The Bewilderness

The slow stagflation

One of the strongest reasons for booting Labour out of power is the amount of money that they rob from us and their breach of trust in wasting the earnings that they have seized. Even when they add taxes, they rely on your ignorance to defraud you.

Mike Warburton, of accountants Grant Thornton, said: "Even after recent falls in revenue, the taxman now takes almost twice as much as in 1997. Stamp duty, CGT and council tax have more than doubled.

"It is surprising that duties have not done so – but don't be fooled. The motorist is paying heavily. It is duty on alcohol, tobacco and betting that have fallen behind inflation – arguably because this is what matters to many core Labour voters.

Further tax rises are in the pipeline, though the tolerance for tax, no matter what the polls say, is nearing its limit. Tax increases and falling incomes are a toxic limit and low interest rates have disguised this. A quick adjustment has been replaced by the slow stagflation.

Unite divides Labour with its Whelan and dealin'

Labour's performance appeared self-assured and sure-footed only days ago. The mines primed to detonate in their path had been swerved with some swagger and to the mounting incredulity of witnesses. Despite the gaps in their presentation, Mandelson and Campbell appeared to have presented Labour as the underdog, humanised Brown, erased a thirteen year record and turned the attention of the media on to Tory policies. However, this elaborate ruse required strong roots if it was to be sustained until election day. It also depended upon continued Tory disarray.

The problem is that Labour can only rely upon presentation as they have run out of time to take the initiative. They are at the mercy of the economic and social forces that they unleashed: an iron pincer tattooed with taxes and cuts. That pincer is closing and no longer can the presentation be sustained without one eye on the markets. Hence Liam Byrne rowing back on his Bush impression of 'no new taxes':

But on Tuesday Mr Byrne attempted to dramatically row back from that position, fearing he had tied the Chancellor's hands just days before the vital pre election Budget is delivered.

When he was asked by the BBC about whether he stood by his comments about ruling out a Vat rise, he said: “No, I mean Chancellors reserve the right to come back to tax matters at every budget.”

U-turns and disarray commit the same sin as the accusations they cast against their opponents. Now the union revenant, Unite, under Charlie Whelan is bringing further discord and division into the arena:

Privately, however, Downing Street acknowledges that the rows, which have erupted in recent weeks over the selection of Labour parliamentary candidates, are evidence of a battle for ascendancy within both the union and the party.

Cashcroft may have provided a soft libel, but Mandelson and Campbell must be hoping things do not get worse.

Long-gone battles replay at one last election

Unite has a divisive name. But, strange that such political operators forgot that one factor that could derail their political fundraising and support: their own members. It is a killer confluence: publicity of Labour's union links and a demonstrable effect upon the Prime Minister's behaviour. There is no evidence, yet, that this has effected poll ratings, but it will reinforce an older prejudice and panders to the belief that the election is an echo of the past: a replay of the final battles from the 1970s and 1980s, recast in the rubble of a new defeat.

Who would have thought that the legacy of Tony Blair would be the unity of the labour movement via the takeover of the political party by the unions. A recipe for flatlining, if thei public sector strongholds are broken.

Nine points for Dave but nul point for majority

The new ICM poll for the Guardian highlights Broon's unpopularity and may steady some nerves in Conservative Central Office as they digest a nine point lead. The poll also confirms the large support for a hung parliament as a temporary reaction to the Rotten Parliament. Perhaps they confused the question with hanging MPs....

At 39-31-20, we are seeing a climb in the Tory lead after more adverse coverage for Labour. A weak budget and union ties will leave Labour looking to the debates as a gamechanger.

Labour opts for a 'political' budget

Labour attacks the Tories for not providing detail in their proposed fiscal policy or spending plans. And if they do, they are attacked as inconsistent. But Darling will present a budget, the “most important” for decades without details of tax or expenditure. Then why have a budget?

''Crucially we have got to plan now to ensure we get growth for the future because growth is what brings jobs, jobs is what will bring rising living standards.''

Darling will stand up in Parliament and concentrate on goodies without spelling their cost or how they will be paid. Another debased and mendacious set of lies from these scoundrels, a low and dishonest party unwilling to square with the electorate.

This is a dangerous game. A political budget may do more than dismay the markets. Their patience may snap and damage could ensue. I would like to see what the Liberal Democrats will guarantee then.

A stain of mediocrities: Labour, 1997-2010

The Labour government insists that the largest structural deficit ever in Britain will not require any new tax rises (over the nineteen billion pounds already raised) and have pledged that frontline services will not be cut (whilst doing so). The deficit will be reduced through growth, brought about by government investment.

