Thief quits because the pickings aren't big enough

It's always a pleasure to see a troughing MP go their merry way and in doing so confirm why they should never have been an MP in the first place.
Telegraph.

A Government minister has quit politics claiming he cannot live in London on his salary and expenses of nearly £120,000.
Mark Simmonds said he was quitting as a Foreign Office minister and was standing down as an MP because he was unwilling to carry on staying in hotels while his family were hundreds of miles away in Lincolnshire.
Mr Simmonds is the second minister to quit the department in less than a week, after Baroness Warsi quit over the Government’s policy towards Gaza.
Labour said the double resignation had left the Foreign Office rudderless just as humanitarian catastrophes were unfolding in Gaza and Iraq.

Usual guff from Labour as Gaza and Iraq are really none of our business.
Simmonds is of course renowned as the MP who had his snout deepest in the trough in that his local paper discovered that he was the most expensive MP in the county and was employing his wife on his expenses as well as claiming the maximum in every area. Now it may not be possible to live in the manner in which you think you ought to be accustomed on a ministers salary and expenses, but it is possible to live well in London on the amount he was shoving down his trousers, plus a lot of MP's also have other interests too as well as non executive directorships and advisory roles in various businesses. In short it rather looks like Simmonds was incompetent enough not to make use of the various scams MP's use to get rich at the taxpayers account and so will not be a great loss either as an MP or a person in their own right.
I wonder what he'll do when he actually has to work for a living?

Do as I say, not as I do

It appears that there are some in the government, or rather MP's in favour of the green lunacy that is climate change and CO2 emission control, we know this, we also know that there is very much a do as I say, not as I do culture at large in Westminster.
Telegraph.

Energy Secretary Ed Davey is dodging his own green taxes – by switching his gas and electricity supplier to a company exempt from the charges slapped on domestic bills.
The Cabinet Minister is now spared from paying the average £112-a-year ‘green duty’ added to most domestic bills after he moved his account to a firm that does not have to pay it.
Mr Davey recently changed from Sainsbury’s Energy to Green Star Energy to supply gas and electricity to his Kingston constituency home.
Green Star – which, despite its name, is not an eco-certified company – does not have to pay green taxes because it is a new firm with fewer than 250,000 customers. Its average household bill is just over £1,009 a year, compared with Sainsbury’s average of £1,264 – meaning Mr Davey could potentially save about £255 annually.

It was and is rather noticeable the number of companies who stuck 'green' somewhere in their advertising without actually being green or environmentally friendly at all, it was simply the done thing. Still you have to wonder at the hypocrisy of the Lib Dem member for Kingston in deliberately choosing a company that avoids the green levy his party is so in love with. The evidence is growing daily that climate change is a natural thing and man's effects upon it are minimal to say the least. The biggest contributing factor to worldwide climate change is and remains the sun, closely followed by oceanic currents, not CO2 emissions.
So as it's basically a tax raising scam, we should not be too surprised that MP's will look for a way to get around it, whilst naturally making sure that the rest of us pick up their tab.
This is yet another reason to never vote mainstream politics, they really do think they can take us for fools.
Sad thing is, with a lot of people they're right.

Death and taxes

The saying goes nothing is certain but death and taxes though it appears the Labour party in the UK intends to make (another) attempt to screw your family over once you've gone...
Telegraph.

Labour has resurrected plans for a 15 per cent “death tax” to pay for people’s care in old age.
Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, said he wants Labour to “embrace” a system where social care is funded by imposing a tax on estates when people die.
Labour abandoned plans for a 10 per cent levy on estates to pay for social care before the 2010 general election following a wave of criticism.
However, at the Fabians Summer Conference in June, Mr Burnham said he was personally in favour of a new tax on estates.

Labour as ever thinking that the solution for anything is a tax grab. The never think cost savings, they never think ridding themselves of inessential services though to be honest their idea of inessential is not the same as anyone else's, they see cuts in bin collections and streetlighting as positives, rather than translation services and aid to minorities/gender/sexual preference groups.
But if Labour are bad, what the Tories are up too is even worse...
Mail.

HMRC was accused yesterday of taking ‘a smash and grab’ approach with its demand for new powers to seize money directly from people’s bank accounts.
Britain’s leading tax experts warned the taxman risks being ‘unconstitutional’ with the controversial plans, which could come into force within months.
The proposed new powers - which were published in the Budget and subject to a public consultation which closed yesterday - have triggered an outcry among tax experts.
If HMRC believes anyone owes money to them, they will be able to take the cash directly from current accounts, joint accounts or tax-free Isas to settle an unpaid tax bill.
Around 17,000 people a year will have money seized under the proposed new powers, known as the ‘direct recovery of debts’. Each will typically owe £5,800.

