Obama's overreaching oar...

---

Blogpost title referring to Obama (all posts) infamously (IMHO :-) ) sticking his overreaching oar into purely UK matters...now Creepy Joe has done the same (in what many call Obama's third term):

Friday: White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre says:

"And, you know, we’ve been very clear — like, we won’t comment on the UK government’s — their dem- — their own domestic policies or internal decision-making... [...] 

"So, not something that we’re going to comment on.

But anything specifically that’s related to their domestic policies or domestic decisions, we’re just not going to comment on that." [LINK]

Saturday: cue Sleepy/Creepy Joe/Brandon doing exactly what she said they wouldn't do: commenting on domestic policies (reported today in UK).

You may claim it's international because err...because the mini-budget caused worldwide ructions...really? Of course part of it could be THIS,** [OECD tax database] doing what TPTB don't want you to do; that could explain the IMF's strange intervention and now Creepy Joe. "The Biden administration wants to raise the U.S. corporate tax rate to 28%, so it has proposed a global minimum of 21% – double the rate on the current GILTI tax." 

Of course none of it is anything to do with trillions in debt, derivative failures, failing banks, looming crash, years of quantative easing, lockdown lunacy etc...

**Source: 145cm.net/finance

Outstanding Osborne...

---

It looks a bit blurred; click to enlarge for clearer view...

Britain is now running a current budget surplus. OK, I know it wasn't all George Osborne but credit where it is due. An outstanding achievement, albeit slightly later than originally forecast. And guess what, the BBC are actually reporting it, although not on their Home Page, nor main News page and already a long way down the list on the UK Politics page. And, as it is the BBC, with the twist of the knife in the headline link "Cameron and Osborne hail austerity plan" giving it the 'evil' look that allows Labour fools in with such ridiculous comments: "Labour accused them of 'egotistical boasting' while families suffered." FFS, can't think why cuts in spending were necessary, can you, Labour Party? And the plan was NEVER 'austerity' anyway, merely cutting back gross excess and trimming. And when they claim local authorities are closing libraries due to nasty Tory austerity cuts ask them why the same Councils have gambled with public money (hundreds of millions in savings in Icelandic banks revealed after the crash, by 2014 they had most back) and are currently spending hundreds of millions on "punting like drunken sailors" on "hedge fund-style activity". [2017 FT, requires registration]

Anyway, [edited] research published by the International Monetary Fund "Climbing Out of Debt, A new study offers more evidence that cutting spending is less harmful to growth than raising taxes" [LINK] [PDF] said Britain set an example for other countries to follow in slashing the deficit by cutting public spending, rather than raising taxes. [DT] "Our conclusion runs against the basic Keynesian message, which implies that spending cuts are more recessionary than tax increases"... "On the contrary, our study confirms that expenditure-based plans generally were less harmful to growth than tax-based plans.".



Well done David Cameron, well done George Osborne and team. Well done the Conservative Party.



Despite Brexit :-)

Outstanding Osborne...

---

It looks a bit blurred; click to enlarge for clearer view...

Britain is now running a current budget surplus. OK, I know it wasn't all George Osborne but credit where it is due. An outstanding achievement, albeit slightly later than originally forecast. And guess what, the BBC are actually reporting it, although not on their Home Page, nor main News page and already a long way down the list on the UK Politics page. And, as it is the BBC, with the twist of the knife in the headline link "Cameron and Osborne hail austerity plan" giving it the 'evil' look that allows Labour fools in with such ridiculous comments: "Labour accused them of 'egotistical boasting' while families suffered." FFS, can't think why cuts in spending were necessary, can you, Labour Party? And the plan was NEVER 'austerity' anyway, merely cutting back gross excess and trimming. And when they claim local authorities are closing libraries due to nasty Tory austerity cuts ask them why the same Councils have gambled with public money (hundreds of millions in savings in Icelandic banks revealed after the crash, by 2014 they had most back) and are currently spending hundreds of millions on "punting like drunken sailors" on "hedge fund-style activity". [2017 FT, requires registration]

Anyway, [edited] research published by the International Monetary Fund "Climbing Out of Debt, A new study offers more evidence that cutting spending is less harmful to growth than raising taxes" [LINK] [PDF] said Britain set an example for other countries to follow in slashing the deficit by cutting public spending, rather than raising taxes. [DT] "Our conclusion runs against the basic Keynesian message, which implies that spending cuts are more recessionary than tax increases"... "On the contrary, our study confirms that expenditure-based plans generally were less harmful to growth than tax-based plans.".

