Taxpayer-funded extremism

Time to ask who the real fat-cats are

According to latest officials, the taxpayer is footing the bills for trade union militancy to the tune of millions; yet another hangover from 13 wasted years under Labour

The major trades unions about to go on mass-strike to protect their golden-nested privileges appear to enjoy major taxpayer funding. Strange, thought I. Isn't that why they have members, thought I? Well strange or not - the latest hangover from the 13 years of a labour regime show that £19m of taxpayers hard-won pay has been directed into the hands of the likes of Bob Crow. 

Surprised? Why? You should all know that that is typical Labour arrogance when in power. They are the peoples party don't you know, and 'us' working taxpayers just should shut it, vote red and pay our dues. And in return? Why we get mass-TUC strike action. Funding by yours-truly of course!

But what is more irritating still is that some of our hardest pressed Whitehall departments (take Justice) is actually diverting most resources to trade union work! Take an example of this outrageous situation from the Daily Telegraph:

At a time of financial strain on the criminal justice system, the Ministry of Justice spent more than £6 million on staff working full- or part-time on union activities in 2008/9 – the equivalent of more than 150 prison places. It is also the only major department that has failed to disclose its union bill for the past two years.

Surely it is time to ask some questions about this state of affairs? Can it be justified that taxpayers money is directed to footing trade union bills?

Being fair to the trade union fans out there, there is the argument that workers must have the financial viability to go on strike action. This, they claim, remains a vital tool in the belt of working-class rights. But I put it to you all that strike action is a blunt, irrelevant, crude and largely useless tool. Indeed, strike action far from aiding the plight of the workers actually serves to undermine the very causes it is used to uphold and further.

Take examples, the BA cabin crew strike has not succeeded in furthering the employment opportunities or augmented the long term job security of its members. No. What it has done is lose their employers a huge chunk of a highly competitive market. What is has succeeded in doing is losing BA millions of pounds of profit, which would otherwise have been invested into the firm which employs these striking workers. Their strike action has weakened their job security, undermined the firm which employs them - and lost themselves a substantial level of consumer loyalty. Great...

Yet the workers of the world are far from powerless, it is merely the case that the tools of power-play has evolved. Evolved beyond the crudities of the likes of the trade union movement. We no longer need the services of the Bob Crow-figures. 

The real influence is now in sensible cooperation between management and worker. During the course of 2008/9, due to the financial collapse the car industry in Britain showed how it should be done. The workers representative body met with the car companies employing them and arranged for a period of hiatus and temporary work-contracts, and in return the employers sacked not one person. Today everyone is back at work, back on full-time contracts and the firms making cars in Britain are enjoying a weak pound for export. That is how it ought to be done. A new era of cooperation (maybe even industrial cooperatives, like they do in Germany!!)

This is the kind of sensible and grown-up behaviour and interaction which government should be encouraging. Therefore government should cease funding the trade unions altogether. That entire £19m figure should be spent on schools, on reducing the scale of cuts to the Justice department and so forth. You get my drift, there are other more pressing matters for that money. And incidentally - I bet if we asked the voters what they'd spend that money on, it wouldn't be the trade unions...this is still a democracy right?

Change the tax status quo!

It isn't pleasant to see just the extent to which Scotland is getting a raw deal within the status quo. The question is this; is separation or fiscal autonomy the more desirable course of remedy?

Scotland isn't getting a fair share of resources within the UK status-quo set-up. Just take a look across the spectrum and we can see this is accurate. BBC gets 9% of its revenues from Scottish licence fee (or poll-tax) payers; but Scotland receives less than this amount returned to it in BBC expenditure. Or oil revenues, Scotland has been subsiding the rest of the UK with its oil and gas wealth for decades. But now it seems that we can add defence spending to this list too, and this compels any decent Unionist to examine the current set-up.  

Given these increasing examples of Scottish taxpayers getting less back than they are putting in, it does raise an interesting question. Namely, how can we solve this, without dissolved our United Kingdom? 

