Local politics: a denial of democracy
Friday 26 July 2013
 But what is especially telling are the comments of the Green Party leader, Councillor Jason Kitcat, who called on the government to allow councils like Brighton and Hove "more freedom to raise money from taxes". Councils actually have freedom to increase Council Tax but, before they do so above the two percent level, they are required to hold local referendums, the results of which are binding. Thus, if the people reject an increase, councils are not allowed to up their charges. What Kitcat is doing, therefore, is not only denying his electors the chance of deciding their level of Council Tax, he is seeking power to raise taxes without having to gain the approval of his voters. This proto-dictator wants "freedom" to increase taxes but would deny voters the right to refuse increases. Such remarks illustrate with some clarity the real nature of these people, reinforced further by Kitcat, when he says: "The referendum rule is mad. It's not really workable and would cost about £300,000 to run". Here, you can see another tactic at work, talking up the cost of something that the council does not want to do. Yet, when trial referendums were carried out, the highest estimate was £150,000 and one council estimated that the cost could be brought down to about £70,000 if combined with normal council elections. With the development of electronic voting, costs could be brought down still further. The relatively modest costs of true democracy compare with councils spending millions on freesheets – so-called "Town Hall Pravda". They have been spending tens of millions, out of a communication budget of £400 million a year, with one council alone spending over £5000,000 on its newspaper. Thus, there is no expense spared when councils want to spread their own propaganda, but when genuine consultation is called for, we get a council (and a Green one at that) complaining about the cost. This comes on the back of sustained resistance from the Local Government Association (LGA) to the very idea of Council Tax referendums. In May of this year, we saw an example of this, the disdain which local authorities show for the idea of democracy, as they sought to prevent Communities Secretary Eric Pickles tightening the "referendum lock" on council tax. As the Local Audit and Accountability Bill enters the final reading in the House of Lords, the LGA isintensifying its resistance (paywall), urging the government to publish its estimates of the impact of new council tax referendum rules on long-term infrastructure projects, amid fears of a "significant threat" to city deals and flood defences. This is another classic ploy – shroud-waving in the face of tighter controls over spending – but once against disguising the essential anti-democratic nature of local government. The LGA argues that the requirement to submit increases in Council Tax (to include increases in levies and precepts) "could threaten councils' long-term financial sustainability and leave authorities unable to invest in major infrastructure schemes such as transport systems, putting jobs and investment at risk". But a Department of Communities spokesman said: "There is no reason that the Bill will affect infrastructure projects. If local authorities want to raise Council Tax because of levying bodies then they should be prepared to argue their case to local people in a referendum". Referring to "City deals", which are being used to fund capital schemes, the spokesman said that they, "are important in encouraging investment and improving infrastructure, but they are not vehicles for bypassing the right of local people to vote on excessive council tax increases". The right of people to vote – where it actually means something – is, of course, the last thing these anti-democrats want. But their arrogance is the only transparent thing about them. "That democratic consent thing is unworkable. Can't have the plebs having a say on whether the council should be allowed to keep spending like Paris Hilton on a coke binge", says North Jnr. And this is why the right to limit council taxes is a central part of The Harrogate Agenda. In their resistance to even modest requirements for increased democracy, Councils are showing their true colours. We now have a battle on our hands. Taxes, as currently constituted, have no legitimacy and the likes of Councillor Jason Kitcat are going to have to learn that the principle of "no taxation without consent" is going to be the way of the future. We are coming, and there is no stopping the power of an idea. UPDATE: Predictably, this issue is getting next to no coverage from the media, as Autonomous Mind notes. He identifies an LGA briefing note, reiterating its opposition to council tax referendums, calling the requirement, " a significant threat to both local government's financial stability and infrastructure investment". Never mind that Council Tax is a significant threat to my financial stability, and to the financial stability and wellbeing of thousands of taxpayers.
These "robber barons", as AM describes them, have not the slightest idea of what democratic accountability actually means. Their priorities are always put before our priorities – they decide how much we have to pay, and it then becomes our duty to pay these thieves, on pain of imprisonment.
Richard North 26/07/2013 |
EU politics: Eurobarometer – a Europe of opinions
Friday 26 July 2013
Furthermore, it seems, the number of Europeans who distrust the European Union has doubled over the past six years to a record high, even if that is an inflated figure. The year 2006 was untypically high in the "distrust" stakes.
