The former Lib-Dum Chief Secretary to the Treasury, David ‘Dimples’ Laws, (aka ‘Laws unto Himself’) has stated for the public record that in his egoistic sadistic sociopathic opinion the government should push their public spending hack and burn ‘scorched earth’ policy even further into the welfare benefits sphere despite the economic devastation the austerity measures have already inflicted on the common herd.

Obviously Laws has long since pawned his moral franchise and whatever credibility he might have once possessed due the documented record of embezzling public funds to ‘feather’ a shirt-lifter’s love nest and so maintain the privacy of his illicit sexual affair with another male of the species. Here the closet case Laws illegally claimed an excess of £40,000 quid in Parliamentary expenses to pay for a flat he rented from James Fudgie, with whom he had what the Holy Bible’s Old Testament Book of Leviticus refers to as an abominable beast with two backs relationship.

To wit, the hypocrisy-ridden Laws appears to flaunt his corrupt, dishonest notoriety and harbours no problem with pontificating on adopting further draconian measure to slash welfare benefits and public spending for the marginalised unemployed and homeless proletariat who are unable to claim Parliamentary expenses to fund their ‘second homes’ – or even subsidise the exorbitant costs of a ‘first’.

The pinch-faced Laws - who is believed to be preparing himself to do a ‘Peter Scandalson’ (Lord Vermin in Ermine of Fartlepool) and shamelessly shrug off his past ignominy of being repeatedly sacked from the elitist upper echelons of government for being a crooked twat and placing his own dodgy agendas before the public’s good - was forced to resign as MP for Old Fudgers (the seat previously represented by former Lib-Dum leader Paddy Pantsdown) over the afore-mentioned expenses scandal in 2010 - and claimed during an interview with the Embezzler’s Gazette that the government should reduce its handouts to peasants from 35% to a flat rate of zero.

After he was found guilty of being a thieving twat by Parliament’s Standards and Privileges Committee, the ginger-mingin Laws was suspended from the House of Conmans for seven days and sent home with a copy of Prince Chazzer’s ‘Plant Whispering for Dummies’ on gardening leave, to tend to his love nest’s window box and aspidistra.

New Labour MP, Genghis ‘Pitbull’ McGnasher, the shadow secretary for extraordinary rendition, demanded that New Scotland Yard mount a criminal investigation into the matter, informing a press hack from the Ripoffs Review at the time "If any other fucker or their dog had fraudulently claimed for £50,000 nicker in expenses and fielded a pathetic defence that they only did it to conceal the fact they were a shirt-lifting bumboy, then they’d have got the book thrown at them."

Thought for the day: Around the time of the disastrous 2010 general election, it was alleged that Laws, with his head so far up his own arrogant arse as per usual, confided in a Conservative colleague, Sir Dinsdale Spatchcock, the MP for Old Scrotum, on the promise he wouldn’t tell more than a dozen, that he would have joined the Tory Party if not for the fact of the Twatcher government's introduction of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which forbade local authorities from intentionally, or otherwise, promoting the questionable joys of homosexual sodomic relationships.

  • 'Sugar daddy' Michael Hintze Tory donor's company earns £125million a year....but pays just £77,000 tax
  • Tory scumbag Werrity may have passed classified information on to his multi-billionaire lobbying clients, former Goldman Sachs official Michael Hintze
  • Vile tory psychopaths happiest when attacking and smearing the peasants

  • Labour like the tories run by big business backers and NOT the peasants



  • Unrepentant! Jimmy Carr's unfunny one-liner in tax furore
  • Royalist ass kissing Take That prat Barlow and his tax avoidance schemes (Media exposed him because he booked Carr for the Royal parasites do!!!)
    In response to repeated spasms of heckling concerning Broken Britain’s latest tax-dodging scandal from a group of inebriated gutter press hacks drinking in the La Putas Bar, Posh Dave Scameron, while attempting to ‘chillax’ over a jug of Marguerites with Argentine President Cristina de Kirchner following a hard day’s slog at the G20 summit in Los Twatos, Mexico, lost his rag and spit the dummy – telling de Kirchner to “shut the fuck up about the Falklands – you’re not having them back” - then turned on one reporter, Ron McScrote of the Ripoffs Gazette, and declared for the public record and posterity that the personal tax arrangements of comedian (sic) Jimmy Carr were ‘morally repugnant’.

