Proof if any were needed that Jack Straw has completely lost the plot is demonstrated by comments he has made in The Guardian. The classic one is as follows;

“I’m the first to accept that Labour since 1997 has not achieved a state of grace in terms of the crucial balance between security and liberty. But on any objective basis, this government has done more to reinforce and strengthen liberty than any since the war.”

Well apart from the fact that this statement is a classic case of ‘doublespeak‘ his claim that his government has reinforced and strengthened liberty is utter rubbish. New Labour have effectively suspended Habeas Corpus; have supported the introduction of 4.2m CCTV cameras, one for every 12 people in this country; have taken and then retained DNA on people that have never been charged or have been acquitted; have introduced and now seek to strengthen the rules related to a Communications Database which will record every telephone call, text message and email we send, as well as our internet browsing habits; have announced their intention to set up a ‘Travel Database’ which will record when we go on holiday, with whom, for how long, how much it cost, how we paid etc; have introduced ContactPoint a database that will record every aspect of our children’s lives from the moment they start school and then increased the number of people that will have access to this information; have announced their intention to force ID cards upon us, inspite of massive public resistance; have announced the intention to introduce biometrics onto our passports, with a chip that could be used to track our every move; are tracking our vehicle movements with the use of ANPR cameras; and if that were not enough, they are spending £12bn of our money on an NHS database that no-one wants!

I could also go on about the fact that Mr Straw decided that the British public were not entitled to know the justifications and deliberations that took place in Cabinet in the weeks leading up to the Iraq War. Instead, he used his Ministerial Veto to hide the minutes from us, even though, it was these decisions that ultimately lead to the decision to go to war and, arguably, created a situation where we made every British citizen a terrorist target.

“Talk of Britain sliding into a police state is daft scaremongering….”

The police under Labour have been given unprecedented powers. They can prevent marches or protests, take DNA even when no charges have been laid, arrest and detain without charge for up to 28 days, spy on any member of the public they so choose, (using the tools that the government argued were for protection against terrorism and major crime) and now they can quell protest by firing deadly tasers at ordinary citizens, with the issue of a Taser for every front line policeman. Even the Houses of Parliament are not sacrosanct and there have also been cases of the police listening in to private and privileged conversations between a defendant and their lawyer. I could go on, but I would be here for hours.

“….but even were it true there is a mechanism to prevent it - democratic elections. People have the power to vote out administrations which they believe are heavy-handed.”

This is quite true, New Labour have not found a method by which they could remove our democratic right to vote, although they do have the powers to know what we are saying or writing because of their unprecedented power to spy on us. However, whilst we have this democratic right, we can only exercise it once every 5 years at a time that suits the government, not the people. If Jack Straw believes that his government have acted in the best interest of the public, then he should pop along to Gordon Brown’s office and suggest two things, 1. that new legislation is introduced that allows the people of this country to insist on an immediate election where they have lost confidence in the government and 2. that Gordon Brown announce a June election, so that we can all decide on their track record now. I think it is highly unlikely that ‘Justice‘ Secretary, Jack Straw will allow us any justice.

“I hope that in the final reckoning even some of our harshest critics will concede that this Labour government has done more than any before it to extend liberties and to constrain government.”

As I have said, Jack Straw has now joined Gordon Brown in being so removed from reality and the mood of the public, that he may as well be based on Mars. No wonder this country is in so much trouble.

Finally, one of the major political parties has come out and made a clear and unequivocal statement in favour of returning power to the people. The LibDems have promised to repeal the series of authoritarian measures introduced by New Labour, which has lead, to put it in their words, to the “slow death” of our civil liberties. To be fair, the LibDems have taken a long time to recognise that this is a key are of concern for citizens of this country, but lets face it, better late that never. What a pity that the Conservative party have been so weak when it comes to civil liberties and government intrusion, but then again, they demonstrated their true colours when they sided with Jack Straw, when he used the Ministerial veto to hide the the minutes of cabinet meetings leading up to the Iraq War from the public.

The LibDems are calling on the government to reverse the controversial policing and criminal justice legislation introduced in recent years. Doubtless, this request will be ignored, given our current government have demonstrated time and again, that they have little or no time for anyone who would dare to criticise their policies. Further, this government have consistently paid lip service to the hard won freedoms that we have enjoyed prior to their term in office, dismissing protests with a wave of their hand. New Labour’s philosophy it is the state that is master, not the people, supporting this argument by spending £billions on new methods to record information of the general public.

The LibDems have stated that they would reduce detention without charge from 28 days to 14, remove the ministerial veto altogether, allow DNA to be retained only in cases where someone has been charged and convicted, scrap ID cards and order a full scale review of the use use of CCTV cameras, which now numbers over 4m. To put that into perspective, in 2004 a European Commission report found that there were some 40,000 cameras monitoring public areas in 500 British towns and cities, compared to fewer than 100 cameras in 15 German cities. Little wonder that nearly every report you read states that we are the most spied on country in the world.

