The latest poll for the European elections has put the Conservatives at the top with over 29% and the British National Party (BNP) at the bottom with just 5%. Yet following a recent call from the Archbishops Sentamu and Williams of York and Canterbury respectively to boycott the BNP, you’d think they were up there with the Conservatives. Consequently, much has been said of whether the nationalists are actually a threat to our democracy, but very little about what kind of threat is posed by the Church telling people who to vote for two weeks before an election.
It is one thing for a political organisation to take sides in an election, but as the officially recognised religion of the United Kingdom, the position of the Anglican Church is particularly tenuous. After all, its Archbishops are handpicked by the government, its Bishops sit in Parliament and, most importantly, the Head of the Church is also the Head of State, the Queen.
In the nineteenth century its power was so immense that anyone who refused to swear an oath to the faith itself was barred from holding any public office. In 1926, they attempted to intervene in the coal miners' strike, prompting then Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin to ask how they would like it if he referred the revision of the Athanasian Creed to the trade unions. Even as recently as two years ago, they attempted to de-rail the Equality Act, outlawing the discrimination and harassment of homosexuals.
If the Church continues to undermine the sovereignty of the people by taking sides in political debates and challenging laws drawn up by their elected representatives, they will risk dividing the loyalties of their own followers, whose numbers are already dwindling. In the best case scenario, they will render themselves irrelevant and undo the funding and support for all their charitable works from which society derives a great benefit. In the worst case scenario, they will trigger a constitutional crisis normally only the stuff of die-hard republicans’ dreams.
Perhaps the single most important reason not to boycott the BNP, however, is that it doesn’t work, as Labour minister Margaret Hodge would surely testify. In 2006, she publicly declared that 8 out of 10 white voters in Barking might support BNP council candidates, after which 11 of them were duly elected. Rather, the way you beat the BNP is not by raising their public profile through needless scaremongering, but by giving the electorate a good reason to vote for somebody else instead.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
The Cyprus problem: Why British property owners should give up their villas
Over the last five years they have spent almost £1m fighting to keep a villa that cost £170,000 to build and have even enlisted the support of Cherie Blair on the way. The press have accused the Cypriot government of exploiting an innocent couple for political gain and Sarah Ludford, MEP for London has condemned the ruling for jeopardising the entire peace process. But are they right?
First, a little background: Cyprus as a legal entity is a single country known as the Republic of Cyprus and is a member of the EU and the UN. In reality, though the government only has sovereignty over the southern half of the island. Northern Cyprus is run by a de-facto administration that declared its independence after Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, forcing an estimated 200,000 Greek Cypriots to flee from their homes. However, to this day, it is recognised only by Turkey and the sale of properties seized from Greek Cypriots is considered illegal under international law.
As a result, when Meletis Apostolides, a Greek Cypriot refugee, discovered that his family home had been sold off to the Orams, he sued. After hearing his case, the Supreme Court in the Republic of Cyprus ordered the couple to demolish their villa, return the land and pay compensation. However, as the ruling could not be enforced in the north, he invoked an EU law that allows a judgement made in one member state to be enforced in any other. So, Apostolides sued the Orams in the UK and his case was eventually referred to the ECJ, culminating in last month’s ruling.
So, why the condemnation? The main argument is that the division of Cyprus is a political problem in need of a political solution, one that the Greek Cypriots squandered by rejecting the 2004 UN re-unification plan and by refusing to sign up to the North Cyprus Property Commission. To now seek retribution through the courts is disingenuous at best.
The problem with this argument is that it rests on one crucial misconception: that Cyprus is a divided island whose two constituent parts can’t resolve their differences. This is not the case. As the UN and EU have consistently noted, Cyprus is a single country, half of which has been under occupation since the Turkish invasion in 1974. While it is true that the invasion was prompted by a Greek inspired coup d’etat, that coup failed after just seven days. Yet 35 years on, the Turkish occupation remains.
Skipping forward to 2004 and the UN ‘reunification’ plan; two of its core tenets were that Turkey would maintain an indefinite military presence in Cyprus and that most Greek Cypriot properties would not be handed back. So, unsurprisingly the plan was supported by the Turkish Cypriot community and rejected by the Greek Cypriots, to whom the plan signified the mere formalisation of their dispossession.