Nevertheless, it is the case that the level of distrust in the EU has increased markedly. In 2005, about 50 percent of people would admit to trusting the EU. Currently, this is down to about 30 percent. But what we are not seeing in the media reports is the other side of the equation – the national picture. Over the same time span, it has trust in parliaments starting at 38 percent declining to 26, and trust in national governments at 31 percent down to 25 percent (see chart - click to expand). What is more, the decline curve mirrors the EU curve, which says two things. Firstly, over time more people trust the EU than they do their national institutions and, as trust in the EU declines, so it does in those national institutions. In the UK, though, things are different. Eurobarometer has the 20 percent trusting the EU, against the 31 percent EU-wide average. In the UK, 25 percent trust their parliaments and 22 percent their governments, as opposed to the EU-wide averages of 26 and 25 percent respectively. What that tells us is that the Brits are not that big on trust. Although they trust the EU less than their continental neighbours, like those neighbours, they also trust their own institutions less. And, when the "tend not to trust" parameter is measured, 76 percent of British distrust their own government, compared with 71 percent who distrust the EU. Hilariously, though (well, I'm easily pleased), 40 percent of Norwegians trust the EU – nine points above the EU average. The obvious inference is that, if you want people to trust the EU, make sure their countries are not members. Another aspect of this is the image question. Only three percent of EU-wide respondents have a "very positive" view of the EU – exactly the same as the UK. Only 18 percent of Brits are "fairly positive" against the EU average of 27 percent. "Very negative" in the EU is seven percent, against the UK which musters 16 percent. Cyprus, however, breaks the bank with 29 percent, even beating Greece's 19 percent. Whether the Eurobarometer findings are reliable is always difficult to judge but, just supposing we had a referendum – these surveys provide a mine of information on which to base a campaign. Just one example says that, when comparing what our own government says with what the EU has to offer, we are more likely to disbelieve our government. The European Commission has a fractional advantage in the propaganda stakes.  Turning to more general issues, respondents are asked to rate their most pressing concerns and there we seen across the board, unemployment is nominated as the number one issue (see chart above – click to enlarge), at 51 percent of people thinking it the most important. For the UK, number two is immigration and only number three is the economic situation. Interestingly, climate change barely registers. The EU average is four percent, shared by the UK. Only in Germany (ten percent), Sweden (19 percent) and Malta (22 percent) does the ranking get into two figures. Italy and Ireland have only one percent of their respondents thinking this is the most important issue. Four countries have no-one prepared to rate climate change as the most important of their issues. Perhaps significantly, when people are asked for the most important issues affecting the EU, only three percent of the respondents nominate climate change. Clearly, climate change is still seen as a national issue. In referendum terms, the unemployment card is likely to ensure that the FUD-merchants are likely to maximise the risk of job losses. The outers, on the other hand, would be more inclined to play the immigration card – so the net effect could be neutral. This is not the case with those who think the EU makes it easier to do business in Europe. A clear majority (57 percent) think it does, compared with 31 percent who don't. This is very close to the EU average at 62 and 28 percent respectively. But there is one fascinating insight in the detailed report. The UK produces twice the EU average, at 20 percent, of people "very satisfied" with the life they lead. Add the "fairly satisfied" and you have 90 percent of the population more or less satisfied with the life they lead, compared with the EU average of 75 percent. Compare that with the 36 percent of Greeks or the 33 percent of Portuguese, and there is a long way to go before we start taking to the streets. But then, Norway comes out at 98 percent in the satisfied stakes, so there is something to be said for not being in the EU after all. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 26/07/2013 |
EU politics: Rudd the FUD
Thursday 25 July 2013
 Certainly, in EU circles, BNE is extraordinarily influential, being able to attract Commissioners to its dinners and references on commission websites. Interestingly, despite being established lobbyists, the group is conspicuously absent from the EU'sregister of lobyists (search result illustrated above), as indeed is Mr Rudd's own company. This is not entirely unexpected though – working in the shadows seems to be Mr Rudd's speciality. But this is by no means the first time that Mr Rudd has come to the notice of the Mail. The paper was complaining of, "another schmoozing lobbyist with too much clout" back in December last year, a man with political inclinations left of centre and strongly pro-Europe. Researcher and policy co-ordinator for SDP founder David Owen before moving into journalism, he worked at the Times and Financial Times before leaving to set up Finsbury in 1994. He became a useful cheerleader of the New Labour project, working closely with Peter Mandelson and personally canvassing for Mandelson in the 2001 election. Mandelson became godfather of one of Rudd's three children. But Rudd also cultivated the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, and is close friends with BBC business editor Robert Peston, having worked with him on the FT. Currently, Nick Clegg is also a close associate. Today Rudd's firm has a turnover of some £50 million and has somewhere between one quarter and a third of the FTSE-100 companies as clients. He lives in Holland Park, not a million miles from David Cameron, with his dress-designer wife. Yet, despite evident distaste for Rudd, the Mail as a newspaper seems quite happy to take stories sourced by him and to spread them uncritically. Recently, Euractiv had Rudd as number 38 in a list of the 40 most influential Britons on EU policy. The man undoubtedly has greater influence on UK policy and, where there is dirty work afoot, "Rudd the FUD" is probably the man behind it. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 25/07/2013 |
EU politics: a prodigal son returns?