Well done David Cameron, well done George Osborne and team. Well done the Conservative Party.

Despite Brexit :-)

Obamacare overspend...

---

"And The Biggest Contributor To U.S. Growth in 2015 Was.."? Answer: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), generally known as Obamacare (defined as a tax by the US Supreme Court). [Zero Hedge] The US is in a manufacturing recession but the 'services' half of the economy continues to grow (something the UK knows all about), by far the highest category for personal spending was healthcare:

Obamacare overspend...

---

"And The Biggest Contributor To U.S. Growth in 2015 Was.."? Answer: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), generally known as Obamacare (defined as a tax by the US Supreme Court). [Zero Hedge] The US is in a manufacturing recession but the 'services' half of the economy continues to grow (something the UK knows all about), by far the highest category for personal spending was healthcare:

Obviously owing...

---

Well well well. What a surprise...NOT! Labour are hypocrites. The UK's main political parties all filed financial reports this week; "Labour’s total income for 2013 was £33.3m, far ahead of the Tories on £25.4m and the Lib Dems on £7.3m." From the Financial Times [Link ££].

On those vast incomes what tax was paid? Well last year The Conservatives paid 187 thousand quid, guess what Labour paid? £14,000. The Conservatives paid twelve times more tax on income of 25% less! Apparently the Lib Dems paid only £14 tax (yep, fourteen pounds).



Now nobody would begrudge trying to minimise what you pay in tax, as David Blackburn at The Spectator says, we should 'commend Labour for their careful tax planning', HOWEVER, when they do one thing but say another there's only one word for it: HYPOCRITES! There are so many other Labour tax-rise policies, and death won't save you. 

Obviously owing...

---

Well well well. What a surprise...NOT! Labour are hypocrites. The UK's main political parties all filed financial reports this week; "Labour’s total income for 2013 was £33.3m, far ahead of the Tories on £25.4m and the Lib Dems on £7.3m." From the Financial Times [Link ££]. On those vast incomes what tax was paid? Well last year The Conservatives paid 187 thousand quid, guess what Labour paid? £14,000. The Conservatives paid twelve times more tax on income of 25% less! Apparently the Lib Dems paid only £14 tax (yep, fourteen pounds).

Now nobody would begrudge trying to minimise what you pay in tax, as David Blackburn at The Spectator says, we should 'commend Labour for their careful tax planning', HOWEVER, when they do one thing but say another there's only one word for it: HYPOCRITES! There are so many other Labour tax-rise policies, and death won't save you. 

Osborne's opportunity...

---

As usual we are told what a politician will say in the future. This New Labour habit hasn't gone away: is it media management mayhem or Media managing ministers?...but I digress: what GO will say is quite important with all the welfare reform going on. "Trials will begin in four London boroughs of a £500-a-week per household benefits cap and a new Universal Credit system due to replace a raft of other benefits nationwide later this year."...500 quid...a week.



This is the new cap, hardly unfair. If those trials get anywhere near working in London then they are a dead cert for anywhere else in the UK. Now, the criticism from churches and charities and, naturally, the opposition is totally misplaced, as all they do is harp on about it being unfair because the top level of tax is being cut. I've posted the image on the left before but it's worth a good look (click to enlarge).



Update: actual speech text HERE and word-cloud (hat-tip Guido) HERE.

Osborne's opportunity...

---

As usual we are told what a politician will say in the future. This New Labour habit hasn't gone away: is it media management mayhem or Media managing ministers?...but I digress: what GO will say is quite important with all the welfare reform going on. "Trials will begin in four London boroughs of a £500-a-week per household benefits cap and a new Universal Credit system due to replace a raft of other benefits nationwide later this year."...500 quid...a week.

