Much has been said about the dressing down Daniel Hannan have Gordon Brown. But, whilst it was an excellent speech and echoes what most of us are saying, there is a risk that we fail to take account of the paradigm shift that has taken place in British politics, hence the massive support for Hannan’s words. YouTube have registered well over 1 million views of the Daniel Hannan video.

I cannot recall ever having witnessed such a disconnect between politicians and the public. I am not just referring to Gordon Brown and his discredited government, but ALL members of parliament. Yes, Gordon Brown, first as Chancellor and then as Prime Minister, has shepherded us into the financial mess we are in by borrowing too much during the boom times and spending way too much on pet income redistribution projects, a cumbersome tax credit system and massive, as well as unnecessary, public sector capital projects. Were this not enough, he hammered private sector pension schemes, whilst failing to do anything about public sector pension schemes. Further, on his watch, we have witnessed an estimated £100bn of wasted taxpayers money through government incompetence and we have all had to accept a dramatic and unsustainable increase in the public sector payroll. Of course, he then goes on to deny any personal responsibility, so there can be little surprise that he is one of the most hated and despised men in this country.

However, this disconnect, at least in my personal view, goes much deeper than Gordon Brown. People no longer trust MP’s. Every few weeks we hear of another instance of MP’s using their expenses to supplement their income, because the rules allow them to do so, not because the expense is necessarily justified or warranted. Worst still, some of the worst offenders seem to be government ministers, those right at the top of the tree, meanwhile, the honourable members are reluctant to deal with this issue that is the cause of a great deal of public consternation and resentment. Opposition parties don’t make too much of a fuss, because it is a case of ‘there but for the grace of god…..’! Alistair Darling says that bankers must regain the trust of the public, but hold on just a minute, so do MP’s, but who is telling them? Clearly no-one is listening to public opinion.

Whilst I accept that the Labour Party has had a healthy majority for their 3 terms in office. How many times have we heard MP’s from the ‘other’ parties condemning this governments actions or challenging new, often draconian and repressive legislation? Not nearly often enough. Members of Parliament, particularly those in the opposition parties, have been reactive, not proactive. They have stood by whilst this government has all but destroyed everything we hold dear in terms of liberty, freedom and the fundamental right to privacy and be free from an overburdensome state. £16bn has been spent on databases this year and a further £105bn committed over the next 5 years. Everything our children do at school is monitored and recorded on ContactPoint a government database, then our children are profiled using ONSET, to determine whether or not they may be future offenders. All this information is held on their personal files. Our mobile phone calls, text messages, emails and internet browsing habits are monitored and recorded, our travel arrangements, who we travel with, when, how much we paid, where we went, with whom and so on is to be recorded and retained by the State. Our passports are to include biometrics, a way of getting around the discredited ID card system, our health records are to be recorded and retained on a database. Our every move is monitored by 4.2m cameras, in addition, many thousands of ANPR cameras record our number plates and can track us from one end of the country to another, new facial recognition software even allows them to name the driver. It is estimated that the Government has some 1100 databases holding some type of personal information on us. This cannot be justified, it is as if we are all in an open prison and fitted with an electronic tag, this is not a free democratic country, but an authoritarian, police state. Why were our MP’s not more vocal at the time, were they even aware that this legislation was being proposed, did they read or even debate the proposals. A cynic might suggest that MP’s actually like the idea of being able to monitor and control the electorate. 

Members of Parliament have, for the most part, lost the respect of the people and as I have said, this is not just Labour MP’s, although they would probably be in the upper tier. Our members of parliament are seen as out of touch with the people, they have quite clearly spent too much time at Westminster and not enough talking to real people. As a consequence, there appears to be a real and demonstrable disconnect between what MP’s say and how people feel. Labour MP’s rally around the party in fear of losing their seats, rather than acting as constituency MP’s and speaking for the people that have elected them. The number of times I have heard MP’s from all parties say “What people say….”, followed by the biggest load of crap I have ever listened to and, of course, I have never heard anyone say what they are claiming. Is it just me, or do other people feel the same I wonder?

By way of an example of how removed from reality MP’s are, lets take Ed Balls. He was long known as Gordon Brown’s right hand man at the Treasury, always on hand to defend Treasury policies and spout endless figures. Today he is the Minister for Children. But this week, he was quoted as saying that he would love to be the Chancellor and to lead the party someday. Is he for real? He was an integral part of the discredited financial regime that was micro-managed by Gordon Brown, does he truly believe that he will ever be allowed to get his hand on the UK Plc credit card? Out of touch, deluded, there are simply dozens of adjectives that could describe such a disconnect.

