Randomly Selected Article or Link

I caught this on the BBC:

It is this last part that really gets me riled:

What utter bollocks, to use the technical turn of phrase, when applied to a parent. In the public gaze, there will be a parent taking a taxi with their child, acting as parent and under their authority alone as parent. The whole purpose of the CRB type legislation is to reassure those with primary caring responsibilities for vulnerable people, usually parents and other guardians, that others, when put in positions of contact or responsibility for their wards, children and relatives, have been checked out.

Do parents living in council housing have to be "CRBed"? Does a parent waiting with their child in an NHS medical facility waiting room have to be "CRBed"? Or even a parent stepping onto school property to deliver their child right to the door? In what way are those different from this case?

The future of diplomacy?

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Glasgow and West | Primary school wins 'blog' award:

A primary school has won an award for its innovative international links with schools over the internet.

Staff and children at Woodhill Primary School in Bishopbriggs have set up blogs on subjects including French language and healthy lifestyles.

Technorati Tags: internet

The Oxford Mail/Times reports today that the New Westgate [shopping centre is..] Vital For City

Confidential documents have revealed that Oxford would suffer serious economic damage if a hash is made of the Westgate redevelopment.

Plans for the £300m scheme to transform the shopping centre are due to be considered by a specially-convened planning committee later this month.

But papers leaked to the Oxford Mail show real concern at the consequences of the project failing.

When I was on the council I was wary of confidential documents that only councillors were supposed to see. If one were leaked there was always an outrage and often a bit of a witch hunt to try to find out who did it if it weren't already obvious. But most of the time, they did not relate to the specific wellbeing of an officer, as perhaps would details of a pay or disciplinary issue, but that much wider catch-all of "protecting commercial confidentiality" for the council's business affairs.

Well bugger that. It sounds to me from what little is in the Oxford Mail report that this is exactly the sort of information that is needed to help inform the public debate about what will be a massive disruption to our city for many years and which we are now led to believe could have more devastating long term efects on not just the city council's finances, in which we all have an over-riding interest since it is our money they are looking after but the general economic wellbeing and vitality of Oxford's city centre.

So. What precisely was confidential about these reports that the Oxford Mail got hold of? Perhaps the cabinet member for a better value Oxford could shed some light?

This project is already contentious. Has been in the air for, what, six years now already and has yet even to get planning permission. Frankly, I'm sceptical about the whole thing still and I hope they don't roll over and accept an application just because it might prove least worst for the city council, but local people have got to have a fully informed debate, which now cannot happen before the planning hearing happens if there really are such far reaching potential consequences for the city.

Yes, it's not a planning matter. they can still give planning consent and then pull out of the contract as landowner, but that is the bit we, the people, need to give a steer to our servants in government on.

ConservativeHome on Sunday included this little piece of hubris. Now, it is true that, somewhat inexplicably to me, Gideon's announcement about raising the Inheritance Tax threshold, something that everyone seems to acknowledge affects just 6% of estates (about 30,000 families each year) currently, seems to have done them a lot of favours, positioning them in the public perception at least as a tax cutting party.

But it would be quite wrong on a number of levels to say that they are lowering taxes:

• First, they are simply shifting the burden. Sure, it is shifting from a few relatively wealthy households (with average house prices once again below £200k having a housing asset over £350k is still in the top quintile nationwide) who can and generally do vote to a very tiny number of households who generally can't and don't vote. But shifting, rather than cutting, it undeniably is.
• Second, even if it were not the "revenue neutral" shift (after all they have also promised to stick to Labour's spending plans so need the money from somewhere) it would amount to a tax cut of just 0.88% of the government tax take (that's central government by the way - i.e. excluding local taxes). If a party that has regularly claimed to be managerially superior and capable of saving government wastage cannot "lose" less than a measly one per cent of its revenue in efficiency savings, they're clearly not the competent financial managers they would have us believe!

It astonishes me that a measure that would be felt my fewer than 30,000 families per year can be spun as some major step forward in tax shifting, let alone tax cutting. Compared to the Lib Dem proposals - abolishing the Council Tax (the tax most respondents found unfair in recent polling by the Tax Payers' Alliance) would be immediately felt by virtually all households; reducing national Income Tax by four pence in the pound would be felt by every individual earning anything more than the personal allowance, the Tory changes to IHT and Stamp Duty on homes, are small fry - mere plankton in fact.