As for the North Cyprus Property Commission, here is what an advice website for people looking at property in northern Cyprus said about it: “Under the current system, any compensation will be limited and capped, esdeger or ‘exchange’ land [land seized after the invasion] is immune from restitution (i.e., it cannot be given back)... and what’s more, the TRNC Immovable Property Commission has no Greek Cypriot control or membership... This means it is now safer than ever to buy property in North Cyprus.” So, a great deal for a potential buyer, like the Orams, but not so much for the original owners of the land it was meant to help.
Those people need a way to exercise their rights and if this is not a job for a court of law, then I don’t know what is. Furthermore, the same Cypriot court that ordered the Orams to demolish their villa has also forced Greek Cypriots to allow their Turkish counter-parts to reclaim their old homes in the South.
The harsh reality of the situation is that neither side has any incentive to embrace a political solution right now. Anyone who expects this to change spontaneously will end up waiting for a very long time while the ordinary citizens caught up in the middle do all the suffering. If you don’t believe me, just ask the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Friday, 27 March 2009
Glenda Jackson lets the cat out of the bag in public debate
Last night saw the parliamentary candidates of the newly formed Hampstead and Kilburn constituency battle it out in their first public debate. But what did we hear?
We heard Glenda Jackson admit that New Labour only courted the City to win an election and Chris Philp demand that any MP found to be breaching Parliamentary rules on expenses be expelled by their party. Ed Fordham’s speeches suggested a more appropriate slogan for his campaign would be ‘vote Fordham, get Cable’ and Magnus Nielsen of UKIP’s strategy was to blame everything from the Great Plague to the sinking of the Titanic on the European Union.
So, to start with Labour’s Glenda Jackson. She was clear and confident and even managed to use attacks on Labour’s economic record as an opportunity to outline how her party’s policies would help people in need now. However, when taken to task by a member of the audience about New Labour’s relationship with the banks that plunged the country into today’s recession, she replied “of course we cosied up to the City, we wanted to win an election”. In other words, ‘we may have turned a blind eye to corrupt business practices, wasteful lending and the eradication of most of this country’s wealth with knighthoods, peerages and government jobs for the worst offenders, but it was all worth it because we won.’ It went downhill from there as she was forced to attack her own party for fostering greed in society and voting against the proposed reform of the Parliamentary expenses system. She then went on to champion the creation of the Healthcare Commission, which recently exposed the tragic case of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust, even though the government long ago decided to abolish it by 31st March.
As for the opposition, Chris Philp of the Conservative party would have been more impressive had he not been reading from his notes every time he stood up to speak. He seemed incredibly nervous, but nevertheless managed to deliver all his attacks on Labour which sounded eerily like something you might expect to read in a Conservative party press release. All of David Cameron’s greatest hits were in there: “Gordon Brown is to blame for the recession...we would scrap ID cards and use the money to drive down public debt...Labour ministers are corrupt”. Then he said something which ‘Dave’ may not have been all too happy about. While desperately trying to feign an air righteous indignation, he insisted that if he had things his way any Member of Parliament found guilty of fiddling their expenses would automatically be ejected from their political party. Does this mean we can look forward to the expulsion of Derek Conway and Caroline Spelman from the Tory party if Mr Philp gets elected?
Ed Fordham, the Liberal Democrat’s candidate, stood his ground well, effectively laying down the gauntlet to the Conservatives and Labour who would like people to think that there are only two parties in this election. However, he could have used somebody pointing out he had three opponents last night and not just Chris Philp. That said he was at his best when talking about the NHS and his biggest attack of the night was on the lack of accountability of foundation trusts which he angrily denounced as a sham. However, when taking on his opponents over the economy, he relied a touch too heavily on his reverence for the Lib Dem Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable (not that it was at all misplaced) when the audience was literally crying out for clear examples of how he would do things better.