But lets ask ourselves honestly, before Daniel Hannan made his speech, how many of us could honestly say that we ‘connected’ or agreed with an MP, not many I suspect? Take David Cameron, his favourite expression is, “what we have been saying all along is….”, oh yes, when Mr Cameron, in the last few weeks maybe, but what have you been doing for the past 12 years? Nick Clegg, when was the last time he said anything interesting, in fact Vince Cable is, perhaps understandably, gaining much, much more airtime. I think part of the problem is we no longer have any, of what I would call, ‘conviction politicians’, instead they either follow the party line or respond to public opinion in a knee-jerk manner, rather than argue their case. The only time we hear an MP argue a case, is when they are having to defend their position, actions, expense claim or must offer up a pathetic excuse for their political party’s actions (or lack thereof). Our members of parliament do not and have not for some time, sounded like us, talked like us, acted like us or looked like us. We, the electorate, are simply seen as a means of getting them into parliament once every 5 years, once we have performed our task, we are thrown away in much the same way as a used condom would be discarded in the trash.

The bottom line is, that unless MP’s start to realise that there is a massive problem out here, then there will be civil unrest. They (the government and MP’s) may even appreciate that this is likely, given some 10,000 Tasers have been ordered and surveillance on the masses is being stepped up a gear. But rather than engage, it appears that most MP’s just want to control, berate, bully and force us to do as we are told. The police have been given unprecedented powers under the auspices of the ”fight against terrorism” and the public must seek permission before they can demonstrate.

Looking at how badly our Government and members of parliament (of all parties) have let the people of this country down over the past decade, it is MP’s that are not fit for purpose, the Parliamentary system that is not fit for purpose and the state tool, the Police Service that is not fit for purpose. What we desperately need in this country is more independent MP’s who can and will keep any government in check. Yes I know that this may lead to a hung parliament, but then who cares? Because we can see what happens when a party gains a significant majority, they just become brazen, authoritarian and ego driven (I can, therefore I will). The only real argument for the current system, first past the post, is that is can provide a significant majority for one party, allowing them to offer a ‘reform agenda’, but look where that has got us with the New Labour reform agenda. Power went to their heads and we have seen our liberty, finances and futures destroyed in a few short years. Thank you Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, New Labour and you weak, good for nothing members of parliament that did not stand up and fight for the people of this country. The vast majority of MP’s are simply guilty of political and personal cowardice….not one of them should be allowed to stand again. Perhaps we should have a system whereby MP’s reach their sell by date after 5 years?

If the people of this country are to regain confidence in the political system, then candidates need to reflect society, the people they seek to represent, no longer should MP’s be selected almost entirely from political activists, union stewards/leaders, Oxford and Cambridge graduates and mates of existing MP’s or leaders. Nor should race, gender or religion play a part in the selection process, positive discrimination is as bad as discrimination. No longer should people, such as Mandelson, be elevated to the House of Lords, just so that they can become a ‘minister’, all ministers should be elected so that they are accountable to the people, the House of Lords is clearly answerable to no-one. Unless MP’s start to take the temperature of the public, listen and react, then I truly believe we will see massive unrest, civil disobedience and a further collapse in our democracy as the state attempts to resist the people by force.

It is, of course, quite possible to disagree with the outcomes I have suggested, but as I stated earlier in this post, when was the last time that an MP said something that you fully agreed with and appeared ‘in touch’ with the people. I suspect most of us will have to think very hard. If MP’s don’t do something about this massive distrust and disconnect, this country could become ungovernable, you only have to look back at history to understand that eventually, when the people fight back, the powers that be soon realise just how weak their positions are and their relative impotence. The masses can only be ruled by consent, not force and I believe we are all getting closer to removing that consent.

SPREAD THE WORD:

A Conservative MP is seeking a second reading for a new Bill, titled ‘Exercise of Reasonable Discretion’. If passed into law, this will allow every public servant, including MP, civil servants, local government officers, the police etc., a legal defence of ‘reasonable discretion’ in any civil or criminal case brought about as a consequence of their actions. All they would have to prove, is that they acted in good faith, this as anyone in the know will understand, is a catch-all defence.

