uk: the rich, high taxes and the government | politics news at
latest changes & additions at link to short briefings documents link to document abstracts link to list of useful data tables quotations at, with source document where relevant economics and money zone at - government swindles and how to transfer money on the net latest news headlines at abelard's news and comment zone socialism, sociology, supporting documents described France zone at - another France Energy - beyond fossil fuels visit abelard's gallery about abelard and

back to abelard's front page

site map

news and comment

article archives at abelard's news and comment zone topic archives: politics

for previously archived news article pages, visit the news archive page (click on the button above)

New translation, the Magna Carta


This page helpful? Share it!

uk: the rich, high taxes and the government

“If a very rich individual who makes his money overseas comes to Britain because he can be assured of not paying tax, then why should we worry? Most people who fall into this category will spend money which will find its way into the exchequer anyway.

“Someone who buys a house for £7m is typically going to have a million or so spent on it to make it "theirs". The sparkies, plumbers, brickies, carpenters, swimming pool johnnies and all the rest will get a chunk and charge VAT which can't be claimed back by the buyer. The profit all these tradesmen and builders make will also be taxed. The Bentley our man buys will benefit not just VW, but most of the share will go to the hundreds of sub contractors who supply the parts. Ditto helicopters, aeroplanes. In fact wherever the super-rich go, someone benefits. There are exceptions I'm sure - the City is not known for the integrity of its traders, but generally they are good for us.

“People flying in Business or First are subsidising your ticket. Insist that they pay more tax on their ticket and they may fly another airline.”

As globalisation progresses, these wealthy individuals have ever increasing choices as to where to live. That means the various governments are losing power to those productive people. The governments are now in competition to provide such people with the best conditions. Attacking those people is self-defeating.

Governments can only tax people and entities that cannot move easily. Also, the socialist attacks on productive businesses just drive them abroad. Britain loses the taxes, and the jobs and, the production.

High taxes is a high road to penury.

the web address for the article above is




approaching uk parliamentary vote on new embryology bill

This Bill is being pressed by a rabid socialist Clown [PM Gordon Brown] and party. Until meeting strong resistance, the Clown was trying to impose a three-line whip in order to get his arrogant way. A three-line whip means the MP (law-maker) has to vote in the way the Clown dictates, or be thrown out of the party. Socialist MPs have now been given permission to vote for themselves on three points in this Bill, after rumblings of a voting rebellion from some Catholic Labour MPs and Cabinet ministers. The three contentious items are:

  • Enforcing provision of fertility treatment for single women and lesbians. Currently, clinics can refuse on the basis that the proposed child should have two parents, which are one of each sex.
  • Creating a child whose body material could then be used to help save a sick brother or sister.
  • Creating chimeras - hybrid animal/human embryos - to aid stem cell research.

Hybrid embryos? Where’s the beef? They will only live for fourteen days.

But having babies as utility to give donations to another? That is a different matter. I am concerned that this is using people who lack independence, when they are too young to make an informed choice.

And lesbians being cloned, children without males, by design? That looks dodgy, or even foolish to me.

Meanwhile, readers will be pleased to hear Muslim groups are now backing the Catholic position:

“The Islamic Medical Association, Muslim Doctors Association, Islamic Medical Ethics Forum and the Union of Muslim Organisations jointly announced on Wednesday that they fully support the Catholic opposition to the legislation under consideration.”

Recall that socialism is just another religion, in this case a materialistic religion that has no regard for individuals. Thus, in accord with the cult religion, a child can be generated as a fashion accessory, or as a source of spare parts.

I would rather see law out of the hands of extremists, including out of the hands of socialists.

the web address for the article above is

clown’s and ball’s latest brilliant plan - put rotten apples in every barrel

“Successful schools will be forced to take a share of disruptive pupils to prevent them from monopolising the best-behaved children, the Government announced yesterday.

“Ed Balls, the Children’s Secretary, said that schools which excluded pupils would have to accept the same number that had been expelled by another school. This "one out, one in" policy would prevent oversubscribed schools from dumping badly behaved children on to their less successful neighbours

“ Speaking at the NASUWT teaching union’s annual conference, Mr Balls said that he accepted the recommendations of a behaviour review published yesterday, which said: "A school that permanently excludes a child should expect to receive a permanently excluded child on the principle of one out, one in.”

Filtering out disruptive pupils is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for quality education. Bad behaviour spreads, it is imitated.

Those who cause disruption gain attention. They are able to pose before their peers as ‘brave’ and ‘daring’. Disruptive children also offer an escape from work.