Thursday 25 July 2013
 This, I suppose, we should applaud, in the manner of slaughtering the fatted calf for the return of the prodigal son. Hooray, we say! Oborne is finally beginning to catch up with what we mere toilers in the field have been saying for years. So yes, we can day it. How nice it is to see a headline: "the EU referendum gives us the chance to re-emerge as a global trading nation". It makes a pleasant change from the endless FUD. Nevertheless, there is a limit to our applause. After a few slices off the chine, the fatted calf should go in the freezer for another day. After all, the man is still locked into the myth that the UK is somehow going to be engaged in a renegotiation process. And, he also tells us, William Hague "is an extremely independent-minded man", so he doesn't "think" that he has been captured by the Foreign Office. Therefore, Oborne concludes that, although he has certainly moved in the direction of the mainstream Foreign Office view, it must be by his own volition. But, asks Oborne, "Can he even be seriously regarded as a Eurosceptic any more?", suggesting that "it is difficult to know". Dear God! No it isn't. Hague was infected with europhilia while still in opposition, and even then was one of the main obstacles towards the Conservative Party adopting a sensible policy on the EU. If Mr Oborne, supposedly at the centre of things political, hasn't worked that one out, what the hell is he drawing a salary for? The trouble is with Oborne is that, like a wartime convoy, we can only move at the speed of the slowest ship. When you have this opinionated columnist in the line, that speed is so dreadfully slow. Not only the submerged U-Boats but a man in a paddleboat can stay abreast. Thus, one reads and reads again, looking for a spark of originality, or some sign that the man has actually stepped out of the claustrophobic intellectual framework of the Telegraph office. Has he taken on board some of the possibilities that haven't already been rehearsed in the pages of his newspaper or in Open Europe bulletins? Sadly, he hasn't got there yet, and is nowhere near understanding the subject of which he writes. He rests his case on the possibility of a euro collapse – which does not look like happening any time soon – and the retreat of the project to an inner core. This would surely be Britain's opportunity, says Oborne. "At an inter-government conference we could smile on the emergence of this new European state – while negotiating for ourselves a much looser, trading relationship". This was something about which we were speculating a few years ago, but such a scenario always was unlikely and now looks even less likely. My best guess is here, based on the best available evidence, rather than fantasy politics. Nothing is going to happen until and unless a British government invokes Article 50. That is the only way possible for Britain to negotiate a looser trading relationship. That, and only that, have the advantage of allowing us to re-emerge as a global trading nation, that Mr Oborne thinks is such a good thing. And yes, Mr Oborne, we would not be alone. Norway and Switzerland might well be part of this broader relationship – or would be if we joined EFTA. Turkey might be part of the arrangement - possibly. But would, as the Great Man speculates, this arrangement also suit several countries currently being crucified in the eurozone, among them Italy, Spain and Portugal? I very much doubt it. This is waffle. This, though, is what Oborne does. He doesn't actually think. He most certainly doesn't do any research and his reading is quite evidently very narrow and horribly restricted. And, for lack of any real understanding that only comes with hard work, he waffles. And, on the basis of that waffle, Britain's relations with Europe, so long a matter for internal and external torment, would be solved, he says. But that is almost child-like in its naïve simplicity. Any new relationship would be complex, difficult and take many years to work out, before it stabilised. We just move into a new dimension. Then, says the man, "our independence would be restored – a welcome side-effect". I do wish people who prattled about "independence" would start to think about what the term actually meant. What we might actually do, is ramp up our activities at global level, taking a direct part in global governance rather than via the EU. Whether that makes us "independent", or more so, is moot. Finally, says Oborne, the Conservative Party would be reborn. Such an outcome would be hated by Whitehall, the Foreign Office and the BBC. That, he says, is a cause worth fighting for and we must start working on it now. Well, he can work for it. I think we need slightly more than that. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 25/07/2013 |
Friday, 26 July 2013
Posts