Note the key word 'believe' you may well be innocent, there may be a mistake, but if HMRC 'believe' you owe them over £1,000 then they have the option to raid your account, possibly impoverish you, perhaps get you crucified by bank charges and walk away in their mask and striped jersey laughing at your misfortune and knowing that the person who authorised it will not pay the consequences if there is a mistake.
Welcome to modern Britain...

Oh just f*#k off!

Some people simply do not get the concept of what we do with our money is our business. They get on their little pedestals to the MSN and tell us what we ought to do for reasons that mean nothing to the ones they are pontificating too. They simply do not grasp that our money is ours to spend as we want and their cause celebre is generally not something we believe in...
Telegraph.

Middle-class families should stop buying large fridges in order to save energy and tackle climate change, a government-commissioned report has suggested.
Families could save up to £36 a year on their electricity bills by replacing large fridge-freezers or televisions with smaller appliances, according to a study published by the Department for Energy and Climate Change.
The report found that the average family fridge had grown in volume by two fifths since 1985, amid a fashion for large American-style appliances, while the average television had grown by more than seven inches since 2004. It warned that the trend undermined attempts to cut carbon emissions.
The study, by researchers at Loughborough University and Cambridge Architectural Research, found that energy-efficient technology was not enough to offset the increase in the size of appliances. For example, a 52in television with an A+ energy rating still uses more electricity than a 42in model with an A rating.
Nicola Terry, a co-author of the study, said: “Why do we need a bigger TV, and why do we need a bigger fridge? I don’t understand the case, but when people go to the shop they think, that’s bigger it must be better.”

I've got news for you Mz Terry, bigger might not be better in the terms you're thinking of, but to a family a bigger tv is better, a bigger fridge freezer is better and they don't give a damn as to saving £36 a year when they know the governments green taxes are stealing £120+ from them via the energy companies.You see most people aren't interested in the energy rating per-se, they'll go by them when comparing like for like, but the energy rating is not what decides someone from 42" to 52" its the picture quality and whether it will fit through the front door and hang on the wall. In the case of the fridge its whether they can easily get the family shop in plus have room for treats rather than like my own fridge be stuffed full of beer for the weekend that I can't get my packed sandwiches easily in for Friday's shift.
Nor do people give a damn about carbon capture, they know its a scam, they know that the government via the environmental lobby are lying through their teeth anf they know that the Department for Energy and Climate Change are run by enviroloons who do not have their best interests at heart.
Finally why do people buy the biggest fridge or telly that they can afford?
The answers simple, because we can!

Never met a tax they didn't like

There are those out there who are determined to force us into doing something they think is good for us. They've tried persuasion, they've tried restrictions, their current favourite is price controls and that's something which as ever gives our ever avaricious politicians ideas...
BBC.

A campaign group has called on the UK government to introduce a "sugar tax" to help curb childhood obesity.
Action on Sugar has produced a seven-point plan to discourage children from consuming foods and soft drinks with high levels of added sugar.
The group wants measures brought in to cut added sugar in food by 40% by 2020, to cut fat in foods and to ban sports sponsorship by "junk food" companies.
The Department of Health has said it will consider the recommendations.
Action on Sugar is a group of specialists concerned with sugar and its effects on health. It says one in five 10-11 year olds in the UK are now obese, while one in three are overweight.
The group has produced an action plan for the government following a request for its views from Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

Almost perfect, you can just feel the emotive phrase 'it's for the children' rising like a turd in a cesspool on any justification for the tax which will price many foodstuffs away from those on lower incomes.
Now I will be honest and admit that there do appear to be far more overweight kids around than when I was young, though we never seemed to have a problem with getting hold of sugary sweets of various kinds. What we did have was a far more active lifestyle, limited tv, no computer games, no social media. So we walked, ran, cycled and generally behaved like little savages in our inter tribal gang warfare.
So, the problem isn't that kids are eating too much sugar, it's that kids live a far more sedentary lifestyle, what with few schools offering sports (voluntary or not) and the paranoia from parents about letting their kids play in the street due to traffic/paedo's etc.
What we are being lined up for is a tax grab by unscrupulous politicians similar to that of green taxation and the oft proposed but never implemented alcohol tax forbidden by the EU.
Prodnose pressure groups like this for all they may have some well meaning members are never a good idea for the general public as they rarely contain members of the general public. Their focus is often too narrow and they rarely see the big picture which is why I suspect politicians like them so much. Any group proposing a tax hike is likely to get the attention of a politician particularly if they think they can sell it back to the public and a for the children meme is no doubt a winner in their minds.
Expect a raft of such measures in the near future as the global warming scam finally comes off the rails...

