Gordon Prentice - Talking Politics

I tend to agree with those who say Alex Salmond’s proposed referendum question is loaded.

Professor John Curtice is surely right when he says that in everyday conversation people are more inclined to say they agree than don’t agree.

We need a formulation that is neutral. One that doesn’t nudge the voter in a particular direction.

There have been two attempts to prise Quebec out of the Canadian federation. The first referendum in 1980 saw 40.4% in favour of succession, 59.5% against.

In the re-run in 1995, those wanting an independent Quebec were only narrowly defeated by 50.5% to 49.4%.

Ominously, the question in the 1995 referendum begins with the words:

Do you agree…

What follows is more opaque

…that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

It is an open question how many Quebeckers fully understood the question. Some reports suggest over a quarter of those voting yes didn’t realise they were voting for an independent Quebec.

In any event, once the dust settled, legislation was brought in to make things crystal clear. Canada’s Clarity Act 2000 is designed to ensure any referendum question cannot be read two ways.

Salmond’s referendum question appears clear and straightforward but it is nonetheless a leading question, which my dictionary tells me is

a question phrased in a manner that tends to suggest the desired answer

It must be changed to a formulation that doesn’t tilt the voter towards independence.

Lois Brown MP

Last night, I take myself off to the Aurora Cultural Centre where the local Conservative MP, Lois Brown, is holding a “Pre Budget Consultation”. She wants to know what people want to see included in the forthcoming Federal budget.

Nothing prepares me for the views expressed by the parade of right wing Canadians who declaim from a lectern six feet away from the MP. She sits behind a desk, listening attentively, taking notes.

Step forward, Bruce Annan who describes himself as an accomplished speaker. He is, apparently, an international media consultant based in the town.

He tells the 25 of us in the audience the Harper government was right to pull out of the Kyoto accord and abolish the so-called “long gun register” which requires people with rifles, shotguns and the like to get clearance first from the police before they start shooting things.

He lists with approval Harper’s wilder initiatives before urging the majority Conservative Government to turn its attention to “union bullies’.

The silver tongued media man says the Government should get out of the business of international aid. That’s something for private individuals.

And he believes in flat taxes.

He declares: “By definition, Government spending is poorly spent.”

“I agree with you” chirrups Lois.

“We have to cut.”

She confesses she has no time for Keynes. Her lodestars are Milton Freidman and Freidrich Hayek She says Margaret Thatcher is her inspiration.

Lois applauds Toronto Mayor, Fat Rob Ford, for trying to get rid of the City’s subsidised housing.

And, yes, she wants to simplify the tax structure. She is thinking about a flat tax – though it is not Government policy.

Nevertheless, she invites the views of the Chamber of Commerce who, minutes before, pleaded for lower taxes.

That’s the way these Pre Budget consultations work.

Attachments:

Your Scotland. Your Referendum.pdf

[Your Scotland. Your Referendum. January 2012]

786 Kb

The BBC’s Nick Robinson tells us that Ed Miliband backs pay cuts.

Oh dear!

In his defence Miliband says “The priority has got to be to protect jobs.”

I am left wondering how far you can take this approach before people start to say no.

The most extreme example of wage cutting is happening here in Ontario where, on 1 January, the US multinational giant, Caterpillar, locked out nearly 500 workers at the plant in London, close to the American border.

The plant’s previous owner, Progress Rail, was bought last year by a wholly owned Canadian subsidiary of Caterpillar.

Now the company wants to slash their $35 hourly wages by half and significantly reduce their benefits. Caterpillar say they want to get wages and benefits in line with their US plants.

If you go down this road where does it all stop? $10 an hour?

This Saturday there will be a rally in the town and all the federal Party leaders have been invited.

They will be asked the age old question: whose side are you on?

With some politicians we already know the answer.

Canada’s Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, looks the other way. He doesn’t want to get involved. But when Air Canada employees were on strike last year, Harper was the first to threaten back-to-work legislation.

We wait for other politicians to find their voice.

Goldman Sachs bonuses average £240,000

A world away from the picket line in London, Ontario, the 1% and their helpers continue to cash in.

