Regular readers of my rantings will know that I have argued strongly against a windfall tax on the energy companies, which I felt was, in effect, a tax on enterprise. I also arguedthat Ofgem should either do its job or if doesn’t have the powers, then it must be provided with them, given they appear to be acting as the energy companies lapdog, not its regulator.

However it is a two way street, the energy companies were quick to announce large scale price increases, in virtual unison, yet they are deliberately vague about when the prices will come down, even though wholesale prices are now precisely what they were, before we had to accept price hikes of around 40%. Apparently at their regular meeting Energy Minister Malcom Wicks and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband “demanded” that prices should be brought down. But the boy Ed, and that excuse of a minister Malcom Wicks, accepted assurances from the energy companies that they would “bring prices down as soon as they can“. Pathetic, weak and completely unacceptable, the ministers should be completely ashamed of themselves, that is not progress, it is the energy companies telling government ministers to bugger off and the minister accepting it, the ministers should be sacked, here and now.

Energy companies argue that the reason prices have not fallen already is that they purchase at ‘forward’ prices, fair enough, I can completely understand this logic, however, it also means that they know exactly when the new prices will kick in, so to tell government ministers and for the ministers to accept, that they can only provide a vague indication is nothing short of a scandal and a con.

Energy is an essential service, not an optional commodity that the people of this country can elect not to purchase, therefore, any company choosing to invest in our energy sector should act reasonably and responsibly at all times. That is the nature of the investment, a guaranteed flow of business whatever the economic picture, in return for a measured and consistent return for investors. Clearly they are not acting responsibly and that is why a regulator was put in place, but Ofgem is nothing short of pathetic, either in terms of their leadership and/or as a lack of meaningful powers, either way, they are a complete waste, in their current form, of taxpayers money. The only other support the public can expect is political pressure from the energy ministers, but Ed and Malcom could not negotiate their way out of a paper bag, they are nothing short of useless. Sending boys in to do a mans job at a time when the cost of heating is going to be critical to the well-being of millions of British citizens is so shameful, I genuinely cannot express it in words.

Gordon Brown should replace Ed Miliband and Malcom Wicks, here and now and replace them with people that will negotiate hard, not act as the industry’s whipping boy. The energy companies have be told, that they must produce evidence of what their current wholesale prices are and when they expect them to come down, the they must be ordered to provide an immediate and proportional reduction in consumer energy costs. If they fail to do so, they must be informed that they will face future price caps and/or a windfall tax, for any amount that exceeds their previous years profits. Ofgem must be given the powers and a management team that is willing to regulate the industry, not capitulate. I do not believe in state intervention, however, if the energy companies will not play ball and legislation won’t work, then we must nationalise this industry. It is simply too important to ignore and the public most certainly deserve better than Messrs Miliband and Wicks representing our interests.

Without wishing to be melodramatic, the reality is many people will freeze this winter because they can’t pay their energy bills, by abdicating their responsibility to the public, this government and their ministers will have to ask themselves whether they did as much as they could have done in the circumstances. By their current record, I would argue they have not.

As Big Brother Britain gathers pace, news is released that more than 12,000 people had Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks completed on them, which indicated that they had a criminal record, when in fact that was not the case. That is not a statistic, but 12,000 individuals that have incorrectly been branded a thief, fraudster, paedophile etc. In each case, it is for the individual to pursue the authorities to have the records amended by the CRB. It would appear that this was, in effect, a clerical error, for example when a criminal record has been incorrectly allocated to the wrong person. Now lets turn it on its head, if 12,000 people have had someone else’s misdeed attached to them, what of the people that were guilty, do they have a clean sheet?

This brings me to my point, well nearly. Assuming a database itself is flawless, unlikely, but we will assume so so for the sake of this example, the information contained within the database can only be as good as the individual entering the data. The industry jargon being “crap in, crap out”. Human error, as in the case in point, can, will and does happen. If innocent individuals can be incorrectly branded criminals today, where will we be tomorrow? As this government moves endlessly and relentlessly to collect and record every piece of information on every man, woman and child in this country, then enters it into a database, how long before we see further serious errors.

Could we be innocently be accused of consorting with criminals or terrorists because someone had incorrectly attached the wrong file? How long before someone dies because some idiot put the wrong information on their health service file? Surely, it is not beyond the intelligence level of our politicians to recognise that people are human, with the obvious exception of MP’s and they will make mistakes. They could also, potentially destroy another individual deliberately or inadvertently with a few clicks of a mouse? Another point here, is that if you ask any IT expert, he will tell you that the challenge is not building the database and entering the database, it is how to use and analyse that information.

