|
NEW LABOUR SPEND HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS ON NO-RESULT INQUIRY'S -BUT CHARGES FOR USE OF THE YOUR FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ? * They promised us open government. But they will fight tooth and nail to suppress any uncomfortable truths. by THE Melanie Phillips COLUMN
[Daily Mail-April,2007]
THE ABOLITION of pension fund tax relief in Gordon Brown's first Budget in 1997 is estimated to have cost more than £100 billion and transformed what was one of the best systems in the world for the worst. People who had carefully put money away for their retirement found that their sense of responsibility was being punished. Final salary schemes were closed down and savers got pushed into schemes which were less secure and offered a lower payout. However, it now turns out that the Chancellor was explicitly warned in advance of the huge damage to the pensions industry this move would do. Internal Treasury forecasts sent to the Chancellor before he abolished this tax relief, which were made public a few days ago, warned that the changes would cause a shortfall in assets of up to £75 billion and that employers would have to contribute about an extra £10 billion a year for the next ten to 15 years to get pension scheme funding on track.
Disastrous These documents also warned explicitly that the poor would bear the brunt of this disaster. And so it has proved. They warned that the changes would encourage firms to end final salary schemes And so it has proved. Yet, at the time, the Chancellor said that the change would have no negative effects on pension funds. many of these funds he said, were in 'substantial surplus' and so should not feel the loss too badly. We now know that he knew this was untrue. It is one thing to produce a policy which has such a disastrous effect. It is quite another for a government to push it through - despite the fact that it expressly warned of the damage that it would do. And it is another thing again, when this reckless disregard of such warnings is revealed, -to pretend that had never been given and to blame the pensions crisis on entirely different things instead. But what takes this onto a different plane altogether is the way in which the Government has concealed it from the public. It took a two - year struggle to get the Treasury to divulge these documents , which were finally released under the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT -only when the Treasury decided not to appeal against a decision by the Information Commissioner THAT IT SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC. Moreover , the reason the Chancellor finally threw in the towel was surely that the appeal was set down for May-2007 -the very month when Mr Blair is expected to fire the starting gun for his succession. And look at the hole-in-the-corner way in which this information finally sidled out. It was slipped unannounced onto the Treasury website last Friday afternoon -the day before the Commissioner's deadline -when parliament was in recess and the Chancellor himself was in Afghanistan. But then, isn't that just typical of the cynicism which has been the HALLMARK -of this Government since that false dawn in May ten years ago? Just look at the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT - itself, the means by which Whitehall's warnings about THE PENSION RAID -came to light. Freedom of Information Act was promoted as one of THIS GOVERNMENT'S -most radical reforms. It was one of its proudest boasts that , through FoI, it was opening up the workings of government and making public administration transparent and accessible to the public for the FIRST TIME It was supposed to symbolise an entirely NEW APPROACH TO POLITICS. But when an attempt was made through FoI to open up public scrutiny the decision to raid the pension funds, the Government did its damnedest to thwart it. What it stands for, after all, is NOT FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BUT FREEDOM TO SPIN -while keeping the public IN THE DARK -about anything which reveals its own wrong-headedness or incompetence or worse. Downing Street, for example, is refusing to reveal whether the businessmen at the centre of the CASH FOR HONOURS SCANDAL -were invited to private dinners last year at Chequers.
