Christmas message - December 2011

 It is important that we all discuss and campaign to both maintain and strengthen the union of our United Kingdom.

As a nation, our true value lies with all the people of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England. Our strength is forged when we all stand together.

We must continue to work for the restoration of our national sovereignty and independence, and an end to external control and interference over the government and laws of the United Kingdom.

Club Comment - October 2010

Publications Editor: Martin Pritchard

For years the Labour Government insisted that minor crime rates had decreased. We all knew that this was absolute nonsense and that the majority of minor crimes are no longer reported by the public as they considered it to be a waste of time, as no action would be taken by the police.

Now we all know that Labour was totally wrong and that the public was right.

The recent report “Stop the Rot”, published by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, paints a damming indictment of how the police in England and Wales are failing to respond to millions of cases of anti-social behaviour.

Sir Denis O’Connor CBE QPM Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary said that the basic task of keeping the peace had been relegated to a “second-order consideration” for officers who were obsessed with meeting targets for actual crimes.

Sir Denis is well qualified to assess the current malaise amongst police officers, having been a police officer since 1968 when he joined the Metropolitan Police. He served in various ranks in the Met, later becoming Chief Constable of Surrey from 2000-2004, after which he became an Inspector of Constabulary and is now Chief Inspector of Constabulary.

In the “Stop the Rot” report is highlighted that, in one year, there were 3.5 million incidents of anti-social behaviour but it is estimated that this figure represents only one in four of the real total - 14 million acts of anti-social behaviour.

Sir Denis said that a “strategic error” was made in the 1970s that downgraded the importance of street patrols. He added that from the late 1990s, [ under Labour ] the relentless focus on crime statistics had led to forces neglecting their core duty to keep the peace. The report further revealed a growing gap between what the public wanted, namely “boots on the ground” and what the police were delivering. “The public do not distinguish between anti-social behaviour and crime. For them it’s really a sliding scale of grief.”

Sir Denis said that some police officers do not feel that tackling anti-social behaviour is “real policing”. He called for early intervention to “nip in the bud” problems so they did not spiral out of control, and an end to underestimating anti-social behaviour. He added, “Make no mistake. It requires feet on the street.”

Since the publication of Sir Denis’s report and the subsequent press coverage, other senior police officers have admitted that the police have lost the faith of the public. Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner stated that “This is more to do with the psychological contract between the citizen and the police. And occasionally the citizen might be forgiven in thinking that the psychological contract has been broken. They (the public) are on the streets and the police are in buildings and vehicles, not doing other things. That is the critical issue.   …..we are not saying that the public should do this on their own. We should be out there. We should be saying ‘we want to be on the streets on your behalf. We want to make them safe.’”

He added, “ In years gone by we have lost the sense of the importance of visible street patrols - effecting as best as we can, uniform governance of the streets and public places, owning the streets on behalf of the public so that we can enjoy using them.

We need to give people confidence we are supporting them and we are doing that through visible police patrol.”

While the Commissioner and the Chief Inspector of Constabulary have both spoken forthrightly regarding a greater police presence on the streets, others such as the Association of Chief Police Officers sited their other areas of responsibility namely tackling organised crime and terrorism although the HMIC report found that 90 per cent of the public thought that it was the responsibility of the police to tackle thugs and yobs.

What is surely astonishing from the comments made by the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the Metropolitan Commissioner is that a situation where the police no longer “rule” the streets has been allowed to happen at all. Most of the blame can only be apportioned to the police themselves, particularly senior supervising officers. Has there been a deliberate policy that “so called minor offences” such as riding bicycles on pavements, groups of youths obstructing the pavements, drunken loutish behaviour has been deliberately ignored?

I can recall from personal experience that, thirty years ago, in Birmingham, such offences were not ignored. The police did have a commanding presence on the streets and any so-called “anti-social” behaviour was not tolerated. Youths were arrested for obstructing the pavement, drunken disorderly conduct was not tolerated and persons immediately arrested. People did not ride bicycles on the pavement. (And at this time, acts of terrorism were being committed which depleted the number of police officers on the streets)  Most of the offences I have outlined are still arrestable offences but it appears police officers deem them to be too minor or can’t be bothered.

