Tax free allowances

Just been thinking about the idea of MP’s getting a £23k tax free expense allowance. What an excellent idea. The company I work for could adopt a similar system. Indeed all companies could, thereby reducing internal administration (no receipts required) and making the company more competitive by reducing the employers NI currently paid on salaries. Also, since the allowance would be tax free there could be a cut in those salaries. (Admittedly there would be no increased competiveness against other UK companies if all adopted this system, but there would still be a gain against foreign competitors.)

I know, I’ll drop the treasury an e-mail asking how such a scheme can be set up. I wonder what the response will be.

Update

I’ve sent the below to the Treasury and No 10 Downing St.

"I understand that there is a proposal that MP’s be given a tax free allowance of £23,000 per annum and that no receipts would be required to justify expenditure to this limit. The company for which I work is interested in setting up a similar scheme. Please could you send me details of how such a scheme would operate. Obviously given the principle of equality under the law such a scheme cannot be restricted to MP's alone."

God seems to approve

Ever since the results of the Mayoral election were announced London has been enjoying decent, sunny even hot weather. Coincidence? I think not. Surely it's God's way of demonstrating his approval.
How good will the weather be if Cameron gets in?

Oh well, must go and buy some shorts!

I was wrong - Hurrah

I was wrong, Boris did get the mayoralty, and by a comfortable margin.
I'm delighted for him and for London.

Can Boris do it?

The opinion polls, well YouGov at least, seem to have Boris ahead by 6%. Other polls seem to show Livingstone ahead. So which is correct?
Watching TV last night I was struck by how little enthusiasm there is for Livingstone amongst his supporters. Most seemed to think that he had been in power for long enough. Contrary wise there is great enthusiasm for Boris.
This suggests that there may well be differential turnout between supporters of the two candidates, with supporters of Boris anxious to vote and supporters of Livingstone more inclined to abstain. So, on the face of it, Boris should win.

Nevertheless, my gut feel is that Boris won’t win. I suspect the Labour machine will drag its members kicking and screaming to the polling booths where they will dutifully hold their noses and vote for the evil that is Livingstone.

Meanwhile the Tory vote – based principally in the “doughnut” around central London will be lower than hoped as the daily commute, showers and the general hassle of getting around will combine to deter many Boris supporters.

No-one will be more delighted than me if I’m wrong.

Well off to vote now – for Boris and the forces of light (of course).



UPDATE
It seems William Hill have noticed a surge in betting on Boris - he's now 2/7 with Satan at 5/2.

EU gravy train continues - now it's a secret

So MEPs have decided that a report on how they are defrauding the people who pay them should remain secret. It beggars belief that any politician could behave with such arrogance and contempt for their electorate. I used to be a supporter of the EU, time has changed that and now with this latest example of EU theft of citizens money I have, belatedly many will say, come to the conclusion that the UK should pull out of what appears to be a sinister and corrupt organisation.

I sent the below to the EU via their website. Should they deign to respond I’ll post their reply.

Please can you explain why the European Parliament has decided to keep secret details of the fraud being perpetrated upon citizens of the European Union by MEP’s misusing their staff wage allowance? Can you further explain why anyone should have any faith whatsoever in the European Parliament if it’s members are prepared to cover up, and by so doing condone, such fraud. If MEP’s are not totally transparent about their wages and expenses this sets the tone for the whole EU. If MEP’s are not prepared to answer to the people who are paying for their luxurious lifestyle where is the accountability? To respond that they are answerable at elections is insufficient – they MUST be accountable at all times. By behaving as they do they will have undermined still further the esteem with which MEP’s and the European project are held, showing themselves to be selfish, self serving, arrogant and contemptuous of their electorate. They have added considerable weight to the argument that Britain would be far far far better off without the corrupt and dishonest organization that is the European Union.

Also, on this St George’s day it transpires that the EU have renamed the English Channel as The Channel Sea. Are they actively trying to get Britain to pull out of the EU? They’re going the right way about it.