Sticky fingers

Seems that our MP's are a tad worried by the fact that the taxman or HMRC has gained additional powers in the budget to go raiding our bank accounts without our permission or the permission of a judge too.
I have to admit it bothers me that anyone can touch my money without my permission, I have enough problems with the bank asking me questions when I make a large withdrawal, it really is none of their business what I do with it and I'm unhappy enough with the government via the taxman ripping me off by grabbing so much in income tax and national insurance not to mention VAT and the other sales taxes they bandy about.
Telegraph.

Innocent people face having money taken straight out of their bank accounts under draconian powers to be used by the taxman, MPs warn on Friday.
A Treasury plan to allow HM Revenue and Customs to remove cash from bank accounts without a court order is “very concerning” because of its history of mistakes, a Commons committee said.
In a consultation document this week, HMRC said the "direct recovery" powers could be used to take money from joint accounts.
The tax authorities admitted this week that about 17,000 people a year would be targeted under the new measures, set out in the Budget and designed for use against people who owe them money.
But today the Commons Treasury committee says that taxpayers could suffer “serious detriment” if officials are able, either by mistake or through an “abuse” of power, to take money from people who have done no wrong.

Yes, it's not like the inland revenue are infallible, nor are they known for their patience, I can imagine a scenario where they grab the cash and hold onto it whilst an appeal or other proceedings are occurring. Nor would I expect them to simply target their victim announced debtor, the funds in the account may actually be a partners, their children or others held in trust and if they simply grab it without a judge hearing an explanation others could suffer (and probably will)
Giving HMRC this sort of power is akin to letting a kiddy loose in a sweet shop without supervision, they'll simply not be able to help themselves. Seems that putting your cash in the banks (of the UK) is a big mistake, I can see a day coming where overseas banks may become the choice of many, at least the taxman won't be able to get at them quite so easily (so long as they aren't in the EU)

So why do we pay road tax?

One of the biggest grouses drivers have is that the amount they pay in road tax is not the amount spent on roads and road improvements. Yes I know all tax simply goes into a giant pot and is doled out as needed (or often enough unneeded) by the government to support itself in the manner it wants to. So when select committees come out with stuff like telling the country that they need toll roads to help pay for infrastructue payments then I get irritated...
Express.

A Transport Select Committee report said investment needs to increase “substantially” during the next decade.
Traffic levels on motorways and A roads are predicted to rise 46 per cent by 2040.
MPs warned that revenue from fuel duty and vehicle excise duty is likely to drop, meaning road expenditure will “require new funding streams”.
One option would be continental-style toll charges on new roads or the use of tracking devices to charge vehicles for every mile they travel.

Actually the tracker thing is more down to the EU and trying desperately to find a way to pay for and use its costly and useless Galileo gps wannabe satelite system as the American one is in place and works better. As any tracking system used would most likely be the Galileo one by EU directive, guess why MP's are keen on road tracking as an option.
Thing is though with road toll's no one trusts the government to come up with a fair system, they proved that on the M25 Thames crossing at Dartford where the tolls were only supposed to be in place until the bridge was paid off. Naturally this was reneged upon and the tolls are still in place along with odd excuses that somehow or other the choke point caused by the toll booths was a traffic calming measure or that the funds raised would go into road improvements for the local county (they didn't) Currently they're busy removing the toll booths and fitting registration cameras for a pay by phone system, so, so much for the traffic calming measure...
Essentially the government won't use the revenue they raise from motorists to pay for new road infrastructure and improvements, they'd much prefer to grab more from motorists to directly fund them whilst pocketing the other cash they currently get for other things.
Then they wonder why we don't trust them with money.

Figures

I don't know what it is about western governments and their desire to appear good by spending taxpayers money on what they deem 'worthy' projects abroad. The evidence is out there that the majority of cash given is simply siphoned off into the pockets of kleptocrats and into their pension funds in various tax havens.
Telegraph.

Britain hiked its aid spending by more than any other country in Europe last year, figures show.
Foreign aid soared by 28 per cent last year, meaning the UK hit its target of spending 0.7 per cent of GDP on overseas development.
It left Britain with the second most generous aid budget in the world, outstripped only by the United States, and it came as a series of developed nations cut back on their aid spending.
The figures will reignite concerns among Tory MPs that the aid budget is ill-directed and has ballooned at the expense of other Whitehall departments.
Britain spent £10.6 billion on official development assistance in 2013, up from £8.3 billion in 2012, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – a hike of 27.8 per cent.

