Get ready for tax cuts and cuts in funding:
David Cameron today issued his clearest signal that a Conservative government would aim to cut taxes when he declared that Britain had reached the "limits of acceptable taxation" and revived landmark declarations by Margaret Thatcher.
In a major speech on the economy in Birmingham, the Tory leader pledged to "create the space for cutting tax" as he harked back to the early years of Thatcher's premiership.
Cameron, who started working for the Conservative party in the last two years of Thatcher's period in Downing Street, echoed two of her most famous statements when he said: "After a decade of reckless spending under Labour, Britain needs good housekeeping from the Conservatives. We need to start living within our means."
The first part of Cameron's remarks is drawn from one of Thatcher's defining statements in 1979, the year she was first elected as prime minister. "Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be able to understand the problems of running a country," she told the Observer in May 1979, the month she moved into No 10.
Of course, the reality is that the tax burden isn't really that high when compared with other EU states. According to the latest report, total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP in the UK for 2005 was 37%. The average across the EU (and bear in mind that the accession countries have very law taxation - Romania's is only 28%) is actually 37.6%. In fact, if you were only to include the so-called 'EU-15', the average is actually 40.4% (all figures taken from hyper-linked report), meaning that the the UK's tax burden is actually 3.4% lower than the average. In other words, compared to other member nations, the tax burden in the UK is actually relatively low.
Perhaps it is unsurprising that during a period where people are being told that they will have less money in their pocket, the opposition are making claims about the tax burden. If people start to feel that they are facing financial pressure, they will be more susceptible to this kind of propaganda. And who can blame them? When money is tight and corners need to be cut, one begins to question the amount that is being paid out in taxation. The Tories will, of course, play the tax card heavily over the coming weeks and months, the truth is, as always, very different to what they portray.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Same Old Tories Propose Cuts in Service
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Stop Blair Becoming EU President
Tipped off by the one and only RickB at Ten Percent:
Petition against the nomination of Tony Blair as "President of the European Union"
Stop the murdering bastard before it's too late.
Monday, October 01, 2007
For All You Big Brother Fans
From today's Guardian:
The European Commission is threatening legal action against the UK government for failing to properly safeguard individuals' personal data.
The commission has raised questions over the way the Data Protection Act and other legislation have implemented 11 articles of the 34-article European data protection directive - almost one-third of the whole. It has warned that it could take the UK to the European court of justice in Luxembourg if negotiations over the alleged defects fail.
The investigation has been going on for more than three years, but the extent of the alleged shortcomings in UK law has been kept secret. Ministers have refused to release details of the negotiations to parliament, but the EC, in response to a freedom of information request, has now revealed the wide range of its concerns.
The disclosure comes as a new law, coming into force today, compels phone companies to retain information about all landline and mobile phone calls, and make the data available to more than 700 official organisations, including police, security services, tax authorities, NHS trusts and local councils. The move brings into UK law a European directive, the data retention directive, aimed at "the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime".
The state is watching you.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
UK Opts Out of Charter of Fundamental Rights
Amongst the predictable back slapping that has accompanied Blair's 'good' work on the EU treaty, some detail has been overlooked. On the BBC's website the opt-out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights gets a passing mention, but little substantial detail on what this actually means. Fortunately, The Independent has already explained what this Charter entails:
Prohibition of eugenic practices, particularly those aiming at the selection of person. Article 3
What's at stake: Science is seeking to eradicate disabilities by genetic manipulation. It might be possible for parents to order a "designer" baby.
No one should be subjected to torture. Article 4
What's at stake: Since the invasion of Iraq, British soldiers have found themselves in the dock over the abuse of civilian detainees.
Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her. Article 8
What's at stake: A vast amount of data is stored on each of us already. From 2010, ID cards will be compulsory for anyone applying for a passport in the UK.
Everyone has the right to freedom of assembly and of association. Article 12
What's at stake: Anti-war protests prompted the Government to bring in legislation to prevent unlicensed demos within quarter of a mile of Parliament.
No one can be removed to a state where there is a serious risk of torture. Article 19
What's at stake: The Government's determination to deport terror suspects to countries with questionable human rights records.
So, nothing major then, just the protection of UK citizens from torture, protecting the right to protest and protecting our privacy. Pretty fundamental rights that should clearly be enshrined in law (unless you support torture and totalitarian tendencies of course). And what does Blair have to say about his success?
"This deal gives us a chance to move on. It gives us a chance to concentrate on the issues to do with the economy, organised crime, terrorism, immigration, defence, climate change, the environment, energy - the problems that really concern citizens in Europe."
Yes, because in a continent with a history of totalitarian dictatorships, we are more concerned about crime and money than governments infringing our basic civil liberties. Perhaps Blair is right, maybe protecting UK citizens from torture by the state and protecting our right to protest against a totalitarian regime is less important than the economy. Interesting that he also claims that citizens are more concerned with organised crime. I just love the idea that citizens should be protected from the criminal activities of their peers, but not of their elected officials. Because that is the fundamental point at the heart of this issue. The opt-out enables the UK government to place the rights of UK politicians ahead of the rights of UK citizens. Still, as the BBC claim:
Monday, June 11, 2007
News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty International
Amnesty International's reaction to Council of Europe's report on renditions
In response to the second report by the Council of Europe's Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which confirms that the CIA has operated secret detention centres in Poland and Romania, and perhaps in other Council of Europe member states, Amnesty International said:
“Amnesty International applauds the report and the extraordinary investigative work undertaken by Mr. Marty’s office in getting to the well-concealed truth about the US-led secret detention program. With European complicity now clear, we believe it is time for states to take a long, hard look at how the misuse of state secrecy and national security doctrine has led them into a ‘legal and moral quagmire’, where secret detention, torture and other grave abuses can be practiced with impunity.”