They even set up a centre of ‘them and us’ where adults are seen as the enemy, thus disrupting cooperation and mutual benefit. They disrupt the easy peaceful running of the ship.

It is utter madness to allow disruptives into the normal school life. This is just as much madness as the idea that you can sanely bring vandals into any other work environment.

Peer behaviour is a major influence on young people. It is pressing enough among adults.

related material
Citizenship curriculum

the web address for the article above is

steyn on the “typical black person” who is now the “post ‘post-racial candidate’ ”

“ ‘I’m sure,” said Barack Obama in that sonorous baritone that makes his drive-thru order for a Big Mac, fries, and strawberry shake sound profound, “many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”

“Well, yes. But not many of us have heard remarks from our pastors, priests, or rabbis that are stark, staring, out-of-his-tree flown-the-coop nuts. Unlike Bill Clinton, whose legions of “spiritual advisers” at the height of his Monica troubles outnumbered the U.S. diplomatic corps, Senator Obama has had just one spiritual adviser his entire adult life: the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, two-decade pastor to the president presumptive. The Reverend Wright believes that AIDs was created by the government of the United States — and not as a cure for the common cold that went tragically awry and had to be covered up by Karl Rove, but for the explicit purpose of killing millions of its own citizens. The government has never come clean about this, but the Reverend Wright knows the truth. “The government lied,” he told his flock, “about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

Does he really believe this? If so, he’s crazy, and no sane person would sit through his gibberish, certainly not for 20 years.”

This is more serious than Steyn’s usual commentary and is very accurate.

I like the fact it is so clear that even a Demogocrat with the slightest chink of an open mind could be brought to wonder about the dysfunctional Obama.

related material
Mark Steyn Mark Steyn 2
who is obama?
obama - judgment and experience

the web address for the article above is

why must george bush keep unfairly provoking the jihadis?

Talking to the killers is much better, then they will not kill people. Barack Obama has the right ideas:

  • abandon our friends in Iraq,
  • attack our allies in Pakistan, and
  • appease our enemies in Iran.
  • “When did the threat to us start?

  • Munich Olympics 1972
  • Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
  • Beirut , Lebanon Embassy 1983;
  • Beirut , Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
  • Lockerbie , Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
  • First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
  • Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
  • Nairobi , Kenya US Embassy 1998;
  • Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
  • Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
  • New York World Trade Center 2001;
  • Pentagon 2001.

“(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).”

According to one source, this figure is now 10,776.

the web address for the article above is

obama round-up, after his speech on race and pastor wright

  • obama distancing himself from wright

    “No doubt Obama is perfectly well aware that the CIA did not invent the AIDS virus, and President Bush did not conceive the September 11 attacks, nor did he "lie" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But to admit these obvious propositions would separate Obama from many of his most dedicated supporters. Hence his desire to distance himself from Rev. Wright without ever specifying what, exactly, he is distancing himself from.”

    Thus, he is both cowardly and dishonest.

  • obama and black nationalism

    From Obama’s church:
    “Church statement of faith, item 11:
    Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System”

Marker at

“The additional "10-point Vision" of Reverend Wright (still featured on the church website) specifies "A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA." Nowhere in the "10-point Vision" or the "twelve precepts" or the 25 course offerings for religious education or in any other church materials do the organizers of Trinity mention anything at all about loyalty to the United States of America, or service to the nation that hosts the church, or gratitude to the amazingly benevolent society that has embraced one of the congregation’s members as a leading presidential candidate.”

Marker at

This is good analysis:
“Here’s the deal, he seemed to say: if you elect me, we can at last put an end to all the lectures and breast-beating about our brutal racist history. When I stand on the steps of the Capitol building and take the oath of office as your president, that very act will put an end- forever- to the idea of African-Americans as second-class citizens. Rather than endless recriminations and accusations, we’ll all stand together as equals in the eyes of God and the U.S. Constitution.

“Millions of Americans - including some conservatives who should have known better- rushed to take that deal, and embraced Obama’s candidacy.

“But now, at a decisive point in the race, the candidate has abruptly changed the bargain.

“Rather than promising less race consciousness, he now insists we need more. Instead of bidding to lead a post-racial-- or at least a post-racist-America, Obama’s speech tells us we must go back to picking at the old scab.”

  • victor hanson commenting on obama’s speech

    Hanson is accurate as most of the time.

