Local politics: councils flout the law – shock!
Thursday 1 August 2013
However, we know that this "rip-off" is just the tip of the iceberg. Local authorities have been highly inventive in taking our money, without the slightest regard for legality, all to fund their entitlement culture and feed the town hall fat cats. Thus, we do indeed need to go to war – but this must be more than just over parking charges and fines. This is a question of bringing local authorities under democratic control. For a start, this means annual referendums to approve budgets - one of the core demands of The Harrogate Agenda. There should be no taxation or spending without direct public consent. Until that is the case, it is our duty to make ourselves ungovernable. The big problem, of course, is how we do this ... but it is actually a question of how do you count the ways. For instance, rather than leave Mrs EU Referendum to the mercies of the bailiffs in my absence, very reluctantly I have paid this year's Council Tax before the bailiffs came to call - they are late this year. However, the money goes by cheque without account number, stapled to a letter addressed to the office of the chief executive ... minus the liability order fee (which is illegal) and less two pence, just so that the sum doesn't match that on the bill.
Me doing this is a slight irritation. A thousand people doing this is a problem. A hundred thousand people doing this is a crisis. A million people is a revolution. We have within us the power to make things change. All we need to do is use it.
Richard North 01/08/2013 |
Brexit: costs of withdrawal are a bargain
Thursday 1 August 2013
.Nevertheless, one particular piece on the EU from the English media has come my way, this fromAnthony Hilton in the Evening Standard, who looks at the business response to the leaving the EU. His trite comments seem typical of the breed – one of those who is evidently unable to understand the essence of human aspiration. Only thus could he dismiss the arguments for leaving the EU as "emotional rather than economic", with not a mention of the word "democracy" or the idea of self-governance, or even self-determination. It is as if the UN Charter had never existed. This is yet another reason why we cannot allow the other (friend or foe) to frame the debate. Ultimately, this issue is about democracy. Neither economics nor anything else can be allowed to justify continued EU membership, when what is at stake is our ability to govern ourselves. Hilton is telling us, though, that there is an " interesting split" in the City between foreign-owned firms, whose views broadly reflect the opinions of the leaders of the United States, of Japan and even of Australia who have all come out strongly in favour of the UK staying in. This contrasts with "some British firms" where you tend to find UKIP supporters — or the far more numerous Conservatives with views indistinguishable from UKIP. It is there that you get the "emotional rather than economic" views in support of leaving. These people, says Hilton, are far more vocal about why they want to leave the EU than they are about how Britain will earn its living once it has severed its ties with what remains the world’s biggest and richest single market. It is notable to, adds Hilton, that there is a greater willingness among "pro-European" businessmen to air their views. Nine months ago few wanted to stick their head above the parapet, saying it was a political rather than a business issue. But as they have come to realise — with the rise of UKIP — that there is a genuine threat to Britain's continued membership, they and their trade associations seem much more willing to make the case for staying in. This much we have already noticed, with the flow of FUD intensifying, not least in yesterday's Daily Mail, where we see a poll from the British Chambers of Commerce, which has nearly three-quarters of 4,000 "company bosses" in the UK wanting a referendum on EU membership, while a majority - 61.4 percent of respondents - wants Britain to remain in the EU with powers transferred from Brussels to Westminster. But, says Hilton, if there is common ground between those who assume we should stay in and those who want out, it is in the desire to escape from regulation emanating from Brussels. This is getting repetitive to the point of tedium, but the level of ignorance is even more enervating, as Hilton tells us that "those who have looked closely into the matter" conclude that if we did leave we would still have to enact the bulk of EU regulation. This is the case, he says, with Norway — which has a kind of associate status some UK members say we should seek to emulate — and even with Switzerland which, though outside, is quick to enact equivalent laws. Yesterday, in Norway, I was talking to Helle Hagenau, International Officer of the country's "no" campaign, of whom more later today. Quick to point out that Norway was an independent state, not an EYU "associate", sShe told me of her view that the debate on the globalisation of trading regulation had barely started in the UK. Here we have an example of just that, where a commentator is still locked in the "little Europe" of yesteryear, the one in which "Europe" used to make the regulations. Hilton still thinks that, if we left the EU, UK firms would have to comply with all sorts of laws they had no part in drafting, not realising that so much of the regulation we are seeing originates from global standards-setting bodies, in which most of the independent trading nations participate – with the exception, of course, of EU member states, who defer to the commission when it comes to making their laws. One of these days, way behind EU Referendum readers, these gilded hacks will get the point – one also visible to our Norwegian friends. But so far behind the curve are they that it has not yet begun to dawn on them. Yet these are the people who would presume to keep us informed. One point to which Hilton does draw attention, though - which has a little justice - is one made by partners in the big UK law firms. This is, quite simply, that EU and British law have evolved together for the past 40 years and disentangling one from the other now, though not an impossible task, "would be genuinely daunting and hugely costly". Daunting it is, although the costs could be contained if we took a gradual approach. But, says Mr Know-it-all Hilton, this "would deliver no obvious benefit". Once again, there is no mention of democracy. This clearly has no benefit or value - it is just "emotional" baggage. What perhaps this ghastly man needs to understand is that, in the longer term, no form of government other than democracy is sustainable – simply because law made without the consent of the people lacks legitimacy and will, in the fullness of time, be rejected. He and the cohorts need to understand that the cost difference is one between restoring an element of democracy and rebuilding a system that has collapsed entirely. In that context, the costs of disentangling ourselves from the EU would prove to be a bargain. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 01/08/2013 |
FOI: What fun!
Thursday 1 August 2013
Very often I find myself under-employed at work so I have invented a fun new game. Every lunchtime I dream up an FOI request and pick a council at random.
Last week I put in an FOI request to Lincolnshire County Council asking them to detail all roles with salaries over £70k by year for the last ten years. The results were predictably depressing. In 2005 there were only 5 such roles (totalling £452,958) with the CEO earning £91,422. Fast forward to 2013 and there are 25 roles over £70k with the CEO taking £173,226. The sum of roles over £70k in 2013 is £2,077,998. You can now see why they need to close libraries to save £2m. COMMENT THREAD Peter North 01/08/2013 |
Thursday, 1 August 2013
Posted by Britannia Radio at 14:43