This is known as a lie. In their hunger for power, Labour's mendacity knows no bounds and they will jeopardise the future to maintain position. There is no way that they will be able to square the circle with this haze of Brownian motion of dodgy statistics and “finger in the air -onomics”.

The markets are already primed to punish, and Brown wishes to stand up on that podium at the debates and repeat Bush's mistakes: “Read my lips, no new taxes!”. He thinks he can because the British electorate do not seem inclined to punish this crew for their incompetence or snake oil.

I thought some few had a shred of decency or honour left. But alas, they are all without shame. A stain of mediocrity: Labour, 1997-2010.

Postponing Judgement Day with an April Budget for fools

The Budget has been set for March 24^th. The lack of notice over the date and unwillingness to divulge the macroeconomic direction infers that there are strong debates at the heart of the government over the timing of the election and the content of the Budget.

The media report that the strong division with the Cabinet lies between the realists who wish set out concrete measures for deficit reduction and the spendthrifts, led by G Broon, who wish to use government expenditure to buy the election. This is an artificial division. I doubt that Darling or Brown differ over much of the content. Both support a fiscal stimulus based upon debt and subscribe to economic growth kickstarted by public expenditure.

They differ in signals and presentation. Gordon Brown wishes to strengthen the political spin and ignore market pressure, with his defence of frontline services and delusional emphasis upon saving the economy. He hasn't and he didn't. Alistair Darling and Mandelson are aware that the markets hold the whiphand, especially after QE has halted. They wish to pretend that they will do the markets bidding at a later day: putting off till judgment day the reckoning of their policies.

At such a delicate balance within the markets, will the Budget prove the trigger for further economic meltdown?

New Labour's gerrymandered election

In a speech to the Hansard Society last night, Jack Straw, Justice Secretary, derided Conservative plans to reduce the number of MPs in the House of Commons as undemocratic and dangerous. The underlying reason for this disapproval was an accusation of gerrymandering.

But Mr Straw said: ''The apparently virtuous call to cut the cost of politics is actually camouflage for a dangerous, destructive and anti-democratic piece of gerrymandering.

''The Conservative Party proposes to cut the number of MPs by 10% without testing the will of the people in a referendum and without any proper effort to seek any kind of cross-party consensus.

As the Telegraph article points out, the current geography of parliamentary constituencies benefits the Labour Party. A possible result at the next General Election is a Labour government with far fewer votes than the Conservatives: an undemocratic outcome.

Is reform to amend an unfair system and to redress an existing bias towards a political party gerrymandering? Only if the reforms were to lead to an inbuilt bias towards the Tories. But Straw's accusation should be contrasted with the sin of omission. Knowing of their inbuilt advantage, does the lack of action and continuance of a Labour advantage count as gerrymandering? The answer is Yes.

With such a hypocritical contrast displayed during a meeting on electoral reform, we hear the continued slogan of electoral reform disguising changes designed to cement Labour's dominance. Their contempt for democracy is palpable.

The grotesque endgame of New Labour

The Ministry of Defence has stopped British journalists from undertaking “embeds” in the armed forces during the period up to the General Election. Senior Officers have also been halted from making speeches during this period. The convention of curtailing relationships with the media during an electoral period, known as “purdah”, has not been extended to the armed forces before now.

Was the same convention enforced at the 2005 election? It does not appear so.

The government fears unpopularity for its treatment of the armed forces. The management of the news cycle is turning draconian:

“It’s a truth blackout. Nothing, especially the truth, is to stand in the way in Brown’s election. Our armed forces can fight and die, but not write or speak. Any critics of the Government are to be banned from having any contact with the press. This is the grotesque endgame of New Labour. They want to bury bad news and bury the truth.”

We have yet to see the grotesque endgame....

Grasping numpties

The tax take on corporations is now rising dramatically as their profits decline, but levies on property and employment remain or increase under these grasping parasites. The amount of profits seized for FTSE100 companies has risen to 56.6%, a rate associated with the Sovietisation of an economy. No doubt this will be dismissed as an “automatic stabiliser”.

The loss of tax competitiveness is ruinous for investment and employment. Tax is now crowding out profitability. Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary to the Treasury decided to audition for “Alice through the Looking Glass”

Stephen Timms, financial secretary to the Treasury, defended the Government's plans, telling an audience in the City that the new 50p rate of income tax would not harm Britain's competitiveness as it affected 1pc of the population. He also pledged to maintain "the most competitive corporation tax rate of the major economies".

Grasping Numpties. No wonder there is no recovery.