However, the LibDems need to go much further. They must seek to cancel the Big Brother Britain databases that this government has either introduced or announced. At the very least, this should include the database proposed in the new Data Communications Bill intended to record every call, text message and email we send or receive, in addition to spying on our internet browsing habits. As well as the latest government wheeze, the travellers database, that seeks to record every trip we take, where we go, how we pay and where we sit. There should be a review of the ContactPoint database already introduced in terms of whether the benefits will outweigh the cost and risks and the NHS database, which is hopelessly inefficient and is the subject of much criticism from the very practitioners who are supposed to benefit from it.

I have never voted LibDem in my life, I have always viewed them as the party of high taxation, the Green Party in disguise if you like and quite frankly, lacking in any real substance. However, I have been heartily impressed with Vince Cable’s take on the economy, not that I have agreed with everything he has said, but he speaks with authority and knowledge, unlike some other that you would expect to be well briefed. Compare that with the wishy-washy approach from the Conservative party and the reckless abandonment demonstrated by the current Labour government. I fail to see much difference between the policies of the Conservatives and those of New Labour, it just seems to be more of the same, couched in a ’softer’ tone or called by a different name and that is NOT what I want. Labour have promised us tax increases, the Conservative party have promised us tax increases, so what the hell, they are now all on a level playing field. The Labour party have demonstrated that they could not give a toss about our right to privacy, liberty and freedom to go about our business without state interference, the conservative party have said a few weasley words in condemnation, but nothing more. so I think we know where they stand, especially after their appalling and ill-conceived support for Jack Straw and his ministerial veto.

In fact, there is so little to choose between any of the main parties, that I suspect who we decide to vote for, may well be based on something that they do differ on, provided it is important to the voter. I believe, that whilst all parties broadly agree on key electoral issues, such as the NHS, education, crime, immigration, the environment and taxes, it will be the smaller things that become the deciding factor.

For that reason, unless we start to see substantial policy differences, not variations on the same theme, I do not believe that ANY party, especially the Conservatives, can count on winning the next election. In my view, the next election will go to the wire, people will decide late in the day and Cameron & co, unless they can highlight real policy differences and intiatives between the Conservatives and Labour, will be left with egg on their face. This could lead to the LiDems and other independent parties being in a position whereby they can punch well above their weight. Having seen what happens when a government gets such a massive majority, I never want to see that happen again, because the longer the term in office with a large majority, the more authoritarian they become. Given none of the parties are talking about wholesale reform, it can be safely argued that there is no need for massive majorities anyway.

The Arrogance of Power

Amidst massive public opposition, this government decided to send out troops to war in Iraq, now they have used a clause in the Freedom of Information Act to block the release of details of meetings in which the war’s legality was discussed. This decision was made by Justice Secretary, Jack Straw and supported by his cabinet colleagues. Straw claims that releasing the minutes would do “seriously damage” to Cabinet government and this outweighed any public interest considerations. Just who the hell does he think he is? This government sent our troops to war, far too many soldiers have lost their lives as a consequence of that decision and the war has cost £billions, yet I haven’t met a single person that supported it. So, in spite of the fact that the government went against public opinion, justified the war on what were at best ‘flaky’ grounds and our soldiers are dying every week, this government does not believe we have the right to know why, how they reached their decision and on what evidence? Does this suggest that this pathetic excuse for a government with spineless cabinet ministers believes that, whilst the people of this country are objective and mature enough to vote them in, that we lack the maturity, gravitas and objectivity to form our own opinions on what this government did in OUR name? Does the arrogance of this government have no limits?

Whilst there may be some justification in using a ministerial veto where national security is in question, it is an abuse in the extreme, to use it simply to save the blushes of those that were party to a decision to take this country to war. Is there a more serious decision for a government to take, than committing their country to war, what possible justification is there in hiding the justification? This is what Jack Straw had to say “there is a balance to be struck between openness and maintaining aspects of our structure of democratic government.” Forgive me Mr Straw, but the commonly held definition of ‘democratic’ is ‘constructed upon the principle of government by the people’. Perhaps what Mr Straw meant to say was authoritarian?

If that was not bad enough, The Conservatives are  quoted as saying the decision was “right” since the release of the minutes would make ministers more reluctant to discuss controversial subjects in future, impeding good government. That is utter crap. We are ALL supposed to be responsible for our decisions, unless or until we are judged to have been incapable of knowing right from wrong at the time. So what gives Cabinet ministers an exemption from common law or makes the Conservatives believe they should be? If ever there was clear evidence of MP’s believing they are a cut above the rest of us, and exempt from the same rules that the rest of us have to abide by, this is it. From the mouths of a senior cabinet minister and a spokesperson for the Conservatives.

David Howarth, Justice spokesman for the LibDems said the decision was “more to do with preventing embarrassment than protecting the system of government“. That just about sums it up, this veto was used to save embarrassment, to protect reputations. In a New Labour democracy, we are not entitled or trusted to form our own opinions on the basis of the facts. What particularly disgusts and shocks me is the fact that Cameron’s conservative party should also support this veto, Cameron should be ashamed and, if he is so contemptuous of the British people, Cameron does not deserve to be elected prime minister of this country.