UPDATE

They replied, albeit a non reply, stating that they were unauthorised to answer the questions (slighty odd for the Division for Correspondence with Citizens but there you go). They pointed me to a press officer so I've asked the same question of him.

Libdems and The Lisbon Treaty

So the Libdems have been instructed to abstain in the vote on a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. I saw Nick Clegg trying to justify this stance on Newsnight and boy did he fail bigtime.
Looks like my jibe about the Libdems electing another interim leader wasn’t that far off the mark.
The question now is how many of the Libdem MP’s will rebel against this stupid instruction and vote with the Tories and the Labour rebels. Let’s hope it’s enough to force Labour to honour its manifesto promise.

Are smokers the new Jews?

OK I’m feeling persecuted. I smoke and I drive a large engined car. Satan has issued a diabolical decree that such cars should pay £6,500.00 pa to use the roads their RFL and fuel tax have already paid for, while another Nazi has suggested that smokers should obtain a licence.

Several things occur to me.

1) If required to get a licence I shall immediately source all my tobacco on the black market where such a licence won’t be required. It’ll also be cheaper for me.
2) Is this just the start of more Stalinist initiatives – will licenses be required to buy booze shortly.
3) How long before I’m required to wear a fetching yellow star before being invited to a smoker’s camp for concentration purposes.
4) I could get a smaller engined car, but the carbon footprint of a new car far exceeds the emissions I will make using the existing one – so how “green” is Satan’s new scheme.
5) Can I emigrate to another freer country where the state doesn’t think it has the right to stick its nose into every corner of your life and then tax it – Zimbabwe for example.

Please God, if you’re listening (and aren’t too pissed of with us coz of the Arch Bish Of C) let this government fall, Satan be taken back to hell and the people of this country stop sleepwalking into a police state.

Proof positive that The Archbishop should resign

Gordon Brown reckons he's a man of "great integrity".

Nuff said

Oh, and he still hasn't resigned! What on earth is keeping him?

Sharia and the Archbishop

A few days have passed since the Arch Bish of C outraged the country with his poorly thought through comments on the adoption of Sharia law. Despite two e-mails from me he hasn’t resigned yet.

He should. He has shown himself to be inadequate at his primary role, protecting the Established Church of England.

If people want to settle disputes outside of the law they are free so to do. They can settle disputes by playing scissors, paper, stone for all I care, but they must accept that such settlements have no meaning within the law. If Muslims wish to settle dispute using Sharia that’s up to them, but if they do so in the UK they must accept that either party will still have recourse to the LAW if they disagree with the Sharia result. There can be no variation to the principle that there is one rule of law for all in this country.

The Arch Bish doesn’t seem to understand this bit.

Backtracking madly it seems the Arch Bish is now saying that he only wanted to stimulate debate etc etc. He just doesn’t get it does he? There’s nothing to debate. There can only be one law.

Lastly beware the PC brigade talking through their arses about the UK being a secular state. NO IT ISN’T. The UK may be a secular society, but, due to the combined role of Her Maj as Head of State and Head of the C of E the UK is a Protestant Christian state.

Perhaps he’ll resign before I finish posting this. Live in hope.

Archbishop Surrenders

I’ve heard that the Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested that the UK adopt parts of Sharia law so that “Muslims should not have to choose between the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

Yes they should, its part of the price for living in a country – you live by the laws of the land.

I am disgusted that any Englishman or representative of the C of E could even consider the adoption of alien laws in some attempt to assuage a foreign culture.

By suggesting that parts of Sharia law should be adopted the Archbishop is betraying his church and more worryingly his country. If people want to live under Sharia law there are plenty of countries which have it. It is not wanted here. If people want to live here they should do so under OUR laws; it is not for us to adopt alien laws to please newcomers, newcomers need to obey and respect our laws. Rarely has a pronouncement by a bishop made me so angry. He should resign henceforth; he has shown that he is no protector of either the church and its values or the values of the British people as a whole.

Result

The Conservatives have withdrawn the whip from Derek Conway.
Well done Dave, you've shown your worth.

Is Dave dithering?