    Now there’s a classical piece of hypocrisy – ‘morally repugnant’ indeed. Posh Dave, aka 'Austerity Man' needs to take another look at the petty criminal embezzlement antics of the personal expenses-fiddling MPs in the House of Conmans before the frying pan starts calling the kettle ‘black arse’. Typically, with Scameron being over in Mexico and Mick Clogg running things in Downing Street, hence his finger off the pulse of the nation, he copped for the shock revelations over thousands of celebrity and rich list scumbags being exposed in the UK media as serial tax dodgers using a Jersey-based aggressive avoidance scheme known as the ‘K9 Ball-Breaker’ to cheat HMRC and the Treasury out of £168 million quid a year in revenue.

    The hapless Carr copped for the main barrage of incoming media flack viz offshore tax dodges after he was confronted over his financial arrangements during a show at Smegmadale-on-Sea, when one Bolshie audience member, unimpressed with Carr’s brand of humour shouted "Yer an effin’ dog wanker wot’s about as funny as a course of chemotherapy – an’ yer don't pay taxes either, yer fiddlin’ kunt." Interviewed by the Tax Dodgers Weekly at the G20 summit, Scameron elaborated on his previous evening’s outburst, stating “These K9 style schemes for doing Chancellor Osborne out of due taxes - and here I’m think particularly of this dodge of Jimmy Carr’s - regardless of the fact he’s just another pikey peon who never went to Eton – they are morally wrong.”

    “The common herd work very hard – well, if they have jobs and pay their taxes, and they save up all year to buy tickets go to one of his boring shows, and Carr’s taking the money from those tickets and putting all of that into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes in sodding Jersey – and that is very naughty – even if it is legal.” "Frankly, in my opinion, people like this Carr character who dodge the tax system are the moral equivalent of kiddie fiddlers and serial killers and should be tagged and on curfews – and have their names in the Sex Offenders Register so the HMRC know where to find them if they don’t file their tax returns on schedule.”

    To add to the burgeoning brouhaha, New Labour MPs are after the scalp of ‘Take That’ band member Gary Barlow, who has just been awarded an OBE for his £26 million quid contributions to the K9 Ball-Breaker offshore tax evasion scheme. Following reports of Scameron’s outbursts, the BBC (Biased Brainwashing Corporation) News Channel's chief political correspondent Norm Scrunt opined that having failed to engage brain prior to opening mouth and wading into the tax avoidance row, there will be a wave of political pressure aimed at both Scameron and Chancellor Osborne to take action against the individuals and schemes concerned – including their own scumbag Tory rich list donors.

    Speaking with a press hack from the Numb Kunts Review over a couple of pints of Topless Totty real ale in the House of Conmans Stranglers Bar last night, the ginger-mingin Lib-Dum Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, a born and bred penny-pinching, parsimonious porridge wog, claimed he found it outrageous that the wealthiest people were using ever more obscure and underhand methods to avoid tax. "Abuse of the tax system for personal gain is, of course, never acceptable," then concluded his diatribe with what might well prove a drastic self-immolating career-crucifying comment of "No matter how rich or famous you might be, our HMRC heavies are coming to get you." To quote the moronic Alexander: “Abuse of the tax system for personal gain is never acceptable.”

    Let’s be honest as this is the entire purpose of it – for personal enrichment and keep it out of the wastrel hands of the HMRC and the spendthrift Exchequer. Hmmm, yet another ‘hypocrisy first’ as it was the Conservative elitists, those possessed with this absurd sense of entitlement and abuse of privilege who conjured these laws up and implemented them to protect their wealth in the first place.

