The Bewilderness

Helping First Time Buyers

The Treasury claims that the average tax burden for all families has fallen, even though the poorest members of society now fall within the income tax net.

A Treasury spokesman said the tax burden on the average family had fallen since 1997.

He said: "This analysis misleadingly claims to represent the average situation, but it is undermined by the carefully-selected assumptions on which it is based."

If there is one body that carefully selects assumptions to craft a favourable impression on statistics, it is Treasury. One wonders if this was a crafted by a cynic, hoping to vent their hypocrisy. The accountants, Smith and Williamson, have argued that the tax burden has risen, and this has occurred. Treasury's argument that it has fallen can be rejected.

If they move home, they can expect to lose more than half of their annual wages in taxes on income, spending and property, according to research for The Daily Telegraph by the accountants Smith & Williamson.

The soaring tax burden has been driven largely by the number of people falling into the higher stamp duty tax band on property, along with rising council tax and increases in the National Insurance contributions.

Smith & Williamson estimates that the total taxes paid by a typical family with two children, buying an ordinary terrace house, have soared from 36p in the pound to 54p since 1997.

If this study is correct, the cost of moving house has soared with all of the attendant consequences for social mobility. Less people moving house dries up the supply, and unfulfilled demand chasing fewer goods fuels the housing price bubble. People benefit through remortgages from the increase in equity, and our understanding of how the housing market has been structured by tax policy becomes clearer. New Labour's political economy demands asset price bubbles and debt, at the expense of newcomers to the housing market.

The cheapest method to allow aspirant homebuyers back into the market is to abolish stamp duty.

Recruiting in the Former Empire

The army is scouring former colonies for new recruits, relying on the Anglosphere to make up for the shortfall at home. They swung by the Caribbean recently, using the multiracial society as a benefit:

Major Allistair W. Fyfe, a 35-year army veteran, told the Caribbean Media Corporation that enlisting in the armed forces remains a viable career option for positive thinking, progressive young people and that Caribbean nationals should have no fear of victimisation in the army.

"I don't believe there is any racism in the army," he said, noting that this type of problem is avoided because of Britain's cosmopolitan blended society, which includes a large Caribbean population.

He also said that because the British Army consists of persons from diverse cultural backgrounds, it usually takes a while for synergy to develop among the soldiers, but eventually they gel together quite nicely.

"As the soldiers go through their training, there is a degree of exposure to a different culture, they get used to each other and learn from each other, until over a period of time, there is an understanding," Maj. Fyfe said.

The benefits of the armed forces are clear in a multiracial society. Yet, the low profile and lack of respect for the army at home is a cultural division enthusiastically promoted by Labour.  Brown is an example of a government that continues this hypocritical practice of wrapping the flag around themselves whilst pissing on those who are sent to fight.

Fagpacket Politics at the Ministry of Defence

Was Des Browne talking to the Swedish Defence Minister outside on a fag break when he opined on the future of Afghanistan? He was certainly making up policy on the back of his supply. Perhaps he meant the Americans:

"I don't want to tell you the colour of the face of the Swedish defence minister when I suggested to her at some stage it may be necessary, in order to get to where we want to be in Afghanistan, for us to accept that there is some route through an Islamic-based legal system that will get us there," he said.

Since Afghanistan is already based upon the Islamic legal system, albeit a more liberal version than the Taliban state, is Browne actually stating that he wished to help the homophobic, right violating torture machine back to power. That he wishes to negotiate with the very powers killing British troops.

Mr Browne said that the participation of the country's former rulers was necessary in the peace process if it was to be successful.

"In Afghanistan, at some stage, the Taliban will need to be involved in the peace process because they are not going away, any more than I suspect Hamas are going away from Palestine," he told delegates.

The defence secretary suggested that that those overseeing the peace process would probably expect the former rulers to obey some "basic parameters" before becoming involved.

Since Browne annot even spit without the Americans giving permission, his colourful prejudices on eliminationism and appeasement remain expressed rather than policy. Such statements still undermine the actions of the armed forces. Does the dath of a soldier count if his Minister is willing to question colaition policy in public?

Substandard Browne

The Minister of Defence has no defence against the substandard accommodation for soldiers and their families. These were the very soldiers that his leader namechecked yesterday to wreathe himself in Middle England. Who was to blame for this mess? Why, it was the previous government from 1997! Must be the Tories fault!