In essence, it could allow MP’s to argue that they made certain decisions, such as going to war, based on advice where they were required to use reasonable discretion, officials entering into multi-million pound contracts which are subsequently cancelled or overrun, will also be able to claim that they exercised reasonable discretion. It is effectively a get out of jail free card for any public servant. Effectively removing accountability and increasing risk, because of course, if there is no effective punishment, there is no need to be careful. We should all shout as loud as we can to ensure that this type of legislation never sees the light of day.

What a pity that there has been so little publicity and therefore outrage at this Governments introduction of a new child profiling tool called ONSET, which will profile our children to determine whether they are likely to become a young offender. This Government has spent an inordinate amount of time, effort and legislative time to ensure that people are not discriminated against based on their gender, sexuality, race or religion and yet, they seek to justify a profiling system that will identify potential child offenders based on their background.

What, you may ask, will they do with this information when they have it? Will they ‘tag’ potential offenders, monitor their movements, track their mobile phone calls, internet habits, email etc? Will they blacklist these ‘potential offenders’ from working in the public sector, or certain jobs, or will they issue a presumptuous ASBO? Does anyone truly believe that State authorities will not use this information for some discriminatory purpose? When did our right to be innocent until proven guilty disappear, perhaps it was with the introduction of the new detention without trial laws? I don’t know, but there is something seriously wrong with society and people in general if they are prepared to allow the State so much power, that they can do whatever they want. Our reluctance to do or say anything is a betrayal of future generations, because one thing is absolutely certain, no government will ever give up these new powers willingly.

What have our local members of parliament been doing when legislation of this type is introduced, perhaps there is a clue in the fact that unless it is Prime Ministers Questions, parliament is virtually empty. Little wonder that contempt for MP’s has turned into outright hatred as they spend more and more time looking at how they can screw their expenses to maximise their earnings, rather than doing what they are paid for. As for the opposition parties, what have they been doing whilst all this has been going on? Their job is to hold the government to account, they too have failed the people of this country.

Keeping a roof over our heads, food on the table and earning a living are logical and understandable priorities, but to ignore other massive issues such as our fundamental right to freedom, liberty and a right to live our lives without an overbearing state is simply parlous. If we cannot enjoy our freedom and liberty, what is the point in it all? Like it or not, the state is pimping off the people, demanding ever more money. The bottom line is, that the State Pimp lives off the backs of honest hardworking citizens, but the State Pimp also knows, that at some stage, the people will rise and ask why Government needs to take over 50% of our earned income in direct and indirect taxation?

To minimise state risk, they must exert more and more control over its citizens and the introduction of ONSET, DNA Databases, call and email monitoring, registration of travel information and so on is giving them precisely that. For those that think this is scaremongering, perhaps they should ask themselves why it is now, that Jacqui Smith has ordered 10,000 Tasers for all front line police officers?

ONSETis the thin end of the wedge. Though I am not advocating the LibDems as a party worthy of our vote, they are introducing the Freedom Act which is designed to roll back some 20 years of increasing state interference in our everyday lives, by repealing legislation. We should all be writing to our respective MP’s and insisting that they support this proposal.

Update: For more information http://www.jrrt.org.uk/uploads/database-state.pdf

In another example of this government paying lip service to the rights and freedoms of the individual, The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, suggests that some 25% of government databases are actually illegal, either under Human Right Legislation or the Data Protection Act. As you would expect from a government that has slowly eroded our liberty and privacy, there is no apology or commitment to put things right, instead we are expected to accept a bland statement as follows: “It takes its responsibilities seriously and will consider any concerns carefully, adapting existing safeguards where necessary.” Take the rebuke the government received in December from the European Courts, in relation to the DNA database, have they done anything about it? No! In fact, the government doesn’t even know how many databases they have!

This year the government will spend £16bn on databases and they are committed to spend a further £105bn over the next 5 years. Has no-one reminded them that there is a deep recession going on? This government has indicated that it will have to raise taxes to balance the books, this includes increasing national insurance by 0.5%, raising income tax to 45% for those earning over £150k and an increase in VAT to 18.5%. This is in addition to the double whammy on fuel duties as a consequence of the fuel escalator and the shafting we were given when this government adjusted the fuel duty to take eliminate the “benefit” of the reduction in VAT to 15%. They will now gain that money back when they increase VAT back to 17.5%, because the duties will not be adjusted.