In defence of the police, to patrol some of the “barren wastelands” or sink estates prevalent in parts of the country may at times seem a hopeless task, where the majority of the residents are criminals and resent any police presence anyway. However, living in these areas are often old or infirm people who are too afraid to venture out of their homes and they most certainly would welcome the reassuring presence of police officers.

It is accepted that “more boots” are needed on the streets. This presents several logistical problems. Firstly where are the extra beat officers to be found and secondly how effective are they really going to be unless there is a distinct change of policy as to their attitude to what is defined as criminal or lawless behaviour?

A large percentage of front-line beat officers are young and relatively inexperienced in terms of police service. This situation arises due to several factors. For the first two years of service officers are on probation. On completion of their probationary period, they may sit their sergeant’s examination. If successful, they are eligible to apply for the police college for accelerated promotion. After the two year period, many officers apply to specialist departments, eg CID, dog handlers, traffic department, mounted department etc. All these specialist departments are staffed by officers who have joined and completed their initial two years’ beat patrol.

In the case of the Metropolitan Police, promotion is also by either accelerated promotion, the graduate entry scheme or competitive promotion examinations. The Met also has far more specialist departments to fill than any other force in the country, eg Anti-Terrorism Branch (formerly Special Branch) Murder Squad, Flying Squad, Fraud Squad, Diplomatic Protection, Royalty Protection and numerous others.

I believe that as even more officers are now required for these specialist departments, particularly the anti-terrorist branch, it has depleted the number of uniform officers available on the beat.

Add to the fact that the uniformed officer has days off/annual leave/regular training courses/possible short-term attachments to other specialist departments, and then it is no wonder that the actual compliment of personnel per shift can very often be minimal.

Unfortunately, like any large public sector organisation, the police service has its members who are competent and others who, to use the old adage, are “uniform carriers”. That does not mean to say that all beat officers are incompetent - far from it - but it sometimes means that in reality some of the “best brains” have moved on to other more specialist departments.

It should, of course be remembered that the primary role of the police is the prevention and detection of crime and that they are not social workers nor is their role to remedy society’s moral or economic failings. They conduct their duties on behalf of society - they cannot do this in isolation. The courts (particularly Magistrates) have had their powers curtailed in terms of sentencing offenders, which must have a demoralising effect upon police officers - who very often see repeat offenders walking away with little or no punishment to deter them from committing further offences. One only has to read the sentences imposed upon offenders in the local press to realise just how galling this must be. Officers can be assaulted and the offender is merely fined a derisory amount (the fine is not paid or the offender cannot pay).

If society is to expect officers to subject themselves to possible assault, verbal abuse, complaints (for doing their job) then it has an obligation to ensure they receive the backing of not only the courts but their senior officers. Too often, senior officers are more concerned with furthering their own career and not wishing to stand up and be counted to support their own officers.

Successive Home Secretaries and party political manifestoes have stated that police paperwork will be reduced to enable more officers to patrol the streets - in reality these promises are soon forgotten and the situation remains unchanged or in some forces, due to economic factors and budget cuts, officer numbers have even  been reduced.  Many police forces now have a recruitment freeze.

The “status” of the patrolling beat police officer should, I believe, be enhanced and, yet again, this can only be achieved by reducing the volumes of paperwork that they and in particular supervisory officers are overwhelmed with. Apart from demonstrations and high profile events, how often are Inspectors or Chief Inspectors seen on the streets? Rarely these days. There was a time when these officers thought nothing less of meeting officers under their command from a supervisory and support role, offering advice and encouragement. Today, they rarely move from one committee meeting or are desk-bound under a deluge of paperwork, meeting so called “targets” required by the Home Office.

A major re-appraisal of the deployment of uniformed personnel, including supervisory officers, is required to ensure that more officers are visible and effective on our streets. Only then will they “rule” the streets instead of the situation which now prevails in city and town centres the length and breath of the land.

 

AN ELECTION STATEMENT BY THE CONSERVATIVE MONDAY CLUB

 

• Defence
  With the poorly equipped British armed forces, there is nothing in Labour’s plans that would improve the protection of our soldiers and our country in the future.
  
• Health
  NHS cancer treatment under Labour is no better than some Eastern Bloc countries and we cannot trust them to improve the level of treatment
  
• Education
  With Labour’s poor overall achievements in Education, it would be irresponsible to hand our children back to a Labour government
  
• Economy
  Labour plans to spend their way out of debt.  With Brown’s track record, we cannot trust Labour to secure our economic future.
  
