Independence Information

parliamentary information office: the SG has always had the power to move tax on earnings by 3 p in the pound up or down. Now it will be 10p due to the Scotland act. So have they ever reduced PAYE tax. They could do it tomorrow if they wanted help low income families and others. 75 percent of all Uk law comes from Brussels. In the eurozone it is raidly increasing. That would be because it's a political union. What do you think that huge parliament in Brussels is there for?--- give me all your money and I will give you some pocket money back? The Uk borrows 10 billion per year to keep Scotland at the standard it has. It's not pocket money. It's everything plus 10 billion. Which part of the word deficit do you not understand? If you want independence then there are few south of the border who actually care. But don't pretend and play the victim.



parliamentary information office: The SNP have made up their policies on the hoof. From a scrap book out of a Christmas wish list. No consultations have been made with the third parties required to deliver the goodies.

First it was EU membership and next it will invariably be no thank you to sharing the £. The third rider of the apocalypse will when the USA announces shortly before the referendum no nukes no NATO.

Best plans laid bare. Thats the trouble with thinking aloud before actually thinking things through and getting agreements in place first.





parliamentary information office: Cooking the books is hardly a surprise. What is more surprising that some people do actually believe that a £10bn deficit can actually deliver an additional £500 a head to spend. Bendy calculators are the order of the day.




parliamentary information office: I doubt that anybody will be able to produce definitive figures for the cost/benefit of Independence to Scotland. It will probably come down to feelings of national pride. If the Scots wish to be independent, then they must be, whatever the consequences. After all, the British appear to want to be free from the smothering embrace of the EU. There would eventually be agreement on the allocation of assets and debts and what to do about defence. At the very least there will be no need for the sort of bickering that seems to be so prevalent on these comment pages, as well as in politics.


Get more detailed political information at parliamentary information office.

Agenda for Reform

parliamentary information office: I don't know if Andrea Leadsom is, like a frightened child whistling in the dark, totally ignorant of how under EU laws, the powers surrendered by past and present administrations cannot be repatriated, or being deliberately disingenuous. In either event her call for 'fundamental reform', is empty of any any real hope of change.

Given the manner in which EU law works, the only hope we have for fundamental change is with the unanimous agreement of all the other other member states, I believe the chances of that occurring is about as likely as the Tories keeping the seat at the forthcoming election in Corby.

The only other way we can bring about the sort of change Ms  Leadsom is advocating is for parliament to pass a bill refuting the 1973 EU treaty, since the chances of that coming to pass, is about as likely as Mr. Cameron agreeing to an IN/OUT referendum after the Christmas recess.

As a life long Tory Voter, I am disgusted and disappointed by the rhetoric and misleading comments in respect if the EU, emanating from Downing street I'm equally dismayed when I read meaningless articles such as Ms Leadsom as chosen to write. It is because of that I have defected to Ukip.





parliamentary information office: the EU needs fundamental reform. This is where Conservatives – and the country – should target their energies.

How do you propose that this will happen, Andrea?

Britain is but one ofthe 27 members of the eu club and not even a highly regarded one. The vague concept of "reform" may appeal to some of the other fringe members (Sweden, Poland and possibly Denmark) but there is no clarity as to what form it should take. Worse, it is likely to be vigourously resisted by the club's heavy-weights* and the eu apparat itself.

I have more chance of seeing a squadron of pigs fly past my window oinking in harmony the theme tune from Dambusters.

*Especially the French, for whom the CAP is merely a way to get foreigners to pay French peasants to stay away from Paris and the Spanish, for whom the CFP serves a similar purpose vis a vis Spanish fishermen and Madrid.




parliamentary information office: This is more of the silly, naive "we're winning the argument; they're moving in our direction"-type thinking that has characterized British self deception over Europe for the past couple of decades. Our continental partners have their own agenda toward which British ideas of reform have little relevance. EU "reform" is on a trajectory towards banking, fiscal and political integration.



parliamentary information office: I think my local quilt making club should undergo fundamental change to a cage bird club. That way I can remain a member and not bitch about hating making quilts. Tell you what might be a better idea. Why don't I leave the quilt-making club and join the cage bird club, which is my hobby? That will also help the people who enjoy making quilts to do so without a pain in the ass hanging around. I never realised I am a genius.