We are expected to pay additional taxes to this pathetic administration at a time when we must all trim back our costs whilst the government are continuing to spend £billions on unnecessary databases which only service to destroy individual civil liberties and right to privacy. It is the state gone mad. Take one of ‘their’ databases, Onset, this is a profiling tool which examines a child’s behaviour and social background to identify potential child offenders. What? They are now going to use information from ContactPoint and then profile it to work out who tomorrow’s criminal are likely to be. How long do you think it will be before they are using all of the data gathered from the various databases to work out how adults might behave? One thing they do not need a database for is to profile an MP’s likelihood to maximise their expenses, quoting their adherence to the rules, rather than the spirit of the arrangement. It doesn’t bear close scrutiny, yet their couldn’t give a toss what we think, so long as they have claimed as much as they can, without breaking the rules.

But, don’t think that the Conservative Party will do anything to redress these massive state powers that have been ceded to ministers through the introduction of ever more draconian legislation, the Conservatives have said virtually nothing. Cameron hasn’t got the backbone to deal with this issue, no he prefers to talk about “social cohesion” and tell us that we must all accept higher taxes, even though he doesn’t know how much money he could save by curbing public sector excess and waste. Gordon Brown maybe deluded and an idiot, but Cameron is also demonstrating that he is a bit of a prat, because he can’t see how angry the people of this country are, not just with the government, but the opposition who have sat idly by and allowed it to happen.

The reality is the majority of the people in this country are so complacent, they haven’t got a clue that this massive land grab of state power will affect each and everyone of us in the future, irrespective of whether we have done anything wrong. This is so clearly not about fighting crime and terrorism and anyone that believes otherwise is at best, naive and more likely, plain stupid.  No government will ever hand these powers back, so unless we start to fight back now, we will have to accept that each and EVERY aspect of our lives will be recorded and monitored. That is not a free democracy, it is a police state. Me, well quite frankly, I have had enough!

In yet another example of this government burying anything that doesn’t work, the Asset Recovery Agency (ARA) has been abolished and responsibility passed to the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). Yes, the ARA failed to achieve its objectives, having collected just £23m from criminals whilst costing the taxpayer £65m over 4 years, but this is hardly the way forward. All that will happen now is that the seizure of assets gained through criminal activity will receive much less attention and will, eventually, be lost amongst the myriad of other priorities within SOCA. It sickens me when I see failed government initiatives buried rather than being fixed, particuarly when the government basked in the glory of the original announcement. The government statement suggest that this is to “streamline” the work by law and order agencies, but we know the truth, it is simply to hide their failure from the public.

The ARA was originally set up by David Blunkett in 2003 to act as the enforcement arm designed to support the new legislation introduced under the Proceeds of Crime Act (PoCA). At the time, David Blunkett said, “We are hitting organised criminals where it really hurts - in their pockets.” Yet, four year later, this is what Conservative MP Edward Leigh, had to say about ARA: “It was ill-planned and recovered only about a third of its expenditure. Far too few cases were ever referred to it, its management information systems were in a mess, it prioritised cases badly and it underestimated the time it would take to pursue them.”

In an interview with BBC Panorama, David Blunkett said that at this juncture, he would have expected the ARA to be seizing between £500m and £800m a year instead of the paltry £137m siezed this year. Of equal concern must be the fact that a 2007 National Audit Office enquiry found more than £16m had been spent on receivers fees and that in 12 cases the fees amounted to more than the assets frozen, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the difference. This is a clear and utter failure.

What is not lost on me is the irony of this Government’s approach to crime. Even though there is existing legislation in place (PoCA) to target and seize the assets of criminals, which is not working, they continue to introduce even more draconian legislation. However, this time the legislation targets everyone of us, all 61m!

According to the government, in the fight against crime, we must all be spied on and treated as ‘potential’ criminals. We are having every email we send, every text and every mobile phone call monitored and recorded; we must accept that our internet browsing history will be recorded; we must now accept that our travel arrangements have to be registered and recorded, including names (and who we travelled with), addresses, telephone numbers, seat reservations, travel itineraries and the credit card details of travellers; Oyster cards, both in their current format and that proposed, which can track our movements on any form of public transport; ANPR and CCTV cameras that monitor our every move, there are some 4.2m CCTV cameras in the UK, many on the road networks, so our journeys can literally be tracked from camera to camera. ANPR can be used to track individual cars using number plate recognition; ID cards with full biometrics; a massive DNA database; ContactPoint which records every aspect of our children’s behaviour, education and well-being up to the school leaving age…the list just goes on and on. It is as if each and everyone of us is on probation, everything we do, say and write is recorded on at least one Government database.