This is precisely what is wrong with Big Brother Britain and the politicians that believe it is the only way forward. You try and block off one threat with a heavy handed, ill-considered approach and another threat comes in from a completely different direction. By focusing on every single person in this country and then recording everything they say, do, write, as well as where they go, their medical history, who they consort with and so on, you end up with so much information is is completely useless. In addition, there is so much data, that it will be virtually impossible to verify each detail, which will conceivably, perhaps inevitably, lead to a situation where we are all guilty until proven innocent. Think about it, this is the only way the state could make the thing work.

This government, senior civil servants and their advisers need to understand the basics and that is, they are better off putting their resources into targeting known criminals and terrorists and their cohorts, rather than assuming everyone must, or could be guilty of some offence or misdemeanor. This government is guilty of acting like a child in a sweetie shop, using a distraction method to allow them to fill their pockets with goodies.

The citizens of this country are quite rightly concerning themselves with the economy, jobs and so on. We are also constantly drip fed with the risk of some new terrorist threat, which often coincides with this government trying to pursue another liberty crushing piece of legislation, funny that! Not that we haven’t lived with both the threat and actions of terrorists for years! I digress. Whilst the public’s attention is directed elsewhere, this government is steadily and relentlessly introducing more and more, draconian legislation designed to permit the state to spy on the lives and activity of every single individual in this country. We are sleep walking into a police state.

In my view, it is tantamount to state terrorism, control and intrusion of the individual. Something that was supposed to have been protected with the Magna Carta. In this governments quest for ever more control of the individual, this government is systematically destroying everything we hold dear, our freedom, right to privacy and our civil liberties. This government and the members of parliament that have allowed this to happen should hang their heads in shame. As indeed should the people who choose to ignore, or perhaps indulge this government’s perverted obsession with voyeurism and spying, because they too, as surely as night follows day, will one day fall victim to this governments permitted excesses, as could their children and their children’s children.

Every voter should be writing to their MP’s and asking where they stand on this issue and if it is for state control and intrusion, then they must be voted out. We have a responsibility to ourselves, our neighbours, our friends and of course future generations. To fail them is akin to turning our backs on those that have sacrificed their lives over generations in order that we could benefit from a democracy and be free from state control. Rant over..until the next time!

Originally written for the Big Brother Britain & Civil Liberties Blog

I read a post on the British Politics blog which referred to the statement by an unamed bank official, on Channel 4 News, that “banks were not charities”. Now I agree with the original posting, that it is a bit rich that the same people who came with their begging bowls for a bailout, should now, having received what they wanted, make such a statement. On top of that, they threaten not to pass on any further interest rate cuts, even though they must know that the economy needs this type of monetary stimulus.

This had me thinking, under current rules, the banks are set for another win at the taxpayers expense. At the moment, the banks are making massive write-offs, this means that the government and therefore the taxpayer, will not receive any corporation taxes from the banks. Less tax receipts from the banks, means, ultimately, more will be needed from you and I. Now here is the rub, banks can quite legally carry over losses from one year to another, now given the size of their losses, they could end up not paying any form of corporation tax for several years.

So, not only will they have received taxpayers money to stay afloat, they will contribute nothing to the economy for several years to come. This may be perfectly legal, but it is completely unacceptable. I believe that the government should act now to prevent the banks and any other third party that has received taxpayer funding from being able to carry over past losses, to offset against future profits. Think about it, when we are all having to pay for the excesses of this government in higher taxes, the bankers will be coining it with large bonuses, brought about, in no small part, from the fact that they will not have to pay corporation tax.

It is unlikely that Gordon Brown & Co will be in government when this happens, but at the very least, he should start the ball rolling and David Cameron needs to come out of his shell and insist that something is done. The banks effectively held us to ransom, when they embarked on high risk expansionism, requiring a massive injection of taxpayers funds as well as guarantees, they now intend to hold us to ransom over passing on any future interest rate falls, they must not be allowed to win again. For a government that simply revels in state control, perhaps they should consider getting some over the banks?

