Labour learn an Expenses lesson!

That Gordon Brown and the Labour Party even tried to push through legislation that would have kept MP expenses secret from the taxpayer showed a scandalous disregard for the public’s right to scrutinise parliamentary expenses.

The taxpayer pays MPs expenses and they have every right to know whether their money is being spent properly. Labour also wasted vast amounts of taxpayer’s money in Court proceedings and in parliamentary time trying to hide from the public full details of the expenses claimed by MPs, which after all are financed by us.

With Britain forecast to suffer the worst recession of any major economy surely it is the role of government to do everything possible to ensure what money we do spend is spent wisely. Neither MPs nor HMRC would think it acceptable if other public servants or ordinary taxpayers did not have to account for their expenses so it is incredible Labour MPs thought they could get away with this.

In trying to legislate to avoid MPs being subject to common good financial practise Labour brought politics into further disrepute. Is it any wonder the electorate are disenchanted with politicians and feel they are all in it for the money when bad apples act in such a dishonourable way?

Local Income Tax - A Disincentive To Work Hard And Do Well!

The SNP's proposed abolition of Council Tax to be replaced by a Local Income Tax is quite simply another disincentive to work hard and do well.

No one likes paying tax, unless they have to, but today's proposal by the Scottish Executive to pay for local services based on a supposed ability to pay means that, for the same Council services, two households beside one another might be faced with one paying nothing for their bins to be picked up, their streets to be lit and their libraries to be open while their next door neighbours pay £3,000 a year to receive the exact same services, based on a combined household income of £100,000.

And this of course assumes that the 3 pence in the every pound level mooted by the SNP is actually sustainable. Glasgow City Council calculates that at 3% a Local Income Tax would leave them with a shortfall of £133 million on current budgets - in other words to maintain current expenditure Local Income Tax would have to increase by 50% to 4.5%. Here, in East Renfrewshire, I believe that with our extremely high percentage of population that is either old or young our expenditure, in what is a relatively small local authority, is pretty big per head of population and we too would have to seek to raise the level of Local Income Tax just to be able to maintain the standard of our schools and other services.

And whenever you raise a tax on a regional basis you also find a large number of people who seek to avoid paying that tax. For example, with Corporation Tax in the UK higher than that in the Republic of Ireland a number of large companies have moved their head offices from London to Dublin to take advantage of the tax break this provides. In the case of Local Income Tax, I wonder how many people will register for tax purposes in England, Wales or Northern Ireland to avoid paying a Scottish Local Income Tax were it to be introduced.

In summary, the SNP's Local Income Tax proposal is poorly thought through, will lead to inequities in payment for local services in local communities and will undoubtedly not be paid by those who can afford to find ways of avoiding it. All this would be damaging to the social cohesion of Scotland and potential ruinous to our economy. That is why we must all oppose its introduction and leave no stone unturned until it is consigned to the political scrapheap.

Families Bear The Brunt Of Labour Economic Failure

Today's announcement that the Governments preferred measure of inflation, the Consumer Prices Index, now sits at 4.4%, more than double its target rate, is a disaster for hard working families and those who can least afford big increases in their cost of living given the latest increase is driven by a record surge in supermarket food prices.

CPI inflation is now at its highest figure since 1997 and double its figure in January, while the Retail Price Index - including housing costs - rose to hit 5%, its highest level for at least 17 years.
.

The Office of National Statistics confirms food inflation alone has spiralled to a CPI record 13.7% year-on-year, a massive jump from its 10.6% level in June. It appears this was principally due to a rise in meat costs, particularly bacon, ham and poultry. Meat prices rose 16.3% year-on-year, up from the 11.2% recorded in June.

.

Essentials like breads and cereals saw an increase of 15.9% on the year. Vegetables, including my favourite potatoes, shot up to 11.1% up from 7.4%.

The Office of National Statistics believe someone spending £100 a week on food last year, will have to find another £712 this year to put the same items on the table. The Daily Mail's 'Cost of Living Index', which looks at a smaller basket of shopping basket essentials, now suggests they have increase by 25% over the past year, equating to a whopping £1,300 extra this year.