The bottom line is that the UK IS turning into a Police State, but instead of targeting criminal and terrorists, the Government is going for ’soft targets’, by targeting each and everyone of us just in case we do something naughty. Surely the answer is to target our finite resources on known criminals, the Police know who they are and the same with potential terrorists, the Police and MI5 also know who the majority of them are? The truth is Government’s consistently lie to us. For example, when Margaret Thatcher introduced the Child Support Agency, she made a great play on the fact that its first priority would be to target “errant father” who were not supporting their children, in fact they did nothing of the sort, instead, they went after all those that were paying and simply re-assessed their payments using a ‘one size fits all’ calculation that brought many families to their knees, just so that they could hit targets. This current Government is doing the same thing, justifying draconian, Police State type laws, which will be applied to each and everyone of us, whilst demonstrating an impotence in the utilisation of existing (new) legislation that was supposed to target serious, career criminals.

The State runs the very real risk of turning the majority of people in this country into criminals for some relative misdemeanor, whilst ignoring those that can and should be targeted. Criminalising the majority is not the way to solve major crime, surely even our inept and contemptuous Government can understand that?

Whatever Gordon Brown may have said about the Asset Protection Scheme not being a blank cheque, he is either misguided or failing to be honest with the electorate, you decide. Whilst I was aware that  a proportion of the £325bn (RBS) of “toxic assets” insured by the UK taxpayer would be outside the UK, I had NOT expected it to be the ”majority”. Furthermore, I had not considered the fact that we, the UK taxpayers, would also be liable for exchange rate risks.

Gordon Brown claimed that the banking bailout was not a “blank cheque”, that is utter rubbish, in my view the definition of a blank cheque is one where you don’t know what the final cost will be and there is no cap on your exposure. Could anyone disagree with that analogy? Yet here we are, insuring toxic assets, where our exposure is unknown, the vast majority of the “assets” are overseas and we must accept 90% of any losses as well as covering exchange rate issues at a time when Sterling is dropping like a stone against ALL major currencies.

Granted, when or if we have to stump up cash to cover these losses, no-one can accurately predict the exchange rates, but it would be a very brave man, with the state of our economy, that would envisage that Sterling will be stronger than it is now. Lets face it, this country has massive borrowings, lower tax income and it is expected to be the last of the G7 to come out of recession. That is hardly going to provide any confidence in Sterling, add to that, the fact that we are also printing money and the writing is on the wall for a weak Pound for some time to come.

Unlike the United States where the banking bailout had to be passed through both Houses of US Congress, in this country, Gordon Brown was able to commit money without such scrutiny. That is an incredible amount of power and it ought to have been used with care, but in my opinion, our Government has been reckless. Not only have they failed to complete a proper due diligence before investing our money into the banks, but they have now negotiated an appalling deal to insure toxic assets, much of which are overseas, at a rate of 90% of the loss plus cover for the exchange rate fluctuations. If this is the best our Government could do, then it is a very sad day for politics in general and this Government in particular. The opposition parties are not much better, because they have, through their relative silence, been complicit in the whole thing.

Fair enough, there must be no reward for failure, but conversely there must also be a price to pay for recklessness, a failure of duty and incompetence. We need to start with the bankers and then deal with the politicians, ministers and regulators that have failed in their duty to the public. We can regulate as much as we want, but unless those responsible are brought to book, lessons will not have been learnt and a clear message will go out that the only ‘price‘ that has to be paid is public humiliation. Tell that to our kids and their children who will have to pay the price for this wholesale failure.

Whatever the government tries to tell us, the new travel database has little to do with securing our borders and more to do with controlling and monitoring the activities or each and every British citizen. In fact, with the new telecommunications database, which will monitor every email, text message and mobile phone call, this governments access to our personal data will be akin to a prisoner having a tag fitted, except, it will be on 61m people.

For those that believe the travel database won’t affect them, then think again, as many as 1800 government and private agencies will have access to our personal travel details. Anyone that believes this information will only be used by government agencies with responsibility for border controls is at best naive. Let me give you a couple of examples of what this information could be used for.

If you have children of school age and decide to take them out a week before their school break to save money for your annual holidays, then you should be aware that the travel arrangements will be recorded. The school could then, theoretically at least, access this information and commence proceedings against the parents. Yes, you can argue parents shouldn’t do this, but it is worth nothing that as many as one third of all parents do.

Suppose you regularly go abroad for your booze and fags, these journeys will now be recorded, as will your luggage. As a consequence, if the HMRC deem that you go too often they could seize the goods, seize your vehicle, fine you, prosecute, you or all four!