Blink and you will miss it! After all the hyperbole, David Cameron has announced what the Conservative party would do to stimulate the economy and quite frankly it is pathetic. What a missed opportunity, he is so beset with trying to prove that he is ‘prudent’ that he fails to grasp the extent of the economic downturn on business and ordinary people. Quite frankly he is a fool. I did not think it was possible for the Conservative party to lose the next election given Labour’s pathetic 11 years of tax and spend, then spend even more and borrow. But I have to hand it to David Cameron, he is doing an excellent job of trying.

Now I know that Cameron relies heavily on his advisors, after all, what would he know about being unable to pay the bills? You could be forgiven for believing that I am a die-hard Labour supporter, but regular readers will know I am nothing of the sort. I have only ever voted Conservative, but I am now politically homeless, because I could never bring myself to support a party that lacks backbone, initiative and orginality, nor one that actively supports a leader that is clearly weak, patronising and lacking any conviction. Tony Blair didn’t win because he was young, it was because he was believable, love or hate his policies and beliefs, he divided public opinion in the same way that Thatcher did, but he was a conviction politician. For what it is worth, I also found him superficial, but that is my personal view because I didn’t like him either, I always felt he was quite prepared to heap icing on a biscuit and sell it as a wedding cake.

David Cameron proposes that business and the unemployed could be supported by a stimulus package which would provide national insurance tax breaks for those employers that are prepared to take on anyone that has been unemployed for more than 3 months. Now, this idea is not original, here is what I said on the 28th November 2008

Small business should be encouraged to take on the long term unemployed and those that are in receipt of disability benefits (some 2.5m), but can work. Small business employers could be offered a full rebate on all employer NIC’s for employees that are classed in either of these categories. This will assist small businesses, increase the opportunities available for the long term unemployed and result in a massive reduction in the burden on the state from those who are in receipt of benefits, rather than contributing. This initiative could be self-funding or even offer a surplus.

So clearly I would be supportive of this measure, but it just doesn’t go far enough, because it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the needs of small business. If a patient is bleeding to death, a bandage may make the first-aider feel as if he is making a contribution, but it will take a tourniquet to save the patient’s life. This tax initiative is okay, but it must be part of a package of measures, as I suggested in my original post on helping small business. Let me remind you Mr Cameron, in case your advisors haven’t told you, 12.5m people are employed by the SME sector, over 50% of all those employed. Something else many of your advisors will not have told you is that businesses will fight a lot harder to save a job, than they will to take on new people. In other words, you should be targeting help to keep people employed as well as supporting firms to take on new employees.

Of course no-one can criticise David Cameron for insisting that any tax cut measures need to be paid for, I couldn’t agree more. However, sometimes circumstances will dictate a variation in policy and outlook, even if it is short-term, of course natural leaders already know that. The current economic downturn in one such instance and a visionary, competent and an open-minded leader would recognise that. There are many government projects that could and should be shelved and this would save money, but equally, as Cameron rightly pointed out, it costs £8,000 per annum to support someone on benefits and there is the loss of tax revenues and national insurance to add on top of that. In other words, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. In this type of situation, I would sooner be seen as someone that was prepared to take risks, both financially and politically if I felt the results could save jobs and reduce the length and depth of the recession.

David Cameron’s tax tinkering would do more harm than good, he really needs to get out more. Relying on meetings with 3 business people for a TV show or advisors that have never run a business is not going to provide him with the depth of knowledge that is necessary to understand business, particularly small business. If he is relying on the same people to advise him of what to do on personal taxation, then I suspect there is no point in turning up to the press conference. David, get a grip, be a man for once in your life. Leaders lead, they don’t tip their toe in the water to see how cold it is, they must have the courage of their convictions but they should also be able to listen, digest and expand on new or radical ideas. This country does not need an also ran, to follow the Labour loser.

Well I have argued that there needs to be a combination of monetary and fiscal cuts in order that the economy can receive a well needed stimulus, although I am not naive enough to believe that it will stave off a recession. This country is already in a recession, even if the official measures used to determine a “real” recession have not yet been met, all we can do is try to lessen the impact on people, jobs and business.

Gordon Brown has indicated over the weekend that he believes fiscal policy should include tax cuts and rumours abound as to the extent of such cuts, with estimates of £480 per person through to an annual estimate of £15bn in tax cuts. Whatever the case, there are two things which I am wary of. The first, that Gordon Brown has a habit of double counting and this is no time for a sales pitch. The economy needs a real injection of cash and the people of this country need to know that they have a little more money in their pockets, no sales pitch is going to change that, so Gordon Brown, beware of New Labour spin. The second is the form that tax cuts will take.