    Laughably, Alexander’s revelations come a mere fortnight after Peter Cruddball, the former Tory party co-treasurer, was forced to resign after he was filmed doing a spot of influence peddling and flogging ‘up close and personal’ meetings with Posh Dave Scameron for £250,000 per shot. Tory Party Treasurer Lord Stan ‘The Man’ Ratfink who made zillions as head of the First Shylock Bank of International Usury before moving on to become known as the Capo dei Capi ‘Godfather’ of the UK’s hedge-cutting industry, confided to press hacks that “Just wait and see who’s donating anything to our party coffers if they stamp down on the K9 Ball-Breaker tax dodge scheme.”

    “The party’s ex-deputy-chairman, Baron Gashcroft’s going to be staying over in that Third World jungle shithole of Belize, shacked up with his toyboys and whores - and there’s going to be a flight of investment capital and business registrations.” “We’ve already got that moron Osborne clamping down on the practice of wealthy people minimising their tax bills to zero through charitable donations. Hence previously uncapped tax reliefs - including charitable donations – will be capped at £50,000, or 25% of a person's income – and this is a factor fraught with unfathomable consequences.”

    A total of forty-six ‘Rich & Shameless’ charity donors recently wrote to the Daily Shitraker stating that tax relief was not their only motive for donating, and the cap would prove a brake on acts of voluntary philanthropy. High and mighty signatories to the Daily Shitraker letter include Lord Mammon of the Mammon & Snobfords retail chain and Clare Pukesbury of The Three Stoogies Trust – along with Lady Candida Ffinch-Gargoyle of the Pikeys Crotch Institute; Sir Dinsdale Spatchcock; Aldous de Sleazebag-Mountebank; Baron Hamon de Mattoid; and Lord Angus Stairrod, chief of Scotland’s Axminster and Wilton clans.

    Venture capitalist Jon Moulting, the chair of Flatbroke Investments, who has donated more than £30 quid to the Conservatives since 2004 on the off-chance of securing a life peerage - or at least a mention in a future Birthday Honours list - also expressed his disagreement with George Osborne's economic strategy. “I sent the Treasury a memo tellin’ them my opinion on the donations thingy an’ the K9 tax-dodge scheme wot’s run outa Jersey an’ sez why don’t yer do a U-turn like wot yer done wiv the effin’ pasties an’ the caravans coz of political pressure from yer pikey voters but they’ve taken no effin’ notice.”

    “Typical, me Mum always said I should have donated ter the Lib-Dums – an’ if yer hadn’t had all them poofters like that Jeremy Thorpe bloke runnin’ things then I might have done.” Thought for the day. Okay, then let the HMRC outlaw tax dodges and see who on the Rich List continues to donate to the kamikaze political party which is suicidal enough to implement that moronic reform.

    Broken Britain in a 1930’s slump, so forget the euphemistic blather about ‘double-dip mini recessions and other such bullshit, the sad state of affairs this once-proud nation finds itself in are perhaps better described as a ‘Depression’ – with a large capital ‘D’. And as for the antics of politicians and banksters alike – they’re lower than a gopher’s bollocks – and like all bottom feeders and pondscum who worship before the altar of Mammon there is no such thing as ‘enough’ – only ‘More!’

  • Jimmy Carr pulls out of off-shore 'tax avoidance' scheme as it emerges he paid cash for £8.5million home
  • David Cameron's family fortune: the Jersey, Panama and Geneva connection
    Broken Britain’s menopausal maniac of a Home Secretary Theresa ‘Blonde Moment’ May, the incumbent Tory MP for East Knobheads in Berkshire, has described those opposed to the introduction of hugely intrusive telephone and Internet surveillance measures as a bunch of bonkers conspiracy theorist nuts from the Chicken Little Institute for the Promotion of Mass Hysteria that need to consult one of the NHS Trust’s psychiatrists and get on a prescribed course of corrective 'loony' medication.