• Immigration
  With the deliberate policy of mass immigration by Labour in the past 13 years, they cannot be trusted to cut immigration in the future.
  
• Care for the Aged
  Can the frail elderly trust Labour who have had 13 years to make better plans for their care but have not done so?
  
• Law and Order
  We have seen too many perpetrators of crime not receiving meaningful punishment and too many victims of crime being punished by the State.  We cannot afford to live any longer in a country with growing lawlessness.
  
• Liberal Democrats
  A vote for the Liberal Democrats could guarantee a return of Mr Brown to No.10, a worsening of our defence policies, greater involvement with a European Super State, an increase in immigration from Europe, higher taxation and no guarantee whatsoever of an economic recovery.
  

Conclusion

Brown is now full of  plans for the future.  Why has he not done more in the past 13 years?  Labour has all but destroyed the  British way of life and put every household economically in danger.

What we need is meaningful change in the hands of a responsible government.  This will only be achieved by a vote for the Conservatives.

May 2010

 

CONSERVATIVE MONDAY CLUB JOURNAL JANUARY 2010

Editorial

Publications Editor: Martin Pritchard

How anyone of sound mind could think of voting Labour at the next election, you might think. How indeed, the very thought gives me indigestion.

So we have to get across to the electorate the sheer incompetence of the Government in the last 12 years. For those of you with the time, you could write a suitable letter or e-mail to the letters page of all the "red-top" newspapers and The Guardian, pretending to be a disgruntled Labour supporter! Seriously though, how are we to get the message across to the masses?  Any serious suggestions please send to Conservative Head Office!

Personally, I cannot forgive their sheer naivety, even after 12 years, about how business actually works. There is no acceptable excuse when a new government, as they were 12 years ago, has access to all the advice they need but either do not ask for it, ask a limited clique of consultants,  or do not take it when given.

The business community, along with the rest of the population, including us Conservatives, showed tremendous goodwill, trust and hope when Tony Blair first won a landslide election. These feelings were shattered within a year by the Bernie Ecclestone tobacco advertising lobby which purportedly managed to change the law for a suitable amount of largesse.

Regarding company pensions, did Gordon Brown as Chancellor not realise that his tax on dividends would affect businesses so adversely that most good company pension schemes would cease to operate in their present form, or in some cases cease altogether? What did he think would happen? Did he even care?

As far as City Academies are concerned, a key part of Labour’s Education policy was to award 30 year contracts/leases on schools/academies to private/business sponsors. Did it not occur to Tony Blair that sponsors are interested in these projects to make profits, not to run them as charities? This naivety has meant that a school/academy has to; for instance, the Head of the academy has no say in which maintenance company they must use for the next 30 years, even though they are paying the bills, and have frequently ended up paying three to four times as much as they had previously done as they can use only specified companies, nominated by the business sponsor for their maintenance needs. The Head has a limited budget, and therefore much essential maintenance to buildings etc is not being done. Are we surprised that many senior staff have resigned in protest at this ridiculous situation?

Who but Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown could give the Banks billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money with no formal, binding and strict terms and conditions attached regarding how this money was to be used, and how the Bank was to operate in the future. Shock and Horror when those naughty boys at the Banks treated this as monopoly money - slap hands you naughty children!! It would be laughable, this naivety, were it not so serious.

As for the ridiculous policy of six months’ paid paternity leave, I do not know any businessman who thinks this is a good idea. Most men don't want it and don't take it but how can small businesses run efficiently or plan properly with this type of handicap?

The latest policy initiative from Harriet Harman regarding equal pay for everyone doing the same job is equally ludicrous. It takes no account of individual productivity, efficiency or success in a salaried post with no bonus element. It may have nothing to do with experience or length of service.  Factory workers, for instance on a production line understand this perfectly well. Managers must have the freedom to determine individual and varying salaries of staff doing the same job or performing the same function. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise, and also has nothing to do with whether these are male or female workers either.