How can the government of any modern democracy refuse to entrust the electorate with the reasons they decided to take us to war? If the government has nothing to hide, then why do they refuse to release the minutes? Surely if they were fully justified in sending our troops to Iraq, then the minutes will attest to that fact? Of course, Jack Straw is not a particular fan of open government, but this was a decision that had to be agreed by the current cabinet, many of whom were not party to the original meetings. Why did the Cabinet support the use of this ministerial veto based on the grounds of vanity? Perhaps they truly are spineless, maybe they are contemptuous of the British public, or simply willing to cover up for their former masters and colleagues? I don’t know, but something stinks!

Hard-liner, David Blunkett, is expected to criticise the government’s continued obsession with creating a surveillance society intent on infringing the liberty and rights of British citizens in an address at the 21st annual law lecture in Essex University’s Colchester campus. Although Blunkett is expected, wrongly in my opinion, to claim that the government has got the balance between liberty and security he will voice concern over other highly contentious issues.

He will come out against the Government’s controversial plan to set up a database holding details of telephone calls and emails and its proposal to allow public bodies to share personal data with each other. He will also suggest a complete U-Turn on compulsory identity cards, although he is expected to insist that they should be mandatory for all foreign nationals. David Blunkett is also expected to urge the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, to dilute the provisions of the Coroners and Justice Bill on data sharing between public bodies. He will warn: “It is not simply whether the intentions are benign, undoubtedly they are, but whether they are likely to be misused and above all what value their use may have.” Similarly, he is expected to criticise the misuse of the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which has been used for example, by local councils to tackle dog fouling and the monitoring of rubbish (no, not MP’s, refuse!)

When someone that so vehemently supported the introduction of ID cards and tough anti-terror laws raises concerns about the risk to privacy and liberty, the government must sit up and take notice. Although Blunkett’s comments are measured, it is reasonable to surmise that he is genuinely concerned and in order not to embarrass the government, he has couched his comments to be received positively. In just over a week, we have had the former head of MI5 criticising this government’s intrusion into our lives and now a former, hard-line Home Secretary. When will the government realise that they have gone way to far and, when will opposition parties appreciate that they would be pushing at an open door if they agreed to review and if necessary, repeal oppressive and draconian legislation that infringes the rights of the people of this country?

I will let David Blunkett have the last few words. “The strength of our democracy is that we are able to challenge when the well-meaning, but sometimes misguided, take their own knowledge of the threats we face to be justification for protecting our mutual interest at the expense of our individual freedom. If we tolerate the intolerable, the intolerable gradually becomes the norm.”

According to a survey completed by the Hansard Society, MP’s are not taking advantage of the power of the internet and, those that do, typically use it as a method of transmitting information, not receiving it. The only thing that should surprise anyone here is the fact that this is being heralded as a new discovery. The truth is, members of parliament (from all parties) have been talking at the British public for decades, although it is more prevalent now than it was, for example, 15 years ago.

With one or two notable exceptions, the only time members of parliament engage with the public is when they want something, which is typically once every 5 years, to convince us to vote for them. Once they get their seat in parliament, the majority of them couldn’t give a toss about their constituents, all of a sudden that are taken in by the deference they are shown and the generosity of the expense accounts.

The internet is a great tool for engaging with the general public and blogs represent an excellent forum for debate, yet only a handful of MP’s have their own blogs or contribute to other ‘political’ commentary/opinion blogs. Why, do you suppose that is? I believe it is a combination of the following; they can’t be bothered, they have nothing constructive to say, they are frightened of engaging with real people that have not been briefed on what questions they can, or cannot ask, their own positions are indefensible or, they are way to busy completing their expense claims.

Some government ministers are contemptuous of so called ‘political bloggers’, take Hazel Blears for example, she waded into them last year claiming they were fuelling a “culture of cynicism about public life“.  It couldn’t be that people were daring to disagree with the government could it? In fact, her attack only demonstrated her own ignorance and ineptitude, because what she chose to forget was that behind these blogs are real people, voters, who feel that blogging is a method by which they can voice their opinion and engage with other who may or may not agree with them. One thing is certain, frustrated voters have no other way of venting, with a government intent on doing as much as they can to restric freedom of speech, marches or protests!

The truth is, members of parliament ignore the power of the internet and the influence of political bloggers at their peril. The internet is an excellent medium to find like minded individuals and although it may be still be some way off, I would not be surprised if a new political party in not founded via the internet and one that speaks for the people, rather than at them.  

Only a fool, or in this case, a party and government of fools would choose to ignore a growing momentum of disaffected voters in the vain hope that they will go away. MP’s should engage with the public, not once every 5 years, but each and every day….or risk losing their seat. If they don’t do that, then I predict that today’s political bloggers will become tomorrow’s independent MP’s, only then will the people of this country really be able to call the government to account, because it would be our equivalent of non-executive directors! So the message to ALL Members of Parliament is stop transmitting and start receiving, before it is too late!