.

If people can't afford food we are condemning our population to complete poverty and that simply isn't acceptable for any country let alone one of the wealthiest on the planet. To tackle this we must offer fuel tax cuts to our hauliers and ensure our supermarkets are not profiteering from our people.

A Positive Solution To The West Lothian Question!

Tam Dalyell is a man known for asking awkward questions - the answers to which few, if any, are able to find. So to answer Tam's biggest question of all who better than a 'big beast' of British politics to propose a positive solution.

Earlier this week Ken Clarke MP announced the result of his 'democracy task force', proposing a positive answer to Tam's 'West Lothian Question'. Ken's proposal, backed by David Cameron, is that MP's representing Scottish constituencies should be able to vote on the second and third readings of every Bill, even those that affect only English constituencies, but that were a Bill only applies to England its committee stage, during which MP's formally amend Bills, should only be considered by MP's representing English constituencies.

To those who are not aficionados of Westminster procedure this may seem like a very confusing proposal but to political hacks like me this seems to be a clever and elegant solution to ensuring fairness for England in this post devolution era.

Poll after poll, the overwhelming majority of Scots indicate they understand it is not fair for Scottish MP's to legislate on issues that only affect England when English MP's are not able to vote on the same matters for Scotland as a result of devolution. That is because we Scots believe in fair play, equality and in protecting our democracy!

Ken Clarke's solution would allow MP's representing Scottish constituencies to register their vote on every Bill considered by Parliament, preventing any allegation of the creation of a two tier system of MP, and will address the fundamental unfairness of Labour's devolution settlement in relation to its impact on democracy in England.

Thanks to Ken Clarke, I look forward to campaigning at the next General Election on the basis that, if elected, the people of East Renfrewshire can be assured I will represent them on every issue before the UK Parliament by voting on every Bill put before it. In doing so the people of East Renfrewshire will be able to judge me on my record and by ensuring this becomes formal Westminster procedure the people of England can rest assured the Conservative & Unionist Party will have provided them with a solution to the most difficult of constitutional questions by restoring fairness to their democracy, as they so rightly demand!

If All's Fair In War - Why Not Politics?

Through the course of this week Jack Straw announced proposals on funding of Party campaigns that reek of self interest and which are undoubtedly unfair!

Straw's plans for election funding would make it impossible for new candidates to compete in marginal seats

Having voted themselves a £10,000 per annum "communications allowance", (which in all probability will have been worth at least £40,000 to every Labour MP by the time of the next general election), our Labour government now proposes to deny candidates seeking to compete with incumbent MP's the right to privately fund their campaigns in advance of election time.

This change to campaign funding rules would mean incumbency becomes a massive advantage to this government with its outright majority - as they use public funds to advertise their case to constituents while denying opposition candidates the right to spend private funds to make their case for alternative policies. The current government can claim £3.51 million of public funding every year from the "communications allowance" they created and yet they now seek to deny candidates use of private funds whether they be of a lesser, similar or higher value than the amount spent from the public purse!

Of course, this is all a side show to detract from Labour's refusal to agree to a £50,000 cap on donations from any individuals, companies or Unions. David Cameron backs this proposal but Labour are refusing to go along with it because, with 92% of Labour's funds coming from Trade Unions, it would render the Labour Party bankrupt.

As a Westminster candidate fighting a government Minister in a Labour/Conservative marginal, I have not received any central funding to take on Mr Murphy, who sends unsolicited letters to constituents on a regular basis at our cost. I rely on good old-fashioned street canvassing, leaflet drops and support of local organisations to get my message out to the public and I will never misuse any expense allowance to distribute Party propaganda!

So, Mr Straw, if you are going to cap candidate campaign spending outwith election times then make it fair and let us spend the same as MP's before elections are called. I don't suppose you'll do this or cap the maximum donation amount!


Further analysis of this proposal can be found at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/opinion/2008/06/20/do2003.xml

The Politics Of Principle

So politicians who are prepared to put principle before personal advantage receive the overwhelming support of the British public!