    On Thursday the government is set to publish a draft of details of a draconian bill given the euphemistic title of the Communications Capabilities Development Programme (CCDP) which, if passed, will allow the nasty Plod Squad and intelligence services real-time access to details of all British phone calls and internet activity – and hence the CGHQ spy-ability to see whose bored missus – or daughters - you’re chatting up and grooming on Facebook with the off-chance of a sympathy shag session.

    Responding to accusations that the CCDP is yet another tip-toe step along the path to implementing a fascist Big Brother state, May informed one press hack from the Totalitarians Gazette that “I have no doubt the conspiracy nuts will come up with some ridiculous claims about how these proposals are an infringement of their personal liberty and freedom.” Well, of course she did – bureaucracy-bred morons rarely do understand another’s point of view – especially so when it poses a contradictory theme to their hallowed own. In fact the Tory bill is a rehash of the dystopian scheme originally drawn up by the previous New Labour government to utilise the threat of Islamic terrorism in order to pass repressive legislation, that was scrapped back in November 2009 due to widespread opposition from civil liberties groups, along with every other fucker and their dog.

    The Home Secretary continued “If we don’t drastically modify the existing lax communications laws and implement these changes then the only freedoms getting protected will be those of the Muslim terrorist crazies who want to blow up our democratic freedoms and the Olympic Games with their black pepper and peroxide bombs.” So, here we have a Kafkaesque scenario where someone with two brain cells still active and the ability to think for themselves, has the audacity to question the plethora of government contradictions, lies, and inconsistencies in their narratives – and they are henceforth branded as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ – a condition diagnosed as a severe mental aberration indicative of galloping paranoid psychosis – and hence a suitable case for sectioning, straitjackets and compulsory treatment.

    But it all comes down to reality versus rhetoric when the likes of Theresa May and her boss Austerity Dave Scameron gain election to public office via manipulating the illusion of credibility and competence – pedalling a rehashed brand of Tory snake oil with a Libservative Coalition label – and the stated aim of making the world safe for hypocrisy – then attempt to justify the statutes of this Communications Capabilities Development Programme with a flawed rationalisation that will not bear the eye of scrutiny upon it - whatever propaganda or 20/20 hindsight is applied as a cosmetic veneer. Then they brand anyone questioning the dodgy motives of government as a bunch of Bolshie bastards and Trotskyists, all suffering from Opposition Defiance Disorder – with such a categorisation, and the negative ramifications this entails, being fraught with the spectre of unintended consequences.

    Suffering from Oppositional Defiance Disorder, indeed. That is a condition which emanates from surfing alternative news websites, asking awkward questions, thinking for oneself and hence disbelieving what the government and mainstream corporate-fascist controlled media tell you – and by the gospel according to Theresa May, an aberrant mental condition that requires treatment with veritable cocktail of full strength psychotic medications. Anyone want a laugh? Simply Google up ‘The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012’ – a joke in itself which does no such thing.

    Thought for the day: While Orwell’s 1984 provides both alarming and prophetic insights to what a Dystopian state might manifest as, perhaps it is time, and again prudent, to remind PM Posh Dave Scameron and his fatally-flawed Libservative Coalition that the revelatory text was a ‘warning’ aimed at the common people – and definitely not a blueprint and instruction manual – Totalitarianism for Dummies - for governments to impose on their own voting public.

    Regardless, fuck the Freemasons and Big Brother – and his sister – and the New World Order.

  • Draft Communications Data Bill


    This slimy bastard pontificates to the peasants, him being a former eton groomed toff, about educating parents on caring for their children. Yet it's himself that needs educating on how to look after his own kids. Something they don't teach you in the VILE public schools, him and his ilk attend at enormous expense.