The answer seems to me to be the requirement to dissolve the unitary tax system within the UK. This would also mean dissolving the unitary tax-code too before anyone asks. And it is possible without compromising the strength of the UK; just take a look at how the USA copes with devolving tax raising powers and tax-code powers to states. It hasn't hallmarked the ending of that union, but strengthened it.

We have arrived at the state of play where it is no longer acceptable or tolerable for Scotland to continue getting this raw deal within the status quo. But obviously separation will serve no practical interests, not when the rest of the world is coming closer together. I put it to you all that fiscal autonomy, or even more radical yet outright fiscal federalism is the only recourse to save this union. 

Lincoln said in relation to the American Union that a house divided could not stand. Well he happened to be right, and we Brits need to realise that Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland require tax autonomy to maintain the bonds of unification. Equitable share of the national pie cannot any longer be conducted from London; not when Scotland is receiving such a raw deal. Gods only know how shabbily treated regions within England get from the same London-centric Unitarian system of tax and regulation!

To strengthen the UK we need fiscal autonomy or outright fiscal federalism; not just for Scotland, Wales, and N.I but the regions within England as well. Localism in tax and tax-coding could also lead to tax-competition to keep it low, and could also enable deprived regions in the North to wield a fiscal stick to combat geographical benefits in the deep-south.

It makes sense, and it happens to be the only game in town given the unsustainability of the current status quo. 

We need full fiscal union

The Greek Prime Minister Papandreou has survived the vote of no-confidence, and will likely see the austerity package implemented in the coming week; but this alone isn't enough to improve euro-fortunes


It has become abundantly clear that a Greek default would lead to the domino affect, impacting on Italy, Portugal, Spain, Belgium. Naturally from any European perspective you care to mention; French, British, German or the PIGS themselves; this isn't an option. Put it directly: Greece cannot be permitted to default. It would represent another Lehman Brothers-style collapse, with ripples threatening the fragile Pan-European recovery to date.

Don't take my word for it, check out the facts. According to yesterday's Times report the UK alone is in a total of £415bn worth of exposure to Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, France and Germany. It becomes stark, a Greek default would destroy our own near-non-resistant recovery while it is still in the cradle. So don't bother listening to call-me-Dave posturing about "not one more penny" being given out to support Greece; because it is total nonsense. The UK will contribute to a Greek bailout, via the IMF mechanism (which we contribute toward).
Besides, let us not be bellicose about this; but call-me-Dave hasn't exactly been tripping the lights-fantastic when it comes to his 'iron-clad promises'. How many U-turns have their been up-till now? Not just domestically but in relation to the European political sphere. We saw the 'copper-bottomed pledge' to hold a referendum on Lisbon (abandoned), and then there has been the Irish-bailout contributions.

 Let me put it to you this way, if we had to bailout Ireland due to our own national self-interest; why is Greece any different? The short answer is that it isn't different at all. If anything it is worse for us due to our exposure to the continent. Cameron knows this, but is deliberately playing up on the ideological europhobia in order to prepare the way for a modest vault-face. He knows the UK will have to aid the eurozone. It will probably take a number of forms, like political support.

What does this mean? It means that full fiscal union is required to take the euro to the next logical step, and Cameron will be obliged to support such moves for eurozone members. With 40% of all of our exports going to eurozone countries (Daves own figures btw), it means he will have to support calls to improve the internal structures of the single currency.

Dave may be posturing now, but don't listen to him. His bellicose rhetoric isn't up for scrutiny. But mind you ... this coalition isn't exactly bothered with the economic ruin they are leaving before them are they? Cut, cut, cut! And who cares for the serial economic knee-capping ... well ... we'll all be knee-capped if the euro isn't reformed with British aid.

UK arrogance?

Is it arrogant for the PM; or any PM; to say that the Falkland Islanders should determine their own fate?