As it happens, I’ve just seen the terrific film, Margin Call, which takes the audience into the heart of a US investment bank just as finance capitalism goes into meltdown.

Now, a few years later, and after humungous amounts of public money have baled out private banks, we realise little has changed.

Goldman Sachs’ 95 so-called “code staff” based in the UK share a staggering £175m topped up with additional millions in “Restricted Stock Units”.

Seems to me these stock options should be banned outright. And we should return to progressive taxation to make sure the wealthiest pay their fair share.

What does it take for people to feel outrage at what is happening?

Mitt Romney paying tax at 15%?

Birtwistle’s NHS deadline

Burnley’s Liberal Democrat MP, the boastful Gordon Birtwistle, says he has secured the cash for a brand new A&E department or Urgent Care Centre at Burnley General Hospital.

Never a man to sell himself short, Birtwistle tells the Lancashire Telegraph

I’ve got money approved down in London providing they (the hospital trust) get the bid in before April 4.

I’m not bothered about what it’s called as long as we get back what we had before.

Birtwistle’s bombshell takes everyone by surprise.

There is no mention of a £12m capital project in the East Lancashire Hospital’s 2011-12 business plan which covers the period 2011-2016 (see attached).

The Trust plans to incorporate the Royal Blackburn’s Urgent Care Centre into its Emergency Department. But there is no mention of any souped up UCC at Burnley.

If Birtwistle delivers the cash he promises, will the sparkling new building still be an Urgent Care Centre – a designation he likened previously to a “first aid post”?

Meanwhile, in the constituency next door, Pendle’s Conservative MP, Andrew Stephenson, is holding out for the A&E badge to be reinstated. He told readers of the local rag, the Nelson Leader:

Since my election, I am happy to say that the Urgent Care Centre at Burnley is now receiving more ambulances, however the majority of blue-light cases are still going to Blackburn. This is good news, but I still want to see Burnley General have its A&E designation reinstated in full.

I have been keeping up the pressure on the Department of Health, who are undertaking a national review into how urgent and emergency care services are categorised, the “nomenclature review”. Unfortunately, the review is taking a long time, but as ridiculous as it sounds there has never been a proper definition of what services an Urgent Care Centre or A&E Department should provide.

I dare say all will become clear in due course.

Attachments:

ELHT_Annual_Business_Plan_2011-12.pdf

[East Lancs NHS Trust Business Plan 2011-2012]

715 Kb

The future of the UK could be decided by foreigners if the Coalition Government’s plans for the forthcoming Scottish referendum are allowed to stand.

There are an estimated 253,000 foreign nationals living in Scotland and many of them will have a vote.

Under the UK’s absurdly anachronistic voting laws, citizens of 53 Commonwealth countries as well as the Republic of Ireland are allowed to vote in all elections. This concession is reciprocated only in Ireland and in a tiny handful of Commonwealth countries.

EU nationals can vote in Scottish Parliamentary elections but not for Westminster. Perversely, they will also be able to vote in the Independence referendum.

In the document Scotland’s Constitutional Future (see attached) the Government says certain categories of non UK citizens should be able to participate in the referendum because they already can vote in Scottish Parliamentary elections and to do otherwise

could lead to administrative complications and risk the perception

that changes were being made to favour one or other outcome, and would enfranchise individuals currently ineligible to vote in Scottish Parliament elections.

This means a closely fought referendum could be decided by people with next to no connection or affinity with either Scotland or the UK. They just happen to be living in Scotland for the time being and on the electoral register.

The UK Government believes

the existing Scottish Parliament franchise achieves the right balance of clarity, consistency, and transparency, and would be administratively straightforward to deliver.

Isn’t something missing?

What about fairness?

How can it be right to allow the UK’s centuries old constitutional settlement to be changed irreversibly by non UK citizens?

Allowing non-citizens to vote for members of a devolved Parliament with circumscribed powers is one thing. Giving non-citizens a say in the possible dismemberment of the UK is something else.

Participation in this make or break referendum should be restricted to UK citizens whose primary address is in Scotland. Pure and simple.

Too bad if this causes administrative complications.