    The cosy relationship between British Prime Minister David Cameron and Rupert Murdoch's media empire has been exposed at a government inquiry in London. Cameron has been facing uncomfortable questions over his ties to Murdoch's UK operation, and its former head Rebekah Brooks.
    Poverty is not about having no money. Pay no attention to poverty figures because they only measure money. People are poor because of their lifestyles; worklessness, family breakdown, bad parenting, drink and drug addiction, irresponsible debt, crime and lack of aspiration … All week expect that message to be blasted out by ministers trying to drown out Thursday's official poverty figures. The aim is to rubbish the poverty measure accepted by all international organisations and to call for new measures that ignore inequality.

    The government's problem is not that the figures – on "Households below average income" – will be bad, but that they will be embarrassingly good. The data, compiled for 2010-11 by the Office for National Statistics, will be the final verdict on Labour's record, before George Osborne's cuts. Will that ambitious target to abolish child poverty by 2020, halving it by 2010, be hit? Not by a long way. But Labour did well, at a time when poverty was rising in every other industrial country. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) expects the figures to show Labour cut child poverty by 900,000, with another 900,000 prevented from falling into poverty. At that rate the 2020 target would have been reached by 2027. The IFS knows of no other time or nation in which child poverty fell so far, so fast. The Child Poverty Action Group on Tuesday assembles evidence predicting the figures will go into sharp reverse. The IFS expects that cuts will cause child poverty to surge by 100,000 a year, half a million over this government's term: £18bn of welfare cuts take most from poor families, with parental employment unlikely to rise. David Cameron will oversee the worst child poverty record of any government for a generation. In his sheep's clothing days, he promised: "It falls to us, the modern Conservative party, to fight for the poorest." Now his party fights against them.

    Who are the poor? Most are in work – repeat that three times, for you will hear no ministers say it. Only 4% are addicts. Most are poor because their wages are so low. Labour's solution was tax credits, topping up incomes to make sure work was always worthwhile. Recent cuts knock people back into poverty, with £4,000 cut from families on £17,000, unless they can up their hours to at least 24 a week: 1.4m part-timers desperately seek full-time work. Ministers boast of whipping people into work with mandatory work experience, airbrushing out the lack of jobs. Claims of falling unemployment disguise the drop in full-time work: growth is all part-time jobs. The government's poverty mantras will echo through this week: personal failings are the cause; anyone who tries hard enough can get a job; Labour "threw money at poverty" with no result; the poverty measure is nonsense. Cameron said the opposite before the election: he stood by the relative poverty measure now under threat, promising his party "will measure and will act on relative poverty … the fact that some people lack things others take for granted"; and he voted for Labour's Child Poverty Act. The only way to measure a nation's poverty over time is to count how many fall below the norm, and how far. This international measure counts anyone on less than 60% of a country's median income – not, repeat not, the mean – so it compares low-income households with those in the middle, not with the richest. The IFS says similar declines emerge if you set the figure as low as 40% of median income – utterly refuting Nick Clegg's toxic line dismissing the threshold as just "poverty plus a pound".

    The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), Iain Duncan Smith's thinktank, is running the rubbishing of Labour's record. Its latest Rethinking Child Poverty report makes a statistical howler (is it deliberate?), claiming a "methodological flaw" because "the poor will always exist statistically as it is inevitable some in society will have less than others". But since the measure is those falling below the middle, not the mean average, it makes no difference, if, say Bill Gates moves to Britain. Nordic countries have all but eliminated poverty by pulling the bottom up towards the middle: it can be done. CSJ reports focus on family breakdown, calling for Cameron's promised marriage tax allowance – though that gives most to the better-off. They savagely attack Labour's tax credits, oddly claiming poverty has nothing to do with actual income. Lifting living standards was only part of Labour's anti-poverty plan. In retrospect its record looks ever better, with childcare credits, nurseries for all, Sure Start children's centres, more lone mothers in work, the education maintenance allowance, the child trust fund nest egg and more: most of this is now cut or abolished. Take BookStart, giving books to all babies at seven months, and again at three and seven years old, encouraging parents to read to them. Half of families had no books for babies until this scheme: it led them to take children to libraries. Michael Gove cancelled it immediately, Philip Pullman led an outcry, Gove U-turned, cut it by 70% and gave back just £6m, but now even that's in peril. Publishers donate £22m: if he cancels the fund so will they – so much for the cant about helping good parenting. This week the Institute of Education publishes research that early poverty permanently damages children's cognitive development: poverty makes more difference than whether a mother has university or only basic education.

