But people don't want explanations they want answers.I am absolutely clear about the right answer for the UK economy.It can be summed up in one sentence - we need to deal with our debts and go for growth ...Everyone agrees now that in the past Britain's economy had become lopsided – too dependent on debt, consumption and financial services.Well, we are putting that right. We need a different kind of economy and a different kind of growth.If we are to build a new model of growth, we need to give a massive boost to enterprise, entrepreneurship and business creation.Put simply Britain must become one of the best places to do business on the planet.I'll be covering the speech in detail later.
He said the government had to "learn lessons in terms of communication" from what happened when the fuel panic occured before Easter.? He rejected claims that he did not work hard enough as prime minister. This is a charge that has been repeatedly levelled against Cameron by commentators like Max Hastings (suscription) and Anthony King, who labelled Cameron a "dilettante" prime minister in the Financial Times (subscription). Cameron said he worked hard.It is extremely hard work. I work very, very hard at it. I am normally at my kitchen table at a quarter to six in the morning going through my boxes and papers.Humphrys asked him about a comment from an anonymous Tory MP quoted in an FT profile (subscription) who said: "Frankly, he is putting the school run ahead of the national interest.
So far, so good. But this Budget also contains measures that are simply wrong.Take the 'granny tax'. How, when pensioners are suffering so grievously from minimal returns on their savings, can he justify scrapping age-related income tax allowances, leaving 4.41million an average of ￡83 worse off next year?NegativeIndependentFor all the sound and fury, George Osborne's second Budget signified – not quite nothing – but not much more. Indeed, the Chancellor's statement yesterday was more striking for its political drumbeat, for its emotive references to "earning our way in the world" and "supporting working families", than for anything else. Not only was the all-in-it-together rhetoric about raising more tax from "those best able to pay" not entirely convincing.
But, when Johnson was asked if he had said at the time that an investigation was unnecessary, he denied it.That's absolutely wrong and I don't think Denis actually said that and if he did I will take it up with Denis. I asked whether the HMIC could do any independent inquiry in 2009 when the Gordon Taylor story came out. The advice I received is that they were up for it, but there were serious problems with how stretched they were with a number of big inquiries and it was an issue about the capacity they had to take it on.? Johnson said he did not think David Cameron or Andrew Lansley were anti-NHS.I've never thought that David Cameron is anti-NHS, I've never incidentally thought that Andrew Lansley is anti-NHS.
Their crisis, of their own making, is acute. They, too, have angry public opinion to placate.And as for party management within the Tory ranks, the ex-MP Paul Goodman (he stood down voluntarily) offers a programme of reconciliation on ConservativeHome, the website that plays the gadfly role that Tribune once did on the Labour left.It starts with this proposition:Most Conservative MPs don't want Britain to withdraw from the EU. They do, however, want powers repatriated from Brussels. And when the prime minister says that he agrees, I'm afraid that, rightly or wrongly,
www.cnnhkids.com, many of them simply don't believe him.Sensible and inclusive plans to repatriate powers are the way forward, he argues.According to ICM's poll, that splits Goodman off from great swaths of Tory voters, and those in the dark recesses beyond, who do want to quit Europe, usually the older kind who read the wilder tabloids.
This means a comparatively small rate of tax (0.05 per cent) being levied on share, bond, and currency transactions and their derivatives, with the resulting funds being designated for investment in the "real" economy, domestically and internationally. The modest rate of taxation conceals the high levels of return that could be expected (some $410bn globally on one estimate).This has won the backing of significant experts who cannot be written off as naive anti-capitalists – George Soros, Bill Gates and many others. It is gaining traction among European nations, with a strong statement in support this week from Wolfgang Schaüble, the German finance minister. The objections made by some who claim it would mean a substantial drop in employment and in the economy generally seem to rest on exaggerated and sharply challenged projections – and, more important, ignore the potential of such a tax to stabilise currency markets in a way to boost rather than damage the real economy .
Karl Marx, funded by the industrial activities of his friend Engels, was on the case too. So were infant trade unionists – some facing deportation, like the Tolpuddle Martyrs, shipped to Australia amid public outcry in that dangerous, depression year.In 2011 so shrewd an observer as Dickens would have noted the similarities but also the differences. So he might have taken note of some wider ministerial arguments for curbing the welfare bill. Capping benefit per household at ￡26,000 a year – the median, or mid-point, post-tax household income,
cnnhkids, the average figure being ￡38,
marc by marc jacobs bag,547 – might strike him as reasonable. He might think putting a cap on housing benefit sensible because some payments (￡100,000 a year?) seem excessive, are excessive.
Chat Sentinela