Some “experts”  have suggested a temporary cut in VAT. What are they smoking? Lets take a look at that proposal shall we? There is no VAT on food, council rates, children’s clothes etc., what many will call essential items. Where VAT is charged, how can we be certain that retailers, keen to impress their shareholders and hold onto their bonuses, will not take the opportunity to increase their margins? Thereby minimising the affect of any price reduction which ought to be brought about by a fall in VAT to the proposed 12.5%. Also, there is the cost to business, especially small business, they are the organisations and people that will have to deal with the major changes to their business that would be brought about as a consequence of a short-term change in VAT. Are these people really advising the government? I hope Gordon Brown is not listening, fortunately, not one of his strong points.

What we need is a simple, clear cut, obvious reduction is direct taxation. It must be one that is both tangible and visible, no messing around withallowances, tax credits and bandings. Instead, there should be a significant reduction in direct taxation and I have suggested this should be a reduction in the bottom rate of tax from 20% to 15 %, with all other banding’s remaining static, so the full effect benefits everyone, in a way that cannot be fiddled. Fiddling, with one or 2% will make little or no difference to the man on the street. There is no point in targeting cuts to the poorest sections of the community, because,put simply, everyone is affected, especially so called “middle England”, that has funded virtually every one of New Labour’s ‘feel good’ initiatives over the past 11 years, through proportionately higher taxes.

I doubt that it will be possible to fully-fund such tax cuts, which I think, at least for the time being, should be limited for a period of 3 years, to provide the personal reassurance that most people seek in their lives. However, in these uncertain times, I go against my instincts in terms of government borrowing if required to as a result of a ‘funding gap.  I would insist, however, that some funding is gained through cuts in non-essential government and believe me there is a great deal of that. For example, the Big Brother Britain database estimated at a cost of £12bn, should be cancelled altogether, the NHS database, estimated to cost in the region of £32bn, should 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 cost of being part of the European Union is rising year on year, our ministers need to ensure that the European Parliament also looks at their costs in these difficult times, so that member countries can see a reduction in their ‘dues’. A good start would be to stop the European Parliament introducing draconian, liberty busting, politically correct rules and legislation, which costs money as well as stripping everyone of their national identities.

At this difficult economic time, we must also consider revising the $5bn overseas aid budget, this amounts to 1.5% of all tax receipts and cannot, therefore be ignored. Similarly, the public sector now employs some 1 in 5 of all those employed in this country, it has bloated and is arguably out of control. Equally, the cost of public sector, final salary pension schemes is paid for out of tax revenues, not a pension fund, therefore, the costs are enormous. This needs to be curtailed, the economy cannot afford such generous pension schemes, particularly when the private sector, who were hammered 11 years ago by Gordon Brown, have ‘pensions’ on average, worth just 1/15th of the public sector schemes.

Mere mortals like me, do not get provided witha detailed set of fiancial accounts for UK Plc, therefore I am unable to go through each and every expenditure line, but one thing is certain, you can guarantee that there is waste and excess in a public sector the size of ours and it needs to be dealt with. The way any businesses would do at a time of crisis. The adult population are better positioned than the government to determine where any additional money is spent, which is why any tax cuts must be via direct taxation, not indirect taxes, lets face it, it is our money in the first place. But whatever happens, it will never cost as much as the headline figure the government use to sell the cuts. Because, if people buy, companies prosper, business tax revenues are preserved or rise, VAT is paid, more people are employed, therefore less benefits are paid out, even if people save, many of them will be taxed on the interest. The government never loses.

For the record, I do not believe that bringing forward public sector infrastructure projects is the right way to go. The impact would be very limited, and the benefits disproportionate to the costs. Most of these projects would be PFI initiatives and, mark my word, history will look back at these PFI contracts and wonder why it was, that a government was awash with tax receipts, would enter into contracts which are akin to a consumer buying their houses at credit card rates, rather than on a traditional mortgage.

David “the cupboard is bare” Cameron, with his austerity speech, which I am sure he thought would make him look clever and responsible is in a tight corner. Traditionally the Conservative party has been the party of tax cuts and enterprise, he has fallen into a trap and it was one of his own making. David Cameron thought we needed to be told how bad things were, we didn’t, because we can feel it! A good leader must never, never back himself into a corner, now he must either eat a bit of humble pie, or, more likely for a British politician, he will come out with a fudge. Either way, he made a mistake and he will pay dearly for it. He will not be forgiven for allowing Gordon Brown, one of the most despised men in this country, get away with using former tory policies, at a time when people want them most.

