ITALY CHALLENGES EU TOO !

While the European Union tries its best to destroy the United Kingdom for daring to leave, the Italians also seem to be embarking on a course designed to lead them into serious conflict with their masters in Brussels.

Defying the European Commission, the government in Rome has decided to stick to its published budget plans even though they've been threatened with punitive action by those who rule the EU. Italy has long had fiscal and monetary problems and has been the recipient of EU largesse in the past in return for cutting spending, but this time they seem to have had enough. The Italian government has determined, against instructions from Brussels, to go ahead with a plan which, according to the EU, threatens to lead to even higher national debt and, consequently, a further decline in financial stability. From the Italian side, the deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, has said that targets for the deficit at 2.4% and growth at 1.5% are necessary and will be pursued.

Once again, the EU is in conflict with one of its major economies. At the bottom of the issue is the irreconcilable imbalance between sovereign nations and a federalist Union which demands adherence to centrally determined policies which support a centralised financial system. Whether or not this current crisis leads to any changes within the European Union, those changes have to come eventually. Either there must be a single European super state or the bloc must take a step back and relax its control over its member. 

My money's on a break up though when it will come is another question.

IGNORE THE BEEB, IT WAS A GOOD BUDGET.

Yesterday's budget speech by UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond included tax cuts, freezing of duties and significant investment. One would think that this was good news for most of our population, but not if you listen to the BBC.

Coverage of the budget by 'Auntie' has been entirely negative, concentrating on 'what if ?' scenarios, the most important being 'what if there is no deal on Brexit ?' Despite the substantial tax cuts and additions to the budgets for universal credit and the NHS, those invited to comment have been overwhelmingly niggardly in their remarks. It smacks of a left wing organisation being very selective in order to ensure that its own views are very much to the forefront.

Assorted Labour and Liberal politicians seem to have been given carte blanche to criticise the Chancellor at length, while a mish-mash of single mothers, nurses, OAPs and others have been trotted out to witter on about how there is nothing like enough to meet their wants and desires. It seems that the vast extension of state support which has been introduced in recent years has caused many people to forget that they have a primary responsibility to look after themselves and that they should not rely on the state to pay for their profligate ways.

The NHS absorbs an ever-increasing amount of money while wasting much of it on useless or cosmetic treatments; it commits resources to IVF for women who have simply not bothered to have children until late in life - why ? Money is pumped into a black hole for mental health services, an area which is largely subjective in nature; why was there so little mental illness when I was a boy but so much now ? It seems to me that much of it is invented by those who profit, that is, the assorted 'professionals' who provide the services they claim are so urgently needed but without there being any real evidence for.

If their presence on the BBC, and in other media, is truly representative of their numbers in society, there must be more single mothers now than at any time in our history; why, when sex education is everywhere and contraception is so readily available ? Are these women simply too stupid to understand the basic biology or to take the simplest of precautions ? Rather than expecting the state to pay for the resulting offspring, where are the fathers ?

Rather than debating these and other issues, the BBC simply puts forward those who bleat for more, in the fashion of Oliver Twist but with far less reason. We are blessed with the wisdom of John McDonnell, would be Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would bankrupt our country but who is allowed to make the wildest of statements virtually unchallenged. Only a few days ago, he was allowed, by, I think, Nick Robinson to get away with saying that spending £90bn on assorted privatisations would be 'cost neutral'. Cost neutral, according to this Machiavellian of the Left, because the cash outlay would be matched in the government's accounts by the purchased assets; no mention was made of the source for the £90bn needed, nor of the need to finance and repay it, and Robinson made no effort to challenge McDonnell on this point, surely a major omission. In common with his Labour colleagues, McDonnell makes the most unsustainable claims and goes virtually unchallenged, while any and every Conservative statement on the economy is questioned, debated and criticised ad infinitum.

The budget was a decent one and the continuation of some small borrowing for a year or two more is of little consequence when set alongside the vast and ballooning deficit left by the previous Labour government and its financial wizard, Gordon Brown. Inevitably, it has taken a long time to bring the economy back into balance but there is now real light at the end of a very long tunnel; those who demand more public spending now, are the same as those who demanded it in the past and where did that lead ? Long before the financial crisis of 2007/8, the seeds had been sown by governments around the world, not least our own which had set upon a path of financial profligacy and state support the like of which had never before been seen. Allowing Corbyn, McDonnell and their friends to have the keys of Nos 10 & 11 would not just return us to those days, but to the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s when the lights went out, rubbish and corpses piled up and Chancellor Healey was forced to go on bended knee to the International Monetary Fund for help.

Once the matter of Brexit has been settled, which it inevitably will be by some fudge or other, the economy will bloom, aided by Chancellor Hammond's relative generosity. At that time, the prospect of a Corbyn led Marxist government will begin to recede into the distance where, with luck, it will simply whither away. 

SOCIAL CARE FUNDING : USE MY HOUSE !