In the event the debate ever got too serious – and there were some heated moments – Magnus Nielsen of UKIP was on hand to provide some light entertainment. His solution to the recession was to stop regulating banks all together and leave it to the shareholders to sort out the recession in accordance with the principles of freedom and democracy (because they’ve done such a bang up job already no doubt). I tried to ask him what the government should do when shareholders start exercising their democratic right to sell, sell, sell as share prices continue to tumble, but alas the Chairman never got around to calling on me. Indeed it seemed there was only one thing he wanted the government to do: withdraw from the European Union. However, the next steps after that were slightly sketchier. Perhaps they are outlined in the book he was very unsubtly trying to plug throughout the debate. Any chance the author was a one Magnus Nielsen? That said, he was still eloquent, personable and oddly likeable, even though I am about as likely to vote for him as I am to score the winning goal in this year’s FA Cup final.
So, an eventful night all in all, but no clear winner. However, the candidates still have plenty of time to capture the affections of the voters before the next election, but possibly not the guy who stormed out halfway through shouting “you’re all f***ing boring”.
We heard Glenda Jackson admit that New Labour only courted the City to win an election and Chris Philp demand that any MP found to be breaching Parliamentary rules on expenses be expelled by their party. Ed Fordham’s speeches suggested a more appropriate slogan for his campaign would be ‘vote Fordham, get Cable’ and Magnus Nielsen of UKIP’s strategy was to blame everything from the Great Plague to the sinking of the Titanic on the European Union.
So, to start with Labour’s Glenda Jackson. She was clear and confident and even managed to use attacks on Labour’s economic record as an opportunity to outline how her party’s policies would help people in need now. However, when taken to task by a member of the audience about New Labour’s relationship with the banks that plunged the country into today’s recession, she replied “of course we cosied up to the City, we wanted to win an election”. In other words, ‘we may have turned a blind eye to corrupt business practices, wasteful lending and the eradication of most of this country’s wealth with knighthoods, peerages and government jobs for the worst offenders, but it was all worth it because we won.’ It went downhill from there as she was forced to attack her own party for fostering greed in society and voting against the proposed reform of the Parliamentary expenses system. She then went on to champion the creation of the Healthcare Commission, which recently exposed the tragic case of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust, even though the government long ago decided to abolish it by 31st March.
As for the opposition, Chris Philp of the Conservative party would have been more impressive had he not been reading from his notes every time he stood up to speak. He seemed incredibly nervous, but nevertheless managed to deliver all his attacks on Labour which sounded eerily like something you might expect to read in a Conservative party press release. All of David Cameron’s greatest hits were in there: “Gordon Brown is to blame for the recession...we would scrap ID cards and use the money to drive down public debt...Labour ministers are corrupt”. Then he said something which ‘Dave’ may not have been all too happy about. While desperately trying to feign an air righteous indignation, he insisted that if he had things his way any Member of Parliament found guilty of fiddling their expenses would automatically be ejected from their political party. Does this mean we can look forward to the expulsion of Derek Conway and Caroline Spelman from the Tory party if Mr Philp gets elected?
Ed Fordham, the Liberal Democrat’s candidate, stood his ground well, effectively laying down the gauntlet to the Conservatives and Labour who would like people to think that there are only two parties in this election. However, he could have used somebody pointing out he had three opponents last night and not just Chris Philp. That said he was at his best when talking about the NHS and his biggest attack of the night was on the lack of accountability of foundation trusts which he angrily denounced as a sham. However, when taking on his opponents over the economy, he relied a touch too heavily on his reverence for the Lib Dem Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable (not that it was at all misplaced) when the audience was literally crying out for clear examples of how he would do things better.
In the event the debate ever got too serious – and there were some heated moments – Magnus Nielsen of UKIP was on hand to provide some light entertainment. His solution to the recession was to stop regulating banks all together and leave it to the shareholders to sort out the recession in accordance with the principles of freedom and democracy (because they’ve done such a bang up job already no doubt). I tried to ask him what the government should do when shareholders start exercising their democratic right to sell, sell, sell as share prices continue to tumble, but alas the Chairman never got around to calling on me. Indeed it seemed there was only one thing he wanted the government to do: withdraw from the European Union. However, the next steps after that were slightly sketchier. Perhaps they are outlined in the book he was very unsubtly trying to plug throughout the debate. Any chance the author was a one Magnus Nielsen? That said, he was still eloquent, personable and oddly likeable, even though I am about as likely to vote for him as I am to score the winning goal in this year’s FA Cup final.
So, an eventful night all in all, but no clear winner. However, the candidates still have plenty of time to capture the affections of the voters before the next election, but possibly not the guy who stormed out halfway through shouting “you’re all f***ing boring”.