Let me provide David Cameron with one piece of advice, something that he will not appreciate from his privileged upbringing. There is no point in having a balanced budget if you die of starvation in the process. Government takes our money at will, then they spend it on their favourite pet project or group, without consultation, in the process, they keep as much as 35% of our money on ‘administration costs’. If government were an investment fund, it would need a bailout every year, in fact that is what they get, it is just government take our money when they get a bit short, forever dipping into our pockets when we are not looking, a kind of distraction theft. I have always voted conservative in the past, but this lightweight, ill-considered leadership provided by David Cameron frustrates the hell out of me, he just doesn’t seem to have a clue.

Now come on guys, whatever your party colours, pull your finger out. Do what is necessary to help the people of this country, interest rate cuts were the first part, the second is a reduction in direct taxation and the third to reduce wasteful public expenditure. To have a short term impact, the second was contingent of the first, but the second should not be contingent on the third, because the third must always be part of responsible government. Stop whining about losing your seats or creaming yourselves over the thought of winning the next election by default, not one of you has earned your pay yet, so you are all, still very much on trial. If you don’t grow up, we could see quite a few members of the Monster Raging Loony Party, as people register their protest. Still, from what I can see from the current crop of MP’s, it couldn’t be much worse.

Rant over, but have left in typo’s, poor grammar and other errors so you can see just how much I have smashed into this keyboard, off to PC World now to see if they have any cheap keyboards.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I have a real bee in my bonnet over the way our civil liberties are being eroded by a government completely obsessed with turning our country into Big Brother Britain. I have also made public my concern over the general apathetic views of the majority of British citizens to this massive infringement on our right to privacy and to get on with our lives without state interference.

The announcement that this government wanted to spend £12bn on a ’super’ database which would collate information on every call, text message, email and the browsing habits of every individual in this country, in spite of our dire economic position, had me raging. I wrote a number of posts on this topic and then decided that it was such an important issue it really needed its own dedicated blog, so I set up Big Brother Britain.

However, this blog is not about me, if it is to have any value whatsoever, particularly in terms of educating and informing those who do not understand the implications of this governments inteference in our everyday lives, then it needs unique content and as many contributors or supporters as possible. I am delighted that we have already had a number of respected political bloggers that have agreed to support the Big Brother Britain blog and these include, Will Rhodes, Shrewd Mammal, The Secret Person, British Politics and David David from The Libertarian Alliance. This is a none partisan blog, it really doesn’t matter what your political persuasion is, Big Brother Britain affects us all.

I am also very pleased and would like to thank David Davis from The Libertarian Alliance who has kindly agreed to post articles on this topic, some of which are already on the site. He is actively encouraging people to visit regularly and comment. It is great to know that I am not having to try and do this all on my own! 

I would respectfully ask anyone else who has a shared interest on this subject to offer their support using any of the following initiatives; become one of our supporters and allow us to add your site to the Big Brother Britain blogroll, add Big Brother Britain to your blogroll, write a post similar to this one announcing the launch of the Big Brother Britain blog, include the tag ‘big brother britain’ in your on topic posts, add some of your own articles on this subject to BBB and/or offer to provide unique content as an author. You could also reference any Big Brother Britain posts on related issues on your own future postings of course. I am not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs, I am just indicating that all offers of assistance, no matter how small will be gratefully received.

Posts on the Big Brother Britain site can also be further publicised by adding articles to Digg, Technorati, Reddit and so on. All articles from Big Brother Britain will also be added to Big Brother Britain at Google Groups and Big Brother Britain at Reddit.

In addition to my own efforts, Shrewd Mammal has introduced a similar campaign, headlined and identified by the tag RESIST. His concerns and issues identify closely with the Big Brother Britain campaign site and I would urge fellow political bloggers to also consider using this tag in any posts on this subject.

Thanks for taking the time to read this post and if you get a moment please visit Big Brother Britain, we know that Hazel Blears has a real problem with people like us, so why not antagonise her further?

