When many families are genuinely struggling because of falling incomes, inflation and more insecure working conditions, it is good to see the future Monarch getting a 11% increase in funding from tax payers.
It is a genuine concern about the level of spending by the prince of wales family amid austerity for many members of the public during the recession.
The modern mantra of "we're all in this together" seems not to apply to the Prince Charles and his family.
A breakdown of staff numbers showed that Clarence House and Prince Charles's country home in Gloucestershire, Highgrove, employed the equivalent of 135 staff.
His accounts disclose a slight increase in staff who work for the prince and his family. They include two valets, a butler, an equerry (Historically, it was a senior attendant with responsibilities for the horses of a person of rank. In contemporary use, it is a personal attendant, usually upon a Sovereign, a member of a Royal Family), a master of the household, three chauffeurs, 10 house managers and housekeepers, five chefs and kitchen porters and 19 gardeners and estate workers, eight press officers .
It is good to see the future monarch being a good employer, pay for most staff had been frozen last year and, the Prince of Wales' tax bill rose marginally from £ 4.39m to £4.49m.
His accounts also showed an increase of 3% in the income that the Prince of Wales receives from the Duchy of Cornwall (this crown lands given to him for being the son of the queen), the estate given to the heir to the throne to provide him with a living, to £18.3m.
Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, said "Year on year, Charles continues to spend more public money on travel, much of which is for personal trips. When the country is facing sweeping cuts to public spending, Charles Windsor wilfully helps himself to whatever travel funds he wants or feel he needs."
Friday, 29 June 2012
Thursday, 28 June 2012
We need disinfectant
Whether it is politicians, media or corporate Britain, there seems to be a lack of integrity in the higher reaches of the British establishment.
Whether it's politicans protecting their generous pensions, or expenses, or snidey comments against tax evading comedians yet happily supporting other tax evading singers, or members of their cabinet.
News International that systematically hacked people's telephones, had inapproporate relationships with politicans and politicans that were their cheerleaders in government.
Now we have the Barclays story of systematically ripping of borrowers for profit.
Confidence is built on trust, how can we trust people whom are not straight and do not tell the truth.
It appears we live in an age where cutting corners, wheeling and dealing is acceptable, where is the moral code that telling the truth is paramount seems at best an option.
Then of course when these people get caught out, there raw hide becomes very sensitive, the fact that businessman like Nat West Bank whom cause misery and concern with there computer systems, or Barclays and their borrowing little scheme the directors insult our intelligence by offering not to get their bonuses, yet this level of failure in public life, would demand sacking and resignations or even prison.
I am a great believer that the best disinfectant is public exposure, bodies that are open and accountable are those organisations that have less corruption, the MP's expenses scandal made their system more transparant.
Like wise if Leveson reports that a more open transparant media is needed and this is enacted by politicans then that will benefit news.
The problem of overly powerful corporate bosses, is they are unchecked, they seem to be above the law, they display an arrogance that they are worth millions, whilst telling workers not to have pay rises, cuts to their pensions and less good conditions.
The system will not change until people pressure the establishment for change to a more moral, trustworthy, open and transparant country.
Whether it's politicans protecting their generous pensions, or expenses, or snidey comments against tax evading comedians yet happily supporting other tax evading singers, or members of their cabinet.
News International that systematically hacked people's telephones, had inapproporate relationships with politicans and politicans that were their cheerleaders in government.
Now we have the Barclays story of systematically ripping of borrowers for profit.
Confidence is built on trust, how can we trust people whom are not straight and do not tell the truth.
It appears we live in an age where cutting corners, wheeling and dealing is acceptable, where is the moral code that telling the truth is paramount seems at best an option.
Then of course when these people get caught out, there raw hide becomes very sensitive, the fact that businessman like Nat West Bank whom cause misery and concern with there computer systems, or Barclays and their borrowing little scheme the directors insult our intelligence by offering not to get their bonuses, yet this level of failure in public life, would demand sacking and resignations or even prison.
I am a great believer that the best disinfectant is public exposure, bodies that are open and accountable are those organisations that have less corruption, the MP's expenses scandal made their system more transparant.
Like wise if Leveson reports that a more open transparant media is needed and this is enacted by politicans then that will benefit news.