You'll note that the MP's appear to be more concerned that spending on their departments is lagging, rather than the taxpayer is being stiffed for the bar bill so to speak. Even if we weren't spending the cash abroad, it would still end up being wasted by the government in other words.
The problem is, the government have no control over what the aid is spent on, oh they can stipulate that it must be used for stuff, but once it's out of their hands, that's it and the begging bowl is back in place with little to see for what it's been used for save a marked increase in banking funds elsewhere.
Politicians and the state are not the best people to decide what money should be spent upon, the only people who are, are ourselves. If we wish to give to charity, we should pick the charity, it really ought to be that simple. I rather suspect the government and politicians would be surprised what we spent it on... or perhaps not which is why they do it their way.
Charity begins at home and we should decide who it goes too.

It's a cultural thing

It may be me just living in a fantasy land, or I was brought up a little strange, but part of the good manners ingrained in me was that if you made a mistake, you admitted it and apologised. Unfortunately owing to the previous governments allowing the way to no win no fee legal attempts getting some people or organisations to apologise is difficult. Add the politicians into the mix and it becomes possible to see a trend of only apologising when you have no choice and only as a last resort.
Express.

VICTIMS of poor service and shoddy goods are usually happy with just an apology, new research reveals.
The findings suggest that Britain’s greedy “compensation culture” may not be quite so rampant after all.
Far from demanding compensation, almost half of disgruntled customers say they would be satisfied with a simple “sorry”.
The study by the Ombudsman Services’ Consumer Action Monitor comes as figures show there were 38 million complaints about poor service and sub-standard goods last year.
Energy firms are the worst offenders, mainly due to bills and poor customer service. Complaints to power suppliers rocketed by 224 per cent between January and March this year compared to the same period in 2013 – the largest leap ever recorded.
Retail outlets and internet telecom giants are the next biggest offenders.
More than a third of customers polled think large firms are only interested in profit and do not care when things goes wrong.
Chief Ombudsman Lewis Shand Smith said: “The research shows that consumers just want to be treated fairly and this includes admitting fault where necessary. Sometimes a simple apology is all it takes.

Naturally with politicians, having a sorry dragged out of them Maria Miller style having stolen taxpayers funds even if paid back means they should go, that they don't speaks volumes about politicians. Yet at core I believe that for many when dealing with a mistake, an apology at the beginning would have settled things. Not everyone of course and sometimes things go way too far for an apology, but for minor mistakes, people aren't too bothered and simply want the company to play fair rather than obfuscate or deny.
We seem to have become a very much money oriented society, companies want our cash and people want cash back sometimes for the most minor of things, you only have to read the MSM to see some of the stupid things judges will allow a payout for.
Perhaps simply a demand that the company apologises whilst all costs are given to them if they are in the wrong would suffice...
Might stop some from persuing frivolous claims and get the company to apologise a lot more quickly.
As for politicians, well hanging is still far too god for a lot of them...

You will give us your money

The BBC, that bastion of leftard thinking and waste under pressure due to its costs and a review of its charter has come up with a wizard wheeze to fund itself from our pockets...
Telegraph.

Householders could be required to pay the television licence fee even if they do not own a television, under proposals being discussed by the BBC.
Lord Hall, the BBC’s director-general, wants to extend the £145.50 annual fee in response to the growing popularity of iPlayer, which enables viewers to watch programmes on home computers, mobile phones and tablet devices.
The news came as the BBC announced it will make programmes available to view on iPlayer for 30 days after they are first broadcast, instead of seven, later this year.
Executives at the broadcaster have suggested that reforms, which are due to be agreed with ministers in 2016, could include a new “universal charge” on all households, regardless of whether they own a television.
Such a tax has already been introduced in Germany and Sweden and is being considered in Ireland and Switzerland, the executives said in a report to MPs on the Commons media select committee.

Yep a universal charge whether you watch it or not, rather than the current poll tax whether you watch it or not.
Now the BBC do put out quite a bit of content, and the lack of commercial adverts is nice(ish) even if it is heavily into self advertising of its services. Some of that content is admirable and  entertaining, though its ideas particularly when it comes to news and politics is hardly balanced or unbiased, or rather is what your average leftard thinks is balanced and unbiased in regards to only giving their point of view no criticism.
This is typical of public organisations with regards to other peoples money, they see it as theirs and the service it provides as essential. It's the same with any public service from the NHS to the benefits system, they are often good ideas in principle, yet have a shambolic structure, are inefficiently run for the benefit of their employees (at the top) are not cost efficient and demand ever more of our cash every year, often enough to pay the salaries and pensions of drones they employ over and above what's actually necessary.
The likes of the BBC may have a place in society to produce media that the private sector can't or won't do, but it needs to be gutted of the excess and unnecessary first, starting right at the top...
That's before we pay anything at all...