This is the new cap, hardly unfair. If those trials get anywhere near working in London then they are a dead cert for anywhere else in the UK. Now, the criticism from churches and charities and, naturally, the opposition is totally misplaced, as all they do is harp on about it being unfair because the top level of tax is being cut. I've posted the image on the left before but it's worth a good look (click to enlarge).

Update: actual speech text HERE and word-cloud (hat-tip Guido) HERE.

Opiparous oration...

---

Fox in the headless chicken house: good speech to the IEA today. Here is what he said in full. So, "Liam Fox urges spending freeze" (a freeze? Surely there were already cuts?) [BBC]

"Mr Fox's proposed freeze on all public spending - as against the current freeze for Whitehall departmental budgets - would cut spending in real terms by 2.5% a year. The current plan is for a 1% annual cut."

Ah. And, my favourite bit of his speech;

"We are all familiar with the issue and history of debt.  In 1997 Labour inherited a balanced budget on coming to office – indeed, it was a budget that was set to move into surplus...



...To make matters worse, the panic spending that Gordon Brown embarked upon in order to try to avoid his impending defeat, set a trajectory for spending that would see debts continue to mount at an alarming rate. 



Even with the coalition Government’s deficit reduction plans - which the current Labour leader has attended Trade Union rallies to protest against - the national debt will reach £1.4 trillion in 2015.



History will judge Gordon Brown and his disciples harshly."

I live in hope: the pike is sharpened; the city gates in view. More from Thomas Pascoe reporting [DT], "Dr Liam Fox is absolutely right when it comes to Labour's legacy of debt".

"They spent with abandon, rolling out the Socialist vision of a big state. But much worse; rather than diminishing the reliance that individuals have on the state, they purposely pushed the drug of welfare addiction to more and more people, ensnaring even the affluent middle classes... ..The expansion of welfare addiction is one of the most corrosive effects of socialism and it must not only be neutralised, but reversed."

However, many weren't impressed.

Opiparous oration...

---

Fox in the headless chicken house: good speech to the IEA today. Here is what he said in full. So, "Liam Fox urges spending freeze" (a freeze? Surely there were already cuts?) [BBC]

"Mr Fox's proposed freeze on all public spending - as against the current freeze for Whitehall departmental budgets - would cut spending in real terms by 2.5% a year. The current plan is for a 1% annual cut."

Ah. And, my favourite bit of his speech;

"We are all familiar with the issue and history of debt.  In 1997 Labour inherited a balanced budget on coming to office – indeed, it was a budget that was set to move into surplus...

...To make matters worse, the panic spending that Gordon Brown embarked upon in order to try to avoid his impending defeat, set a trajectory for spending that would see debts continue to mount at an alarming rate. 

Even with the coalition Government’s deficit reduction plans - which the current Labour leader has attended Trade Union rallies to protest against - the national debt will reach £1.4 trillion in 2015.

History will judge Gordon Brown and his disciples harshly."

I live in hope: the pike is sharpened; the city gates in view. More from Thomas Pascoe reporting [DT], "Dr Liam Fox is absolutely right when it comes to Labour's legacy of debt".

"They spent with abandon, rolling out the Socialist vision of a big state. But much worse; rather than diminishing the reliance that individuals have on the state, they purposely pushed the drug of welfare addiction to more and more people, ensnaring even the affluent middle classes... ..The expansion of welfare addiction is one of the most corrosive effects of socialism and it must not only be neutralised, but reversed."

However, many weren't impressed.

Olid oligophrenic opposition...

---

The Audit Commission has revealed that the cash reserves of English councils are up by 15.5 percent: [DM] from over 14 billion quid in 2011 to 16.4 billion this year. What's worse,

"A third of councils' annual spending now put straight into the bank"!!! 