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Lib Dem councillor in Camden resigns over mental health problems
Camden is facing yet another by-election following the resignation of Belsize councillor Chris Basson. The Lib Dem member, elected in 2006, announced his decision in a frank statement to the Ham and High newspaper after being made aware of an investigation into his elements of his private life by the paper.
I have no idea what the issues relating to Mr Basson's private life were and, as long as they relate only to his private life, see no reason why I or anyone else should know. I am particularly sympathetic as Mr Basson suffers from bi-polar disorder, otherwise known as manic depression and, according to his statement in the Ham &High, had been hospitalised several times following a series of nervous breakdowns over the last 3 years.
It is unclear whether it was the investigation or the councillor's persistent mental health problems that led him to conclude that he could not longer carry on in his position. I agree that serving as an elected representative while suffering from an illness serious enough to warrant frequent hospitilisation is untenable. However, if it transpires that the stress caused by Ham & High's investigation into his private life was the straw that broke the camel's back, then they will have far more to answer for than Mr Basson.
The only question that remains is whether or not councillor Basson, having been diagnosed way back in 1996, should have told his constituents about his illness when running for election 10 years later. I believe that a politician's private life only stops being private when it begins to clearly and directly affect their performance or conduct as a public official. I very much doubt that Mr Basson would have run for election if he even had an inkling that his illness would force him to resign just three years in. So, if the sufferer himself had no idea what effect his condition would have on his performance as councillor, how could his constituents have been reasonably expected to make such a judgement?
I think the councillor has done the right thing by his constituents as while it would have far more convenient for each of the rival political parties if he simply announced that he would not stand again next year, he decided that if his constituents were to be effectively represented in the town hall, he would need to be replaced now. I just hope that the residents of Belsize remember that when they go to the polls. I also hope they remember that the policies and ideals that earned councillor Basson their vote in the first place will only again be found in the Liberal Democrat candidate in the impending by-election.
I have no idea what the issues relating to Mr Basson's private life were and, as long as they relate only to his private life, see no reason why I or anyone else should know. I am particularly sympathetic as Mr Basson suffers from bi-polar disorder, otherwise known as manic depression and, according to his statement in the Ham &High, had been hospitalised several times following a series of nervous breakdowns over the last 3 years.
It is unclear whether it was the investigation or the councillor's persistent mental health problems that led him to conclude that he could not longer carry on in his position. I agree that serving as an elected representative while suffering from an illness serious enough to warrant frequent hospitilisation is untenable. However, if it transpires that the stress caused by Ham & High's investigation into his private life was the straw that broke the camel's back, then they will have far more to answer for than Mr Basson.
The only question that remains is whether or not councillor Basson, having been diagnosed way back in 1996, should have told his constituents about his illness when running for election 10 years later. I believe that a politician's private life only stops being private when it begins to clearly and directly affect their performance or conduct as a public official. I very much doubt that Mr Basson would have run for election if he even had an inkling that his illness would force him to resign just three years in. So, if the sufferer himself had no idea what effect his condition would have on his performance as councillor, how could his constituents have been reasonably expected to make such a judgement?
I think the councillor has done the right thing by his constituents as while it would have far more convenient for each of the rival political parties if he simply announced that he would not stand again next year, he decided that if his constituents were to be effectively represented in the town hall, he would need to be replaced now. I just hope that the residents of Belsize remember that when they go to the polls. I also hope they remember that the policies and ideals that earned councillor Basson their vote in the first place will only again be found in the Liberal Democrat candidate in the impending by-election.
Street lights petition success
I am delighted to announce that the petition to improve street lighting on Goldhurst Terrace and Aberdare Gardens has been successful and that we will have new and improved lights by May this year.
The council's community safety team responded recently after viewing the petition at a recent Safer Neighbourhoods meeting and emailed me to confirm the decision.
The petition will still be formally submitted at the next full council meeting in March in order to secure a public confirmation and to address several outstanding issues that have not yet been addressed.
May I just say a heart-felt thank you to all those who supported the petition and made it possible including local residents' association CRASH and the Hampstead and Kilburn Liberal Democrats in particular.
My biggest thanks though go out to all the residents who took the time to talk to me on their doorsteps and sign the petition. My faith in community activism has very much been reinforced by their crucial support.