Put into simple words on a piece of paper my instant reaction is to say "of course they do", however when David Davis first announced his intention to resign from the House of Commons to fight a by-election on the principle of 42-Day Detention Without Charge it appeared from media comment that they, and the public, would view this as a cynical stunt by a career politician.

Today's Mail on Sunday reports that 57% of people polled by ICM support David's decision to force a by-election on this issue, 59% agree with him that Britain has become a nation of snoopers and a staggering 69% believe he took this action based on principle.

I am personally delighted to see that the public are not as cynical as the media would have us believe and look forward to the public debate on this issue the by-election will now afford us.

The principles of politics are too often lost in Party orders and media scrums and I for one long for the day when all politicians put principles, and the people, first - for only then will we truly have government by the people and for the people!

Crime And REAL Punishment

Not many of us are familiar with the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona, Joe Arpaio! But does he have any lessons to teach us about punishing criminals in a way that makes them less likely to reoffend?

Sheriff Arpaio keeps getting elected, over and over again, because he punishes criminal activity in a way that marries with his local public's desire to deter crime and not to have to pay excessively for punishment of criminal activity.

Following his election, Sheriff Arpaio decided not to build another expensive jail complex so created the "tent city jail", (essentially a tented village surrounded by barbed wire). He banned smoking and pornographic magazines in jail and he also took away inmates weightlifting equipment, explaining his reasons by saying: "They're in jail to pay a debt to society not to build muscles so they can assault innocent people when they leave."

To keep convicted criminals occupied, he started chain gangs to use inmates to do free work on county and city projects - saving taxpayer's money. Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.

He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only allows the Disney channel and the weather channel. When asked why the weather channel, he replied: "So these morons will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs." Coffee is no longer served to prisoners because it has zero nutritional value and is therefore a waste of taxpayer money. When the inmates complained, he told them: "This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."


When temperatures rose to record levels in Phoenix in June 2007, the Associated Press reported: About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed wire surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts. On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing pink boxer shorts were overheard chatting in the tents, where temperatures reached 128 degrees. "This is hell. It feels like we live in a furnace," said Ernesto Gonzales, an inmate for 2 years with 10 more to go. "It's inhumane." Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who makes his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. "Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for parole, only to go out and commit more crimes so they can come back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things many taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves."

The same day he is reported to have told inmates who were complaining of the heat in the tents: "It's between 120 to 130 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers live in tents, they have to walk all day in the sun wearing full battle gear and they get shot at, and they have not committed any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!"

If all prisons were like Sheriff Joe Arpaio's I wonder whether we might just experience a lot less crime and I am sure we would not be in the current position of running out of prison spaces.

Sheriff Joe is accountable to the residents of Maricopa County and has recently been re-elected for an unprecedented fourth 4 year term. His ethos seems to be that local people want to see criminals punished in a way that deters criminal activity, he does allow political correctness to interfere with his work and he challenges the sort of crazy rules we suffer from as a result of the European Convention on Human Rights. Basically he wants a deal for his law abiding public which is fair on them given they are paying for the criminal activity of others.

I wonder whether the British public would decide to elect people like Joe Arpaio if we allowed to elect our local Chief of Police? It certainly seems to me that we have a lot to learn from people like Sheriff Arpaio and should look to some of his ideas to help redress the balance between taxpayer and criminal.

Thanks Joe, you have given us a lot to consider and shown us we may have a lot to learn!

You can read more about Sheriff Joe Arpaio at: http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=Sheriff_Bio

Relative Poverty - Disappointment Or Disgrace?

I have always found the concept that poverty is "relative" difficult to grasp. Today's announcement that the number of children living in poverty has risen for the second year in a row is deeply depressing, even if it isn't surprising.

For our Labour government, who set themselves the goal of halving child poverty over a generation, to be presiding over such a steady increase in the number of young people growing up in poverty, leaving so many of them living in a Britain without hope, is not "disappointing", as the government described it today, it is a "disgrace"!