Secrecy In the circumstances, we are clearly entitled to know exactly who was entertained by the Prime Minister in this way. What possible justification can there be for this suppression of knowledge about such a use -and possible misuse - of taxpayers money? And this culture of secrecy extends beyond government into other publicly funded bodies. The BBC , for example, has refused to make public the report written in 2004 by the editorial adviser Malcolm Balen, who investigated claims that the BBC's Middle East reporting was systematically biased against Israel. Astoundingly the BBC has spent no less than £200,000 trying to prevent publication of the REPORT. SUCH an ATTEMPT to SUPPRESS a REPORT on a MATTER of CLEAR PUBLIC INTEREST concerning its OWN JOURNALISM - and using LICENCE-FEE payers MONEY to DO SO. -IS TOTALLY INDEFENSIBLE. But the way in which the FoI legislation was drafted has provided ample opportunity for the Government and other public bodies routinely to thwart attempts to extract information from them. Caveats such as the exemption from public disclosure of policy advice to Ministers curb to a drastic degree the scope of OPEN GOVERNMENT. And limits on the cost of such disclosure which have been imposed of GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC BODIES mean that they can use the excuse of the excessive cost to refuse requests to make information available. As if that isn't bad enough, the Government has proposed to restrict the scope of disclosure even further, with officials counting the cost of the time, they spend reading, considering possible exemptions and consulting in totting up the COST. [We believe that there should be NO COST involved in providing INFORMATION and that the enormous sums of hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on PUBLIC INQUIRY'S which have in the main FAILED to bring the matters to a FIRM and acceptable CONCLUSION. The Bloody Sunday Inquiry cost £175 million alone and in the last ten years there have been MANY which have NOT satisfied PUBLIC INTEREST in their DELIBERATIONS.] The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer [You know!- Tony Blair's old flatmate ] has justified such an assault on openness by saying absurdly - and disgracefully -that 'THERE IS A RIGHT TO KNOW -NOT A RIGHT TO TELL' But how can we possibly know anything if public bodies
DON'T TELL US? *
Hypocrisy
The resulting outcry over these fresh restrictions has been so loud that the Government has now announced a rethink, raising hopes that they will be ditched. But the hypocrisy of New Labour's claim to be the PARTY of OPEN GOVERNMENT -when it tried every trick in the book to nullify its own reform, simply beggars belief. SPIN and SECRECY -are, of course, how Blairism will actually be remembered. BUT HANG ON A MOMENT -Isn't Gordon Brown supposed to be the man who will end all that? Is he not telling us that, once he succeeds Tony Blair as Prime Minister, SPIN - will be consigned to the trash can of history and a new politics of INTEGRITY and INTELECTUAL RIGOUR -will wash away the SINS -of the manipulative BLAIRITE PAST? Yet thuis is the very same Gordon Brown who knowingly took action which would devastate Britain's PENSION INDUSTRY -who disregarded strong official warnings about the consequences; who tried to stop people finding out about it; and who, when he could no longer suppress it, allowed officials to try to BURY the BAD NEWS -by a classic piece of MEDIA MANIPULATION. If he really is to embody a fresh start, ending the HYPOCRISY -and introducing real OPENNESS and TRANSPARENCY -into his very own TREASURY would surely be an excellent WAY TO BEGIN. * * *
[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining Used-Comments in Brackets]
[Some words from the past.]
'Bad men excuse their faults; good men will leave them' Ben Jonson(1573-1637) Eng. dram.
'The greatest of faults is to be conscience of none' Thomas Carlyle(1795-1881), Eng. essayist. historian biog. and philosopher 'To find fault is easy; to do better may be difficult' Plutarch- (46 -120) -Greek.biographer * 'Give us the man of integrity on whom we know we can thoroughly depend; who will stand firm when others depend; who will stand firm when others fail; the adviser, honest and fearless; the adversary, just and chivalrous; such an one is a fragment of the Rock of Ages.' A. P. Stanley (1815-81) - Dean of Westminster
*
[Font Altered-Bolding &Underlining Used-Comments in Brackets]
* THE PEOPLE HAVE
SPOKEN-IS THE EU COMMISSION LISTENING? * Ditch the EU
TREATY after IRISH REJECTION SAY VOTERS by Daniel
Martin Political
Reporter
[Daily Mail-Wednesday, June
18,2008]
MORE THAN HALF of voters believe Britain should
drop the controversial European Treaty in the wake of its
rejection in last week's
IRISH REFERENDUM'
The poll comes as the Tories launch a last-ditch
bid in the
HOUSE of LORDS
today to delay the
RATIFICATION OF
THE TREATY.
And
10,000 people
have signed a
PETITION
on the
DOWNING STREET-
WEBSITE
within the past few days
JUNE16-2008
, calling on the
GOVERNMENT
NOT TO RATIFY THE BILL
[WHY DON'T YOU?]
Downing Street
website is
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/
*
JUNE 18-2008 * 13th October,2007
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OptoutDetails from petition creator With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the people of Britain were given DUAL CITIZENSHIP -both EUROPEAN and BRITISH The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge. The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with BRITISH DOCUMENTATION -only such as British (not EU) passports, driving licences and other national documents. EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP
[PETITION OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER 08]
* *
* [Latest Addition - June07] * * *
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
* GORDON BROWN WANTS TRUST-BUT WHY WON'T HE TRUST YOU? * 67% want powers back from EU-ICM poll-June 21-2007-95% of British people want a REFERENDUM * FOR A REFERENDUM SIGN TODAY ON LINE * July 18-2007
VOTE -2007
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE TO SET YOU FREE
THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST ANSWER
‘DO YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY THE CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND CORRUPT ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’
-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER BUT SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES. *
ONLY WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE *
SCOTLAND -ITS PARLIAMENT -WALES-ITS ASSEMBLY-ENGLAND-STILL AWAITS ITS PARLIAMENT-WHY?
*
* [All underlined words have a separate bulletin]
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