They can't help themselves

To many in the warmist set the recent floods have been a Godsend, finally a vindication that their ludicrous religion has some basis in fact rather than their fevered imaginations (and computer predictions)
And predictably we have money grabbing politicians piling in to declare it must be so and we'll spend your cash on a snark hunt because it's not your money but ours to do with what we want.
BBC.

Climate change is now an issue of national security with extreme weather threatening homes, livelihoods and businesses, Ed Miliband has warned.
In an interview with the Observer, the Labour leader said the country was sleepwalking towards a crisis.
This, he said, was because of a failure to recognise that climate change was causing the storms and floods.
His comments come as flooding is still expected in many parts of the country despite a let-up in the stormy weather.
There are 14 severe flood warnings - indicating a "danger to life" - for south-east England close to the River Thames and two for the Somerset Levels, which have experienced weeks of flooding.

 Pretty much all a pack of lies, the flooding in the Somerset levels was a result of an EU environmental diktat which meant the silt from the channels couldn't be put back on the land so the UK government via the environment agency decided not to bother. In essence it was environmentalists who caused the flooding there by adding into the EU diktat a set of conditions that could not be economically met.
As for climate change causing the flooding, well as usual Millipede E has jumped the gun...
Mail.

One of the Met Office’s most senior experts yesterday made a dramatic intervention in the climate change debate by insisting there is no link between the storms that have battered Britain and global warming.
Mat Collins, a Professor in climate systems at Exeter University, said the storms have been driven by the jet stream – the high-speed current of air that girdles the globe – which has been ‘stuck’ further south than usual.
Professor Collins told The Mail on Sunday: ‘There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.’

In other words just bad luck and piss poor flood defences coupled with building on a flood plain.
You can be sure the warmist enviroloons will ignore the Met Office as Professor Collins views will be ignored in their rush to try and prove their point and grab more cash off us.
Sadly this lack of ethics is something we've come to expect from the watermelons as well as the Labour party.
It's all a cash grab and will be wasted on stuff we neither want nor need...

Why the government cannot be trusted with our money

No, not about expenses, but accountability, the way that many so called high level administrators and executives in public services funded by the government either at local or national level are getting way more than it would appear the job requires. Currently more than 800 Whitehall mandarins and associated Quango bosses are on over £100,000 a year, some up to £300,000, all coming from the public purse.
However that pales into insignificance when it comes to the boss of Motability a not for profit organisation funded by the taxpayer.
Mail.

The chief executive of a taxpayer-funded scheme that leases cars and scooters to the disabled earned about £850,000 in pay and perks last year.
Mike Betts, 51, received the money as boss of Motability Operations, a not-for-profit company funded by the state.
Four other senior directors at the firm also earned large sums, taking home more than £2million in total in 2012.
Motability Operations, which received £18.3million in government grants last year to cover its running costs, leases various types of vehicle to around 600,000 disabled people.
It receives their mobility allowances direct from the Department for Work and Pensions.

Yet strangely enough the people who gave taxpayers cash to Motability when the guy was appointed in 2003 are often far more critical of bankers bonuses over the years, despite most banks being private institutions and the bonuses they pay being no business of the government or anyone else but their shareholders for that matter. Now Motability is owned and ran by a private consortium of banks and as such is not publicly owned. However as its only source of income is from the taxpayer I'd say that we had the right to ask just what the hell justifies anyone with a salary in the region of £850,000 including bonuses and perks? Particularly as we're the daft sods paying for these leeches. Same with any public servant or executive whose pay depends on the taxpayer.
Personally I'm of the opinion that no organisation in receipt of public funds should be allowed to have anyone on the payroll on who earns more than the Prime Minister. After all, he runs the country (in theory, though not in practice) and therefore his pay ought to set the level of any senior position funded by the taxpayer.
No, what happened was that the political classes saw that they could help themselves to the public purse to boost their incomes to disgusting levels and were aided and abetted by politicians, civil servants and the unions. We're seeing the direct result of that avarice and it's still ongoing. The next politician to go on about corporate greed needs to be reminded of the robbing of the public purse by those supposed to be servants and representatives of the people.
This is why you should never vote for the big three, they are complicit in the system to rob us blind and give our cash to the totally undeserving.
One day, I truly believe we'll hang them all, problem is that the money they've taken will never be recouped...

Nice money if you can get it

So, MP's aka thieving parasites are to get an 11% wage rise via an independent agency and oddly enough, some believe they are due more. The leaders of the three main parties have naturally stepped in to say they oppose such a huge rise but their hands are tied. a rather simple get out for them as no doubt they'll pocket the cash anyway.
BBC.