    “Obama is right about one thing: We are losing yet another opportunity to talk honestly about race, to hold all Americans to the same standards of public ethics and morality, and to emphasize that no one gets a pass peddling vulgar racism, or enabling it by failing to disassociate himself from its source - not Rev. Wright, not even the eloquent, but now vapid, Barack Obama.”

    Now he’s calling Obama “vapid”. How very accurate and precise!

  • obama blowing hard with the wind

    A useful summary of Obama’s tacking and turning over Iraq.

    “In Obama’s reminders that he opposed the Iraq war in 2002, he contrasts his record with that of Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war.

    “Yet a comparison of all 85 votes the Senate has held on Iraq since Obama entered the chamber shows he and Clinton differed only once "when Obama voted to support the nomination of Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq for nearly three years, to become the Army chief of staff." ”

related material
who is obama?
obama 2 - judgment and experience

the web address for the article above is

why america works and socialism fails

UK Northern Rock dies, Brown the Clown dithers for six months -
US Bear Stearn is taken over in two days

After messing up the economy by interminable meddling, Gordon Brown the Clown believes he can run a bank, Northern Rock.

The United States of America just guarantees some mortgages and the failed bank goes to a better performer.

“The price tag is a rock bottom $236 million, or $2 a share. At the end of Friday, the company's market value was $3.54 billion. The Federal Reserve has agreed to fund up to $30 billion of Bear Stearns' less liquid assets.

“The blockbuster deal for the former Wall Street heavy hitter, if completed, would be another big win for JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon, who would be buying the broken brokerage house at a relative bargain - despite its recent troubles.

“Dimon, who turned 52 last week, has been widely praised on the Street for steering through some of the worst credit problems that have clobbered rivals like Citigroup and Merrill Lynch.” [Quoted from]

JPMorgan now own Bear Stearns. The effect is the Fed [US Federal Reserve Bank] is taking paper as collateral from Bear Stearns (now part of JPM). This is a normal function of a national bank. The paper is just not regarded as being as solid as the usual paper the Fed would have taken for the loans. The Fed is taking the paper as if it were a normal backed loan from JPM and guaranteeing the bank against losses on the paper.

The Fed is treating the paper as money equivalent in cash. That is a risk of some manner, but so are all banking transactions.

The money ‘lent’ by the Fed is also subject to inflationary risks, but in this case JPM has money instead of mortgages as its risk item, whereas the Fed has mortgages as its risk centre.

If you want to go further, you would need to understand what banks do normally with money (which they habitually first ‘borrow’), whereas the Fed just prints it and takes a steady highly reliable profit/tax. The Fed also takes ‘interest’.

In this narrow case, they have taken mortgages, you may then follow that further down the chain. The mortgages are a real risk, in that the Fed can lose on them, for instance, if the (that bundle of ) housing market results in some foreclosures. Otherwise, they have an income stream that would have gone to the banks. Therefore, that part of the parcel is ‘nationalised’.

Now, read this carefully from Keynes, this remains good advice to this day for leaders facing the present credit problems:

“Thus inflation is unjust and deflation is inexpedient. Of the two perhaps deflation is, if we rule out exaggerated inflations such as that of Germany, the worse; because it is worse, in an impoverished world, to provoke unemployment than to disappoint the rentier. But it is necessary that we should weigh one evil against the other. It is easier to agree that both are evils to be shunned. The individualistic capitalism of today, precisely because it entrusts saving to the individual investor and production to the individual employer, presumes a stable measuring-rod of value, and cannot be efficient-perhaps cannot survive-without one.”
Social consequences of the changes in the value of money, 1923

It could not possibly be put more clearly. If you understand the words, that is the situation presently facing markets and governments.

It is a matter of fine judgements and balances.

Government’s sane job is to protect ‘the little fellow’, not to protect Bear Stearns or the management of Northern Crock. That is precisely what the Fed are doing.

And it is what Gordon Brown the Clown is fumbling at every turn.

Further, as America runs a free market, all these things are well understood in American government (despite the whining dishonesty of the Democrat politicians trying to take advantage of the situation). In Britain and Europe, the first instinct is to look to government.

In America, government is merely an enabler, and an umpire, in Britain it is an infernal meddler.

related material
a considerable proportion of waste is caused by the wage and dole economy - what to do
on keynes - socialism and inflation

the web address for the article above is

how the thick incompetent clown systematically destroys britain

Socialism continues to plough its inevitable course.

“Do you ever wonder how the Government came to make such a pig's ear of running the public services that by 2010 annual spending by the state will have doubled since 1997 to the astonishing sum of £674 billion - with little obvious to show in the way of improvement to justify such an outlay?”