The problem of overly powerful corporate bosses, is they are unchecked, they seem to be above the law, they display an arrogance that they are worth millions, whilst telling workers not to have pay rises, cuts to their pensions and less good conditions.
The system will not change until people pressure the establishment for change to a more moral, trustworthy, open and transparant country.
Monday, 25 June 2012
Out of Touch
The more I've hear of Dave Cameron, the more I think that he is out of touch, the boy with a silver spoon, who with his closed mind talks utter none sense on tax evation or should I say fails to act upon and now on benefits for the under 25s.
The thing you hear on the door steps is that politicans are out of touch, politicans do not have the answers.
Shepton Mallet Town Council who paid for a Town Poll on a civic centre, they spent £2000 and 90% voted against, local cllrs ignored the vote and carried on.
Now proposing to spend £15,000 on a feasibility study, people are furious and rightly so.
This anti politician view is easy to understand with UK families are facing an uncertain financial future with one in five admitting they are living on edge.
Cameron chooses to talk in populist terms about scroungers, but it is this government that has cut child credits and increased the cost of living with increased VAT and Fuel taxes.
61 per cent of children in poverty have working parents, up from 45 per cent in the mid-nineties.
The extent of low-paid and low-hour jobs is one of the reasons, alongside the impact of benefit cuts, which are likely to lead to an increase in poverty among all groups by 2020.
The truth is that just one in eight claimants is out of work (not a statistic that you'll find reported in most papers). The majority of those who claim housing benefit, including the under-25s, do so to compensate for substandard wages and extortionate rents. A recent study by The Building and Social Housing Foundation showed that 93 per cent of new housing benefit claims made between 2010 and 2011 were made by households containing at least one employed adult.
Whether locally or nationally politicans have to be more open, tell the whole truth, this is the only way to regain the trust of people.
The thing you hear on the door steps is that politicans are out of touch, politicans do not have the answers.
Shepton Mallet Town Council who paid for a Town Poll on a civic centre, they spent £2000 and 90% voted against, local cllrs ignored the vote and carried on.
Now proposing to spend £15,000 on a feasibility study, people are furious and rightly so.
This anti politician view is easy to understand with UK families are facing an uncertain financial future with one in five admitting they are living on edge.
Cameron chooses to talk in populist terms about scroungers, but it is this government that has cut child credits and increased the cost of living with increased VAT and Fuel taxes.
61 per cent of children in poverty have working parents, up from 45 per cent in the mid-nineties.
The extent of low-paid and low-hour jobs is one of the reasons, alongside the impact of benefit cuts, which are likely to lead to an increase in poverty among all groups by 2020.
The truth is that just one in eight claimants is out of work (not a statistic that you'll find reported in most papers). The majority of those who claim housing benefit, including the under-25s, do so to compensate for substandard wages and extortionate rents. A recent study by The Building and Social Housing Foundation showed that 93 per cent of new housing benefit claims made between 2010 and 2011 were made by households containing at least one employed adult.
Whether locally or nationally politicans have to be more open, tell the whole truth, this is the only way to regain the trust of people.
Sunday, 24 June 2012
Predictable, Nasty and Tory
After Slick Dave opened the debate on tax evading comedians he has felt the slight heat because of tax evading Tory Donors and government ministers being named and shamed, Dave has now opened up the predictable debate on benefit scroungers.
The benefit of Dave choice is housing benefit, after restricting the under 35s to claim housing benefit for a single room, he is now proposing to remove Housing benefit for under 25s completely.
Dave like all good Tories like to divide and rule, he thinks it acceptable to remove all housing benefit for under 25s, but will not reform housing benefits for the retired members of the community, Dave understands that politically it would death to attack retired people, but politically acceptable to attack young people.
Most people understand that the housing benefit budget is out of control, but we have to ask why this is? Governments have refused to invest heavily in housing, this has allowed supply and demand to become unbalanced and imbalanced between tenures, when this imbalance is acute, prices rise, both in rents and purchase price.
Dave believes that the system currently sends the signal you are better off not working, or working less.