The year is 1964, the location Belize. The UK unilaterally withdrew following the MacMillan 'Winds of Change' speech years previous. It resulted in a (still ongoing) dispute between Honduras and Belize. The lesson which we Brits supposedly had to learn from this, and many other decolonising experience, was that unilateral withdrawal isn't always the best thing.
The consequences for Belize (or 'British Honduras as it was until 1973) has been continued regional territorial troubles.At no point during UK withdrawal was anyone concerned with the wishes and aspirations of Belize-residents. No one asked their views or wishes for the future. At no point did anyone think to put the question to them: 'independence or unification with Spanish-speaking Honduras'. All that mattered for Britain at the time was obeying external pressure to withdraw.

So when I hear critics condemning David Cameron for his comments in the House of Commons I get a trifle confused. He argued that Britain would stay in the Falklands only so long as the native residents themselves wished for it. He ignored populist pressures, and US hostile-neutrality and held firm. Britain was not going to repeat previous decolonising mistakes, and ignore the wishes of the locals.

Yet he has been criticised. And forgive me if I do not understand it. For anyone to insist that Britain withdraws  due to external pressures, is frankly foolish. It will not end the regional tensions and border problems. It will simply create fresh ones. The only mandate which can end disputes, which can put to bed these kinds of territorial clashes is surely that of the people? Without wanting to sound too much the radical, we must let the people themselves decide. This must be the only guiding principle for British policy regarding the Falkland Islands.

Teachers strike is unreasonable

Life expectancy is rising and if you turn 60 this year, you can expect to live 10 additional years compared to 30 years ago

Lets compare

The GMB and NUT are on strike, apparently they do not like the government pensions reform proposals. But, let us examine this issue calmly, before we react. The proposals aim to increase the pensions contributions by individual members, which for some sits currently as low as 1% contribution. The reform proposals aims to increase individual contributions by around 3%.

Are such proposals unreasonable? Can a 3% rise in individual member contribution be acceptable?

Well for a start, the teachers enjoy job security and employment perks which simply does not exist for most other professions. According to the Daily Politics today, teachers who are members of the GMB and NUT unions have seen 13% real terms pay rises over recent times. Add to that the fact that the teachers also benefit from 13 weeks of holidays a year (18 weeks for private sector teachers), and they can retire at 60. Surely, they can suffer a tightening of the belt?

So to return to the point, is a 3% increase on individual contribution to their final salary pensions really all that unreasonable? Note, final salary pensions

Naturally the reforms run deeper than asking teachers to contribute slightly more to their own pensions, it also seeks to replace final salary schemes with career averages. Is this reasonable? Yes, after all the rationale behind giving public sector employees such generous pension schemes is dead. They no longer have to suffer lower wages than in the private sector, they have stronger unionisation (therefore, job security)...and right now they also enjoy superior pensions. This is far from reasonable. The coalition is right to insist on reform.

Greater individual pension contribution, the introduction of career averages by 2020. These reforms aren't really all that dramatic; even France has begun to walk down this road. It is time for the GMB, NUT and teachers to start talking to government about how to reform this unsustainable situation.

Why the NUT and GMB are going on strike during negotiations with government concerning these reforms is equally baffling.

Newspeak, Doublespeak and British 'democracy'

The leaked samples from Ed Balls private papers during his time in the treasury only go to show that voters have a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea

A key treasury official wrote in 2006; when Brown was desperate for Blair to go; that the "Cabinet needs to believe not that these numbers should go up, but that it's acceptable for them to be this low." With the benefit of hindsight we can clearly see that New Labour was staggeringly incompetent with the economy. In a classic Labour-style mentality they spent all the money when times where good. And now that they are bad? No money left to borrow, and we're stuck with 1930s style fiscal conservatism.

What lessons can we learn from the past 14 years then?