“At the heart of the problems with public-sector reform is the regime's incapacity to do the right thing," Seddon says. "It is focused on doing the wrong things and assumes compliance to be evidence of success. The inability to act is systemic.”

“How much of this is wasted? The public sector employs 800,000 more people than in 1997, many of them engaged in developing specifications, writing guidance, drawing up standards, devising targets, enforcing inspections - all in the name of a reform programme that does not work properly.”

the web address for the article above is

on keynes - socialism and inflation

Much of the Left claim that John Maynard Keynes was in favour of inflation, and commonly claim Keynes was a socialist. Keynes was, in fact, a classical liberal [1] .

Nothing could be further from the truth. Keynes was one of the great minds of the 20th century, so naturally he despised socialism:

“Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of Opinion - how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised so powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and, through them, the events of history.”
The End of Laissez-faire, 1926.

This is what Keynes thought about inflation:

“Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become "profiteers,", who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

“Lenin was right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”
The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1919
The Economic Consequences of the Peace [online version - 106 A4 pages].

And in more detail, and good advice to this day for leaders facing the present credit problems:

“Thus inflation is unjust and deflation is inexpedient. Of the two perhaps deflation is, if we rule out exaggerated inflations such as that of Germany, the worse; because it is worse, in an impoverished world, to provoke unemployment than to disappoint the rentier. But it is necessary that we should weigh one evil against the other. It is easier to agree that both are evils to be shunned. The individualistic capitalism of today, precisely because it entrusts saving to the individual investor and production to the individual employer, presumes a stable measuring-rod of value, and cannot be efficient-perhaps cannot survive-without one.”
Social consequences of the changes in the value of money, 1923

end notes

  1. The word ‘liberal’ has come to be widely misused in the USA to mean ‘socialist’.
    Definition of ‘liberal’ : Favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform. Having political or social views favouring an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets, reform and progress

  2. End of Laissez Faire/Economic consequences of the peace

    The end of laissez faire/The Economic Consequences of the Peace
    by John Maynard Keynes

    Prometheus Books, 2004, pbk
    ISBN-10: 1591022681
    ISBN-13: 978-1591022688
    $10.20 []
    7.26 []

  3. Social consequences of the changes in the value of money, an essay in “II Inflation and deflation”, included in Essays of Persuasion.

the web address for the article above is

us treasury report of president’s committee on sub-prime problems [21-page .pdf]

Link now available for a report requested seven months ago, and released today.

“The turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into early 2007. But the loosening of credit standards and terms in the subprime market was symptomatic of a much broader erosion of market discipline on the standards and terms of loansto households and businesses. Following many years of benign economic conditions and plentiful market liquidity, global investors had become quite complacent about risks, even in the case of new and increasingly complex financial instruments.

“Competition and the desire to maintain higher returns created significant demand for structured credit products by investors. Originators, underwriters, asset managers, credit rating agencies, and investors failed to obtain sufficient information or to conduct comprehensive risk assessments on instruments that often were quite complex. Investors relied excessively on credit ratings, which contributed to their complacency about the risks they were assuming in pursuit of higher returns. Although market participants had economic incentives to conduct due diligence and evaluate risk-adjusted returns, the steps they took were insufficient, resulting in a significant erosion of market discipline.”

the web address for the article above is

why new media will defeat fossil media

To understand why this is coming to pass, you need to think clearly about communication.

It is far better to think of the spread ideas in terms of the spread of a flu virus, or of mental memes.

Newsgroup media is immensely powerful. It tends to drive the agenda.

This media has the immense advantage that it is multi-way and, therefore, notions get tested and refined.

This is why the leftist fossil media is in such disarray and slowly sinking commercially. The fossil media is increasingly becoming follower instead of leader. Almost all the old media are attempting to set up chat rooms. (These they then censor heavily to keep out dissenting voices. The old media is also now regularly solliciting film and reports from the general public, as the specialist blog analysts dominate agendas by virtue of superior knowledge.)

Further, politicians are increasingly being faced with the choice of either listening or ejection. It was amazing to see the incredibly dim UK culture minister, Margeret Hodge, recently on Newsnight, whining that people were not listening to her and not ‘debating’ with her, while in her empty arrogance she was part of the fag end of the Labour Party forcing through the fake EU constitution against the great majority of the country.

You are watching the slow death of an era.

the web address for the article above is

on nations and ethnic conflicts - useful reading [8-page essay; print version]

“[...] as if demonstrating that nationalism is constructed will rob the concept of its power.”