Full time employment is declining, with the growth in employment is in casual and part time employment, that is generally low paid and insecure, these jobs depend on in work benefits and housing benefit. Dave is so out of touch he fails to grasp that job opportunities are very limited, he is in denial about the double dip recession made in Downing Street by him and Georgie boy.
Dave sees the benefit system as the old poor laws, charity by the state to the work shy and feckless. Yet the welfare system should be based on the principle of social insurance.
Surely it is immoral for someone who has worked and paid taxes for near on ten years, who for no fault of their lose their job, be denied housing benefit, our benefit system is based on the contributions from taxes.
Dave and Georgie wants to appear tough on the poor, doing it in a way to use the Daily Mail speak, scourgers, work shy and feckless, it is understandable that low and modest income earners feel some sympathy with that sentiment.
But it is Dave and Georges economic strategy of austerity that has caused lowering incomes and increasing insecurity, shouting at the victims of their economic experiment, may get them applause, but will not tackle the fundamental ills of the housing market or the malaise these incompetent public school boys have resided.
Austerity is stripping skills from business, undermining those businesses ability to expand in the future, in yesterdays post, the HMRC were losing skilled staff, through redundancy and retirement, this restricting the HMRC's ability to collect tax, manufacturing and construction companies are no different, this austerity is hurting now and will damage the future and tax revenues.
Lazy Dave can stigmatise the victims of his austerity plan, his failure to develop the supply side of the economy and induce demand is more difficult, name calling is easy and sometimes popular.
Dave is a predictable, nasty and true Tory.
The benefit of Dave choice is housing benefit, after restricting the under 35s to claim housing benefit for a single room, he is now proposing to remove Housing benefit for under 25s completely.
Dave like all good Tories like to divide and rule, he thinks it acceptable to remove all housing benefit for under 25s, but will not reform housing benefits for the retired members of the community, Dave understands that politically it would death to attack retired people, but politically acceptable to attack young people.
Most people understand that the housing benefit budget is out of control, but we have to ask why this is? Governments have refused to invest heavily in housing, this has allowed supply and demand to become unbalanced and imbalanced between tenures, when this imbalance is acute, prices rise, both in rents and purchase price.
Dave believes that the system currently sends the signal you are better off not working, or working less.
Full time employment is declining, with the growth in employment is in casual and part time employment, that is generally low paid and insecure, these jobs depend on in work benefits and housing benefit. Dave is so out of touch he fails to grasp that job opportunities are very limited, he is in denial about the double dip recession made in Downing Street by him and Georgie boy.
Dave sees the benefit system as the old poor laws, charity by the state to the work shy and feckless. Yet the welfare system should be based on the principle of social insurance.
Surely it is immoral for someone who has worked and paid taxes for near on ten years, who for no fault of their lose their job, be denied housing benefit, our benefit system is based on the contributions from taxes.
Dave and Georgie wants to appear tough on the poor, doing it in a way to use the Daily Mail speak, scourgers, work shy and feckless, it is understandable that low and modest income earners feel some sympathy with that sentiment.
But it is Dave and Georges economic strategy of austerity that has caused lowering incomes and increasing insecurity, shouting at the victims of their economic experiment, may get them applause, but will not tackle the fundamental ills of the housing market or the malaise these incompetent public school boys have resided.
Austerity is stripping skills from business, undermining those businesses ability to expand in the future, in yesterdays post, the HMRC were losing skilled staff, through redundancy and retirement, this restricting the HMRC's ability to collect tax, manufacturing and construction companies are no different, this austerity is hurting now and will damage the future and tax revenues.
Lazy Dave can stigmatise the victims of his austerity plan, his failure to develop the supply side of the economy and induce demand is more difficult, name calling is easy and sometimes popular.
Dave is a predictable, nasty and true Tory.
Saturday, 23 June 2012
A John Major Moment?
The most excellent David Cameron(sic), this week made a comment on the tax affairs of Jimmy Carr, comedian and satirist, he condemned his tax affairs although legal as "morally wrong".
Is this a John Major moment, the moment when John Major launched his "back to basics" campaign, a foolish wheeze to capture the moral high ground, sounds familiar?
History tells us the media then latched onto this moral crusade and buried the Major government in a tomb of sleaze, for which the Conservatives never recovered.