The accommodation provided for some of the Armed Forces is a disgrace, Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, admitted yesterday.

However, in a speech to the conference he blamed the poor housing standards on the “legacy” that the Government had been bequeathed when it came to power ten years ago.

All we hear from this government is the same whiny excuses. They do not have the courage or honesty to admit that they have failed the troops that they sent out to fight. The appointment of a part-time Minister at the MOD gives the lie to Brown's 'Britishness'.

"Come Murdoch, and set your wolves on Miliband!"

The Sun runs a strong campaign against the European Union and finds that the  next but one, David Miliband, has decided to defy them.  What does young Miliband  know that would have left his predecessors quaking in their boots? Has he calculated that the red-tops are in decline and that he has more to gain by pandering to the base and mocking Murdoch.

Miliband was quick to position himself within the hubristic pattern of Labour's second decade. Today he was at it again.

He said: “Yes it’s tempting to lower our sights. But in progressive politics we must always be restless for change. And that means we have to be restless about the future, not the past.

“Who says in ten years’ time we will not have turned back the inexorable rise in global emissions? Who says in ten years’ time every child in the world won’t be at school? Who says in ten years’ time, there can’t be a democratic and respected Iran, cooperating with us and the international community against global terrorism?”

Such a vision is rather disturbing when set against his wish to exploit party advantage and disown national interest. The case against a European referendum was nakedly set against a wish to avoid division within the Labour Party. The price of their political success is our national sovereignty. All arguments on honesty were dodged.

The Foreign Secretary also appealed to those Labour MPs, unions and activists who were pressing for a referendum of the European Union’s reform treaty not to risk creating party disunity as he again ruled out putting the treaty to a vote of the people. “Europe needs to look out, not in, to the problems beyond its borders that define insecurity within our borders,” he said.

“It doesn’t need institutional navel-gazing and that is why the reform treaty abandons fundamental constitutional reform and offers clear protections for national sovereignty. It should be studied and passed by Parliament.”

This argument requires honesty. Miliband tries to be too clever by half, a semantic swot whose prose creations do not hide the status quo, swathed in a swirl of ethical drivel and sanctimonious namechecks. A foreign secretary that namechecks half the world's dissidents without fail drives that feelgood factor for the Labour audience. Janus faced, he calls for Europe and America in the same breath, even traducing the Tories in a naked reversal of their stated policy: that they are anti-American.

He said: “Some want distance from America. Others want distance from Europe. The Tories want divorce from both. But those are the wrong lessons.

Some of us want honesty and respect. You should not misrepresent the Opposition when you are unwilling to namecheck President Bush yourself.  Come  Murdoch, set  your wolves on Miliband!

Moral message, immoral outcomes

Brown's speech was carefully scripted to remind listeners of his record as Prime Minister since June, padded with platitudes and hypocrisy bled on those who have been dealt a cruel hand by Labour. He was quick to praise the armed forces, despite starving them of needed resources:

Just as our armed services with bravery and heroism every single day also make us proud. We mourn those who have been lost and we honour all those who in distant places of danger give so much to our country.

The subtext of a national story was a crock. I do not know if people responded well to disasters but Brown's feelgood story rings hollow. His list of targets, objectives and increased public expenditure could have been taken out from any manifesto under this government in the last ten years.

The policies were clear: set new targets, extend rights and talk tough whilst veering left. This will reduce the flexibility of the government's room to manoevre and decrease the effect of supply side reforms on the economy. Brown's administration does not have the skills to navigate a landscape of economic or international crisis.

The speech was Brown's representation of his life as a leader. There were some weighty omissions: no reference to the European Constitution, no reference to Iran, no reference to public sector reform, no reference to economic crisis, no mention of ID cards.

A moral message to support immoral outcomes.

Will brown snap to it?

The reports in the press are focused upon the possibility of a snap election. This now overwhelms all other issues discussed at the Labour conference, and is providing a groundswell within the party itself. Members of Parliament in marginals are stating that they wish to go to the country and increase their majorities.

Mr Brown has been polling in marginals and has a clear and sustained lead. Nigel Griffiths, who represents Edinburgh South with a majority of just 405, said: "He should go for it. If we have the election now, my majority will go up from 400 to 3,000. It is a gamble, but he should take it."

This fails to recognise the current peculiar status of Scotland with its nationalist devolved administration.