Well to begin to learn lessons the voters need to be more honest about their political past. As in 1997 no one could be found admitting to voting Tory for 17 years; we find in 2011 that no one voted New Labour or LibDem. This collective amnesia really is not helpful at all.

To challenge what went wrong, we need to understand how the politics of spin was able over the last 30 years to convince the collective middle-class intelligentsia that everything was okay, when it really wasn't. How did Thatcher win re-election in 1987 following the Westlands affair? How did Major defeat Labour in 1992? Can it really be as simple as poor opposition politics and luck? No, it comes down to the machine of politics. Back then the 'machine' which served to convince the educated that black was white and the sky was green was Saachi and Saachi with not-a-little of Bernard Ingham. In New Labour era politics it was Mandie and Alistair Campbell. The thread is the same, they spun their stories and they convinced the voters.

Asking voters (those honest enough to own up that is) of why they voted New Labour in 2005 the answer usually gravitates around the critical question of economic competence. Why vote Labour in 2005? 'Investment vs Cuts', the old narrative. All of it lies, deliberate and intentional. The Balls leaks proves it.

Throughout the 14 years of the New Labour 'project' we were repeatedly told that they (Labour) were 'investing' in the economy. But these leaks really just show that all of those faceless cabinet ministers, all of those backbench hacks, knew that spending during the boom years was too high. But the machine of professional manipulation roles on.

It continues today, both at Holyrood and Westminster. Be under no illusions. There aren't any great political heroes, rivalries and villains out there anymore. It is all an old-boys club, all too intimate. Fain political contempt, then nip a wee drinkie at the club with the same chap 'after hours'. Those papers? Just phone up the editor the next day and cut a deal, a leak here for a news story dropped there. After all, the professional media is part of the political Establishment now anyways.

It is freedom and democracy apparently, where words hold no value or meaning, and objective truth is dispensed with. Eric Blair was really on to something when he penned all of those works under his literary persona...

Enough provocations and deal on the issues

Is No.10 listening anymore?

Downing street has launched yet another provocative action aimed at getting a rise out of the EU institutions, but is this a deliberate attempt by Cameron and the coalition to shift the issues that are current in focus?


Bad news week


The news in the media has not been good recently for the coalition. It is becoming increasingly clear that nothing short of a major rebalancing of the economy away from financial sectoral dominance, and Keynesian spending can save the economy from double-dip. Add to that chaos as Cameron seeks to reign in Ken Clarkes' progressive law and order reforms (Cammie craves to 'lead' by following perceived public opinion it seems).

It all seems to be bad news week for this coalition. So what do they do? Hold firm against Daily Mail & Labour diatribes of 'going soft' on crime and continue to reform toward rehabilitative justice? And do they quietly prepare an economic plan 'B'?
No, they are trying to change the issue in the media. They wish, it seems, to have everyone in QuestionTime audiences talking about EU budget rises. After all, everyone hates the EU right?

Whether they do or not is hardly the point though. The point is that the coalition are deliberately trying to provoke a news-storm as they push for an EU rise of 3.6% as the EU parliament push for a 5% rise. Yeh, 'cos that 3.6% rise is really sticking it to the man ...

Really, this the ultimate in Bernard Jenkins-style early Tory spindoctoring. And one assumes (with good reason) that the electorate are actually smart enough to realise this. The EU is not an issue people care about, not when the economy is showing worrying signs of another slowdown. And they also do not care about whether the EU gets a 5 or 3.5% rise. The vast majority probably do not think that the EU parliament should be getting a rise at all while the risk of double-dip remains on the cards.

Why does this coalition seem to be running from the central issues of the day? Is it that I, and other Tory 'wets' (personally I hate that term), were right all along? Yes. I think so. Keynesian economic investment, vigorous rebalancing toward export-growth and the breakup of the megabanks. But is anyone listening in the elite-cabal in the coalition?