The Member of Parliament for East Renfrewshire, one Mr Jim Murphy, shoulders a great deal of responsibility for today's figures having served as Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform at the Department of Work & Pensions at the very time when the number of young people living in poverty increased so startlingly.

I am not a statistician, so I look to professionals like Professor John Hills, the head of the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics, to guide me as to whether government policy will work. As he describes the latest figures as "disappointing if unsurprising" it appears to me there is little prospect of any improvement in the number of people living in poverty as long as we pursue policies that lack vision for our future.

Possibly most telling is the increase over the past year in the number of pensioners living in poverty. Despite all Labour's interference in our tax and benefits system since 1997, at 2.5 million there has essentially been no reduction in the number of pensioners living in poverty in the UK over the past 11 years.

So our Prime Minister should be hanging his head today in more than "relative" shame. It was his stewardship of the UK economy as Chancellor that delivered the unfair British society in which so many young people and pensioners grow up in poverty despite the highest level of taxation in generations and it is on his watch as Prime Minister that even more people seem destined to live in poverty in the future.

The day of reckoning for Labour, Mr Brown and Mr Murphy will come at the next General Election. Those living in poverty, and those of us living with the privilege of living above its "relative" measure, all want to see a fairer more inclusive society and it will be at the ballot box that we get our chance to hold them to account!

Get Us Our Money Back Mr Murphy!

It has emerged over recent days that more than £33 million a year in British child benefit is being paid to foreign children living abroad, an astonishing 72% increase over the past nine months. With most of this money going to around 36,000 children living in Poland, whose parents are cashing in on European rules that let them claim benefits in the UK after working and paying taxes here for a year, it is clear to me that the UK taxpayer is being taken for a ride and losing out once again as we abide by the rules while others EU nations prefer to ignore the rules they would prefer not to enforce.

I read with interest one report that Ministers have been "plunged into a new immigration row" by these figures. Is it any wonder when it emerges our government is frittering away our money to support families abroad only a matter of weeks after they tried to enforce a tax rises for low-income British families with their proposal to scrap the 10 pence income tax rate?

As he serves the UK government as Europe Minister, one can only presume Jim Murphy is one of the Ministers referred to by newspaper reports. He is surely the person we should hold responsible for negotiating with EU Countries for the return of British taxpayers money and for ensuring the European Union rules that allow this travesty to continue are closed off with immediate effect.

The British taxpayer started to pay for foreign children living abroad after EU enlargement in 2004, when 800,000 workers from the new member countries flooded to the UK as economic migrants. If media reports are to be believed, benefit claims escalated dramatically as word spread among Polish communities in Britain and Polish-language newspapers published guides on how to claim child benefit.

Our child benefit is so attractive because parents receive £977 a year for their first child and £652 per year for younger siblings. When compared to the £160 per year paid for each child in Poland it is easy to see why Polish immigrants to Britain find it so attractive to claim child benefit from the British taxpayer for children they have left at home.

Some may argue that EU rules on benefits are fair and balanced. I think EU rules that mean Britons working in Poland can only claim £160 from the Warsaw government are hardly fair and would like to see the net position in terms of the cost of Polish citizens to the British Exchequers compared to that of Britons living in Poland to the Polish equivalent to prove it is the UK who are shortchanged by the rules - once again!

Inevitably the story of abuse does not stop with child benefit. Even larger amounts are paid out to East European workers in child tax credits, but the Government is refusing to put a figure on what the cost of this additional burden is to the British taxpayer.

The communities of Eastern European origin that have grown across the UK since EU enlargement continue to play a vital role in filling skills shortages in the UK economy and add an exciting and vibrant element to our society. Those who move here with a sense of fairness and who are prepared to do what is right are very welcome, but those playing the system and taking benefit money for people residing outwith the UK are out of order and would do well to remember they are guest of the British people.

So come on Jim, actually do something for the people of your constituency and get the UK a fair set of rules to abide by in Europe as well as our money back. Just think what £33 million, plus the money being taken in child tax credits, could do towards eradicating child poverty in Britain today. I believe it is time we addressed fairness at home and abroad - I wonder whether Jim will agree!