The naivety of this government is demonstrated in other areas too. Who, with even a normal level of understanding of human beings, would imagine that, if given an easy opportunity, a large percentage of average individuals would not ‘fiddle’ their benefit claims or claim benefits they are not entitled to??  The terrible naivety of the Labour in this regard is amply demonstrated by the huge growth in benefit claimants in their first eight years, well before the recession. Finally waking up to this problem has meant fraud teams have pursued over 50,000 claims already, and this is just the ones found so far.

Only this sorry excuse for a government could deliberately flood the country with illegal immigrants, releasing them in to the community and then expect them to show up, sometimes several years later, on demand, when asked to do so by letter, knowing that they are likely to be deported. Naivety at its height!

And the biggest mistake, born out of naivety on the part of Tony Blair, who always wanted to be a player on the world stage of the stature of a President of the United States but never could be, was himself brilliantly "played" by the American hawks who saw his desperation and used it to get our secret agreement to an illegal and immoral war. Whilst Blair looked adoringly up to him, Bush looked upon Blair as a junior sycophant with a schoolboy crush on him. Naivety!!

Mr. Blair has yet to attend the Chilcot enquiry regarding the reasons for Great Britain's participation in the Iraq war but it would appear that this enquiry will be as toothless as the Hutton enquiry into the death of Doctor David Kelly; the government weapons inspector. Dr Kelly was found dead in woods a few miles from his home in July, 2003.

He had been Britain's chief weapons inspector with the very highest level of security clearance. The subsequent Hutton enquiry attributed his death to Dr Kelly having committed suicide.

In his excellent book, "The Strange Death of David Kelly" (published by Methuen Publishing Ltd, 8, Artillery Row, London SW1P 1RZ  in 2007) Mr Norman Baker, MP for Lewes in Sussex, asks difficult and problematic questions that seem to not have occurred to Lord Hutton.

Norman Baker's book not only throws into question the whole creditability of the Hutton enquiry and rightly asserts that Dr Kelly was murdered by persons at present unknown, but highlights the lies, deception and spin by past and present members of the labour government during the build up to Britain's involvement in the Iraq war.

Whatever the outcome of the Chilcot enquiry may be (William Hill wouldn't take any bets, I'm sure, on a nil result) far more damming evidence is contained in Norman Baker's book. It may not be light Christmas reading but is most certainly a damming indictment of Mr. Blair's assertion that the war with Iraq was inevitable.

During this festive season, I am sure that all our members will be thinking of the British and other military personnel serving in Afghanistan. To them we pray they may have a Christmas without injury and some time away from the battlefront.

I would, on behalf of the President, Chairman and members of the Executive Council, like to extend my best wishes for the New Year and thank you for your continued support of the Conservative Monday Club.

 

Club Bulletin - August 2009

In the summer 2009 edition of the Conservative Monday Club Journal, my fellow member of the Executive Council, Barry Lenz, wrote an article in which he highlighted our debt of honour to the former and serving members of the Gurkhas. He quite rightly emphasised that “In today’s world, issues have become increasingly complex….but some times an issue stands out like a beacon of blinding light….”

I remembered Barry’s words on the 13th August, 2009 when listening to the Jeremy Vine programme on Radio 2 and heard him interviewing the recently elected Mayor of Doncaster, Mr Peter Davies. To those members who were fortunate enough to have heard the interview, my apology for repeating what was said but to those who didn’t I am sure you will find the new Mayor’s policies interesting.

Firstly, Doncaster Council has a chequered history of corruption amongst some of its council members - back in the 1990s, 19 councillors were charged on various counts of fraud; mostly relating to claims for non-existent expenses or over-claiming of expenses. The result was that some councillors received prison sentences, others fines or community service orders.

It is also worth remembering that the recent election for Mayor of Doncaster took place within a climate of Members of Parliament being vilified (quite rightly) by the national press and the media over their excessive claims for expenses.

Mr Peter Davies was elected Mayor on the 4th June 2009. In his acceptance speech after the results had been announced, he said…… “To quote from the old Civil War song in America, ‘Better times are coming.’ And better times are coming for the people of Doncaster.

“We have sixty three councillors - far too many. They can’t be afforded by the people of Doncaster. We’re going to get rid of some.

“We’re going to clean up the Council. We have a one star Council at the moment and all these people produce a one star council but we are going to produce a four or five star council and take Doncaster forward.”