In my post last month, I suggested, that what this economy needed was a shot in the arm, a package of measures designed not to avoid a recession, because that is impossible, but to reduce the impact on the people of this country. Unlike either of the main two political parties, I suggested a six point plan, which included a dramatic reduction in interest rates and a requirement that the high street lenders pass on the cuts in full.

Of course I am not suggesting that anyone takes any notice of my posts, but I am pleased that one of those points has been implemented, albeit, not as far as I would have wished. The Bank of England has reduced the rates by 1.5% to 3%. I was calling for a cut to 2%. However, if the country was to receive any benefit, the cuts would have to be passed onto borrowers, both domestic and business. This, for the most part is not happening, at least not so far.

Only Lloyds TSB, through their mortgage arm, Cheltenham & Gloucester and the Bank of Ireland have indicated that they will pass the cuts on in full. Now in the case of Lloyds TSB, I suspect their motive was to demonstrate in a tangible way, that whilst their takeover of HBOS will lead to them becoming the largest retail bank in the UK, they have no intention of using their dominance in a negative manner that would reduce competition. We will have to wait and see whether or not that remains the case of course.

However, when it comes to the other banks, their response demonstrates that they have little or no regard to their customers or the people that have bailed their businesses in one form or other. They have only indicated that they have the interest rate decision ”under review”. Well that is just not good enough. When the banks struggled, they came, cap in hand to the Bank of England and therefore the taxpayer, to help them with guarantees, cash injections and short-term cash advances. The banks received pretty much whatever they needed, regardless of the impact to the balance sheet of UK Plc or the cost (and risk) to the taxpayer.

Now the banks have a real chance to demonstrate that they appreciate the assistance or lifeline they have been given. Instead, they are, at least for the time being, indicating that they feel little or no obligation towards the wider UK economy, the well-being of its citizens or their customers. Now, yes I know, before people tell me the obvious, they are ‘independent’ financial institutions and must be free to make commercial decisions. However, as soon as they came to the taxpayer to assist them at their time of need, they gained at the very least, a moral obligation to repay us by supporting anything that would assist the taxpayer in their time of need. Which clearly a reduction in interest rates would do.

I am angry with the bankers, very angry and everyone else should be as well. The banks have made £billions over the past 10 years from their customers. Many, have at times, been reckless in their lending practices, and they hold a considerable proportion of the responsibility for where we are today. So do the borrowers, but banks were and should have been the ‘grey’ men, those that provided a balanced view and set lending criteria. The banks are also being very short-sighted.

The higher the interest rates, the more likely that their will be defaults and house repossessions. In the case of the latter, banks often have to sell properties at auction, resulting in returns of at 20-25% below market values to secure a sale. Add this to the fact that many properties have fallen in value and their losses on each property have to be quite staggering. Therefore, wherever practicable, surely they would be better off attempting to ease the burden and keep more people in their homes?

In additon, the higher the interest rates, the less money that is in the economy and the less transactions that will take place. The latter is the bread and butter of the banks, they make money when people and business transact, they benefit from money that is lost in the system for days on end. They do best when their customers feel able to spend. Customers will clearly be more conservative, they will borrow less and many will reduce their debts. But more money in our pockets, means a more responsible nation, because most people will choose to be responsible rather than reckless. In the past, going bankrupt was a painful and drawn out affair, today it is far easier, no-one benefits, least of all the creditors, if people throw the towel in because they can see no way out. The banks will be first in line to suffer if bankruptcies rapidly.

Whilst I am cognisant of the high inter-bank lending rates, these will come down and in all honesty, the reduction in the Bank of England rates by 1.5% will, for and intents and purposes be neutral to the banks.

Whether we do it now or later, I believe we should all punish the banks that have not supported their customers or the economy by passing on the interest rate cuts in full. Particularly, but not exclusively, those that have received assistance from the taxpayers. We should look to move our current accounts to banks that have supported their customers…en-masse. We must hurt them as they are determined to hurt us. Banks make big money from current account transaction charges and the ‘balances’ are used by the banks to reduce their borrowing costs. We must cancel our credit cards with the banks that are associated with not passing on the rate cuts and consider moving our mortgages. Now I appreciate that this may be impossible for people to do right now, though I am going to, but we must remember, that in our hour of need, even when it was obvious why the Bank of England reduced interest rates, the banks stuck their middle finger up to us all. We must return the compliment. Even if we have to bide our time and do it when the banks least expect it.