It is only a shame that the petition could not gain support from both major parties in Camden with the local Conservative councillors refusing to add their support to the petition which they deemed an "inefficient" use of their resources.
Thank you all.
The council's community safety team responded recently after viewing the petition at a recent Safer Neighbourhoods meeting and emailed me to confirm the decision.
The petition will still be formally submitted at the next full council meeting in March in order to secure a public confirmation and to address several outstanding issues that have not yet been addressed.
May I just say a heart-felt thank you to all those who supported the petition and made it possible including local residents' association CRASH and the Hampstead and Kilburn Liberal Democrats in particular.
My biggest thanks though go out to all the residents who took the time to talk to me on their doorsteps and sign the petition. My faith in community activism has very much been reinforced by their crucial support.
It is only a shame that the petition could not gain support from both major parties in Camden with the local Conservative councillors refusing to add their support to the petition which they deemed an "inefficient" use of their resources.
Thank you all.
Sunday, 8 February 2009
What Turkish PM really meant at Davos
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been hailed as a hero in his home country after he exploded at Shimon Peres during the recent World Economic Forum at Davos over the number of Palestinian casualties following the recent Israeli incursion into Gaza. Before storming off stage in protest at not being given enough time to talk by the moderator, he said to the Israeli President: "When it comes to killing - you know killing very well. I know how you hit, kill children on the beaches."
While many people across the world naturally disagree over whether the Israeli offensive was justified or not, what I find hardest to believe is that Erdogan in any way shape or form meant what he said. Even more surprisingly perhaps though is that Shimon Peres later appeared to forgive the Turkish PM for his very public onslaught, insisting that relations between Turkey and Israel had not been affected, despite never even receiving an apology.
Why do I find it so difficult to believe Erdogan meant what he said? Predominantly because his outburst ran contrary to the role Turkey seems to be carving for itself as the neutral moderator of all Middle East conflicts, but also because he has not one leg to stand on when it comes to illegal occupations and the killing of innocent civillians.
How can Prime Minister Erdogan come out with such a tirade against Israel and then invite the leader of Sudan round for tea while he is being investigated by the UN for genocide in Darfur? How can he castigate President Peres for his country's reliance on the use of force while launching incursions into Iraq to take out Kurdish separatists? And how can he condemn the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and simulataneously defend his own country's illegal occupation of Cyprus - the closest international parallel there is to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?
The answer is that far from being a loose cannon, Mr Erdogan is in fact a masterful strategist, calculating his tone, his target and his timing perfectly. In short, by launching into a full blown attack on Shimon Peres, he managed to take advantage of the crisis in Gaza to align his country's strategic priorities with those of his electorate.
Desperate to confer further public legitimacy on his premiership, and see off the secular elements of the Turkish political and military establishment who fear and suspect the Islamic credentials of him and his party, Erdogan knows how important the upcoming local elections are. A poll taken of Turkish public opinion for a global survey in July last year on Israeli-Palestinian relations showed Turkey to be one of only three countries, out of the 18 surveyed across the West and the Middle East, who heavily favoured the Palestinians. Once the invasion of Gaza began to dominate the headlines, he doubtless saw an opportunity to score big points with the voters.
Taking a closer look at Turkey's relationship with its neighbours, it also became clear that Erdogan had nothing to lose in taking a swipe at Israel, once its stalwart ally against the surrounding Arab countries, hence President Peres's subsequent insistence that there were no hard feelings between the two countries. Since Iran, with its nuclear weapons programme, re-emerged as the biggest threat in the Middle East, Turkey has exploited its cordial relationship with both Iran and the United States to establish itself as the peacemaker of the region upon whom eveyone, including Israel, is now pinning their hopes on peacefully resolving the brewing cold war with Iran.
Turkey has made itself invaluable to the United States and Iran, desperate to avoid a war, invaluable to its Arab neighbours desperate to avoid the regional instability that another war in the Middle East would cause, and also invaluable to Israel who are vulnerable to Iranian funded rocket and terrorist attacks, yet powerless (in spite of their posturing) to do anything about it. Thus Erdogan has been freed to open his arms to the Palestinians as so many of his people demand, even offering Hamas a state reception following their election victory in 2006.