For the record, citizens of the following 53 Commonwealth countries who are legally resident in Scotland will be able to vote in the Independence referendum: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica, Fiji Islands, The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Attachments:

Scotland Referendum.pdf

[Scotland's Constitutional Future]

827 Kb

The Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, tells us to expect a referendum on independence in 2014. Cameron wants one too but insists it is held a year earlier, in 2013, thereby avoiding a nasty clash with the 700^th anniversary of Bannockburn.

Interestingly, the official Clan Cameron website claims “young Camerons” were instrumental in defeating the English in that legendary battle.

Whatever the date, I am left wondering how much information will be available before the vote on the consequences on any decision to split from the rest of the UK?

What happens to the billions of pounds of assets that need to be divided up? There will be a million practical questions that need convincing answers.

Holding a referendum before these details are thrashed out is a tad premature.

What about social security payments? Pensions? The national debt?

Personally, I am dead against unpicking the fabric of the UK that has been woven over centuries. And, if truth be told, I am also slightly miffed at the prospect of not having a vote. True. I don’t live in Scotland though my roots there go back to 1613.

And what about people who live elsewhere but have second homes in Scotland and are, therefore, on the electoral register?

And will non-UK citizens living in Scotland have a vote? If so, why?

As it happens, I live in Canada but, as a UK citizen, I can’t vote in elections or referendums here.

So why should an ex-pat Canadian living in Scotland have a vote and so help determine the future of the UK?

Talking of which (Canada) constitutional experts here have been thinking for years about the consequences of Quebec leaving the Canadian Federation. One, Tom Flanagan, puts it this way

Canada can’t be broken up by a one-vote majority in a provincial referendum. The most that such a referendum can do, regardless of the size of the majority, is to trigger negotiations with the federal government and the other provinces about the terms of a possible separation agreement.

Seems to me this is a bit back to front.

Much better for the terms of any separation to be settled before the referendum – fat chance! - allowing voters to form a considered view.

The alternative is a Braveheart referendum, set to the music of Flower of Scotland, where all that matters is giving the English another poke in the eye.

Crossing the floor

If there is one thing that seriously upsets me it is the sight of an MP switching sides to save their political skin.

Enter Lise St.-Denis, an NDP member of Parliament for the Quebec riding of Saint-Maurice—Champlain who is crossing the floor of the House of Commons to join the Liberals.

Lise St.-Denis was part of the great orange wave that swept the Bloc away in last year’s federal election. Her constituency was once held by former Liberal Prime Minister, Jean Chretien.

The NDP wants to see MPs who change allegiance resign and trigger a by election. They are, of course, free to stand again under their new colours and explain their change of heart to the voters.

Alas, it rarely happens.

Instead they are welcomed into the fold with open arms and – in the UK – often rewarded with Ministerial posts.

Time to dump that convention too.

Ed Miliband thinks of himself as being “excessively serious”.

I find his candour rather endearing. It sets him apart from most politicians vying for high office who would not dream of saying anything that hadn’t first been through a focus group. That said, the revelations to Mail on Sunday readers are occasionally toe curling.

In an earlier interview with Jon Snow last year he said he offers authenticity. What you see is what you get. At the time I remember scoring him ten out of ten for this self awareness.

Just imagine if previous Labour leaders had been this forthright.

Picture Blair confessing to excessive guile or Broon to excessive dourness.

What fun!

Anyway… Miliband shouldn’t dwell on what the Labour peer and academic, Lord Glasman, has to say about him.

Instead, he should concentrate on giving clear, straightforward answers to the big issues of the day. Steer away from triangulation, always calculating how best to offend the fewest number. People are fed up with that kind of politics.

Miliband’s job is to shape and mould public opinion not to follow it.

One other point. I tend to agree with the Guardian’s Simon Hoggart who says Miliband should throw away the script at PMQs and think on his feet, responding directly to what Cameron says.

This must be good advice. A clever riposte – the wittier the better - always lifts the spirits.

How to elect (or not) a Party leader

Canada’s official opposition, the left leaning NDP, is in the throes of a leadership election following the much lamented death of Jack Layton last year.