I urge everyone to remember each and everyone of these banks that have screwed us and make them pay, make their shareholders fully aware that there will be a medium and long-term price for their refusal to come to the aid of this country. There will be a price for their decision to ignore their moral responsibilities and helping those that helped them. End of rant!

I ask this question because I have to confess, my understanding of what a Bill of Rights should be, seems to differ from that of the current Labour administration and I suspect, those views held by the other political parties.

I understood that the new British Bill of Rights was going to be based loosely on the classic Bills of Rights, from Magna Carta in 1215 to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, or perhaps the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789 or the American Bill of Rights of 1791. Which was principally the protection of an individual’s liberty against the intrusive and interfering power of an overbearingstate. I figured that the government may seek to include some general  human rights issues. Such as those included in the “Four Freedoms” speech by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his State of the Union address to Congress in 1941. Freedom of speech and expression, freedom of every person to worship, freedom from want and, of course, freedom from fear.

Instead, as I understand it, the intention is to bring in something of a ‘nanny state’ Bill of Rights. That is to say, that an individual shall have the right to, for example, a job, food, clothing & recreation. The right to a home, as well as economic support through old age, sickness or accidents. To education and medical care. As a quid pro quo, the government intend, as I understand it, to include “citizens responsibilities”. I simply cannot see how any government can guarantee these particular social and economic ”rights”. In my view, it can only ever be a statement of intent by the government, perhaps a modern day ‘mission statement’ if you will, but they cannot be legally enforceable rights? 

As it is proposed, the whole thing is farcical, but not funny. This is because vast sections of the proposed new British Bill of Rights are unnecessary, in light of the fact that ’rights’, such as benefits payments and the minimum wage are already legally enforceable.

In my view, we need to go back to basics. The reason we need a new British Bill of Rights, is to protect us all from repressive, intrusive and unnecessary government sponsored legislation which seeks to treat every citizen as a potential suspect. The Big Brother Britain that has become our lot in life! The British public desperately and urgently need protection from the state itself. This is what I said a few months ago;

This Labour government and the European laws they have introduced into this country has slowly eroded our rights, diluted our ability to hold ministers to account and moved us towards a Police state. If ever there was a need to protect the public it is now. A Bill of Rights should be drawn up, it must then be put to the people of this country through a referendum and once accepted by the public, introduced immediately. Moreover, once introduced, it must take precedence over any other legislation intended to be brought into law, European or otherwise. Once these laws have been introduced, a Law Lord should be placed ‘in charge’ who’s duty should be to ensure that the Bill of Rights is upheld, that is to say, no new laws are introduced by successive governments or European ministers which would dilute the rights entrenched in our Bill of Rights, without a further referendum.

 News that Gordon Brown and Jack Straw have been told by cabinet colleagues that their proposal, as it stands, is unworkable, comes as no surprise to me. This government has completely missed the point and so have many members of parliament who support a statement as opposed to an enforceable bill of rights. The people of this country have had to endure an increasing level of state interference in their everyday lives, from 4.2m CCTV cameras, to chips in rubbish bins. With proposals that include a massive Big Brother Britain database which would store information on calls, text messages, locations, emails and internet browsing habits. Airport scanners which see though clothes, identity cards which include our most private and intimate details. Our children from the age of 5, will be monitored by the state to include their most private details such as details on their mental health, sexual health or any substance abuse treatment. The list is endless, as is the number of ‘agencies’ that will have access to this information, some 700 as last count!.

I don’t know whether Gordon Brown and Jack Straw are being deliberately obtuse, or whether power has gone to their heads, but what is clear, is that the biggest danger to the citizens of this country is him, his government and their policy of systematically repressing the people of this country, to the extent that Privacy International were moved to say of us ”The worst ranking EU country is the United Kingdom, which again fell into the “black” category along with Russia and Singapore.” And that our “identity scheme is still planned to be the most invasive in the world, highly centralised and biometrics-driven“.

New Labour need to stop, listen to what WE want and then provide a British Bill of Rights that entrenches those values and freedoms. A Bill of Rights does not need to include mission statements, nor any statements of intent. Moreover, there is no need for it to attempt to provide unenforceable, wish-washy promises on economic or social issues, these are covered elsewhere. Instead, the British Bill of Rights needs to be a solid, unbreakable commitment by the government of the day to treat each if its citizens as individuals. It must reinforce the notion of ’innocent until proven guilty’ and not seek to do anything that would remove an innocent individuals right to privacy, self-respect and liberty.