WTF!! Proving that our media can never get the same figures, the DT has it just short of 13 billion quid (up 35% since 2007); Eric Pickles has said "It is unacceptable that some councils are stashing away billions [...] whilst at the same time threatening to cut front-line services". He is right, especially when only yesterday, the leaders of Liverpool, Newcastle and Sheffield councils were shrieking that deeper cuts will spark civil unrest [Observer]; these lying, corrupt, incompetent fuck-wits are intentionally stoking the flames, a self-fulfilling prophecy, and they know it, harping on with 'alarming predictions of social unrest' and a worsening of the north-south economic divide (a would guess 30 seconds on Google would produce any number of wasteful schemes and high or unnecessary expenses that these ideologically driven twats are spending). Cunt-features Blunkett was on about it too: "It is worse than under Margaret Thatcher. As living standards fall and services are slashed, revolutionary fervour may return". At least Tim pissed on Blunkett's fireworks but unfortunately a wider audience won't get the benefit of this exposure of blatant lies. We have seen this before, lefty local government trolls happy to see violence, damage, injury and probably death just to get one over on those 'evil Tories' (in fact we have an achingly fair and politically central government).

Olid oligophrenic opposition...

---

The Audit Commission has revealed that the cash reserves of English councils are up by 15.5 percent: [DM] from over 14 billion quid in 2011 to 16.4 billion this year. What's worse,

"A third of councils' annual spending now put straight into the bank"!!! 

WTF!! Proving that our media can never get the same figures, the DT has it just short of 13 billion quid (up 35% since 2007); Eric Pickles has said "It is unacceptable that some councils are stashing away billions [...] whilst at the same time threatening to cut front-line services". He is right, especially when only yesterday, the leaders of Liverpool, Newcastle and Sheffield councils were shrieking that deeper cuts will spark civil unrest [Observer]; these lying, corrupt, incompetent fuck-wits are intentionally stoking the flames, a self-fulfilling prophecy, and they know it, harping on with 'alarming predictions of social unrest' and a worsening of the north-south economic divide (a would guess 30 seconds on Google would produce any number of wasteful schemes and high or unnecessary expenses that these ideologically driven twats are spending). Cunt-features Blunkett was on about it too: "It is worse than under Margaret Thatcher. As living standards fall and services are slashed, revolutionary fervour may return". At least Tim pissed on Blunkett's fireworks but unfortunately a wider audience won't get the benefit of this exposure of blatant lies. We have seen this before, lefty local government trolls happy to see violence, damage, injury and probably death just to get one over on those 'evil Tories' (in fact we have an achingly fair and politically central government).

Onward octroi...

---

Raheem Kassam, Executive Editor of The Commentator says it far better than I could..unless of course I really tried: Big Bucks and Dumb F**cks.

"It is evident that if Starbucks opts to; create fewer jobs as a result of this moral penalty, train and pay its staff less, buy cheaper equipment (which of course are all likelihoods rather than possibilities), then the consumer and the employees suffer. In return, the Treasury suffers.

If Starbucks is less frequented, or pays its staff less, then Mr. Taxman has problems. Farmers, wholesalers, delivery firms and even The Independent, which sells its newspapers in Starbucks branches, will suffer. The knock on effect, while currently intangible, is likely to be more than then £20m that the likes of the hypocritical Margaret Hodge MP have welcomed. 

What if, paraphrasing Raheem, 'even worse for the leftist coalition' that by demanding more cash from Starbucks, they - these do-gooder happy clappy touchy feely coffee traders - decide that, by paying more tax to the UK government, 'it must slash money from its corporate social responsibility department': what about no more fair-trade coffee etc.... Well, say no more. Full article HERE. Indeed what if Starbucks decided not to engage in politically correct sideshows that lefty twats normally applaud like "Helping Sumatran Farmers Respond to Climate Change" [Link], or its ethical sourcing, [Link]. What about their supplier diversity programme? [Link]. What about supporting farmers and their communities? [Link]: Starbucks goal: "Invest in farmers and their communities by increasing farmer loans to $20 million by 2015", 20 million, that rings a bell. You fa coffee?

Onward octroi...

---

Raheem Kassam, Executive Editor of The Commentator says it far better than I could..unless of course I really tried: Big Bucks and Dumb F**cks.