Nine hopefuls threw their hats into the ring with one Nova Scotia MP since dropping out because of his lamentably weak French.

The great disadvantage of having such a crowded field is that the candidates’ debates are necessarily quick-fire affairs. Thirty second answers are the norm. Sometimes even more compressed than that.

Bizarrely, I find myself forming impressions of the candidates based on a phrase or a hand gesture!

I nod in approval as I hear Thomas Mulcaire, the fluently bi-lingual MP from Quebec, talk about Alberta’s “tar’ sands. Apologists for the industry always use the more neutral “oil” sands.

Candidates do not require nominations from NDP MPs to enter the race. Anyone who can secure 500 signatures from NDP members – at least half from women - across the five NDP regions of Canada can enter the ring.

Indeed, one candidate, Brian Topp, is a long time Party strategist and not an MP.

The gruelling six month long contest ends on 24 March. And for many, it comes not a moment too soon.

The MP contenders had to give up their Commons portfolios for the duration of the leadership contest.

This is supposed to create a more level playing field, making sure front bench spokespeople can’t hog the limelight.

It’s all very Canadian.

Meanwhile the Liberal Party of Canada licks its wounds. (See attachment below)

Next week its convention will try to learn the lessons of its defeat in last year’s federal election which reduced its representation in the House of Commons to 34 seats (out of 301).

In a timetable that is leisurely to say the least, the Party will elect a leader in 2013, making do with an interim leader, Bob Rae, until then.

Canada’s 0.01%

The excellent Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives gets huge coverage for its report on the pay of Canada’s business elite.

The 100 top-paid Chief Executives made 189 times the average Canadian’s salary in 2010.

Here is how the story was covered by the CBC, Canada’s national broadcaster.

Attachments:

Liberal Roadmap. Long version.pdf	[A Road Map to Renewal. Liberal Party of Canada]	674 Kb
NDP_Rulebook_EN.pdf	[NDP Leadership Rules]	1145 Kb

The NHS Outcomes Framework 2012-13 tells me that, next year, there will be a survey of people attending A&E to find out what kind of experience they’ve had. Good ones, I hope.

The survey is run on “an ad hoc rolling basis”. The last one was in 2008 – just after Burnley General’s A&E Department was controversially downgraded to an Urgent Care Centre.

Despite countless solemn pledges by Coalition MPs to “bring back A&E” Burnley is, alas, still stuck with its UCC tag.

At the time of the downgrading there was a tremendous kerfuffle which has since died down as people adjust to the new reality.  Put bluntly, they are not getting their A&E back.

Nevertheless there are one or two loose ends that should, for neatness sake, be tied up.

Seems to me this is the ideal opportunity to find out what happened to the so-called “Nomenclature Review” which has disappeared into the deep swamp of promises made, but not kept.

On 14 September 2010, the Health Minister, Simon Burns, said the review would be published by the end of the year  (ie 2010) 

When somebody walks through the doors of an A&E department, a walk-in centre or an emergency care centre, what exactly should they expect? What ailments or injuries are most appropriate for each setting? It is not only an issue of general confusion; it is also a matter of safety. If someone presents at a place describing itself as an accident and emergency department, but it does not have the same facilities as most A&Es, that patient could face delay and unnecessary risk.

As part of the quality, innovation, productivity and prevention programme, work on standardising urgent and emergency care is under way. Its aim is to clarify what services can be expected in various facilities. By using criteria based on clinical evidence, it should be possible to standardise those terms across the country. That is currently being done in three pilot areas: East Lancashire, Manchester and Salisbury. The conclusions should be published by the end of the year, alongside the operating framework. However, it will not state which types of service should be provided in particular areas. That decision will be made locally.

On 17 November last year, the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, confesses that even the College of Emergency Medicine has trouble with the terminology.

…it does not recognise what an urgent care centre is. From its point of view, hospitals should either have an emergency department or an A and E or they should not. If they do not, it is very important to be clear that they do not. I feel that we need to be much clearer about the nature of the service provided in A and E departments and the distinction between that and the service provided in minor injury or minor illness centres.

Presumably, the doctors are just as confused now as they were in 2010.

