs to understand that it was the votes of the middle income earners that actually brought New Labour to power and that irony cannot be lost on this section of the community. Nonetheless, it is all a bit academic, because there is no way that Labour will win the next election, even if Gordon Brown went around at Christmas and gave every Labour voter a £1000, oh sorry, that is the plan isn’t it, hope I haven’t spoiled anyone’s surprise!

Now enough of my sarcasm. Gordon Brown does need to provide a fiscal stimulus and I believe that everyone is agreed on that, even David Cameron, it won’t prevent the recession, but it may create enough of an impetus to save a few jobs and keep some businesses going if correctly targeted. However, it would appear that Gordon Brown intends to offer tax breaks in the form of increased allowances for low earners only. No widespread stimulus, just a further, last ditch attempt at social engineering, except this time, he can’t take anymore money from middle income earners, instead, he has to borrow it. Worst still, one of the reasons that Gordon Brown prefers to offer increased ‘benefits’ is he can always exaggerate the numbers, but this is not the time for one of his infamous smoke and mirror exercises. The economy will only get a boost if the money is real and tangible.

Gordon Brown has repeated many times that this is a unique set of events that requires a unique set of solutions and I couldn’t agree more. But he is just promising more of the same, take from one section of the community and pass to another, except this time, he wants to store the cost, so that middle income earners can pay it later. The man is a fanatic, he quite clearly has an ingrained almost psychopathic hatred of middle income earners.

What is needed is a simple and properly funded fiscal stimulus, which benefits everyone, not one section of the community. Everyone is suffering from the downturn in terms of the increases in fuel and utility bills, council tax, caps on wages, reduced pension benefits, insurance costs, travel, shopping bills, job losses, the list is endless. They all need to be able to see the benefit of a fiscal stimulus and the best way to do this is a reduction in the basic rate of tax. Everyone knows that Gordon Brown always exaggerates the affects of any government ’giveaways’ whilst moving swiftly over the small print that invariably takes back any benfits, with interest, so the reality is, most people have learned not to trust a word he says. Therefore, he more than anyone, needs to ensure that any stimulus is kept simple and results in people being able to keep more of their own money. This is no time for treasury tricks.

He also need to offer targeted assistance to small business, they employ 12.5m people and many, as a consequence, will not have huge cash reserves, nor can they go to the bank or shareholders. He ignores this area of business at his peril, small and medium businesses generate nearly 50% of UK Plc’s GDP, not an area to be ignored.  David Cameron’s suggestions are weak and will offer very little assistance to small business, I have already outlined what I think needs to be done for small business in a previous post.

The bottom line is many of the problems we are facing today are because Gordon Brown allowed, (inspite of warnings about the risks), this country to continue a relentless boom on the back of easy credit and rising house prices. He could and should have done something about it, but he chose not to. Our economy was booming and the relative tax take was increasing anyway, still he opted to introduce many, many stealth taxes. Often, but not necessarily, disguised as green taxes, but invariably targeted at middle income earners. This was not enough for the man Brown, on top of all that, he increased public borrowing during this period, spending like a man possessed, not saving anything for a rainy day. He was reckless in his handling of the economy and he allowed the public to become reckless, by not introducing measures to cool,things down, because it would have been unpopular and inevitably, would have required him to reign in his social engineering project.

As a consequence of this mans actions, not only has his reckless behaviour virtually bankrupted this country, it also means that Gordon Brown owes a massive personal debt to the people of this country. He can start to pay that debt by stop trying to be clever and spinning the numbers. He can help redeem himself in part by offering an apology to the people he has shafted in is quest to be the hero of the low income earners, by introducing a universal 5% reduction in direct income tax. This must be funded through capital project cuts and a good start would be all of these unpopular information technology projects that are invariably doomed to failure, always have substantial cost overruns and in most cases are not wanted by anyone and in particular the public. He must also tighten his belt on other forms of government spending, just like everyone else has to do in difficult times. Government has become a very lucrative place to do business, because many of those charged with negotiating terms are no match for the very professional, highly paid, highly skilled sales people on the other side of the desk. This has to stop!

New Labour’s social engineering project was a failure in terms of value, although I do accept that low income earners are substantially better off than they were when New Labour came to power. However, were it not for a booming economy, it could have been safely argued that Gordon Brown actually reduced the gap between low and middle income earners so much that they the differences are no longer discernable. Because as he boosted income for low earners, he took this money of middle income earners, pushing one section up and the other down. This will become self-evident as the New Labour Boom turns to Bust. Thanks Gordon!

I don’t want to get into a debate as to the rights and wrongs of whether people should agree to donate their organs, although I am willing to state, for the record, that I support the organ donor programme. What concerns me is when government, in spite of advice to the contrary, determines that it knows best.

The UK Organ Donation Taskforce have stated that they do not believe that ‘presumed consent’ would boost organ donation rates. In fact chair of the taskforce, Elisabeth Buggins said: “We found from recipient families and donor families that the concept of gift was very important to them and presumed consent would undermine that concept.” This was not what the government wanted to hear and Alan Johnson was said to be disappointed by their findings, Gordon Brown was a little more forthright. He has threatened, that if the current recruitment campaign is not successful, he would not rule our a change of the law to provide for presumed consent.

Just who the hell does Gordon Brown think he is? He has no right to determine that he knows better than 65m people. For some, the desecration of the body of a loved one would only add to the suffering and for others, they may see organ donation as a positive consequence of a tragic circumstance. Either way, the choice cannot be the governments, they do not own us, nor do they own our bodies. This is yet another example of Big Brother Britain, another way in which the state tells us who is in charge and how little control we have over our own lives.

As we all know, this government cannot be trusted to keep its word, whatever assurances they may provide in public regarding presumed consent, we just know the small print will provide them with the real power. For example, the government may and probably will state that relatives must be able to provide demonstrable proof that a loved one did not want their organs to be donated, otherwise presumed consent would apply. If they don’t do this, then there is a very real possibility that the government will have to defend thousands of legal actions from relatives that are not willing to see the bodies of their loved ones desecrated on the whim of a doctor.

I do not believe the answer lies with legislation. Instead, the poor organ donor rates are as a direct consequence of poor advertising and recruitment campaigns. For example, press and TV advertising, whilst expensive, does not have a call to action, it only imparts information. What is needed is a programme that creates debate, for example but not exclusively, educating children at school, not in a negative way, but in a positive, uplifting manner, because this would encourage children to discuss the issue with their parents and then families can determine how they feel about this emotive issue.

Once governments start to legislate on such emotional issues, there will be a backlash, the negative connotations surrounding of organ donor-ship will come to the fore, people will resist and the programme will fail miserably. I can tell you for nothing, that if the government bring in presumed consent, then I will personally opt out, because I will not be dictated to by a government that is so willing to disregard my right to choose. This is the thin edge of the wedge, it really is, what is to stop the government to determine that we must all, for example give blood? Giving blood is an excellent and commendable contribution made by individuals but it is voluntary, there is also a shortage of blood, what is to stop the government from introducing legislation requiring everyone to donate blood, for example, twice a year? Answer, nothing.

As I stated at the outset, this has nothing to do with whether or not organ donation is a good or a bad thing, it is about our right to choose. No government should introduce legislation that removes that fundamental right. This government has consistently driven through legislation that has eroded, removed or virtually destroyed our civil liberties, our freedoms and our right to privacy and they have been allowed to do so, by an incapable opposition party and complacent people. Bouyed by this, the government now threatens to demonstrate how we have all sleep walked into Big Brother Britain, by introducing legislation that will confirm, that not only does the government control everything we do, say, think and write in life, they now control our bodies after death.