The report strengthens Amnesty International’s finding that three former secret detainees, whose cases were extensively documented over a year ago, had been held in an Eastern European "black site".
Swiss Senator Dick Marty, who lead the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe's Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, has made clear that collusion with the US at the highest levels of government came not just from the countries most directly involved in the secret detention program, but from all the members and partners of NATO, who signed up to terms that allowed free reign to CIA operations. And his report deplores the fact that the concepts of state secrecy or national security are invoked by many Governments to obstruct judicial and/or parliamentary proceedings aimed at ensuring accountability of the executive in relation to grave allegations of human rights violations.
Amnesty International supports unequivocally the position that “terrorism can and must be combated by methods consistent with human rights and rule of law”, and calls for the United States and European states to end renditions and secret detention, conduct independent and thorough investigations into the practices, bring to justice those responsible for abuse and provide reparations to the victims.
AI Index: IOR 30/013/2007 8 June 2007
Privacy policy http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-privacy-eng
Monday, May 21, 2007
Drug Firms Fighting to Overturn Advertising Ban
Once again, the big pharma companies are flexing their muscles and threatening the EU unless it eases legislation on the industry. They are desperate to advertise their 'products' direct to the patient and they have drawn the support of various patient groups (which are in turn funded by the drug companies themselves) who believe that they have a right to choose which medication they are prescribed. We are heading towards very dangerous waters indeed. Although the idea of choice sounds wonderful, this is one of those cases where there is no such thing as 'choice', at least not an informed choice.I have two fundamental problems with the very notion of direct advertising borne out of my own experience with the drug industry. The first is cost, the second is knowledge. Allow me to explain.
First of all, let me paint you a picture of the current situation regarding advertising medicines and the subsequent costs. For some time now, drug companies have been able to advertise OTC (or 'over the counter') medicines in various forms. It is not unusual to see adverts for Calpol, Nurofen, Hedex on the television on an average day. One of the strongest OTC brands on the market is Panadol. Now, Panadol is essentially paracetamol. That's it, nothing more. The problem is that it has such a high level of recognition amongst the general public, many people ask for Panadol at the chemists for their headaches, colds etc. A pack of 16 Panadol tablets costs approximately £1.39 the cost of paracetamol (the active ingredient in Panadol) is substantially less than that. Nowadays, thanks to the 'wonders' of competition, you can pick up a pack of 32 paracetamol at your local chemists for approximately 65p. That is an amazing 74p difference, and you get twice as many tablets! And yet, they are exactly the same product. Only difference is, one is marketed as Panadol and one is marketed as a proprietary brand. And this, on a very small scale, is the problem that would be faced should the big pharmaceuticals get their way. POMs (or 'prescription only medications') are obviously far more expensive (in many cases) than OTCs. Imagine the difference in cost between a branded medicine and its generic equivalent. No matter that they are the same drug, the marketing campaign would ensure that a particular brand would stay in the patient's mind and encourage them to ask for that particular drug to be prescribed to them. This would clearly have vast consequences for the NHS. Whereas they would normally dispense the generic, cheaper drug, now they would have to dispense the more expensive branded drug. The cost to the NHS would be disastrous. But then, this is what the drug companies want anyway. The destruction of the NHS would ensure that their profits would reach previously unseen levels.
The other problem is the knowledge of the customer regarding the actual drugs themselves. I know many people think that they know everything there is to know about medication and various drug formulas. Well, I got new for you, you know jack shit. Why do you think doctors and pharmacists train for so long before they can prescribe or dispense these drugs? The general public only knows a fraction of the facts about the drugs they consume. However, it would be unfair to pin the blame for this solely on the consumer. Drug companies make it exceptionally hard for anyone to find out what the truth is about the drugs they manufacture, Even those who work in the health industry are not aware of all the facts about the drugs they issue. Take the case of Vioxx. The manufacturers Merck were found guilty of negligence in its
response to safety concerns about the painkilling drug. The reason for the safety concerns were because the drug wasn't fully tested. Imagine if Vioxx was backed by a huge advertising campaign. Just think how many people would have been affected if this was the case. This is where the problems begin. Even if the drug was properly tested, how could an average member of the public be able to disseminate complicated information about the drug trials and then make an informed choice? They can't. They will put their trust entirely in the hands of the drug companies. This is a very dangerous situation indeed. Doctors and pharmacists provide an important barrier between patient and drug company. The only people that can make judgements about the drugs we take are healthcare professionals (and even then they are still susceptible to financial inducements from the drug industry). I wouldn't have a clue about the effects of some of the POM medications that are on the market, and that's the way the drug companies like it. Our ignorance is their profit.
Make no mistake, a relaxation in the rules governing the marketing of POMs would have disastrous consequences. The NHS would be further crippled by the rise in the dispensing of branded drugs in favour of their generic equivalents. It is believed that the NHS could save more than £300m a year by prescribing generic over branded, imagine the consequences if the reverse were to happen. The result would be the final collapse of our national healthcare system. Furthermore, the inability for the patient to make an informed choice could also have disastrous consequences. Without having access to all the trial data, let alone be able to understand it, the patient would rely solely on the advice of the companies that produce the drugs. One thing is for certain, that are not going to put off potential customers, they have a business to run after all. In short, this move to ease regulations must be resisted at all costs. There is no telling how much long term damage this would do. The following is the conclusion of a report in the British Medical Journal about the 'Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions':
Patients' requests for medicines are a powerful driver of prescribing decisions. In most cases physicians prescribed requested medicines but were often ambivalent about the choice of treatment. If physicians prescribe requested drugs despite personal reservations, sales may increase but appropriateness of prescribing may suffer. Concerns about the value of opening up the regulatory environment to permit direct to consumer advertising in the EU and Canada seem well justified.
Posts