Hazel Blears has suggested that Labour MP’s should “get a grip” in relation to gossip about those seeking to take on the top job when Gordon Brown steps down. Like that is going to happy any time soon!

However, in my view it is Gordon Brown that must get a grip, of MP’s expenses. At a time when everyone is tightening their belts to ride the storm that for the most part has been created by this government, its policies and Gordon Brown’s mis-management, many MP’s are filling their pockets with tax free expenses. These expenses are funded by the hard pressed taxpayers of this country. I am not suggesting that MP’s are not following the letter of the rules, but they are quite clearly not following the spirit and that in my view this is an abuse. To make matters worse, people right at the centre of government are also abusing a set of rules that were introduced to assist MP’s in their out of pocket expenses, not enrich their lifestyles.

Take Jacqui Smith for example. She claims that the decision to call her sisters home her main residence is within the current interpretation of the rules and that may even be the case. But this woman is the Home Secretary, surely someone that sits at the top of the food chain in terms of law and order should act strictly within the rules, not simply in the spirit of them? She, with her fellow cabinet ministers, must set good examples, not simply sit with their noses in the trough. Members of Parliament are in the unique and privileged position of bring able to claim expenses quite freely that those in the private sector could only dream of.

It is estimated that Ms Smith has been able to claim as much as £116,000 tax free as a result of this interpretation of the rules. If an ordinary member of the public were to be asked how they would determine someone’s principle place of residence, they are likely to state that it would be where the rest of their family reside, where the kids go to school, where all the household accounts are held, where your banks and credit card statements go to etc. So why is it, that MP’s are given so much latitude? Simply this, that instead of MP’s expenses being a method of reimbursing out of pocket expenses, it has become a ‘perk’ of the job and that is completely and utterly unacceptable. The Jacqui Smith debacle follows, of course, directly on the heels of the uproar over Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper’s interpretation of the rules that allowed them to elect which property was their primary residence (subsequently upheld by the watchdog). The bottom line is MP’s cannot and should not be trusted to vote on and determine their own allowances or expenses.

MP’s expenses must be further simplified, instead of a second home allowance, they should be provided with a ‘fixed’ overnight allowance. That is to say, if they elect to stay in a hotel then the maximum allowance is, for example, £120 with a receipt, if they stay ‘with a friend’ etc., then this would be reduced to £50 per night, for which no receipt would be required. All other second-home allowances must cease, they are an unnecessary expense. In terms of travel expenses, MP’s should follow similar rules to most private companies, flights under 4 hours, they must travel economy class, using the cheapest possible airline. Another very generous allowance is vehicle mileage, instead of MP’s maximising the benefits of this perk, the reimbursement should be limited to what the cost of a standard fare train ticket would cost for the same journey. In other words, if it costs £100 for a return ticket from Nottingham to London and the mileage allowance for using a car pays £260, the MP can only claim £100.

Unless or until members of parliament start to live and operate to the same standards that everyone else does, the public will continue to view  them with mistrust and scepticism. That is not in the interest of our democracy, nor is it in the longer term interests of our MP’s. Gordon Brown needs to stop protecting his cabinet colleagues and instead, start to ensure that they operate to the same rules and standard as ordinary members of the public. Because, in my view at least, there is little difference between failed bankers of publicly owned banks paying themselves bonuses out of public coffers and MP’s who have failed to protect the interests of the electorate claiming massive expense allowances, especially.  In all of these cases, the final bill is paid for by hard-pressed taxpayers. Gordon Brown needs to understand, that at a time, for example, when he is going to fail to meet his reduction in child poverty targets, his MP’s are filling their own pockets with the same money. How does he expect the general public to view such duplicity?

Anyone that was struggling to pay their mortgages would probably have been heartened in December last year when Gordon Brown said that the government were to introduce a new scheme to help them. Gordon Brown’s announcement even managed to upstage the Queens Speech. To be fair, Gordon Brown did say that the Homeowner Mortgage Support Scheme would be available early in the new year, but a recent government update suggests that it will only be up and running in April. Surely this has got to be one of the cruelest things this government could do to people facing repossession? Does this man, Gordon Brown or New Labour have no sense of decency? In December, the government claimed that 8 mortgage lenders had signed up to the scheme, if true, why the subsequent delay, doesn’t this government understand the urgency of the situation for real people in trouble?

For a government that loves statistics, I wonder if they will have anyone calculate how many families will have lost their homes during the intervening period between the announcement and implementation of the new scheme? I very much doubt it somehow. People could have been forgiven for believing that the government, following the annoucement, had something ready for imminent launch. What was the rush for Gordon Brown, was he just chasing the headlines? It smacks of a cheap and wilful swipe at real people, in crisis…something that appears to have become the norm for New Labour.