But both parties of course propose changes that are "revenue neutral". Nobody seems to be advocating real tax cuts. And maybe when the population wakes up to this fact they will see through the spin and reject those attempting to hood-wink them into believing they will somehow be much better off. On balance of course, the Lib Dem proposals would leave far more people better off, if they tread lightly on the resources of the planet, for most of our tax cuts are to be funded by increases in taxation for environmentally damaging behaviour and life-styles.

Vince Cable - the best prospective Chancellor by far?

So why is it not us that have made eleven percentage point gains in the polls? For I have to say, compared with either Gideon, Gordon, Balls or Darling I find Vince Cable the most palpably honest and certainly best briefed potential Chancellor of the Exchequer in mainstream politics right now. Might I suggest that it is a lack of clarity, especially about who gains and who loses under our proposals. This was most obviously apparent when Charles Kennedy famously fluffed his interview on Local Income Tax during the 2005 General Election campaign.

Our Green Taxes and local tax reform ideas have been criticized by others:

• as affecting the annual family holiday (wrong - they do however aim to penalize those very lucky tiny few who have the time, lack of domestic commitments and financial wherewithal to take weekend breaks abroad every month or two - where their flight costs pale into insignificance compared with hotel and entertainment costs)
• to hit the poorest households' motorists (wrong again - the 33% poorest households by and large still do not even have access to a private car and would in fact be likely to benefit from the resultant investment and better efficiency in public transport)
• or to greatly increase the income tax of those two young nurses of CK's fluffed interview (still wrong - the four pence in the pound reduction in national income tax is intended to more than cover the Local Income Tax and they won't be paying Council Tax on top).

So why can't we get that across to people? It's a far more compelling package than the Tories and their tax cuts for the rich - which is jam tomorrow for even those who might benefit and jam never for most of us.

Now, you would not expect me to comment on tax policy without mentioning my pet pair of elephants - Land Value Tax and Citizens' Income . I maintain that by adopting the "Single Tax" of Henry George - that is taxing the unimproved value of all land as a replacement for (most*) Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, Corporation Tax, and, if Europe were to agree, Value Added Taxes and returning most of even that Land Value Tax to the people to spend in the form of "an unconditional, non-withdrawable income payable to each individual as a right of citizenship" (the description used by the Citizens' Income Trust) would so transform our economy and environment that government expenditure could be reduced to just a fraction of the proportion of the national income it is today.

Couple this with monetary reform that would see a national credit authority, free of government and politicians' interference, creating just the right amount of new currency needed by the economy to account for each year's growth in the economy instead of privatised debt creation doing the same job with a lot less stability as recent weeks in the financial markets have shown, we would have virtually no need for taxation at all (except perhaps as a behaviour modifying mechanism)

Pie in the sky? Well, it may be. But surely that sort of promise is worth investigating at the highest level. We assume the way we currently operate - coercive taxation and state capitalism - is the only one possible. It is true that, as the joke goes, in order to get to that fiscal nirvana one would not start from where we are, but the potential attractions are so enormous that we ignore them at our peril. Land Value Tax has some heavy-weight supporters historically - Adam Smith, J S Mill, Winston Churchill, Lloyd George, Albert Einstein, George Bernard Shaw, Milton Friedman and others cannot all have been wrong, surely?

I stumbled across this group of bloggers the other day called the "Low Tax Coalition" .  I considered applying to join their number, but so far as I can see not one of them even dares to imagine the sort of low/no tax economy I set out above.

*I say "most" Income Taxes (and possibly CGT too) because I am becoming more convinced that some of these taxes on (some of) the highest earners may be necessary in the short to medium term to recoup the "embodied advantage" they have gained under the current less fair system. For an example of what I mean, look at the current Sainsbury take-over where the shareholders are about to crystalize property values worth up to around £10bn effectively valuing the grocery business at nothing despite its obvious earnings history and potential.

If the world is a more dangerous place, it's as much because of people like Richard Armitage: US threatened to bomb Pakistan as it is because of people like Bin Laden.

I hope personally that we will choose to stand shoulder to shoulder with our Commonwealth brothers and sisters who have provided us with many of our residents and not a few friends and colleagues than a regime that even remotely thinks it's acceptable to make such threats.

Interestingly though, this is a similar phrase to one that was alleged to have been used as an ultimatum to the Taliban themselves, BEFORE 9/11, two months before, when they were stalling in talks over a Unocal pipeline from the central asian republics to the Arabian Sea coast.

If you threaten what to most of us seemed like a basket case state and their friends respond with a 9/11, would you really want to threaten a more sophisticated populous and relatively much more influential military one with nukes, even small ones, like Pakistan?