Yet, the question remains: where is this groundswell of Labour support coming from? Conditions have not changed so perceptions are key here. Some have described this support as a run to security during a time of uncertainty, although even voters must see the party as a source of junk bonds. It may even attest to that creation of a client bank which Brown assiduously supported over a decade, in a 'taxes for jobs' scandal.

Electoral conditions often ensure that the result is a different outcome from that expected. You cannot take the electorate for granted.

Brown's shallow support

Henry Porter, an observer in The Observer, asks the question that continues to haunt the Conservative party and anyone sick of Labour's sleaze and incompetence.

Despite everything, Conservative fortunes have gone into reverse. Nothing the party says, even its reassurance on the key issues of health and security, seems to convince the electorate. At the same time, nothing in Labour's record - from Iraq to reneging on a promise to hold a referendum on the European constitution, from pulling the plug on the BAE inquiry to the ducking and diving over Northern Rock - seems to shake the public's faith. This either suggests that the electorate has no more awareness of the issues than a shoal of mackerel or that something else is at work.

Porter blames the current reverse upon the psychological dependency of the electorate upon Labour and envisages a one-party state. This has all the power of confusion: pundits grasping at straws as they are unable to understand what is happening in the country. This was the problem in analysing the Blair phenomenon and the same malaise afflicts examination of the current government.

None of the problems that clearly prevailed under Blair have gone away. The underpinnings of failure are there, despite hiding under the vagaries of the 'Brown bounce' and the honeymoon. Association with Blair's record has not yet returned, but the second iteration of legal action, spinning media releases and failing government will not go away.

Brown refused to reveal his decision on a snap election with his interview on the Andrew Marr show. The Northern Rock episode did not dent his poll ratings, but the Chancellor's promise that the economy is rock-solid may prove a fatal prediction, and his sickening belief that the poor will pay the price under a Tory government averts the gaze from Brown's willingness to make those on a low income pay for his mistakes in income taxes and misallocated tax credits.

The Labour party will be examining declines in economic confidence closely. There are some indications that house purchases may have been hit. Traffic to estate agent websites are down and there are reports that panic selling amongst landlords are sending the buy-to-let market into a nosedive. If house prices start to fall, this may have an adverse impact upon their ratings. The foundations of Labour's support remain as fragile as their reputations for competence, and that is continually fraying.

Underwater empires

The Guardian reported that Britain was staking claims with the United nations under the Law of the Sea to gain sovereignty over large areas of undersea territory. This has been described as an act of eco-colonialism, designed to gain new oil and gas fields.

The 21st century land rush is likely to be the last big shift in land ownership in centuries and reflects the necessity to claim new seams of the Earth's resources.

In total, as much as 2.7m square miles - an area similar in size to Australia - is believed to be at stake. It includes the Arctic where Russia recently claimed land below the north pole, new islands off India which have emerged from the sea, and Pacific ocean islands claimed by Australia. But to claim the new underwater land, countries must be able to show that it is an extension of their own topography, and not just a gratuitous land grab. All claims must be staked by spring 2009, which is why there is a rush to gather scientific evidence to support submissions.

Handled unwisely, this could be the cause of new wars as oceanic powers police their continental shelf and offshore territories. For Britain, potential conflict centres upon Rockall and the Falkland Islands. On the list of claims submitted, Pitcairn Island and Bermuda are omitted.

Negotiations over Rockall and the Hatton-Rockall plateau will take place between Ireland, Great Britain, Iceland and Denmark. The possibility of filing a claim on the Falklands has been countered by an irate Argentina, who indulged in immoderate language ahead of President Kirchner's visit to the United Nations. Ruperto Godoy, the president of the parliamentary group claiming sovereignty over the disputed islands, was clear:

Mr Godoy said he believed it was "no coincidence" that details of the claim had become public in Britain just days ahead of a speech by Argentina's president, Nestor Kirchner, at the UN in New York. "This shows a lack of understanding of the Argentine position, and if the British do not change their approach we shall have to interpret it as aggression."

Relations with Argentina will not improve any time soon.

A kinder word ne'er spoken

Tony Benn shows his true colours on human kindness, as serialised in the Daily Mail!:

Friday, March 22

Mrs Thatcher, who's had one stroke already, has been told she may never speak again. I was asked to comment on Newsnight and Channel 4 News and I refused, because I didn't feel this was the moment to say anything nasty, as she would be lying in bed at home watching on the telly, and I just thought that was unkind.