It is worth noting that Doncaster Council is the only local authority in Yorkshire and the Humber and only one of twelve nationally, to be led by an elected Mayor with 21 wards within its borough. Mr Davies’s Cabinet within the council comprises of himself -English Democrats, three Conservative Members and three Independent Members.

Prior to being elected Mayor of Doncaster, Mr Davies was a school teacher for 30 years, a former Head of Politics and Religious Studies at Danum School. He is the founder member of the Campaign for Real Education - an organisation dedicated to restoring high standards of learning and discipline in the state education system.

He has continuously campaigned for England’s withdrawal from the expensive and undemocratic European Union and is the founder member of the Campaign against Political Correctness.

He is the father of Conservative MP Philip Davies.

Interviewed by Jeremy Vine, Mr Davies stated that he would:-

Not be taking the Mayor’s annual salary of £73,000 but only £30,000.

 

The old saying, to those who have served in the armed forces of this country (that excludes the Labour Cabinet) of LMF (Lack of Moral Fibre), certainly doesn’t apply to Mr Peter Davies. However, it would certainly apply to our Defence Secretary, Mr Bob Ainsworth, or our ANC-supporting Foreign Secretary, David Miliband.

The Defence Secretary (Qualifications - Trade Union official), Mr Ainsworth, has stated that British Service personnel will be off the front line (actually, AT WAR not in ‘an engagement’ or ‘deployed in Afghanistan’) within a year. It really is incomprehensible that this is his assessment when General Sir David Richards, the incoming head of the army, has said that British involvement in Afghanistan could continue for 40 years. General Richards has already served in Afghanistan as Deputy Nato Commander and one would only have to be an idiot to believe Mr Ainsworth’s assessment rather than General Richards’.

Perhaps Mr Ainsworth knows more about what is happening than the American Defence Secretary, Mr Robert Gates?

Secretary Gates admitted that defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda will take “a few years”. Secretary Gates, previously Head of the CIA said “in the intelligence business, we always used to categorise information in two ways - secrets and mysteries.

“Mysteries were those where there were too many variables to predict. And I think that is how long US forces will be in Afghanistan.”

The Vice Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General James Cartwright, said that an end would be in sight only when US and NATO Troops begin increasingly to turn security missions over to Afghan forces.

The British Defence Secretary can only be described as incompetent, an utter embarrassment and definitely LMF.

His apparently slightly more intelligent colleague, the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, (who is the political master of MI6 - whose remit is actually to identify potential terrorists overseas and assist MI5 in the UK) believes that acts of terrorism can be justified !!

Apparently, the late Joe Slovo, who was a member of the ANC and one of the leaders of the armed wing which carried out fatal bombings in South Africa, killing civilians, was a friend of Mr Miliband’s father.

Interviewed on Radio 4, Mr Miliband was asked whether such terrorism was ever justified and replied, “Yes, there are circumstances in which it is justifiable and yes, there are circumstances when it is effective.”

Perhaps Mr Miliband should have the guts to sit in front of the family of the latest British Soldier to be killed by the Taliban and explain to them whether he thinks the Taliban is justified in murdering their son or daughter. According to Mr Miliband these may be the circumstances when it is ‘justified’. Certainly, the Taliban would believe so.

Having written many newsletters and editorials for the Conservative Monday Club over several years, I cannot recall a time when words fail me as to the lunacy of a situation where we have an ex-postman as a Home Secretary; an ex-trade union official as Defence Secretary and a supporter of a terrorist organisation as Foreign Secretary with a Prime Minister who doesn’t appear to know what is going on anyway. 

Moral fibre - they wouldn’t even understand what you were talking about.

Perhaps when he has sorted out Doncaster, Mr Davies may like to tackle Defence or Home Affairs?

 

Martin H Pritchard

                                                                                                                        Publications Editor

 

Club Newsletter - April 2008

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

This is said not out of spurious optimism but because as we all know when two or more people get together and the conversation turns towards the state of the world today they usually agree in rejecting the twisted, rotten and morally deformed views and ideologies publicised so assiduously by those who weald power and influence.

We are Conservatives because we believe that the principal and policies of true Conservatism represent the aspirations of most people and that through the pursuit of these principles and policies we can in the long term build a better and stronger country and perhaps by God’s Grace help to make a better world.