To make matters worse, Cabinet Office minister Liam Byrne said the governments approach compared favourably to the Conservative Party’s “do nothing” approach. Is this guy on the same planet? Firstly the public are sick and tired of hearing government ministers and Labour MP’s constantly justifying their own failings by claiming that the Conservatives Party policy was to do nothing as if this was an acceptable excuse. Secondly, the Labour government appears to be incapable of understanding precisely how much they raise expectations when they make policy announcements and the level of disappointment felt by people when they find out that the reality doesn’t match up to the rhetoric.

Whilst I am not a great believer in government intervention, I do believe that if they make a commitment or promise, then they must deliver on it in timely manner and in accordance with the original announcement. That said, this government has rarely, if ever, lived up to any of its promises, it is time for a change and I suspect, the people that they are now disappointing, will be the very people that ensure they get it. I cannot wait for an election so that we can get rid of this incompetent, self-serving, spin loving, pathetic party and get on with repairing the damage they have cause and once again, get to the stage where we can call it Great Britain again. I suspect that it will take a long time to get things right, but at least we would have the comfort of knowing that a promise made, is one that they will do their damnedest to deliver.

How on earth do we stop this mad man that is Gordon Brown. Not only was he the architect of the financial system and regulation that lead us into this disastrous mess, but he is also the man that believes, he is more qualified than anyone else, to get us out of it. This deluded man is convinced that he bears no responsibility for what happened, even though everyone else knows differently. This vain man even seeks to lecture the leaders of other countries on what they must do to overcome the economic meltdown that is happening around our ears. This inept little man constantly tells the people of this country that the problems that have beset the United Kingdom are a direct result of economic and commercial mis-management in other countries, such as the United States. This incompetent man has the temerity to inform us that we are best placed to “weather the financial storm“. Yet he knows that this is not true and, that notwithstanding, no other economic expert agrees with his assessment. No doubt this could explain why it is that Gordon Brown has never told us why we are in a better position.

Gordon Brown, the unelected the prime minister of this country is a fool. He was a very poor Chancellor, arguably one of worst in our history. He has built on that well earned description by becoming one of the poorest, most incompetent prime ministers in recent times and there are plenty of former PM’s that could have been considered for that award. Any good leader would not assume that only he has all the answers and yet, Mr Brown constantly spouts on about the fact that he has the solutions and is best qualified to lead us out of this deep recession. A good leader would surround himself with knowledgeable people, not loyal soldiers, yes men and women, or business people seeking a knighthood or peerage for their ’services’. Any good leader would know that a top team would always challenge the status quo, keep them on their toes, ensure that they don’t start to believe their own publicity, question, cajole and nudge. Any good leader would not be cowed by strong people around them, but instead, seek their counsel, listen, question and heed. But, Gordon Brown has clearly demonstrated that he is NOT a good leader.

Let’s consider a few other things;

Gordon Brown, as Chancellor, was the architect of the tripartite arrangement formed between the Treasury, the FSA and the Bank of England. Yet it was the failure and inadequacies of this system which allowed interest rates to be reduced so low that a housing boom was inevitable. Each party failed to respond to the experts that had argued the housing bubble was unsustainable and there was likely to be a crash. It was the failure of this system that allowed banks to grow at a rapid rate utilising funds raised on the money markets rather than the more traditional route of saver deposits. It was the failure of this system that allowed banks to package new mortgage backed securities that were then traded, but so complicated; few people understood them or the associated risks. It was the failure of this system that permitted banks to create a culture driven by greed, short-term profits and rewarded with massive bonuses. It was this system, which was set up to control, regulate and manage the City and the economy that ultimately failed on all fronts. The architect of this tripartite arrangement was Gordon Brown and he is ultimately responsible, instead, each party points the finger at another in the triangle. Not one party has had the humility or honesty to admit any form of responsibility.

Yet Gordon Brown’s incompetence is every where, for example; In spite of experts advising him of the risks, it was Gordon Brown that raided private sector pension funds. Perhaps in the belief that private sector pensions were the preserve of the rich, rather than millions of ordinary hard-working people. In doing so, he has raised around £175bn in tax revenues. But, at what cost? Roughly two thirds of (private sector) final salary pension schemes have been closed to new members, large company pension schemes have ended up with massive deficits. Pension schemes have collapsed and, of course, those within the private sector that have not been protected by employers pumping more money in will receive much smaller pensions. Meanwhile, Gordon Brown has done nothing about the public sector final salary pension schemes, the majority of which are not funded through an annuity, but out of future tax revenues. The latest estimates put the public sector pension liabilities at a staggering £1,071bn, that is correct, BILLION. As a consequence on the government’s inaction, the ‘average’ pension enjoyed by someone in the public sector is nearly 15 times higher than that of the private sector. Another blinder from the iron chancellor that was supposed to be Gordon Brown.