Here is a wonderful opportunity for Dave to show his mettle. If he withdraws the whip from Conway he establishes clear blue water between his party’s attitude towards sleaze and that of Nulab. Why does he hesitate? After all, the whip can be restored if Conway is exonerated.

Come on Dave, show us, and the country at large, that the Conservatives won’t tolerate even the suggestion of sleaze.

Despatches last night

Was at 8.00 pm not 9.00, but I still watched it.

No killer blow sadly. The most damning charge was that Satan used taxpayers’ funds for party purposes; but this is not a charge that will resonate with most people. For the rest Ken’ll be able to shrug the charges off.

Damn, I really wanted to see the man squirm, however I suspect he’ll have woken this morning feeling relieved.

One bright note however is that the programme may have raised the perception of sleaze in the public’s mind. If the programme convinces 10% more people to vote for Boris, or discourages 10% of people from voting for Satan that’ll be enough to get Boris the job.

I really hope so anyway.

Despatches to reveal the truth about Satan?

9.00 pm Channel 4 tonight - Despatches, compulsory (and arguably compulsive) viewing for anyone who gives a fig about London. If the pre broadcast hype is to be believed Satan will be exposed as a drunk, a bully and a supporter of a secretive Trotskyite cabal who seek to establish the Soviet city state of London, using taxpayers’ money to fund their evil plans.

I intend to watch and will cheer every time Satan is shown to be abusing his powers, misusing taxpayers funds etc etc.

It’s not that I hate Satan; it’s just that he’s an anti-Semitic misogynist who hates personal choice and who operates according to the politics of envy so beloved of his scummy party. May he return to hell shortly to stay there forever.

OK I lied; I hate him.

Long live Boris.

Ken tells (more) porkies

Well done to Andrew Gilligan and Ross Lydall for again exposing Satan (aka Ken L) as a liar. According to The Standard a committee of MP’s, Labour, Lib- Dem and Tory have said he has “mislead the public” regarding the enquiry into the money his mates were given by the LDA.

Ms Featherstone (Lib-Dem) said: "Ken has no shame. It is almost as if if he shouts loud enough he makes what he is saying true, but the evidence shows that what the Mayor has said is not true."

Now let’s hope that the whole affair is exposed in the rest of the MSM so that finally London will be rid of this oppressive evil regime.

Hain apologists

Newsnight last night. Some Labour apologist (Lucas?) appeared and tried to defend the indefensible. Part of his defence was to claim that 3 helicopter trips made by Cameron, all duly declared in at least one of the two places it should be (members interests and electoral commission – I forget which) was just as bad as Hain’s undeclared receipt of £103k.

Sorry, am I missing something. Cameron declares the trips at the time to the authority he believes needs to know, while Hain “forgets” to declare to any official body an amount equal to 125% of the amount he did declare.

So, in his mind, declaring funds (or benefits) on time to the authorities equates to keeping secret donations received until you’re forced to reveal them. Well, it’s an interesting take on honesty, one well in tune with Labour thinking. After all laws (note 45 Govt) don’t really need to be applied to Nulab and its cronies

He also claimed that Hain had volunteered the information. Here he’s on stronger ground given that he’s probably using voluntary in the same sense that it’s used for ID card purposes i.e. you have no choice it’s mandatory.

Newlabourspeak has begun. Voluntary means compulsory, honesty means dishonesty; let’s just hope that “the Prime Minister’s full support” means what I think it means.

HAIN - Brown says his fate is not in my hands

Well yes it is actually. You are Prime Minister after all, and last time I checked the PM can decide who is and isn’t in his Cabinet.

That said what is all the debate about. He broke the law therefore he should resign, failing which he should be sacked. What’s to talk about?

Joined up Government

So Labour has suggested that the voting age be lowered from 18 to encourage participation on politics.

They also propose increasing the age at which you leave education to 18.

So what they’re saying is that these teenagers are fully competent, capable people who are sufficiently mature to take decisions on who should run the country, but who are incapable and insufficiently mature to decide when they should leave school, or indeed, smoke.

So are they adults or not? Come on Comrades decide one way or the other.

Commie shits.