With the next Budget due very soon, there have been the usual speculations about what steps Chancellor Hammond might take in order to boost the popularity of the Conservative government. As usual, most of the speculation is likely to be nothing but the imaginings of the fevered minds in the media, but some suggestions may be closer to the mark.

One of the ideas suggested has been that the Chancellor may look for ways to transfer resources from the elderly to the younger generation who are currently less than enthusiastic about the Conservative Party. It's been suggested that there could be some form of tax increases that would only affect the elderly though how realistic, and politically acceptable, any such move would be is questionable.

One of the main reasons for the failure of the Conservative election campaign was their suggestion of using the resources tied up in property to pay for social care in old age; the idea, as presented, proved electorally disastrous. For some reason that I can't really understand, it has become an accepted fact that 'the family home' is somehow sacrosanct and can't be touched. Government has even added weight to this notion by providing some inheritance tax exemptions for family homes, quite illogically in my view.

People who were able to save during their lifetimes traditionally did so for the purpose of being able to live a reasonably comfortable old age. Savings may have been as money in the bank, investments or even insurance policies, though for most, by far the most significant saving was their family home. Paid for out of their income over many years, their home was their principal asset and, as such, was realisable in the event of financial need. No more, it seems. The home is now protected to be passed on to subsequent generations who have done nothing to earn their good fortune.

If Chancellor Hammond really wants to transfer resources from the elderly to the young, he needs look no further than to a reversion of this crazy approach. My home belongs to me and I can see no logical reason for it's value not being used to fund any social care needs that I may have in old age. I see no logical reason why my home should be passed on, tax free, to the next generation when it is that generation that is then expected to pay for my social care costs - it's nonsensical.

Assets that are accumulated during a lifetime are not for the purpose of passing on but as a hedge against old age and infirmity. The Chancellor should remove the inheritance tax exemptions that currently apply and make it clear that social care costs are the responsibility of individuals, with appropriate safeguards and limits in place. Taxes could then be reduced, largely benefitting the young, one of those taxes quite possibly being inheritance tax itself which is currently levied at a penal rate of 40%, and this on assets which have been accumulated out of already taxed income, too.

That our tax and benefits system is a mess is something that everyone knows. If Chancellor Hammond wants to make a name for himself, he should do something about it, and tackling the stupidity that surrounds houses and the funding of social care would be a good place to start. The policy proposed in the Conservative election manifesto was right all along.

SELF-EMPLOYED SHOULD STOP WHINING.

There's been a huge furore about Chancellor Hammond's proposal to increase National Insurance contributions for the self-employed from 9% to 10% and then 11% by April 2019. As well as being accused of breaking a manifesto promise, Hammond is being painted as an oppressor of these supposedly wonderful and hard done by people.

While the question of manifesto promises may or may not be an issue, the matter of the self-employed being 'put upon' deserves more consideration than has been the case so far, at least by the media. In truth, the self-employed receive huge tax advantages not available to the employed and also now receive most of the same benefits. How are they 'hard done by' ?

It is said that the self-employed receive no holiday pay or sick pay, something which is blatant nonsense. What they do is to build an additional amount into their basic charges to allow for the fact that they expect to have holidays and, perhaps, some days of sickness. They are also permitted to set a variety of expenses and costs against their income tax bill; items such as clothing, cars, travel costs, office equipment and materials and even the costs associated with rooms in their homes can be offset against tax, something which the employed can do none of.

While the employed make a contribution of up to 12% of salary in respect of National Insurance and their employers usually make a further contribution of 13.8%, the self-employed have historically paid far less, most recently just 9% plus £2.80 per week; part of the Chancellor's package includes the fact that the small  weekly payment is being discontinued. There are certain benefits to which the self-employed do not have access but does that really justify paying less than half of the National Insurance paid by the employed and their employers PLUS having a vast array of tax-deductible allowances ?

Of course it doesn't. The self-employed choose their status, pay less National Insurance and receive considerable tax advantages. They can choose when to work and when not to work, unlike the employed. Basically they have it easy, far too easy in many ways and they should stop whining about a minor increase in the contributions which they make and which still leave them far better off than most of the employed.

EU REFERENDUM : THE SKY WILL FALL IN, SAYS CHICKEN LICKEN.

Yawn !

Thank heaven the referendum is not far away now. Yesterday, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, teamed up with one of his Labour predecessors, Alistair Darling, to tell us more horror stories about what might happen in the event of the British people voting to leave the European Union. As usual from the 'Remain' campaign, it's a long list of frighteners.

According to these 2 economic giants, a 'Brexit' vote would mean an emergency Budget with the most terrible effects on us all. We'd have massive tax rises, huge cuts in public services, particularly the highly sensitive NHS, but also education and the police, and all be much worse off as our economy crumbles. These pseudo-predictions are, of course, based on the same negative assumptions as the forecasts issued by other Government directed bodies, pro-EU politicians and establishment organisations, and are every bit as debateable.

Former Chancellors of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson and Norman Lamont, plus former Conservative Party leaders Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Howard, have all condemned this invented picture of the future saying that it displayed "startling dishonesty" and was "born of desperation". Quite clearly, it is designed to frighten voters into doing what they're being told by those who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, from which they benefit massively.