Parliamentary Information Office offers featured political news.

Information on Beauty Spot

parliamentary information office: Sidmouth is one of the few elegant seaside towns left in the country. My grandmother and aunt came from Beer and both lived in Shaldon. We visited the village for my aunt's 90th birthday and were utterly shocked by what this council had done.

A rash of housing dominates every hillside which were once fields and woods and we were stuck in a a traffic jam! The beaches where as children, we could play freely with our dogs, or launch my aunt's sailing dinghy are either cut off by caravan parks or signs forbidding this and that.

Stand your ground and Save Sidmouth!






parliamentary information office: Overcrowded Britain is the spivs dream come true.

Stop the illegal occupation of Britain and the misuse of services and resources - we only have a housing problem because of the MILLIONS of people who should not be in Britain.

Stop this madness by not voting for the 3 parties that have created this crisis over the last 60 years.  They will not do anything any different and we need to get out the EU now not in a few years time when the damage will be greater and more costly to fix.

If any of the Lib/Lab/Cons get in at the next general election it'll be impossible to save any part of the countryside because the EU will do what it always does and make new laws that we will be told to obey and there will be NOTHING your local MP or parliament can do about it.  Please think carefully before you vote because each and every vote has far reaching implications for you, your family, your community and our country and British way of life.

The EU is hell bent on eliminating the 'British way of life' and British values make no mistake that is their goal.  We're to be serfs in the northern zone outpost of the EU to be used as a cash cow.

If you want your country back vote UKIP they are the only party that has the withdrawal of Britain from the EU Ponzi scheme as its top priority.






parliamentary information office: It is Sidmouth and Sidbury and Sidford!

Along the Sid Valley the council appear to be trying to destroy the things which give the area its character. They don't seem to have realised  that the area thrives because of tourism.

They want to knock down a Drill Hall, erected in 1895, on the Esplanade at Sidmouth and replace it with extra 'parking' for local boats which seem to manage quite well at the moment: and then eventually build houses on it.

They want to sell off, demolish and develop what is now the EDDC council houses but was originally a large house built in about 1810 at The Knowle in Sidmouth.

They want to build an industrial park in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty between Sidford and Sidbury which are both small villages; despite the fact that many local industrial units are standing empty.

Budleigh Salterton, Exmouth, Feniton (to mention just a few) also have problems with the council trying to destroy the historic elements of their areas.

The coalition National Planning Policy Framework places great emphasis on heritage assets, history tourism and people's sense of place which leads to good communities and yet the EDDC won't listed to the voice of the community.

When you have a population of less than 14,000 in a town and a petition signed by almost 4,000 people against the council plans then it seems to me that there is more than a 'vocal minority' against it whatever the leader of the council may pretend to believe.

Sidmouth also hosts an amazing Folk Festival during the first week in August and the feel of the town with many, many fine Regency and Victorian buildings adds to the wonderful atmosphere, as does the beach.

EDDC should cherish the variety and history of the area over which it holds power.


parliamentary information office: To all you beardy people with homes....just think.  The UK population is already 63 million (soon to be 70 million)  and rising.  Where do they all live....in tent city?
   

Look towards parliamentary information office gives more awareness on Politics.

Child Benefit Information

parliamentary information office: Because of the farcical way this policy is being implemented I think people will be more determined than normal to avoid these changes if they can.

Those that can afford to will pay extra into a pension - particularly those at a £50k-£60k level.  The self employed will manipulate earnings to their best advantage.  The unmarried may well claim to not be in a relationship.  People will claim to live at different addresses. 

Of course, if people pay more into a pension, they have less to spend now.  They will cut back accordingly.  Hardly helping the economy is it?

Someone on £50k with 3 kids faces an effective tax rate of 67% on any pay increase.  That's ridiculous.  Nobody should be taxed at 67%

For the government it's all about trying to make a political point.  If they can get the majority to believe this is a good thing and that the 'rich' are being made to pay then they will think they've done well.

I suspect the cost of administering this will end up outweighing any savings.




parliamentary information office: Just like the US corporations that we are all so angry at, people will find ways to play the system, guided by the accountancy and tax consultancy profession.  There are too many loopholes and stupid inconsistencies, such as two 50K earners retaining their child benefit but the family that relies on a single 100K earner loses out.