The NHS Operating Framework for 2012-13 is published in December 2011, as expected, but still no sign of that elusive review.

Attachments:

NHS Outcomes Framework 2012-13. Technical Appendix.pdf	[NHS Operating Framework. Technical Appendix]	2432 Kb
NHS Outcomes framework 2012-3.pdf	[NHS Operating Framework 2012-13]	237 Kb

The debate on the veil explodes again.

The Canadian Government says no-one can become a Canadian citizen if they insist on wearing a veil while taking the oath of allegiance.

The Toronto Star says this is discriminatory.

The paper suggests the veil lifting could be done in private, perhaps in front of a female judge. The Star claims veiled women already show their faces in private to agents of the State.

“We know of no cases In Canada where women have refused to show their faces to obtain passports, driver’s licences and other documents. Why should administering a citizenship oath be so problematic?”

Co-incidentally, the Supreme Court of Canada is wrestling with a case where a Muslim woman alleging sexual assault by male relatives will only take the stand if veiled. If she is ordered to remove the veil – which she wears for religious reasons - she will refuse and the case will collapse.

The Canadian way is to seek some kind of accommodation but, in this case, there is no half way house.

If the Court rules in the woman’s favour and allows her to stay veiled where does it all end?

Someone refusing to appear before a female judge or gay judge, citing deeply held religious convictions as a reason?

What madness this would be.

Why isn’t Fred Goodwin in jail?

How on earth is it possible to bring a bank to its knees, destroying thousands of jobs in the process and yet walk away from the carnage with a £342,500 a year pension and with the knighthood “for services to banking” still intact?

We now know from the Financial Services Authority there was no regulation worthy of the name to prevent Goodwin and people like him playing Russian roulette with the future of a once venerable Scottish institution.

The disgraced former Chief Executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Sir Fred Goodwin, masterminded the hostile takeover of ABN AMRO on the basis of information supplied by the Dutch bank which was contained in “two lever arch folders and a CD”.

Seems a tad cavalier to me. The FSA report on the catastrophic failure of the RBS says that readers might be “startled” to find out how little information was provided to the RBS Board.

However, the FSA goes on to say this is par for the course where there is a hostile takeover.

Given that we are talking about the biggest takeover in banking history I would have expected a room full of lever arch files.

I search the FSA report, typing in the words “due diligence” and, though there are a million references to the term in the 450 page report, there wasn’t any due diligence taking place in the RBS. The acquisition of the Dutch bank was a huge gamble.

Yet we are told no-one can be held to account for this calamitous decision as “there are no codes or standards against which to judge whether due diligence is adequate”.

Whatever happened to the concept of fiduciary duty? That people in charge of public companies shouldn’t behave recklessly?

The chair of the FSA, Adair Turner, believes the rules (such as they are) need to be re-written.

“The fact that no individual has been found legally responsible for the failure (of the RBS) begs the question: if action cannot be taken under existing rules, should not the rules be changed for the future?”

He floats the possibility of fines and bans for bank directors and executives who behave recklessly with no thought to the consequences of their actions.

The FSA will be publishing a discussion paper on the options in the New Year but I doubt Fred Goodwin will drag himself away from the golf course to offer his views.

Attachments:

FSA report on Royal Bank of Scotland.pdf

[FSA report on the failure of the Royal Bank of Scotland]

6146 Kb

A string of allegedly corrupt politicians will appear in Court tomorrow (6 December 2011) in the Turks and Caicos Islands, a tiny British Overseas Territory in the Caribbean, made famous by the tax cheat Michael Ashcroft who is a “belonger”.

After a laborious two year investigation, charges are now being laid by the independent special prosecutor, Helen Garlick, who has been looking at the sale of Crown land to developers and the granting of belongerships in return for favours.

Politicians were selling for their personal gain permissions to buy Crown land. They also had a hand in deciding who could become a “belonger” – a citizen of the Turks and Caicos who has the right to buy land.

For years there has been talk of well connected politicians taking secret commissions, bribes and inducements from developers, eager to exploit the islands’ tourist potential.

A leading developer, Jak Civre, is facing prosecution.