Clearly this is sensitive issues and a personal perspective, so I do not expect everyone to agree with me. Perhaps some will believe that it should include social and economic commitments, my fear however, is as soon as you make something so all encompassing, it becomes a fully-fledged legal document rather that a unambiguous, bulleted statement of rights. Legal documents are a lawyers dream and a litigants worst nightmare, because the fuller the statements, the more opportunity to interpret, wriggle and overturn. We need, clear unambiguous statements!

We must not allow this opportunity to pass or turn into a typical New Labour fudge, all spin and no substance.

Old Holborn has invited readers of Power to the People to join him and thus far, another 102 “ramblers” for a brisk stroll from Trafalgar Square to Parliament Square at midday on the 5th November. Alas, given I am in Frankfurt at the moment, as Big Brother Britain will be able to confirm, I can only be there in spirit, however, I am more than happy to both extend his invitation and recommend supporting this excellent 30 minute exercise! You can find more information here: Old Holborn is going for a walk.

As is befitting for the day, 5th November, Old Holborn will be easy to spot at Trafalgar Square. Fellow ‘ramblers’ are also invited, if they wish, to dress in similar fashion and to bring a friend along if they wish.  Old Holborn believes in free speech and to quote him directly, “The difference between a Welfare State and a Totalitarian State is a matter of time”.

I wish him every success and if he decides that he needs more exercise again next year, I will be happy to joing him. In the meantime I can only offer my support and publicise this London ramble. Image is from the website of Philip Coppens, where you can purchase V for Vendetta outfits.

When Gordon Brown became Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of his first tasks was to raid the pensions of the private sector, something that has provided the exchequer additional income of over £10bn every year since. This put pay to many private sector, final salary schemes. Meanwhile the public sector, which of course includes politicians, have had no corresponding adjustments to their own final salary scheme pensions. So much for the Gordon Brown mantra of a “fairer Britain”, as with so many things he says, they are full of promise and have little or no substance.

The latest figures suggest that public sector pensions are worth more than 15 times those of private sector workers. So whilst the private sector has had to grasp the nettle and accept that final salary schemes are no longer sustainable, Gordon Brown, whilst he was at the treasury and now has prime minister has failed to deal with the issue. So lets put that in perspective. According to Ros Altman, one of Tony Blair’s own advisers, the average public sector worker will be entitled to a pension of £17,091, compared to the average private sector pension of just £1,086. Is this a fair Britain?

The public sector is invariable the first group of workers to vent their spleen about earnings. However, according to the Office of National Statistics, in 2007, the average public sector worker earned just under £26,000 per year, whilst the average private sector worker had to settle for a tad under £23,000. Unlike private sector pensions, public sector pensions are paid out of future tax revenues, not an annuity. This means that the treasury does not have to ’purchase’ an annuity to pay for the pensions, nor do they have to include the liability on the treasury balance sheet. Even though the cost of these pension contributions are estimated to be £1 trillion. That’s right, more that twice the cost of the bailout or nearly 5 years worth of tax receipts. This is a scandal of monstrous proportions and yet Gordon Brown continues to swan around as if he is a financial genius. I would not trust him to hold my loose change!

Someone in the private sector would have to buy an annuity of £427,275 in order that they could benefit from the average pension of £17,091 enjoyed by the public sector. The average private sector pension scheme has a ‘pot’ of just £24,000! So they would be lucky to receive a pension of £1100 per annum. Given 1 in 5 of all workers are employed by the state, I doubt that my observations will curry favour with everyone, but it is a scandal and one that we shall all have to pay for.

If you thought Gordon Brown was taking this matter seriously, you would be wrong, here is a excerpt of what a treasury spokesman is reported to have said: “High quality pension provision is a key part of the remuneration package of public servants, aimed at maintaining a high quality public sector workforce. These pensions are fully costed and fully affordable.”  

Gordon Brown may choose to ignore public sector liabilities of circa £1 trillion, but the taxpayers of this country cannot, nor can our children who will be expected to pay the bill for Brown’s largess. At a time when everyone must look closely at their liabilities and consider tightening their belts, the opposition parties need to push this scandal right to the top of the political agenda, given the costs are not sustainable in the short-term, let alone the long term. Given that we know MP’s final salary schemes are amongst the best in the world, we should, perhaps, not hold our breath for an investigation anytime soon.