MPs are set to receive an 11% pay rise when a parliamentary watchdog publishes its final recommendations on salaries this week.
The rise is due after the 2015 general election and will take pay to £74,000.
But the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is also expected to announce a squeeze on pensions and the resettlement grants that MPs are given when they leave Parliament.
All three party leaders disagreed with the rise when it was first proposed.
However Ipsa does not need to get the agreement of Parliament to bring in the changes.

OK, first off, no one expects them to do what they do for nothing, though as a group they do tend to take the piss an awful lot with their expenses scams, gold plated pensions and general ignorance as to what the public wants as opposed to what party dogma wants. And it is rather a truism that we tend to get exactly what we vote for, 'we' being those who vote for the big three whenever there is an election rather than those like myself who have not voted mainstream for at least two decades and naturally have yet to see anyone we voted for elected to parliament save only in the EU elections.
However in a year in which people in work are struggling to make ends meet and many of whom have not had a rise at all in several years never mind one in line with inflation IPSA do appear to be out of line with the public's idea of proportional... to put it mildly. Sure they are increasing the amount that MP's have to pay for their pensions and some of the expenses scams, but in reality all that people will see are a bunch of corrupt thieving ne'er-do-wells once more dipping into the public purse to feed their already well subsidised lifestyles.
Still at least every time they do this it brings their inevitable end at the hands of an angry mob ever closer...

But that's what they want? Isn't it?

The efforts of the government to rake in cash to fund their various junkets and scams grows apace. New laws, new penalties, new tariffs etc. all going to line their pockets at various stages without thought to the future of the country, simply the future of those raking in the cash.
Telegraph.

Britain's manufacturing revival is being hampered by a raft of UK-specific green taxes, steel giant Tata has said, as it called for the Government to do more to create a "level playing field" with the rest of Europe.
Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, said on Friday that while abandoning green policies would be "short-sighted and foolish", protecting energy-intensive industries was a priority. "My particular concern is to make sure that the chemical and steel industries for example are not disadvantaged by very high energy prices, and we introduce schemes to make sure they're compensated and properly offset," he told BBC Radio 4.
But Tata, which employs 18,500 people in the UK, warned that an array of green levies, including the so-called carbon price floor - charged on fossil fuels used in power generation - was putting the company at a competitive disadvantage.
The second part of a £250m Government compensation package to protect companies from the unilateral tax, introduced last April, is currently awaiting approval from Brussels.
"While we welcome the Government's compensation package ... there are still tens of millions of pounds of other UK only green taxes hitting us today," a spokesman said.

The nub of the problem is that the lunatic politicians, few who have ever run a business themselves or even had a real job in the real world don't understand how a business needs as much cashflow around it rather than having it siphoned off for something that everyone save a few enviroloons knows is an utter scam for a failed theory.
So not only did the UK government hit companies like Tata with the EU scam, they also threw in a few unilateral ones of their own to fill their coffers. Yet it's noticeable that India and China have no problems with building high carbon power plants and steel plants and it's only the moronic politicians in the UK who continue to operate their enriching scams.
I suspect it's a case of making hay whilst the sun shines for them, at least until sommething new comes along to fleece the public.

Hypocrisy

Picking on the climate change industry is always a target rich subject equivalent to grenading fish in a barrel. After all, if you want hypocrisy of telling us to do one thing whilst they do another, then you only have to look at government environmentalism.
Telegraph.

The Whitehall department and its subsidiaries tasked with fighting climate change spent more than £300,000 flying civil servants and ministers around the UK last year, new figures have found.
Ed Davey's Department for Energy and Climate Change spent £148,000 on 668 internal flights, while public bodies attached to it cost the taxpayer another £163,000 on more than 1,000 domestic flights. The new figures were criticised by Green MP Caroline Lucas, who said she found it hard to believe civil servants and ministers could not have taken more eco-friendly trains on some of the journeys.

That would be the same Caroline Lucas arrested and charged for an offence committed at an anti-fracking demo at an oil drilling rig... clearly not the brightest bulb in the box.
As for the getting a train bit, hasn't she heard of Skype, same for the civil servants and ministers? You'd think a temple to the god of global warming would be setting an example of not sinning (for their values of sinning) Then again this is government we're talking about and spunking taxpayers money up the wall is second nature to them along with lying about climate change and hypocrisy.
No, as ever government exists to fund government and we the taxpayer have simply to cough up for their largesse. Heaven forfend that they actually do something useful (does committing suicide count as useful for the government?) it's all spend spend spend and hell breaking loose before the more useless sectors get it in the eye, much easier to sack soldiers...

Value for money?