Chai Misick, the brother of the former premier, Michael Misick, is among those charged with offences including bribery and money laundering.

Michael Misick has not, as yet, been charged though his worldwide assets were frozen in June this year.

Meanwhile, the diminutive UK International Development Minister and former oil trader, Alan Duncan, has arrived on the Islands. The local press lost no time in reporting on his sexuality and the expenses claimed by the millionaire MP.

Duncan’s Department (DFID) has just spent over £5 million to improve the quality of governance in a British territory plagued by corruption where, it seems, legions of politicians had their fingers in the till.

The Islands most famous citizen, Michael Ashcroft, has so far remained silent on the corruption is his own back yard. But we know he has a deep interest in dishonest politicians.

In a written question in the Lords in October, he brazenly asks the Government how many projects funded by DFID over the past five years have been stopped due to the discovery of corruption.

He then wonders aloud if the £445,000 spent by the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the funding of political parties “represents good value for money”.

Say what you like, the old fraudster has a certain chutzpah. 

An e mail comes winging in from Peter Hain telling me the Labour Party is going to open up and close the gap between people and politics.

This is good news that makes me feel optimistic albeit in a “fingers-crossed” kind of way.

After all, political parties that are crushed in the polls have a habit of promising to reform themselves by listening and learning from mistakes.

But, too often, little of substance changes.

Maybe it will be different this time. I hope so. Broon was a spectacularly dysfunctional Prime Minister, leading Labour to its second worst defeat since 1918.

The cascade of memoirs from Jonathan Powell’s “The New Machiavelli” to Alistair Darling’s “Back from the Brink” show how temperamentally unsuited he was for the top job.

As for Blair, he saw himself as a swashbuckling visionary, taking on and defeating his own Party. This had inevitable consequences.

Policy making within the Party withered. The Partnership in Power process, initially promising, was hijacked by the leadership and soon became a joke. Bizarre policies began to surface. I recall being told how casinos were to be the favoured instrument to regenerate run down industrial towns. Where on earth did that lunacy come from? I still don’t know.

Under both Blair and Broon, Labour’s years in power were disfigured by cronyism, cabals and patronage.

So the promise of new, open and democratic policy making is very appealing.

Here in Canada, the Liberal Party is now going through a similar process of critical re-examination following its crushing defeat in the May 2011 Federal Elections.

The Liberals like to see themselves in the sensible dead centre of Canadian politics (yawn!) but their assessment of defeat, set out in the long version of their Roadmap to Renewal document (attached), is brutally candid: 

The Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) faces an unprecedented challenge. Reduced to third party status in the House of Commons for the first time since Confederation (1867) with the support of fewer than 20% of those voting and with a shrunken caucus of just 34 elected Members of Parliament, it is no exaggeration to note that the very survival of LPC may be at stake. The basic question confronting the Party today is not whether it has the possibility to rebuild and renew itself for the 21^st century, but whether its leadership and membership can marshal the will and the energy to ensure that it does.

Like Britain’s Labour Party, it wants to set up a register of supporters who can vote in elections for the Party leader.

But that, of itself, will not be enough to restore its fortunes. If people are interested enough to lend their name to a political party (even in the diluted form of “supporter”) I suspect they will want to help shape its policies in some modest way or, at the very least, not be repelled by them.

The Canadian Liberals say they will “maintain a permanent virtual and real-time policy development process accessible to all Members and Supporters of the Party through its website”.  (a good idea).

But they go on to say the process will be managed by volunteer expert working groups “organized, maintained and supported” by the Party’s frontbench MPs (or caucus critics as they are known here).

With this set up, I’m not entirely sure who calls the shots in the event of a disagreement. I suspect it won’t be the volunteer experts.

In any event, if political parties are serious about giving their members a greater say, they should spell out what it means in practice.

People need to know where the policy levers are located and what happens when you pull them.

Frozen Pensions

The Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners tells me there are 12.5 million British state pensioners of whom just over one million live outside the UK.

Half of those living overseas get their UK pensions uprated annually while the other half don’t. 