Maybe you earn air miles as a result of your business or work. If you use air miles or some other voucher to pay for a personal flight, then this will be recorded. How long do you think it will be before the HMRC cotton on to this and send you a bill for this ‘benefit in kind’?

Perhaps you are lucky enough to win an incentive from your company which includes overseas travel or, maybe you have been invited by a supplier for a conference or the like. Strictly speaking, you should ascertain whether or not this would be considered a ‘benefit in kind’, if so, you must declare it on your tax return. If you get it wrong, forget to include it on your return or try and get away with it, HMRC will know, because the details of the trip, including the cost and who paid for it will all be recorded. Do you really think they won’t be looking?

Lets say you have saved up for a trip of a lifetime, or perhaps one of your relatives have contributed to the cost, the HMRC will be able to check the cost of the travel arrangements against your earning and if it is above an accepted average, it could trigger an investigation. Granted, it may be perfectly innocent, but the onus will be on you to prove how the trip was funded, this may mean you having to detail your income and outgoings for

decades. If you have a perfect record AND you can prove it, then you have nothing to fear. If, however, a relative, has gifted you money, whether for the trip, or at some other time, unless it is below the annual gift threshold, then the gift could be subject to tax. If you haven’t paid the tax, you can also expect, at the very minimum, a fine, but they may also prosecute. So, you still think the travel database won’t affect you?

Remember, these new controls will include monitoring how much you spend whilst you are abroad, so if you normally buy a few gifts, electrical items, DVD’s, clothes etc., and you don’t bother declaring them, then think again. Because they will know how much you spent, where and, of course, if you declared these goods when you returned to the UK. How many of the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” brigade can claim to have a perfect record I wonder?

So, if you have never carried out any of the above and you don’t intend to, you are almost certainly in the minority, therefore it may not affect you.

Unless, of course, there is something that I have missed out and you can be certain, that this Government is well ahead of the game. They have even looked at it as a revenue generating scheme by threatening anyone who does not register their travel details with a fine of up to £5,000, as always with this government, it is always stick and no carrot.

For example, this database and UK Border Controls will also start to collect fingerprints, how long before they require other bio-metric data, remember, the Government wanted to include this information on ID Cards, but because there was such an uproar, they are intending to collect it using other means,

in this case, anyone that travels abroad and that is most of us. This Government are just hoping that we are too stupid to notice that they are simply gathering this information via another means. We have seen the government agencies sell our personal data to private companies, one example is the DVLA who have provided parking companies with the name and addresses of vehicle owners, so that they can be hounded for parking fines. How long before they are selling our travel arrangments to airline companies and the like?

Our government consistently lie to us about why they need so much data, constantly harping on about terrorist threats and so on. The reality is, determined terrorists will always be able to get in through our porus borders, they know how to get virgin passport; spying on the travel arrangements of 61m people will NOT prevent terrorists (who may be here anyway) from entering the UK, nor will it stop people being smuggled into the UK. Instead, all it will do is allow the state to terrorise the people of this country. Is this really what you want?

The LibDems, and no I am not a supporter, do at least appear to want to roll back government intrusion with their Freedom Act, lets hope that they will have some success and the electorate will start to understand just how intrusive government has become into our everyday lives.

Even when times are not as tough as they are now, most business people, when asked which tax they resent most, will list ‘employers national insurance’ and business rates (National Non Domestic Rates). I will deal with the former in another post, but business rates is seen as a tax on enterprise, because whether the organisation is making a profit or not, it must pay this “unfair” tax.

Business premises are given a rateable value. The amount of business rates payable is calculated using the rateable value and the multiplier, which is set by the government. Different multipliers are used for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The rateable value is based on the likely annual open market rent for the premises at a particular date. Currently the multiplier for England is set at 46.2%. There is small business rate relief available, but this does not benefit the vast number of businesses because the rateable (market) value has to be below £21,500 in London and £15,000 elsewhere. Even those that do qualify will receive a relatively small amount of relief, if they are lucky, a 25% reduction on the amount payable.

What many people do not realise, although the clue is in the ‘real’ name of the tax, National Non Domestic Rates, is that all this money is collected for central government coffers, by local authorities. The money collected is then pooled together by Central Government before being distributed to local authorities on a pro rata basis to help pay for the local services. In other words it is a Central, Government tax, which is subsequently used to subsidise local services, not based on the amount collected, but some arbitrary percentage of the total determined by Central Government.