Well it's time to start on the Labour conference and their determination to put the past so far behind them that no one will remember the last time they were in power. It was as ever the usual platitudes, a bit of news candy and a slight emphasis on economic reality... the reality of the left, not reality itself.
They did announce that they would scrap HS2 if they don't think it's good value for money and costs rise, just a shame that they never seem to do this for other Labour flagship projects in the past...
BBC.

Labour is questioning whether the HS2 rail project is "the best way to spend £50bn for the future of our country".
Shadow chancellor Ed Balls told the party conference they still backed the idea of a new north-south rail link, but there could be no blank cheque.
Supporters say the project will provide much needed extra rail capacity.
The Labour leader of Manchester City Council criticised his party for raising doubts about its viability, accusing Mr Balls of a "cheap shot".
Sir Richard Leese - head of the Labour council since 1996 - said the high-speed line was "essential" to prevent the North and Midlands "slowly grinding to a halt".

Basically it was just words, the ground support of the Labour movement in whom 'Ballsy' would end up having to answer too has already said no way are you stopping this. A cheap shot indeed so beloved of politicians when it comes to heading off the spending of money on something they think the public might not support.
Still, there's always option two for getting the comrades on board...
BBC.

Working parents of three and four-year-olds in England would get 25 hours of free childcare a week if Labour wins the next general election.
Shadow chancellor Ed Balls plans to raise the banking levy by £800m a year to fund the move.
Three and four-year-olds currently receive 15 hours of free care a week, but Mr Balls wants to increase this.
Meanwhile, he has asked the government's spending watchdog to review his party's economic plans.

Now this is socialist thinking at its worst, the comrades will think that the public will support a raid on the bank, indeed many might do so until they realise that the banks won't lose anything by this. Essentially this is a stealth tax by a roundabout way as the banks will immediately look to recoup their cash by charging more for their services. You may avoid this if you don't have an overdraft, go into the red, don't take out a loan or save. because the bank is likely to increase the hidden charges involved with all these factors and we the public (everyone who has a bank account) is liable to feel the pinch if at some stage we fall foul of the bank.
Still, you can expect the comrades to crow about this as it looks on the surface to be good news, though as ever the term 'there's no such thing as a free lunch' should be very much at the fore of anyone looking at a politicians promises. In the end we all end up paying for their hubris...

Other people's money

It's the party political conference season and currently the Lib Dems are trying to dig themselves into an early grave by raids upon the taxpayer to pay for goodies for people who don't contribute. Other than a leaked email telling the world that they intend a mansion tax (again) coupled by a tax raid on anyone earning above £50,000 who they reckon are on a “very large salary” and should pay more income tax. They also announced that the taxpayer is going to have to pay for all infants attending school in the UK to get free dinners...
BBC.

All pupils at infant schools in England are to get free school lunches from next September, Lib Dem leader and Deputy PM Nick Clegg has announced.
The change - for children in reception, year one and year two - will save parents about £400 a year per child.
Targeting infants would ensure "every child gets the chance in life they deserve", teach healthy eating habits and boost attainment, Mr Clegg said.

Magic money tree economics at its best, no doubt parents with infants will think 'oh goody' whilst those of us who don't will probably think 'the thieving bastards, dipping into my pockets again' or something along those lines.

But Labour said the Lib Dems could not be trusted to deliver.

And Labour would know, they're past masters on taking the piss when it comes to financing those they see as worthy.
Still no doubt this will make the Lib Dems somewhat popular with parents of infants, though like as not, no one else. They'd rather take money from us all and spunk it up the wall than actually take less money off us and make us all a little better off. Special interests rather than general interests.
It makes for good headlines, but so far no one (on the BBC is asking just how much this is going to cost, though judging by the leaked email on the tax raid, I suspect one group of people have a pretty good idea.

Explosion of pay strikes... ah, that will be the public sector then.

Apparently it's the annual TUC jig and unlike the days of yesteryear when the BBC would televise it in all its corrupt left wing dullness, no one seems to really give a damn about the unions these days save only those who are in the public sector where the dinosaurs still hold sway...
Express.

Delegates at the annual TUC Congress are due to vote on calls for a programme of industrial action today against Coalition cuts.
Unison leader Dave Prentis told the conference in Bournemouth that pay had fallen behind inflation for five years.

This would be the same Dave Prentis who back in 2010 was earning with benefits the princely sum of £127,436. Clearly a man of the people.
So what if pay has fallen behind inflation? His members are capable of finding a job elsewhere surely? Oh, I forgot, this is the public sector and they do like their little gold plated pensions along with a job for life. Whilst completely forgetting who actually stumps up for their wages, that being the same people who suffer when they get all bolshie about the fact that the magic money tree has dried up.