We need to simplify our tax system and stop the shell game of wealth redistribution through outdated allowances and benefits.  Make the safety net exactly that and ensure that benefits are subsistance only.


parliamentary information office: Why don't  the puppets of the Elite stop thieving from the taxpayer, stop aid to other countries, cease paying Child Benefit to children that arent born/live here, Get us OUT of the EU.. ( the list is endless).....hows about.....you corrupt bunch sacrifice your salaries, stop sponging off the tax payer and live like us poor plebs who are in it together...!


parliamentary information office: would make more sense to make cuts in Govt spending and spend 50% of the saving on income tax cuts.  Get rid of child benefit and expensive to administer tax credits altogether in the process to ensure that having children is no longer a way of making money for some, perpetuating and expanding the culture of the welfare trap.

Parliament News 2012 - parliamentary information office

Child Benefits

parliamentary information office: many reasons these cuts are wrong, first of which is because they're not based on joint income. Secondly, self-employed have far more wriggle room and can avoid it more easily. Further, there is no recognition that £50k is not the same everywhere. In a country where so much of the market is London (a shame, I think) a high proportion of the jobs are here and £50k doesn't go as far as it does in other places.

For those who say the tax payer should not be 'funding the wealthy', please consider that taxpayers pay for the wealthy's medical care, education in state schools, roads, etc. Don't take such a narrow view on one item and remember that if you want to restrict child benefit to the less well off, that does not remove any incentive for them to have more children, it only removes the incentive for those families who have one earner over £50k.

For a much better way to reduce government spending, have a look at the number of politicians representing a relatively small population. We need fewer politicians which would result in fewer special projects.


parliamentary information office: I entirely agree with Mr. Gauke on cutting these kinds of benefits for middle class families and upwards.  If anything, I think the limit of £60,000 (is that individual or family income?) is not low enough.

However on personal allowance cuts for pensioners, I think there are very good reasons for maintaining the age-related scaling.  Here are a few for you Mr. Gauke:

1. Pensioners by their nature are no longer accumulating wealth (for the most part) and changes in the tax system has a proportionately greater effect on their income, particularly as this is likely to be significantly lower than when they were earning.  This might be offset to some extent by lower expenditure as age increases but that, in my opinion, is about personal choice.

2. Pensioners who have a pension income that will be impacted by the changes are going to be those who have spent their life contributing to the system , do not depend on benefits and have accumulated their pension rights through savings and/ or company benefits.  If anyone deserves a break to enjoy a little bit more of the fruit of their labors it is pensioners.  It's all very well to talk of sharing the pain but in the latter part of your life it is quite literally a life sentence because there is no guarantee you will be around for the long term gain after the short term pain.

3.  Changes of this nature to the tax code always hit the lower middle income earners the hardest; those at the margin of the threshold.  Again at this time of life, when you might already be struggling to get by.


parliamentary information office: There is another injustice in the system that I think has not been aired sufficiently. Both my wife and I work full time, pay for childcare, have a couple of hours with the kids in the evening and spend the week juggling priorities between work and home. It was my choice to have kids and because our joint income is 'comfortable' I agree with child benefit being taken away from me as part of being 'all in this together'. What I do object to however are couples who make the decision for one partner (usually the female partner) to stay at home with the kids and then qualify for further tax credits or other benefits. If one parent chooses not to work then they should stand on their own two feet financially. I am not happy to subsidise their lifestyle juggling my work and family so that they can enjoy the benefits of spending more time with their kids.


parliamentary information office

Beer Tax Information

 

parliamentary information office

So, - very soon a pub serving beer will be as difficult to find as a service station selling petrol.   Oh well, lets all stay at home and break open a can of coke and a packet of crisps.

NO, NO, NO, - lets all go to a pub for smokers only, staffed by smokers only and operated by a pipe smoking independent landlord who can choose his own beers AND sell tobacco.

Non smokers still welcome of course (bring your own mask) and chairs will be provided in the pub car park - if they prefer fresh air.   Truth is, most of them would use the smoking pubs and ignore the risk to 'elf and safety - just as they did before they were allowed to mount their high horses.

Pubs have always been a British traditional way of friendly social gathering, but alas, - it is now fast becoming yet another loss to the British way of life - and to lose it to a pressure group unable or unwilling to support the fabric they have effectively destroyed, is foolish, unfair and unforgivable.

