Between the Devil and the Deep

"He doesn't know either."

For the past couple of weeks Vince Cable and Nick Clegg have been nipping round television and radio studios trying to defend the indefensible on university fees.  They seem to have forgotten they benefitted from a free university education.

During the election Nick Clegg insisted he would first abolish tuition fees, then changed his tune a little by saying he wouldn't increase them.

Now he seems stunned that the young voters who promoted him to the post of Deputy Prime Minister are angry and his response is that the proposed system is fairer than the current system.  Also Mr Clegg's unable, or unwilling, to say if he's even going to vote for the proposal, although Vince Cable thinks he may abstain, even though he's the man in charge of implementing the fee increase.  What a ludicrous situation to ask his Tory allies to vote for his proposal but not to do so himself.

The LibDems are between the devil and the deep on this issue, but if the increase in student fees can be halted by popular resistance so too can the whole programme of public service cuts. The aftermath of the vote should be interesting.

Tweet

Brown's Lasting Legacy

Many commentators are saying Gordon Brown will be fondly remember in the history books as a good chancellor and a Prime Minister who handled the 'global' recession effectively.

I disagree. Many of us political watchers have been saying for some time that he was introducing a 'scorched earth policy' and it would appear we were right (again).

Billions of pounds in public money was committed in the run-up to the election campaign in a deliberate strategy to boost Labour's chances at the ballot box and sabotage the next government. This week the chancellor, George Osborne, will prepares to reveal details of an initial £6 billion of cuts to help reduce the £163 billion deficit.

The 'black holes' already unearthed include a £13 billion tanker aircraft programme; £420m of school building contracts signed off by Ed Balls just weeks before the election was called; the £1.2 billion 'e-borders' IT project for the immigration service; the multi-billion pound cost of decommissioning old nuclear power plants and a £600m computer contract for the new personal pensions account scheme rushed through by Labour this year. It will still cost at least £25m even if it is cancelled.

Gerald Howarth, the new Tory minister for defence procurement, disclosed that the financial pressures on the MoD were even graver than he had been expecting. "The appetite for new programmes exceeded the capacity of the MoD's stomach, particularly in the run-up to the election," he said. "In the past few months there was a rush of new orders. What we are going to have to do is ensure the equipment programme matches the military need."

Nothing there that should surprise any of us is there and that's only the beginning. George Osborne intends to announce a freeing of spending on new IT projects, stopping most public sector recruitment and renegotiating deals with government suppliers. He has a very difficult task to sort out the mess and the pressure is on him from many areas - not least Vince Cable who wanted his job.

Transport for London, controlled by Boris Johnson, has bought out the shareholders of subway contractor Tube Lines for £310m. Mr Johnson said that the deal freed London Underground and private contractors from 'the perverse pressures of the Byzantine PPP structure."

Should Scotland manage to negotiate the right to borrow finance, I wonder if they will rid us of these exorbitant PPP and PFI contracts created by the last labour/libdem administration. It would be money well spent in the long term if the contracts cannot be renegotiated, which seems to be the case at present.

Gordon Brown's legacy for the UK will be one of not saving during the good years and spending extravagantly during the bad. I won't mention the selling of our gold, the robbery involving pensions, the loss of the 10p tax band and the billions given by DFID for projects which appear dodgy to say the least. I've no wish to be blamed for causing anyone indigestion on a Sunday morning.

source

Tweet

LibDems Lose the Plot

What is it about the Liberal Democrats that makes me feel sorry for them - I can't quite put my finger on it. Perhaps it's because the Scottish libdem bloggers are a pleasant bunch and are quite a cohesive force in their criticisms of Scottish politics.

However, today's announcement that the 'rich' are to be taxed much more in order to take 300,00 poor out of the tax bracket is just so ludicrous it makes the libdems look like they desperately need a lesson in economics.

Vince Cable, their Media Celeb, has recently admitted he was wrong about the Lloyds TSB/HBOS takeover and I'm sincerely hoping he'll admit to being wrong about this, although listening to Nick Clegg on radio, I 'hae ma doots' that Vince will break the party line.

The proposal is a property tax which targets properties over £1m, on the assumption that the owners are 'rich'.

"We have seen the super-rich pouring their money not into job creating businesses but into acquiring mansions,” he said, as he turned his fire on bankers, businessmen and the Shadow Cabinet’s former members of the Bullingdon Club.

Yes he has a point there, but what they should be proposing is a complete overhaul of the banking system to stop banker's recent behaviour ever happening again and he should be proposing a new taxation system as the present one allows certain big business companies/people to avoid taxation.

But to go for people who own homes valued at £1m and over is telling those who can afford to live in such a property that it will cost them more. Running a large house is expensive and those who can afford to own one are, in many cases, preserving buildings which may well either be sold to developers or demolished to make way for another concrete tower.

I know people who have homes in this bracket and the value is usually because they live in areas which can demand, what I consider, silly prices. My friends are certainly not 'rich' but what is termed nowadays as 'asset rich'. Paying a few thousand pounds more a year to stay in their homes (which they have worked hard for all their lives) could see them having to sell up and moving to a smaller property. Why are people like that being forced to make such a choice? I thought the libdems were all for choice, but this proposal leaves no choice. Well that's not quite true; the choice is pay up or move to a cheaper home.

Why didn't the libdems support IDS's paper which was issued last week? That makes sense to me. Raise the non-tax level to £12,000 and have a standard rate of tax for everyone. Easier to collect and calculate and then perhaps the Inland Revenue could spend more time investigating the big boys who avoid tax, but at the same time encouraging those who have the ability to earn larger salaries that they are welcome in the UK.

Who make the laws that allow tax avoidance? You're right - politicians. Governments have created a layer of tax accountants because of the complex system and never ending new legislation and regulation.

So libdems, this proposal makes me pleased I'm not a libdemer because all it's going to do is discourage people from buying larger properties, unless they are filthy rich of course, then a few thousand pounds is petty cash and at the same time make the older generations of this country feel very insecure because many know they cannot pay more out of their pensions.

Doesn't do a lot for today's pensioners does it? Those pensioners who have worked all their lives and managed, through many sacrifices to to achieve a comfortable home. Now the libdems want more money from them when their pensions pots have been raided by pathetic Westminster legislation, which dare I say, there was little if any protest from the libdems during debates against the measures.

Pity they couldn't support the tory proposals or even suggest they would have talks with the tories. You can read IDS's proposals here. I'll be accused of being a real right-winger with this post but I make no apologies for supporting Ian Duncan Smith's paper. It just makes sense along with the SNP's policy of taxation based on income not the size or value of your home.

Source: Times

Tweet