Here are a few other things that Gordon Brown either presided over, or influenced as part of the government machine;

1. Introduced more stealth taxes than any other chancellor in history, equivalent to an extra 10p in the Pound on the basic rate of tax (source: Grant Thornton).
2. Solld the UK’s gold reserves at the bottom of the market ignoring expert advice not to.
3. Introduced ‘green taxes’ in the full and certain knowledge that any revenues gained were not destined to be invested in green initiatives. Yet another successful stealth tax to add to the collection. If you are starting to feel a little duped, then read on, I haven’t finished with Mr Brown yet!
4. Successfully achieved the goal of becoming prime minister without going through the inconvenience of being elected by the people. This in spite of the fact that New Labour gained their substantial commons majority with 57% of the voters supporting another party. So much for the benefits of our First Past The Post electoral system.
5. Was party to the sell out of the UK’s sovereignty to an unaccountable foreign ‘parliament’, in spite of a manifesto promise to allow the public to decide through a referendum.
6. Destroyed the union and in the process, ensured that his countrymen received more money per head than those in England and Wales.
7. Missed virtually every financial growth target announced in each successive budget without so much as a murmur from the press.
8. Successfully managed to dupe the press into believing that he was an iron chancellor driven by prudence, when in fact he was a spendthrift.
9. As the architect and driver of the revised PFI initiative originally proposed by the conservatives, saddled the country with a bill of £170bn which must be paid by 2032. Without having to include the figure as part of the public sector balance sheet.
10. Managed to keep the £780bn public pensions deficit off the books, even though this is equivalent to over £30,000 per household and must be paid out of future tax receipts. Estimates of this deficit have now been increased to over £1trillion.
11. Managed, without any consideration of the irony, to lecture people on their level of borrowings, whilst building up nearly £500bn of debt on the governments own ‘credit card’. If other recent liabilities are taken into account, this figure would rise substantially over £1trillion.
12. Introduced and supported a complicated tax credit programme that has managed to lose £2bn every year through fraud and errors.
13. Left the taxpayer saddled with £1.7bn of Metronet’s debt having been the person that pushed through the Private Public Partnership initiative for the London Underground.
14. Managed to convince the public that local authorities were responsible for the doubling of council tax. Meanwhile he was actually placing responsibility for all additional services firmly with the local councils.
15. Managed a real blinder, by camouflaging the inflation rate by changing the measurement from RPI to CPI.
16. Underwritten £17bn of debt for Network Rail, without having to include it on the public balance sheet.
17. Survived the embarrassment of claiming in March 2006 that 31,000 government employees had been trimmed off the payroll, whilst the Office for National Statistics claimed one month later, that the headcount had actually increased by 62,000 a difference of 93,000!
18. Managed to introduce such a complex set of rules and regulations, designed to extract maximum tax take that the annual Finance Act (summary of tax changes in the budget) has increased from 300 pages or so in the 1980’s to over 10,000.
19. At a time when businesses are struggling and people are having to tighten their belts, presided over a government that boasts some 78 acres of empty space in office buildings and grace and favour homes.
20. Managed to push another 3.5m people into the higher income tax bracket, using a favoured trick of ‘fiscal drag’, where the tax threshold is raised more slowly than earnings are rising, so that workers end up paying a higher proportion of their income in tax.
21. Twice shifted the timing of the ‘economic cycle’ in order that the so called “golden rule” would not be missed, resulting in a brazen massaging of the figures.
22. Ensured that there are now twice as many tax collectors as there are nurses, demonstrating firmly where the government’s priorities lie.
23. Masterfully convinced people that they are “better off under Labour” even though each family now pays more than £5,000 in extra tax, compared to 1997.

Then let’s take a look at how he has ‘fixed’ things, telling us how at least he was “doing something” as opposed to the Conservatives, who are, according to the supreme leader Mr Brown, the “do nothing party“.

He invested £billions of our money into the Royal Bank of Scotland, who are now expected to report a loss of £28bn. What level of due diligence was exercised before our money was invested into a bank with such massive liabilities? Now, we have a similar story with HBOS, here, losses have been reported at £11bn, same thing, did the government complete any due diligence prior to investing our money? I am not so worried about Lloyds TSB, they must answer to their shareholders, government and Gordon Brown must answer to the taxpayers.

Yet still more £billions of OUR money has been invested into the banking system by Gordon Brown, with the specific aim of easing lending to consumers and business as well as freeing up inter-bank lending. But this has come to nothing. Not satisfied with spending this money, yet more £billions has been pledged or spent on a bank ‘insurance scheme’ and, as is the nature of insurance, we can never truly know the extent of that commitment, other than the fact that with Gordon Brown’s track record, we know it will exceed all expectations. Over £1trillion has been spent or committed, for nothing, we have not been able to see ANY tangible benefit, in terms of what Mr Brown TOLD us we could expect.

In other words, he told us that our money was going to be used to achieve a specific objective or goal and nothing has happened. This time however, Gordon Brown has outdone himself, because nowhere in history, has a single politician spent so much money for so little, or more accurately, no return. Yet he is still there, grinning like a Cheshire cat and snarling at anyone who would dare question his actions. Anyone with an ounce of commonsense, for example, would have known that a 2.5% reduction in VAT would have little or no effect, set against a backdrop of high street retailers discounting up to 50% off the ticket price. But this arrogant little man went ahead, and as a consequence, he has wasted another £12.5bn or our money.