So what of David Cameron's wheeze on tax? The Daily Mirror immediately latched on to Conservative ministers & Conservative funders who exploit tax loopholes.
A more hostile media might ask why some celebrity tax evaders are not criticised for being morally wrong and others seem to be fair game. This says more about David Cameron than anyone else.
I suspect if the media dig they will find several years of news copy of government supporters who avoid tax through loopholes.
The battle against legal tax loopholes is a constant one, as the omnishambles of charity donations proved. However it is rich to criticise those exploit loopholes as this is the job of the treasury to close them as they are identified.
A news article in the guardian today says billions of pounds in potential revenue is tied up in tax tribunal cases because of a lack of government resources to deal with them, according to HMRC staff.
This is attributable to this governments cuts to the public sector and HMRC.
The potential funds due from more than 20,000 cases that have yet to be resolved, would take about 38 years to clear at the present rate, according to an internal estimate by HM Revenue and Customs.
Gareth Black, president of the Association of Revenue and Customs, the union representing senior tax officials at HMRC, has called for more investment in order to collect more tax and has said job losses had contributed to a failure to collect a further £1.1bn in taxes, which was also echoed in a public accounts committee report
This is a further example of the government is shooting itself in the foot, by cutting tax-gathering budgets this is grossly counterproductive, this will not save money, it will cost money.
Tax avoidence will increase and revenues will diminish. It is simply not possible to cut tax gathering resources and simultaneously pledge to close the tax gap.
The Guardian reports HMRC has a disproportionate number of senior staff close to retirement and the department's elite specialist investigations unit, which handles the most difficult avoidance cases. Staff numbers have also fallen, from nearly 100,000 in 2004-5 and likely to fall further to 55,000 by 2015. Experts have also said staff were not being properly trained and equipped for the job.
The union called for an additional investment of £260m over the next four years in key areas, including corporate tax avoidance, which would allow it to recoup an extra £6bn in currently lost tax.
So perhaps the real issue here is not Jimmy Carr, but the inability of the government/s to provide the HMRC with the resources to tackle large corporations and powerful individuals who are determined to successfully aviod tax.
As for Dave Cameron, he showed his character of being unpleasant to someone who criticises him and his friends, without seeing the bigger picture.
A John Major moment? Probably not. But if the media embarrass the Conservatives they know who to blame. Just call me Dave!
Is this a John Major moment, the moment when John Major launched his "back to basics" campaign, a foolish wheeze to capture the moral high ground, sounds familiar?
History tells us the media then latched onto this moral crusade and buried the Major government in a tomb of sleaze, for which the Conservatives never recovered.
So what of David Cameron's wheeze on tax? The Daily Mirror immediately latched on to Conservative ministers & Conservative funders who exploit tax loopholes.
A more hostile media might ask why some celebrity tax evaders are not criticised for being morally wrong and others seem to be fair game. This says more about David Cameron than anyone else.
I suspect if the media dig they will find several years of news copy of government supporters who avoid tax through loopholes.
The battle against legal tax loopholes is a constant one, as the omnishambles of charity donations proved. However it is rich to criticise those exploit loopholes as this is the job of the treasury to close them as they are identified.
A news article in the guardian today says billions of pounds in potential revenue is tied up in tax tribunal cases because of a lack of government resources to deal with them, according to HMRC staff.
This is attributable to this governments cuts to the public sector and HMRC.
The potential funds due from more than 20,000 cases that have yet to be resolved, would take about 38 years to clear at the present rate, according to an internal estimate by HM Revenue and Customs.
Gareth Black, president of the Association of Revenue and Customs, the union representing senior tax officials at HMRC, has called for more investment in order to collect more tax and has said job losses had contributed to a failure to collect a further £1.1bn in taxes, which was also echoed in a public accounts committee report
This is a further example of the government is shooting itself in the foot, by cutting tax-gathering budgets this is grossly counterproductive, this will not save money, it will cost money.
Tax avoidence will increase and revenues will diminish. It is simply not possible to cut tax gathering resources and simultaneously pledge to close the tax gap.