Selfish, whinging, self righteous and holier-than-thou so called fresh air addicts, will no doubt overlook their contributions to polluted air and people annoying pastimes - and will already be frothing with indignation and setting up a torrent of suitable words to demolish my "dreadfully mistaken" line of reasoning.

Fire away, - you have every right to disagree, but I have given my viewpoint and have no intention of being drawn into a response, or conduct a pointless exchange of tit-for-tat point scoring with any of you.   I rest my case.



parliamentary information office

Of course none of these problems are in any way related to the simple fact that the breweries continue to control the means of production, the means of distribution and the retail outlets (i.e. the pubs); and that for years they have used that power to fix the price of a basic pint. IIRC were'nt some breweries caught setting up cartels back in the 80's so that they could fix the regional price of a pint?

If you want pubs to flourish and thrive then they need to be set free. The breweries should be forced to sell off all the pubs to individual landlords and those pubs should then be allowed to buy their wares on a truly open market at free and competitive prices.


parliamentary information office

Another English tradition going down the plug hole, drinking at home is not quite the same as going down to the local.

parliamentary information office

The blindingly obvious point that many will choose to avoid is that the pubs have all seen a move of the usual clients who now go to the superstore for cut price beer and wines and spirits for 1 single reason the decline coincides with the SMOKING BAN.

Other News Resource

Multiple Choice for Election

parliamentary information office: "Listless in the first (debate) and barely there in the third." Really? Everyone agrees that Obama had a poor first debate, even his supporters, but Obama crushed Romney in the second AND THIRD debate. To think otherwise is deliberately obtuse and biased. Every single poll taken afterwards declared Obama to be the clear winner, and by the way, latest polls are giving Obama a bigger lead.

parliamentary information office: I think he could be elected here but his affiliations with the religious right and anti women's rights would probably torpedo him with the middle class and even moderate conservatives

parliamentary information office: The Lotto Max is Canada's version of the American dream. Why? Because investors and banks despise funding small startup companies here, even well established ones. Canada is a resource exporter even though we have some truly genius level people. Keep electing the Libs and Cons folks, and NOTHING WILL CHANGE...your status quo will be secure, but your future won't be.

parliamentary information office: Did you happen to notice that although we just had a record Lotto Max Jackpot...NOBODY WON THE BIG ONE. Congrats Canada, and especially our own beloved OLG who promote gambling as a means to wealth and success, and we are all guilty of 'hoping' we're the 'Lucky One.' I rarely even buy a ticket..did buy 3 hits on this one...as usual, not even a Free Ticket. Bye Bye OLG and your pseudo Tax Plan.

parliamentary information office: He would be electable only if Canada were as anti-social a country as the US. YOU MEAN ANTI-SOIALISTS AS IN ANTI NDP? americans are by no means anti-social, they are actually friendlier than canadians and more open

parliamentary information office: Just like our Harper and Conservaives in Canada, there is very little difference between conservatives and liberals. Both are in the middle, both support middle class and business class,excepting taxation policy.Lierals are dead in Canada,Romnesia equals Harperism.

parliamentary information office: Republicans are three things ---- in the US or a combo of three: religious, racist, or rich. ---- EXTREME BIGOTED GENERALIZATION - is there something wrong with being "religious"? Obama did belong to Jeremiah Wright's church - rich like the Democrat kennedy's and Hollywood stars - university professors are sort of rich by most people's standards -- racist? how?

parliamentary information office: Actually, a large number of minorities have turned Rethuglican because they have more patriotism to Jesus, than to their country. Why? Congress refuses to compromise, but Jesus is coming to save them all. They may hate Obamacare, but they LOVE Jesuscare...it's their no premium Fire Insurance policy. Just walk down the aisle, pledge your soul, and VOILA, all will be well, including wealth.

parliamentary information office: They focus on the Presidency as though he is a King with unlimited powers. The President is not all powerful. congress writes the laws, determines the funding, and with it the Pork barrel allocations. Congress buries so much BS in otherwise good Bills that it is just a game. That puts the President in the position of choosing the lesser evils, by signing or vetoing what he Congress passes.


This Parliamentary Information Yearbook blog post on multiple choice for election.