"It is evident that if Starbucks opts to; create fewer jobs as a result of this moral penalty, train and pay its staff less, buy cheaper equipment (which of course are all likelihoods rather than possibilities), then the consumer and the employees suffer. In return, the Treasury suffers. If Starbucks is less frequented, or pays its staff less, then Mr. Taxman has problems. Farmers, wholesalers, delivery firms and even The Independent, which sells its newspapers in Starbucks branches, will suffer. The knock on effect, while currently intangible, is likely to be more than then £20m that the likes of the hypocritical Margaret Hodge MP have welcomed. 

What if, paraphrasing Raheem, 'even worse for the leftist coalition' that by demanding more cash from Starbucks, they - these do-gooder happy clappy touchy feely coffee traders - decide that, by paying more tax to the UK government, 'it must slash money from its corporate social responsibility department': what about no more fair-trade coffee etc.... Well, say no more. Full article HERE. Indeed what if Starbucks decided not to engage in politically correct sideshows that lefty twats normally applaud like "Helping Sumatran Farmers Respond to Climate Change" [Link], or its ethical sourcing, [Link]. What about their supplier diversity programme? [Link]. What about supporting farmers and their communities? [Link]: Starbucks goal: "Invest in farmers and their communities by increasing farmer loans to $20 million by 2015", 20 million, that rings a bell. You fa coffee?

Our overseers II...

---

Dick Puddlecote was reminded of politician and of state hypocrisy "after reading Anna Raccoon's article on Starbucks.

Yes, as through this world I wander
I meet lots of funny men; Some’ll rob you with a six-gun, And some with a fountain pen. Woody Guthrie, 'The Ballad of Pretty Boy Floyd'.

The image (left) pertains to the USA but it does apply here too and it shows how certain definitions change "When Government Does It" (click to enlarge). 

Our overseers II...

---

Dick Puddlecote was reminded of politician and of state hypocrisy "after reading Anna Raccoon's article on Starbucks.

Yes, as through this world I wander I meet lots of funny men; Some’ll rob you with a six-gun, And some with a fountain pen. Woody Guthrie, 'The Ballad of Pretty Boy Floyd'.

The image (left) pertains to the USA but it does apply here too and it shows how certain definitions change "When Government Does It" (click to enlarge). 

Outstanding opinion...

---

David Blackburn in The Spectator writes: "If you only have time to read one full length newspaper piece today, read this one by George Bridges, the former backroom Tory guru and CPS director." And in that article George is right: about 'retail politics'; about political parties becoming brands'; about presentation before principle..."The mindset of political strategy is now poisoning the well of politics." I would say that sentence is in the wrong tense because the poisoning has well and truly arrived...and IMHO another thing to hang on New Labour's long list of 'crimes'. Don't miss the last paragraph.

Outstanding opinion...

---

David Blackburn in The Spectator writes: "If you only have time to read one full length newspaper piece today, read this one by George Bridges, the former backroom Tory guru and CPS director." And in that article George is right: about 'retail politics'; about political parties becoming brands'; about presentation before principle..."The mindset of political strategy is now poisoning the well of politics." I would say that sentence is in the wrong tense because the poisoning has well and truly arrived...and IMHO another thing to hang on New Labour's long list of 'crimes'. Don't miss the last paragraph.

Obverting offerings...

---

And we wonder why the government has no money (well it doesn't, it's our money but you know what I mean). Guido writes that the Centre for Policy Studies has found that 53.4% of UK households receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes; this is a very high figure.  "These trends are unsustainable – particularly given the ageing profile of the UK population", said Tim Knox, Director of the CPS. Of course, you may say, as this includes all pensioners the number is skewed; so looking at the study [PDF], even without "retired households" the total is still a horrendously high 40%! In 1979 31.7% of non-retired households were net recipients of the state and by 2000/01 this had fallen as low as 29.0 per cent,"However, over the past ten years to 2010/11, the proportion of households who are now net
recipients of the state has increased to 39.6 per cent." Ryan Bourne, Head of Economics at the CPS said:

"These data show that even before the financial crisis, the Labour government was ramping up spending on cash benefits and benefits in kind without corresponding increases in taxation. This was not redistribution from rich to poor, but redistribution from the future to the present. It felt good at the time, but given the government doesn't have its own money, was unsustainable."