In other words, that's what Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan really meant at Davos.
While many people across the world naturally disagree over whether the Israeli offensive was justified or not, what I find hardest to believe is that Erdogan in any way shape or form meant what he said. Even more surprisingly perhaps though is that Shimon Peres later appeared to forgive the Turkish PM for his very public onslaught, insisting that relations between Turkey and Israel had not been affected, despite never even receiving an apology.
Why do I find it so difficult to believe Erdogan meant what he said? Predominantly because his outburst ran contrary to the role Turkey seems to be carving for itself as the neutral moderator of all Middle East conflicts, but also because he has not one leg to stand on when it comes to illegal occupations and the killing of innocent civillians.
How can Prime Minister Erdogan come out with such a tirade against Israel and then invite the leader of Sudan round for tea while he is being investigated by the UN for genocide in Darfur? How can he castigate President Peres for his country's reliance on the use of force while launching incursions into Iraq to take out Kurdish separatists? And how can he condemn the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and simulataneously defend his own country's illegal occupation of Cyprus - the closest international parallel there is to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?
The answer is that far from being a loose cannon, Mr Erdogan is in fact a masterful strategist, calculating his tone, his target and his timing perfectly. In short, by launching into a full blown attack on Shimon Peres, he managed to take advantage of the crisis in Gaza to align his country's strategic priorities with those of his electorate.
Desperate to confer further public legitimacy on his premiership, and see off the secular elements of the Turkish political and military establishment who fear and suspect the Islamic credentials of him and his party, Erdogan knows how important the upcoming local elections are. A poll taken of Turkish public opinion for a global survey in July last year on Israeli-Palestinian relations showed Turkey to be one of only three countries, out of the 18 surveyed across the West and the Middle East, who heavily favoured the Palestinians. Once the invasion of Gaza began to dominate the headlines, he doubtless saw an opportunity to score big points with the voters.
Taking a closer look at Turkey's relationship with its neighbours, it also became clear that Erdogan had nothing to lose in taking a swipe at Israel, once its stalwart ally against the surrounding Arab countries, hence President Peres's subsequent insistence that there were no hard feelings between the two countries. Since Iran, with its nuclear weapons programme, re-emerged as the biggest threat in the Middle East, Turkey has exploited its cordial relationship with both Iran and the United States to establish itself as the peacemaker of the region upon whom eveyone, including Israel, is now pinning their hopes on peacefully resolving the brewing cold war with Iran.
Turkey has made itself invaluable to the United States and Iran, desperate to avoid a war, invaluable to its Arab neighbours desperate to avoid the regional instability that another war in the Middle East would cause, and also invaluable to Israel who are vulnerable to Iranian funded rocket and terrorist attacks, yet powerless (in spite of their posturing) to do anything about it. Thus Erdogan has been freed to open his arms to the Palestinians as so many of his people demand, even offering Hamas a state reception following their election victory in 2006.
In other words, that's what Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan really meant at Davos.
Monday, 5 January 2009
A layman's perspective on the economic crisis
Following the spew of recent recovery plans presented by the Conservatives and Labour, there are just a couple of things that strike me, as a layman whose 'expertise' are limited to a B in AS level economics several years ago, as slightly ill-conceived. Indeed, a cynical individual might even think each party's plans had more to do with winning the next election than solving the current economic crisis.
It seems to me that any viable recovery plan must address the following two issues: How to get banks lending and people spending without indulging the wreckless behaviour that got us into this mess in the first place; and how to minimise the number of jobs and houses lost in the meantime.
To start with the Conservatives, they want to protect banks who have lost billions of pounds over the last year through their dodgy dealings by giving them £50bn more through an unconditional taxpayer funded national loan guarantee scheme. Then, when they inevitably bankrupt themselves again, they want to let them and all the businesses and jobs they will take with them go to the wall. Furthermore, they want to do this in spite of the fact that the government tried almost exactly the same thing last year by offering banks the oppportunity to swap their debts for £50bn worth of government bonds. It didn't work then, why should it work now?