The Guardian reports HMRC has a disproportionate number of senior staff close to retirement and the department's elite specialist investigations unit, which handles the most difficult avoidance cases. Staff numbers have also fallen, from nearly 100,000 in 2004-5 and likely to fall further to 55,000 by 2015. Experts have also said staff were not being properly trained and equipped for the job.
The union called for an additional investment of £260m over the next four years in key areas, including corporate tax avoidance, which would allow it to recoup an extra £6bn in currently lost tax.
So perhaps the real issue here is not Jimmy Carr, but the inability of the government/s to provide the HMRC with the resources to tackle large corporations and powerful individuals who are determined to successfully aviod tax.
As for Dave Cameron, he showed his character of being unpleasant to someone who criticises him and his friends, without seeing the bigger picture.
A John Major moment? Probably not. But if the media embarrass the Conservatives they know who to blame. Just call me Dave!
Friday, 22 June 2012
What is civic pride
Is This Shepton's Vision Of Civic Pride
Since the decision by the Town Council to spend £15,000 on an ill defined feasibility study for the civic hall, I along with cllr Dunscombe, Irene Handley have been walking the streets collecting signatures against this plan.
We have seen astonishing developments this week.
On Monday we held our first meeting to discuss how we were to tackle the Town Council, because their decision to spend £15,000 without feasibility brief, without the identification of need or identification of anything.
We decided to arrange a petition, the Council had rejected the Town poll, of those who voted 90% did not want the Town Council to proceed with a Civic Hall, our thinking is that if 400 plus of voters were not enough the if we could produce more, this could convince the Council they were barking up the wrong tree.
Then on Tuesday Somerset BBC radio did a piece on the Civic Centre, the leading light on the Town Council stated
1. A local community hub for local agencies - Youth Club Closed, the Tourist Info Centre, been asked?, others unspecified no hard facts there then!
2. Capital fund since 2008 - the Town Council sold Great Ostry ten years ago or so 100K of the fund came from it's sale.
3. He said 4% turned out, actually it was over 6% of which 90% voted against what %is 50 people who wanted the civic building, surely same side of the coin!
4. They are nowhere near a feasibility brief and the feasibility study can be concluded in 6 weeks?
With such a grasp of figures should we continue?
Then on Wednesday a local Architect posted that he had carried out a feasibility study for the Town Council, with an image of what the " Shepton Mallet Civic Hall" this to be at Collett Park.
I have emailed the Architect asking if he can confirm the Shepton Mallet Town Council instructed you to carry out the works below?
Feasibility studies have been carried out for Shepton Mallet Town Council with the idea of providing a new community and public building to host a number of events such as town council meetings, weddings, town council offices, meeting rooms and a cafe. Located adjacent to Collett Park in the centre of the town.
The new building will hopefully provide a new hub to the town and to promote the town centre’s revival.
Can you inform me of whom contracted you to carry out this feasibility study, on what date were you instructed to carry out this work and what was the nature and methodology of your work and the cost agreed to perform this task?
I have not yet received a response.
On Wednesday evening we started our petition, what a response! What is interesting over 90% of people are agreeing that at this time a Civic Hall or is not what this town needs, with a handful agreeing with a Civic hall, with slightly more than a handful not interested in the issue.
The public are very angry, comments like "crazy", "how dare the spend money on this whilst the kids have to raise their own money for the skateboard park", "waste of money", "another crazy idea", "more worthwhile things to spend on", and finally "sort yerselves out"
This evening we had another evening collecting signatures, we are well on our way to collecting a huge number by the 3 July, I'm sure if the Council do not listen then we'll get even more signatures.
The thing talking to people is you realise the sense of place is not defined by palatial palaces, people who are struggling, realise that this Civic Hall is a million miles from the needs of our Town.
I can list; the risk to our hospital, Youth centre closed, very, very limited bus service after six pm in the evening and Sundays, the community have a multitude of concerns that the council should be dealing with.
Councils are there to run high quality services, they are not there to compete with the private sector for weddings and corporate events, I believe community cohesion is very important, Councils needs to access the needs of the community and cross match with health and social needs and social economic data. Then put in coherant plans to deliver what the community wants.
From this week the community is showing extreme cohesion, sadly against the Council that is meant to represent Shepton.
Now that is sad.
Thursday, 21 June 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)