The reason so many business people object to this tax is, that it is not a tax based on profit, number of employees or a service provided directly to the business. Instead, it is a tax that must be paid simply for the company operating out of what is termed ’business premises’. It is not even applied equally. For example, a business that has to invest in large capital equipment will need larger premises, therefore they must pay more tax. Similarly, a business that has larger premises to house a larger workforce will also be penalised at a higher rate. No cognisance is taken of whether the company is profitable, how many local people are employed or its indirect contribution to the village, town or city. The tax payable is determined only on a multiplier of the market rate for the premises, the size of the premises is normally determined by the amount that the entepreneurs’ have to invest in capital equipment or people.

Ask any employer and, after their workforce costs, the highest other overhead is the building and they are then ‘taxed’ on this cost at a rate of nearly 50%. Most will tell you that they receive very little in return, they even have to pay extra to have their rubbish collected! Worst still, even though business rates are supposed to include an element of investment in the emergency services, I can provide countless examples where crime against business is considered a very low priority for the police, even if it involves criminal damage, theft or fraud. Crime against business does not figure on the police radar because it is rarely of public concern. Instead it is treated almost as a victimless crime and therefore, most crime against business is not included in government statistics and as a consequence police targets, unless there is a crossover, for example an employer is threatened with a knife.

Many businesses are trapped when it comes to reducing or trimming the costs associated with their premises. For example, they may be on a fixed term lease, or they cannot downsize because the cost of relocation would exceed any financial gain from a reduced rent and business rate cost. Even if they no longer need such large premises because they have downsized, they are trapped into retaining the existing premises and paying a penal ’business’  or enterprise tax simply for surviving.

There is simply no logic in penalising businesses based on the size of their premises, having no regard as to the profitability of that company. For example, a reasonable sized business paying a rent of £35,000 per annum would be expected to pay a further £16,170 in business rates, this would be equivalent to corporation tax on profits of nearly £100,000. How can any government consider that a fair tax? Because the tax bears no relation to income or profitability, it can only be described as an enterprise tax and at a time like this, it is completely unacceptable.

If the government is serious about helping business, then the first step must be to look at any enterprise taxes, the priority has to be business rates, followed by the tax on employment, known as employers national insurance. A failure to look at these taxes at a time of recession will ensure that there are few businesses left to pull us out of the recession. The problem business people have, is virtually every government ‘business or enterprise department’ is staffed by civil servants, mostly career civil servants, who have never worked in, much less run a business. Worst still, even though the civil service brag that they want to encourage people from the private sector to join, the job descriptions and applicant profiles are written in such a way as to exclude those with private sector experience…another classic case of smoke and mirrors.

At a time when the police are targeting any misdemeanor made by a member of the public, it transpires that some of their number are themselves convicted criminals, yet they are still entrusted with the power to deal with the public. This is completely unacceptable, although to be honest, with Jacqui Smith’s track record, I am not completely surprised.

Under Jacqui Smith’s tenure each time the police want more powers to persecute the public they get them, irrespective of what this means to the civil liberties of the individual (Tasers, Prostitution, DNA etc). I am not anti-police, far from it, but if I am going to be investigated by a police officer, he had better have a record as clean as my own. That said, I am firmly against the police gaining ever more powers to spy on every citizen in the country, irrespective of whether there are grounds for such intrusion. It is completely unacceptable and implies that we are all suspects.

Just who are the police serving? Public confidence in the police service will not come by placing ‘plastic’ policemen (PCSO’s) in the front line, whilst experienced officers are searching databases looking for criminal intent or hiding in their comfortable and often, very expensive motor cars. In fact, where are the 160,000 police officers?

According to the LibDems, information gathered using the Freedom of Information Act, indicates that more than half of the 1,063 convictions admitted to by police forces that responded to the FOI request related to speeding or other motoring offences. However, what is particularly shocking, is the fact that some 77 officers have convictions for violence and 96 for dishonesty. How is the public supposed to retain faith in the police force of this country if they retain officers that have been convicted of criminal acts such as these? It is worth noting that the quoted figures are likely to be lower that the actual numbers reported given only 41 of the 51 police forces responded.

According to the LibDems, offences included a serious assault in Durham and four incidents of drug possession in Surrey. What is perhaps more shameful, is rather that condemning, the Police Federation sought to defend these officers. Granted, it is a small number when compared with the 160,000 police officers in the service, but, what is undeniable, is the fact that these dodgy coppers have besmirched the service they are supposed to represent and in doing so, cast a shadow over the police officers that do abide by the law.