Despite what we may perceive possibly, as defects in policies and personalities in some instances at the higher levels of the Conservative Party, there has been no time within the last 15 years or more  when the great mass of members of the Party, to say nothing of so many people in the country as a whole, have been more solidly Conservative.

It is for this reason that I urge all Conservative Monday Club members and particularly our relatively younger members who are members of the Party to play the fullest part they can in the work of their local associations and, not least, take part in any ‘policy forums’ or other discussion groups within their constituencies.

Things are bad and frankly, in the short term at least, will probably get worse but all is not yet lost and we can and must try to make a difference.

 

Money Taxes Spending and Saving

Enough has been written about the financial or banking crisis to make further comment largely superfluous.

There are, however, some points which are worthy of emphasis or repetition.

Firstly, although there may well be room for criticism of the way the banking system around the world and in particular  countries actually works, the system itself is fundamentally sound.

What is a matter for concern has to be the quality in the widest sense of those in the system who contrived these clumsy convoluted programmes of lending and borrowing which were literally lacking in substance.

The old expression about putting one’s house in order is unoriginal and not particularly clever but it is in this case very apt.

We must hope that a lesson has been learnt for all time that no problem is solved by lending without security or borrowing without the means to repay and that to do both simultaneously is a short and swift road to disaster.

The real trouble is that our economy and our nation’s finances cannot be properly managed for as long as we are subordinate to the EU whose membership cost us directly several thousand millions of pounds each year and which has cost us directly since 1972 over 90 thousand million pounds.

I say nothing as to the enormous indirect costs.

What have those well known ‘Conservatives’ Kenneth (hush puppies) Clark and John Selwyn Gummer got to say about £90,000,000,000?

Leaving aside the EU in so far as one can, regrettably, there is no escaping the fact that in two crucial areas, Defence and the Health Service, vast sums of money need to be spent on a scale which not merely precludes a total reduction in taxation over the next few years but in fact requires additional money to be raised.

Quite simply, our Armed Forces, at the very least, need to be doubled in size and properly equipped both in the nature and quality of their equipment of but with ample quantities of all weapons and supplies of every description.

Apart from the immense costs involved it will not be easy to recruit the right personnel

But the fact that something which needs to be done may be difficult to do is not a reason for not doing it. 

Not doing it or not even trying to do it could be a pronouncement  that it is perfectly all right for Britain to have small and inadequately equipped armed forces and I would be interested to meet any so-called Conservative who, specifically or by implication, would make such a comment and seek to justify it!

As far as the Health Service is concerned, it is only too clear that enormous sums of money are wasted and that improvements in organisation and structure are desperately required.

The National Health Service as it exists and has existed for some 60 years should never have been set up in the way it was in 1948, but it is quite simply impracticable to think that it can now be replaced by private insurance schemes with their own hospitals.

“There is a place for private medicine and we should explore ways in which private medical resources can work advantageously for the NHS but we have to get the best from the system which we have and there is a large price tag attached to this.

The appalling waste within the NHS is starting to be more widely known e.g. ‘overspend on the splendid new IT system, likely to cost an extra £2,380,000,000 per annum for several years to come, the costs of infection and clinical negligence currently running in excess of £1,000,000,000 every year and what might be described as the general costs of overall mal-administration estimated in 2004 by the National Audit Office to be running at £4,000,000,000 per annum.

There are also obviously far more areas in total involving far larger sums to be saved and where costs can profitably be drastically cut.

However, we cannot deny the real need in the short and possibly the medium term to channel taxes where they are needed.

Taxation from any source is unpopular but people are more ready to accept these if they are convinced that taxes are necessary and that money raised will be spent wisely and that the higher level of taxation will be maintained for no longer than is required.

It also helps if a government can show that it is actively trying to ameliorate the cost of being and doing, for example, by lifting the burden of those nasty and often EU inspired regulations which make the life of an employer so hard, thus increasing the profitability of his business or enabling him to claim tax relief on the whole price of equipment in the year in which it is bought.

We should also see an end to capital gains tax and inheritance tax, both of which give a ‘quick fix’ to government finances but which actually reduce in the longer term sources of potential tax revenue, apart of course from being wrong in principle.

Lastly we need to reconsider the reintroduction of mortgage tax relief and to reduce the tax taken from low earners.

Barry Lenz