And a hefty 98% of those who lose out live in Commonwealth countries such as Canada which is home to 155,450 of “frozen” pensioners.

The issue has been around for over fifty years but seems no nearer resolution. (see attachment)

It seems a tad unfair to me that UK pensioners living in the United States, Barbados, Jamaica, Turkey, Serbia (to name a few) enjoy pensions uprating but those in, say, Canada, Australia and New Zealand don’t.

I’ve just added my name an e petition demanding equal treatment for overseas pensioners although you’ve got to be a bit soft in the head to believe this kind of initiative will make any difference.

If Commonwealth leaders can agree to change the rules of succession to the throne - as happened in Perth last month – why can’t they summon up the energy to address the frozen pensions issue?

The Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is well placed to start the ball rolling.

Attachments:

A greater say for all members.pdf	[ ]	92 Kb
Building a network of Labour supporters.pdf	[Labour Party. Building a network]	237 Kb
Frozen pensions.pdf	[House of Commons Library. Frozen Pensions]	221 Kb
Increasing and valuing our members.pdf	[Labour Party. Valuing our members]	566 Kb
Liberal Roadmap. Long version.pdf	[Canadian Liberals. Roadmap to Renewal]	674 Kb

With the tents coming down all over North America the big question is what happens next?

There are plenty of people who think the New York City authorities have done Occupy Wall Street a favour by “providing a dramatic ending”. 

Here in Canada from Vancouver to Halifax, Occupy protestors are being told to pack up and move on.

Some commentators say eviction needn’t mean defeat. We are told protestors can redirect their energies towards changing the tax code!

If only!

That would mean getting involved in mainstream political parties and, even then, there is no guarantee things would change. The wealth gap in the UK grows inexorably, for the most part without comment. 

How many people in Britain’s Labour Party for example are calling loudly and persistently for a return to progressive taxation?  Not many. Some influential voices, incredibly, want to see the 50p top rate on incomes over £150,000 jettisoned asap.

Seems to me the rage over growing inequality must come from outside the political parties who are compromised by their years of inaction.

Indeed, the Occupy protestors now have some unlikely allies. American millionaires are pleading with Congress to have incomes over $1 million taxed more heavily. They say that private jets should no longer be tax deductible!

I hope the Occupy movement will morph and survive in some form until the issue at the heart of the protest is seriously addressed.

The parasitic super rich are getting ever more wealthy while the rest tread water or see their incomes fall.

The top1% in America are now in a league of their own.

A fact confirmed by a weighty report from the US Congressional Budget Office (see attachment).  Astonishingly, the richest 1% of Americans own a third of US net worth.

But it is not just wealthy individuals who are playing the system. The pressure group Citizens for Tax Justice tell us the most profitable 280 US Corporations shelter half their profits from tax. 

Tax dodgers in Canada and in the UK adopt similar strategies and, in every case, a pusillanimous political establishment lacks the courage to act. 

The politicians need to feel as outraged about income inequality as the rest of us if things are to change.

Until they do, we need Occupy.

Ashcroft sues the BBC

I see Michael Ashcroft is back in Court again.

The impertinent tax cheat is suing the BBC over allegations about his tax affairs which were made in the Panorama programme broadcast in October 2010.

The BBC should respond by making a docu-drama on how Ashcroft cheated his way to a peerage in 2000. The material is all there.

And, as we all know, truth is an absolute defence.

A recent report by academics at UCL (see attachment) on the impact of the Freedom of Information Act says this: 

…Ashcroft had committed to changing his tax status on receipt of his peerage, but FOI revealed this promise had not been kept. A clause was added to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill 2010 requiring members of both Houses to be treated as resident and domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. Five peers chose to leave the Lords, while others, including Ashcroft, changed their tax arrangements in order to remain.

The Panorama programme can be accessed via the Turks and Caicos Sun which helpfully keeps an eye on the old fraudster. Click on “Ashcroft’s millions” .

Attachments:

Congressional Budget Office report on household income.pdf	[Household Income. Congressional Budget Office]	1646 Kb
FoI report. UCL Constitution Unit.pdf	[Freedom of Information Act - UCL report, September 2011]	409 Kb