Israel, and DC's biggest mistake

David Cameron has really shown his green ears in government when he shows such blatant hostility to the Jewish community in the UK


Cameron is well known for committing to PR exercises which have a chance of placing him in the limelight of mainstream opinion. This is probably the most critical weakness in an otherwise capable and able prime minister, but there it is. This tenancy to chase perceived mainstream opinion in what I shall reluctantly term 'Blair-style' has now arguably placed him in a position which can only be described as 'hostile' to the UK Jewish community. Its interests, political views.
This is most immediately demonstrated when his withdrawing as patron of the Jewish National Fund.

It seems that "time constraints" have prevented this PM from continuing to have his name on a letter head. Since 1979 every British PM has been 'patron' of the Jewish National Fund, no longer. Cameron it seems is spooked by a rising anti-Israeli political view among middle class Guardian reading feminists. So much for an iron man for the iron challenges of today...

More seriously however this action has sent alarm bells ringing throughout the UK Jewish community, especially since the JNF is the largest Jewish organisation. We can see throughout the internet Jewish or Jewish-affiliated blogging sites (all of them entirely serious and respectable) absolutely horrified by Cameron's naivety. For example there is Pamela Geller of 'Atlas Shrugs' who argues this is the return of anti-Jewish political action by a British political establishment who brought us Willie Hague and his Israel-busting cutaway remarks.

Cameron has committed himself to a course which can only lead to alienation from his own grass-roots. The Tory Party has always been the party for the Jewish minority in the UK, with many of our all-time greatest politicians coming from their community. For Cameron to attack them, our own supporters, is disgraceful. I voted for a Conservative Government and a Conservative leader; instead I got the LibDems and Cameron.

And they wonder why political apathy is on the rise?

FMQs: what is Goldie on about?

Why all the opposition?


I just do not understand it. When it became apparent that the Scotland Act was being read so as to enable Scots criminal court cases to be decided on appeal outside and above the High Court; I was astonished. Not, mind you, out of some rather irrelevant nationalist pride. Instead it was out of a sense of injustice. Injustice given the fact that Scots Tory peers back in 1998 such as Lord John Mackay had been assured that the current situation would not arise. Yet it has, and it seems that many of my fellow Tories (but not all) aren't actually all that bothered.

So, when I ask 'why all the opposition'? I am not directing it at the SNP (for once), but rather the outgoing leadership of my own Party.

Naturally you shall always have unitarists, who seek a unitary system for the UK in all things. One such person would be Dilettante; a very astute and patriotic unionist (who I am rather fond of). However, I'd like to point out why we must defend the independence of the Scots legal system; from an anti-unitarist mentality.

Firstly, Scots Law was promised its complete and full independence in the 1707 act of Union. Since then this has meant that all Scots Criminal cases have been subject to the High Court in Edinburgh as the highest court in the land. Up until now, for criminal cases at least, there has never been a higher court of appeal. So on what basis should we be allowing the UK Supreme Court to interpret poorly written Scotland Act legislation to second-guess this principle of over 300 years since Union?
Annabel Goldie asked First Minister Alex Salmond in FMQs today why he is so determined to restore this said independence for Scots criminal law. She said "if something isn't broke, don't fix it". And indeed she was right, but not for the reasons she gave. If something isn't broken, indeed we should not seek to change it; thus we actually should be working with the SNP on this matter.

Last time I checked, the status-quo was that the UK Supreme Court would not adjudicate or in any way interfere with the judicial status-quo between Scots Law and English Law. This strange situation only arose with the Cadder Ruling not that long ago which cited extremely vague wording in the Scotland Act to enable it to overrule High Court decisions relating to interpretation of the ECHR. If Goldie wants to argue that there is no reason to change what works; why is she keeping in the company of constitutional radicalists?

And radicalists they are, anyone, who seeks to support the replacement of the High Court with any other as the highest court of appeal for criminal cases.

Just thought I'd share these thoughts with you following a rather quiet and boring week for me, and having just finished watching FMQs.