In the last week, much has been said about the fact that many of our most senior bankers have no relevant, professional qualifications. But ask yourself this, what qualifications has Gordon Brown got, (or did he have) that would qualify him to determine our economic future? None, zilch. He would normally be considered to have been qualified by experience, but just look above and you will see what his ‘experience’ leads to. The appointment of an inexperienced politician to the position of Chancellor of what was the 5th largest economy in the world, is akin to asking an engineering apprentice to act as Finance Director of BP.

But we are in a democracy; surely we don’t have to put up with this?

How naive we are as a people, we have been told we are in a democracy and we believed them. What type of democracy allows the coronation of a new prime minister, without any reference to the electorate? What type of democracy allows a party that received just 43% of the vote to have such a massive parliamentary majority? What type of democracy provides the PM with so much power, that he can spend or commit £1trillion without even referring the matter to a commons vote? What type of democracy allows its prime minister to continue damaging the country, its economy and its prospects without any way for the people to put a stop to it? What type of democracy allows a government to renege on a manifesto promise, without any form of recourse from the electorate?

What type of democracy allows a government to force through intrusive and overbearing legislation designed to spy on its own citizens, monitor their travel arrangements, emails, telephone calls, vehicle movements, medical records and share that information with another 780 government and private agencies? What type of democracy allows its government to shatter long held rights to privacy and liberty virtually unchallenged, to the detriment of the people? What type of democracy provides its people with no opportunity to impeach its leader if that person is considered to be acting against the interests of the majority? IT IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, it is an authoritarian dictatorship that serves the government of the time and not the people. We all need to catch a wake up, our whole parliamentary system needs a radical overhaul and members of parliament need to be reminded that they are supposed to serve the people, not themselves. If ever there was a case for the people of this country to have the power to push an eject button, this is it.

We, the people of this country need a way of bringing down a government or removing any minister that fails to act in our best interests, lies, or bullshits, not at a time that suits them, but when it suits us. Better still, we need to be ruled by people like us, not the self-serving, inward looking, expense grabbing, ego driven, twats that are currently lording it over us all. This description is not, of course, limited to the Labour Party, there are many people within other parties that simply do not give a toss about the electorate, other than once every 5 years or so when they would rely on our votes.

Amongst all the dramatic events of this week, Gordon Brown has decided to announced a review into the cost of the final salary pension schemes offered to MP’s. Now, here is a man of action, we all know that when Mr Brown wants to grab the headlines with some ‘good’ news, he either announces a review or an inquiry. In the case of the former and, arguably the latter, nothing happens. In other words, say something, do nothing….the unnofficial cry of Gordon Brown and his Labour party.

Over the past 10 years or so, any final salary schemes within the private sector have had to be curtailed or withdrawn. In fact, some pension schemes have even collapsed completely because of the increased costs associated with Mr Brown’s tax attack on private sector and personal pension schemes. This tax grab has contributed in excess of £100bn to Treasury coffers over the past 10 years and ensured that many, many people that have contributed to pensions for most of their life, now have to struggle or rely on state handouts or means tested benefits. A real man of the people our Mr Brown.

Meanwhile, MP’s continued to benefit from what has been described as one of the best pension schemes in the world. Even taking into account that  our MP’s have a gold-plated pension scheme, the total cost is marginal when compared with the actual cost to the taxpayer of funding the generous, final salary schemes offered to public sector workers. The additional cost last year, to the taxpayers of this country, for the pension scheme our members of parliament enjoy was £12m. Quite a lot of money when you consider that this top up is paid out of future tax revenues, rather than an annuity. However, the estimated cost of the public sector final salary scheme is, by contrast, staggering and rising fast! 

Pension schemes for local government officers and MPs are funded but, five million people, including civil servants, teachers, NHS staff and members of the Armed Forces, are enrolled in schemes for which no money has been set aside. In 2006, the Government estimated the cost of these unfunded liabilities was £650bn, it has since been estimated that our public sector pensions deficit is £1,071 billion. Now that IS a big number!

According to the Treasury’s own figures, the annual cost of paying public sector pension schemes is 1.5% of GDP and this is expected to rise to 2% over the next 50 years. Lets put that into perspective, the annual cost to the taxpayer of these unfunded public pension schemes is currently £22bn, or if you prefer, equivalent to a reduction in direct taxation of 4p in the pound, or to put it another way, £900 for every family in the UK. But, over the next 3 decades, it is estimated by the IEA that this will increase to £76bn a year, enough to complete more than two banking bailouts or 250 new hospitals every year.

So, Mr Brown, lets see some action, not reviews. Yes, by all means he should tackle the issue of MP’s final salary pension schemes, but he must also, finally grasp the nettle in relation to public sector final salary schemes. A failure to do so will result in either, a significant increase in taxation or, an inability to honour the existing scheme. Average salaries within the public sector are now higher than those within the private sector, similarly pension schemes are on average, some 15 times more valuable within the public sector. 