At the same time, they want to scrap all taxes on savings so that savers, like me, aren't punished by the rest of the nation's profligacy, and they want to pay for it by curtailing public spending which could well be essential to creating new jobs. Question: what am I meant to save if I'm unemployed? Also, do the Conservatives really think the reason that more people don't save their money and more savers don't spend theirs is because of the tax burden? What I look out for as a saver are interest rates and they day they were slashed, so were my future savings. The Conservatives incidentally supported those interest rate cuts in order to get more people spending, so can someone explain to me how they can now claim to be friends of the saver? In the meantime, someone else needs to explain to David Cameron what an ISA is.
As for Labour, I would be more encouraged by their bold new plans for saving the world -ahem- the economy, if everything they had tried so far hadn't failed so catastrophically. Their plan to kick-start lending was to prop up banks with taxpayers money and then stand idly by while they resumed business as usual by making a mockery of interest rate cuts, dutifully passing them on to savers and treacherously denying them to mortgage holders. Their plan to get people spending was to combine a meaningless cut in VAT with a substantial increase in National Insurance contributions and taxes. Now, they have come up with another grand plan to create a hundred thousand new jobs whilst presiding over the loss of several hundred thousand more. All the while, their leader is looking as happy as Larry as he is probably the only person (aside from debt collectors) whose job has become safer since the recession started.
Another thing that strikes me as odd for a Prime Minister who loves farming things out to committees to report on, so he can avoid having to take a firm stand on any of them, is that he has yet to assemble a cross-party parliamentary committee to focus purely on the economic crisis; it's causes and how best to get out of it. Instead, all we see are these two parties, one of which will be chosen to form a new government by next year at the latest, competing to come up with the most popular solution yet. How about they each put a few of their best people in a room and not let them out until they come up with a solution that actually works? Failing that, Vince Cable, the only person making any sense at the moment, should just be made Chancellor and be done with it.
It seems to me that any viable recovery plan must address the following two issues: How to get banks lending and people spending without indulging the wreckless behaviour that got us into this mess in the first place; and how to minimise the number of jobs and houses lost in the meantime.
To start with the Conservatives, they want to protect banks who have lost billions of pounds over the last year through their dodgy dealings by giving them £50bn more through an unconditional taxpayer funded national loan guarantee scheme. Then, when they inevitably bankrupt themselves again, they want to let them and all the businesses and jobs they will take with them go to the wall. Furthermore, they want to do this in spite of the fact that the government tried almost exactly the same thing last year by offering banks the oppportunity to swap their debts for £50bn worth of government bonds. It didn't work then, why should it work now?
At the same time, they want to scrap all taxes on savings so that savers, like me, aren't punished by the rest of the nation's profligacy, and they want to pay for it by curtailing public spending which could well be essential to creating new jobs. Question: what am I meant to save if I'm unemployed? Also, do the Conservatives really think the reason that more people don't save their money and more savers don't spend theirs is because of the tax burden? What I look out for as a saver are interest rates and they day they were slashed, so were my future savings. The Conservatives incidentally supported those interest rate cuts in order to get more people spending, so can someone explain to me how they can now claim to be friends of the saver? In the meantime, someone else needs to explain to David Cameron what an ISA is.
As for Labour, I would be more encouraged by their bold new plans for saving the world -ahem- the economy, if everything they had tried so far hadn't failed so catastrophically. Their plan to kick-start lending was to prop up banks with taxpayers money and then stand idly by while they resumed business as usual by making a mockery of interest rate cuts, dutifully passing them on to savers and treacherously denying them to mortgage holders. Their plan to get people spending was to combine a meaningless cut in VAT with a substantial increase in National Insurance contributions and taxes. Now, they have come up with another grand plan to create a hundred thousand new jobs whilst presiding over the loss of several hundred thousand more. All the while, their leader is looking as happy as Larry as he is probably the only person (aside from debt collectors) whose job has become safer since the recession started.
Another thing that strikes me as odd for a Prime Minister who loves farming things out to committees to report on, so he can avoid having to take a firm stand on any of them, is that he has yet to assemble a cross-party parliamentary committee to focus purely on the economic crisis; it's causes and how best to get out of it. Instead, all we see are these two parties, one of which will be chosen to form a new government by next year at the latest, competing to come up with the most popular solution yet. How about they each put a few of their best people in a room and not let them out until they come up with a solution that actually works? Failing that, Vince Cable, the only person making any sense at the moment, should just be made Chancellor and be done with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