Marker at

“One could argue that Europe has been so harmonious since World War II not because of the failure of ethnic nationalism but because of its success, which removed some of the greatest sources of conflict both within and between countries. The fact that ethnic and state boundaries now largely coincide has meant that there are fewer disputes over borders or expatriate communities, leading to the most stable territorial configuration in European history.” [Quoted from p.6]

Marker at

“the largest forced population movement in European history”
“Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin all concluded that the expulsion of ethnic Germans from non-German countries was a prerequisite to a stable postwar order. As Churchill put it in a speech to the British parliament in December 1944, "Expulsion is the method which, so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble. . . . A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed at the prospect of the disentanglement of population, nor am I alarmed by these large transferences." He cited the Treaty of Lausanne as a precedent, showing how even the leaders of liberal democracies had concluded that only radically illiberal measures would eliminate the causes of ethnonational aspirations and aggression.

“Between 1944 and 1945, five million ethnic Germans from the eastern parts of the German Reich fled westward to escape the conquering Red Army, which was energetically raping and massacring its way to Berlin. Then, between 1945 and 1947, the new postliberation regimes in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Yugoslavia expelled another seven million Germans in response to their collaboration with the Nazis. Together, these measures constituted the largest forced population movement in European history, with hundreds of thousands of people dying along the way." [Quoted from p.4]

Marker at

“This unfortunate reality creates dilemmas for advocates of humanitarian intervention in such conflicts, because making and keeping peace between groups that have come to hate and fear one another is likely to require costly ongoing military missions rather than relatively cheap temporary ones. When communal violence escalates to ethnic cleansing, moreover, the return of large numbers of refugees to their place of origin after a cease-fire has been reached is often impractical and even undesirable, for it merely sets the stage for a further round of conflict down the road.

“Partition may thus be the most humane lasting solution to such intense communal conflicts. It inevitably creates new flows of refugees, but at least it deals with the problem at issue. The challenge for the international community in such cases is to separate communities in the most humane manner possible: by aiding in transport, assuring citizenship rights in the new homeland, and providing financial aid for resettlement and economic absorption. The bill for all of this will be huge, but it will rarely be greater than the material costs of interjecting and maintaining a foreign military presence large enough to pacify the rival ethnic combatants or the moral cost of doing nothing.” [Quoted from p.8]

[Lead from Limbic]

the web address for the article above is

yes we can - i knew it reminded me of sommat

Immaturity and spoiled child - Obarma.

“We can do anything we want
We can do anything we want
We can do anything we want
We can do anything we want

“Why you gotta play that song so loud?
Because we want to! because we want to!
Why dyou always run around in crowds?
Because we want to! because we want to!
Why dyou always have to dance all night?
Because we want to! because we want to!
Why dyou always say whats on your mind?
Because we want to! because we want to!”

Compare with “Yes we can” from Barack Obama.

related material
sayings of chairman obarmy

the web address for the article above is

disproportionate response

Cartoon of Hamas v. the Coalition og the Willing. Image:

the web address for the article above is

brown the clown continues to impoverish britain - the inevitable toll of socialists on britain

“[...] Figures published earlier this month show that one household in three now relies on the state for more than half its income. This mass welfarism is both economically crippling and socially disastrous, and must rank as Mr Blair's most egregious policy failure.” [Quoted from]

Marker at

“Official figures from the Labour Force Survey show that the number of foreigners in the UK workforce increased between 2001 and last year by 864,000 - to just over two million people.[...]”

“By contrast the number of UK-born nationals in the workforce fell, between 2001 and 2007, down by 500,000 from 24.4 million in 2001 to 23.9 million last year.”

“Around 4.8 million people are currently claiming out-of-work benefits. Around 2.6 million are on incapacity benefits - 120,000 more than when Labour came to power in 1997.

“Last weekend David Freud, the Government's new welfare adviser, told The Daily Telegraph that as many as 1.9?million people claiming incapacity benefit could in fact work.

“An additional factor in the fall in British workers is emigration. In the 12 months to July 2006, 385,000 people left the country, thought to be the highest number since the 1960s.” [Quoted from]

the web address for the article above is

You are here: politics news from March 2008 < News < Home

latest abstracts briefings information   hearing damage memory France zone

email abelard email email_abelard [at]

© abelard, 2008, 1 march
all rights reserved

variable words
prints as increasing A4 pages (on my printer and set-up)