George Osborne and David Cameron have nailed their colours to the mast and know that their political futures are in the balance. Cameron has already said that he will not lead his party into another General Election, so his political future is already limited unless, of course, he expects to follow Tony Blair's example and become some sort of international political guru, paid insane amounts of money by organisations such as the European Union for doing very little. A vote for 'Brexit' would certainly upset this particular apple cart.

In Osborne's case, 12 months ago he had solid expectations of becoming the next leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister; today, this ambition has been blown apart and his only chance of any sort of future position in British politics is for there to be a vote to stay in the EU. Even then, he has so damaged his reputation within his party that there will be huge opposition to him and it could well be that, whichever way the vote goes, his position will, very quickly,prove to be untenable. Osborne's career in politics is surely over.

Amidst the lies and hypocrisy, one question remains supreme. Do we want to govern ourselves and make our own decisions, laws and rules, or do we want to let a load of faceless and largely anonymous people from across Europe do it for us ?

VOTE LEAVE !!

TIME FOR BRITAIN TO STOP THE GRAVY TRAIN.

Why the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union is a mystery to me.

 

In order to join this largely socialist, and even communist, organisation, the UK was required to cut most of its trading links with its Commonwealth allies, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Instead, we were tied to a union which imposed ridiculous trading arrangements on its members and which has continuously expanded its sphere of operations, not to mention the extent of its bureaucracy.

 

Today, the European Union is a bloated and vastly inefficient organisation dedicated to imposing its socialist philosophy across the continent. Its policies are largely backward-looking, maintaining highly unprofitable practices in farming and fisheries at the expense of developing new tecnologies, and promoting the most damaging of employment policies in pursuit of a socialist utopia that never did and never will exist.

 

The UK's interests are not well met by those of the countries of continental Europe and certainly not by those of the more easterly nations. In fact, the UK's interests have been positively damaged by the vast influx of migrant workers from those eastern European countries and more are soon to follow as the next tranche, from Bulgaria and Romania, will be able to come here unfettered, from January 2014. Many of those who have already come here have taken jobs previously carried out by British workers, have enjoyed the same state benefits as thos paid to workers who have lived here all of their lives, and have sent many thousands of pounds back to their own countries, thus stripping resources out of the British economy. This cannot possibly be in the UK's best interests and it is time we stopped it.

 

It seems to me that the current impasse over the EU's grossly extravagant budget demands is a perfect opportunity for Britian and others to impose some order in the chaos that is the EU. The UK is one of only 7 or so countries which are net contributors to the EU's financial pot, while around 20 countries are net recipients of funds. Inevitably, this latter group are in favour of an increased budget, meaning more money for themselves, while the former are less enthusiastic. The French, in typical fashion are both in favour and opposed, depending on which specific elements of the budget are under discussion; they favour a budget cut but want their own farming subsidies protected, while demanding a cut in the UK's rebate. All very messy.

 

More and more, the UK finds itself at odds with the demands of the EU, the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights, discrete organisations that feed off of one another in their attempts to impose outdated socialist philosophies on all of their member states. More and more, we are left in a state of impotence as ludicrous judgements are handed down or rules imposed; our own government and courts are no longer supreme but are subservient to their masters in Brussels and Strasbourg. This has to stop and the budget stalemate points the way out.

 

If David Cameron has any balls, he would tell his 'colleagues' in the EU that enough is enough; the UK is cancelling all of its contributions to the Union with immediate effect and until they come to their senses, meaning until they produce a properly audited set of accounts for the last 20 years and until they bring their practices up to date. Furthermore, he should be telling the ECHR that the UK will, in future, look upon its judgements as no more than advisory and that the UK Parliament will be the final arbiter in all matters affecting the UK. In the event that these positions prove to be unacceptable to the other member nations of the relevant organisations, Cameron should give notice of the UK's withdrawal from membership within 12 months but, of course, he will do none of this; he will, instead, be another Neville Chamberlain, eventually returning from some meeting in Brussels waving a meaningless and useless piece of paper while his opponents celebrate.

 

Michael Fabricant, a Tory MP, has suggested that Cameron should attempt to forge an alliance with UKIP in advance of the next General election, an alliance which would see UKIP candidates standing aside in marginal seats in return for a guarantee of a refendum on EU membership; Nigel Farage, for UKIP, has put up 2 metaphorical fingers to this idea, rightly so in my opinion. The Tories have already reneged on one promise to hold such a referendum and there is no reason why they would not do so again; UKIP would have nothing to gain and everything to lose from such an arrangement. The people of Britain would also lose the ability to vote for the only party which stands four-square in its opposition to the assorted European insitutions.

 

UKIP is a far from perfect organisation but is the only real hope of salvation for the people of the UK. It is UKIP that we should all vote for whenever the opportunity arises and, in particular, in the elections to the European Parliament in 2014; a resounding vote for UKIP then would set alarm bells ringing throughout the corridors of Brussels and Strasbourg.