Ultimately the taxpayer is expected to fund this financial burden, in addition to an ever increasing headcount within the public sector and it does not take Einstein to work out that it is simply not sustainable, in a booming, let alone a contracting economy. It is high time that public sector pensions were brought in line with the private sector, in terms of the type of benefits and the way they are funded.  It is time to act decisively, no doubt Mr Brown will once again, shy away from anything so commendable. Say something, do nothing

Despite all the political grandstanding surrounding the proposed bonuses to be paid to RBS staff, there is little that can be done about it and the government knows it. Don’t get me wrong, I am completely against the payment of bonuses to staff when the very fact that they still have a job is down entirely to the intervention of the government with taxpayers funds.

However, the fact remains that the vast majority of the staff will have some form of contractual entitlement to a bonus; the senior bankers know this and so do government ministers. For example, it is estimated that some £500m is due to be paid to ABN Amro staff and this was a pre-condition of the original sale of the business to RBS. If senior managers don’t honour their employment contracts, then they could very quickly find themselves in breech of contract and you can rest assured that there will be a massive queue of lawyers offering to take up their cases.

Gordon Brown is reported to be “very angry“, well, bully for him,  what difference will his temper tantrum make? None! Treasury minister Yvette Cooper said any contractual or legal obligations on banks to pay bonuses at a time when they were making huge losses must be “challenged“. Yeah right Yvette, you know that there is little or nothing that can be done about it, which is why you squirmed so much when John Snow put some eminently reasonable to you on Channel 4 News last night. Alistair Darling is quoted as saying “I have spoken to the chief executive of RBS, and made it quite clear, and he agrees, that no-one associated with these huge losses should be allowed to walk away with large cash bonuses.” Quite right Mr Darling, but this is a legal issue, not a place for political rhetoric.

Even David Cameron demonstrates how out of touch he is by stating “As the principal shareholder, you are able to say what is and what is not acceptable.” True Mr Cameron and that is precisely the point, but you cannot do it retrospectively, if you had any business experience you would know that, unless of course, you are simply taking us all for fools.

The truth is this government rushed into “saving the banks from collapse” and in doing so, they left any commonsense back in the office. So keen were they to be seen as the saviors of the banking world, they did not complete any form of due diligence. I know that ministers and civil servants can often be accused of rank incompetence, but this goes off the scale. No experienced businessman and I mean not one, would blindly invest into a business, however urgent the need, without completing a full review of the business. As one contributor stated on one of my recent posts on the RBS fiasco;

Due Diligence is only half of the required formula for meeting the requirements under “Standard of Care” or “Due Care”. Due care is the second half of the diligence formula and equally as important. For without it, the standard of care can not be measured.

Performing Due Diligence identifies where investment risks or exposures lie, due care is exercising the requirements discovered under due diligence to protect or mitigate exposure from those risks.

Not only has the PM missed the first but importantly government has neither the resources, skills, or initiative to deal with the second which is what ultimately leads to failures.

In the normal course of events, due diligence would have uncovered that there were, amongst other things, contractual liabilities to pay bonuses; this would have included an estimate as to the likely cost. Had the government and its advisors acted with a reasonable level of care, arguably, this whole situation would have been avoided. Government could, for example, have included conditions which required staff to sign a waiver in relation to their bonuses. Alternatively, they could have been made redundant and re-employed on new contracts, the business after all was likely to collapse. Those that were expecting large bonuses, but had been party to significant losses, could have been warned that if they attempted to exercise there ‘bonus guarantees’ they could expect to be dismissed with immediate affect and could face a claim if they had acted recklessly or without a reasonable level of care.

I am not an employment lawyer, but I am convinced that there were (’were‘ being the operative word), any number of imaginative ways in which government ministers could have avoided this massive kick in the teeth to hard pressed taxpayers if they had acted with foresight and were in receipt of legal advice. Instead, once again, the rank incompetence of government ministers has cost UK taxpayers £billions.

There have been justified cries for the bankers to pay back their bonuses and even suggestions, quite rightly in my opinion, that traders should be sued for bonuses paid on what have subsequently turned out to be ‘questionable or toxic’ investments. These are perfectly justifiable initiatives, but what about the government ministers, surely they are equally culpable? Leaving aside the issue of regulation and so on (pre-bust), government ministers ordered a massive injection of taxpayer cash into banks without fully understanding the liabilities and obligations therein. At best, it demonstrates incompetence of the highest order and at worst, that they do not appear, based on the evidence currently available, to have demonstrated a reasonable standard of care.

This current political grandstanding and rhetoric is nothing more than a smokescreen designed to divert attention from the incompetent management of the whole banking crisis by members of this government. New Labour ministers have proven themselves to be incapable of humility, unable to accept any form of personal responsibility and aggressive towards anyone who would question their intent. That is arrogance in its most basic and crude form, the people of this country must not let them get away with it, government ministers must be held to account and accept moral and legal responsibility for their actions. Anything less would be an outrage to the people that will have to pay the price over the coming decades.