In my view, this is shameful, Jacqui Smith should try and do something useful during her term in office, (which, mercifully, is likely to be quite short) and that would be to ensure that these officers convicted of a criminal offence are immediately thrown out of the police service.

As the recession bites, there has been a great deal of publicity surrounding the fact that workers, in fear of losing their jobs, have accepted a shorter working week and/or a reduction in their wages. However, there appears to have been little or no coverage of the cost to the taxpayer associated with these reductions.

Gordon Brown is keen to tell us that there are 500,000 jobs in the UK, even though he will be only too aware that some 40% of these vacancies are for part-time work. My concern is, that a shorter working week or even a reduction in salaries may keep the unemployment figures lower, but there is almost certainly a cost associated with the reduction in income which is not being considered. This relates to income support and/or benefits.

As we all know, the Labour government has introduced a raft of income support benefits and various other allowances that are available to people that fall below a pre-determined threshold. It is, therefore, highly probable, that many of these workers that have had to make a financial sacrifice on their take home pay to remain in work, will now be eligible for some form of benefit payment or income support. It is not my intention to focus on whether or not they should be entitled to these benefits, but whether or not the government is being candid about the additional cost to the taxpayer. Because, whilst the workers will not be registered as unemployed and therefore in receipt of job seekers allowance and benefit payments, they will in fact, be entitled to a taxpayer funded subsidy.

I would argue that government should be completely open with the taxpayer. For example, they must distinguish between how many full-time jobs are available and the number of part-time. This would provide everyone with a number that reflects the true situation rather than introducing false hope. Similarly, when the number of unemployed is published, the government needs to be more open, for example, identifying how many are unemployed, how many are on a disability payments etc., but now, they must include how many people are on a shorter working week and therefore entitled to some form of benefits payment.

This would not change the situation, but it would, at the very least, provide the people of this country with a more accurate picture of the effects of shorter working weeks and/or salary sacrifices. That is to say, if employees opted to go to a 3 day week, rather than have the lottery of losing their job through a comparable reduction in the workforce of 40%, then this loss would not be accurately reflected in existing statistics. For example, if an employer with a 1,000 strong workforce reduced the working week from 5 to 3 days, many employees would be entitled to state benefits or support, but the published statistics would not reflect this. Whereas if they reduced the workforce by 40%, the statistics would pick up the fact that there was a further 400 people unemployed. I would hate to think that this government would be able to massage the true state of our employment situation in the same way as they do everything else!

I live in hope that an enterprising journalist or an MP will, respectively, use the freedom of information act, or a parliamentary question to find out the true state of affairs. Otherwise, we will all be lulled into a false sense of security believing that it is not as bad as it seems, whilst struggling to secure an interview. I hope, at the very least, Alistair Darling has considered this aspect before he presents his budget, otherwise he could find himself missing yet another target. Par for the course when it comes to this government, but increasingly unacceptable.

How could Harriet Harman, rumoured to be vying for Gordon Brown’s job, miss the golden opportunity that presented itself at Prime Minister’s Question time? Now I am no fan of Ms Harman, in fact, that would be an understatement, but who could fail to squirm as she ‘performed’ in place of the prime minister.

It was clear from her replies, and I use that term loosely, that she was neither prepared nor capable of dealing with any questions, least of all those posed by William Hague, a serious bruiser on such occasions. It would probably be too kind to describe her performance as inept, but to all and sundry, it was an embarrassing experience. Miliband was unable to contain his amusement, whilst Straw, Darling and others looked incredibly uncomfortable. You could almost hear them in unison saying ‘when will this be over’. It makes you wonder whether there ought to be a deputy for the deputy PM. Lets face it, I have seen better, more polished performances from children at their annual nativity play…and yes, I mean it.

They do say that if you give someone enough rope, they will hang themselves and I suspect that those in the ‘Stop Harriet Campaign’, were more than happy to hand it to her. A first year student would know how important it is to prepare before you present or accept questions. Harman clearly failed to do this, worst still, this was in front of her fellow MP’s and the television cameras. If that is not clear evidence of a bad judgement call, I don’t know what is? Failing which, it could just be the arrogance of office, but one thing is for certain, she has demonstrated that she is unlikely ever to be a suitable candidate for Labour leadership. After all, we know that New Labour like polished performances, even if they lack must substance, in Harman’s case, it appears that she has neither.