Teachers and firefighters are set to strike and the Communication Workers Union says it will ballot its members over Royal Mail privatisation.

Yep, again it's the public sector as in those whose remuneration comes out of the public purse. Those who don't appear to realise that there is a recession and even if they have, don't give a damn because they believe a strike will solve all their problems by getting more cash off the taxpayer (something that they always conveniently forget)
It will be interesting if in 2014 there is a government in place who won't kowtow to these dinosaurs led by those who do not suffer by said actions as those on strike will still keep paying their wages.
There was once a place for unions, rights and abuses to be fought for or against. These days, the public sector unions are just taking the piss...

Inevitable

One of the more inevitable problems facing any sort of non Labour government is that sooner or later they have a major confrontation with the unions. Thatcher had it with the miners and now it rather looks like Cameron will face the teaching unions. The why of it is simple, the unions pay Labour's wages, Labour gives in to the unions (mostly) when in power, the unions themselves have a tendency to behave too as they wish to keep Labour in power. With the Tories, different rules apply...
Telegraph.

The row between Michael Gove and major classroom unions escalated today when the Education Secretary refused to bow to activists’ demands over pay and pensions.
In a move that makes school strike action almost inevitable, Mr Gove insisted that the Government’s stance on both fronts was “now fixed”. The comments were made after Britain’s two biggest teaching unions – the National Union of Teachers and the NASUWT – threatened to stage a series of regional and national walk-outs unless the Government suspended controversial reforms to the profession. Mr Gove’s intervention promises to stoke tensions between the two sides on the eve of both unions’ annual conferences this weekend and paves the way for a series of strikes later this year. The NUT and NASUWT have been angered by the introduction of a new system of performance-related pay in English state schools combined with changes to teachers’ pensions.

In the private sector performance related pay is generally welcome, plus the ability to move from job to job until you find something to suit helps as well. With teaching though, it doesn't matter how good you are, you get exactly the same as the person who couldn't teach to save their life but the schools can't get rid of as they are the union rep/barely managing. In the private sector if your face doesn't fit, you go (Cruel but true enough) in the public sector if your face doesn't fit, chances are you're the union rep. The problem with the NUT/NASUWT is that the decisions they reach aren't generally that of the ordinary teacher in the classroom, the one who is worth a lot more than the union rep as they can actually teach and get the best out of the kids, rather than get paid by the school simply to go to meetings and stir things. Yes the problem with the teaching unions is as ever the left/socialists. The ones who believe that everyone should get more money whether they deserve it or not and who expect the bad along with the good should get top dollar.
In the make believe world of socialist economics, the money is always there because it grows on magic money trees. They never seem to realise just who tips up the cash to pay for their little sinecures and they don't realise the resentment that this causes, particularly when it's obvious that some of them aren't up to a reasonable standard and can't be got rid of easily.
Personally I think Gove should have gone the extra mile and made all teachers self employed and subject too fixed contracts. That would soon sort the wheat from the chaff, those who are worth keeping would be kept, others would have to up their game at the next school to employ them.
Yes I know unions have their place, but meddling in politics isn't one of them...

Spring has sprung

Spring has sprung,

The grass is riz
I wonder where the warming is
Some say the planet's gettin hotter.
But the planet ain't doing what they think it ought'er.

Express.

BRITAIN is set for a white weekend after forecasters predicted up to 6 inches of snow to cover most parts of the UK.
Much of the country will be bombarded by blizzards and strong winds which will dash any early springtime plans.The Met Office has issued a severe weather warning for snow across many parts, with predictions of 10-15cm (4-6 inches) possible in the north Midlands, north east Wales and north west England.
High areas could see 20-40cm (8-16 inches) of snow fall and strong and even gale force winds could lead to blizzard conditions, as the miserable March continues.

All doggerel aside, global warming (the original and best!) is still being promoted by certain 'scientists' and the environmental movement ably supported by the hard of thinking political left. They still appear to believe that if they point and scream long enough and loud enough that people will quietly go freezing into the still windless night in their efforts to save the planet (and the 'scientists' and the environmental movement ably supported by the hard of thinking political left) Never has so much been invested into producing nothing other than higher energy bills and useless bird mincers blotting dotting the landscape on their massive concrete pedestals (concrete is really environmentally unfriendly, trust me I've worked with the stuff)
All that's left now that the jig is well and truly up is to apportion the blame. It won't be those at the top of course, nor the Monbiot's or the Gore's. Nor any politicians one would suspect. No it will be the likes of the enviroloons who took some (though not the majority) of the money and howled at the moon that the planet was going to turn into a desert with whole countries swallowed up by the rising seas.
A pity really, I still believe we should hang them all, from top to bottom.