    The government caricatures poor people in terms of the worst cases they can find: so far they have won the public argument. Eric Pickles kicked off the pre-emptive rebuttal on Monday by announcing allocations to 120,000 troubled families, with councils offered £4,000 if they reduce the costs these families cause. Since social services have suffered huge cuts, getting back a couple of per cent is no doubt welcome. But the only poor people ministers ever mention are bad cases, as in Duncan Smith's all-purpose threat to the jobless: "This is not an easy life any more, chum. I think you're a slacker." The campaign of vilification has been clever: Osborne's announcement that no one would get more benefits than the £26,000 median wage was another masterstroke, suggesting most are living the high life. The truth? These represent less than 1% of people on benefits, exceptional cases in high-cost temporary accommodation in London. Yet the large sum lodged in the public mind implying it was standard. It successfully hid the plunge in living standards for millions of others through housing benefit cuts: only one in eight on housing benefit are not in work. What few realise is that 88% of all the benefit cuts are still to come. Presumably Cameron long ago decided no one cares: he may yet be proved wrong.

  • Tory filth pushing responsibility for being poor on the poor
    austerity Last week was an awesome warning of where go-it-alone austerity can lead. It produced some brutal evidence of where we end up when we place finance above economy and society. The markets are now betting not just on the break-up of the euro but on the arrival of a new economic dark age. The world economy is edging nearer to the abyss, and policymakers, none more than in Britain, are paralysed by the stupidities of their home-spun economics. Yanis Varoufakis, ex-speechwriter for former Greek prime minister George Papandreou and now an economics professor in the US, said last week: "There is precisely zero chance of austerity working. It is the same as thinking you can escape from gravity by waving your arms up and down."

    It could hardly be more sobering. Money has flooded out of Spain, Greece and the peripheral European economies. Signs of the crisis range from Athen's soup kitchens to Spain's crowds of indignados protesting in the streets against austerity and a broken capitalism. Youth unemployment is sky-high. Less visible is the avalanche of money flowing into hoped-for safe havens in the US, Germany and even Britain. The last time the British government could sell government bonds at interest rates as low as today's was in the early 1700s. George Osborne and his acolytes proclaim this as a triumph of the government's economic policies. They are gravely mistaken. Rather it portends fears that the international economic order may collapse because if so many countries are simultaneously pursuing austerity, where's growth to come from? Virtually everywhere you look there are signs of a weakening world economy. At home, manufacturing suffered its biggest plunge for three years, and this in an economy already suffering its longest depression since the 19th century. American jobs growth is petering out. Unemployment in Europe averages 11%. Even China witnessed a sharp fall away in factory activity in May.

    Yet none of this should be a surprise. We live in the aftermath of one of the biggest financial and intellectual mistakes ever made. For a generation the world, with the London/New York financial axis at its heart, surrendered to the specious theory that lending and financial contracts could grow many times faster than the underlying economy. There was a blind belief that in a free market banks could not make mistakes. Free markets didn't make mistakes – only clumsy bureaucratic states made economic mistakes. Or so they said. Financial alchemists, guided by the maxims of free market fundamentalism, could make no such errors. Except that they did. The result was the financial crisis of 2008. Had governments not underwritten their overstretched banks with trillions of dollars, euros and pounds, an even worse global slump would have ensued. But while the banks could continue trading, the hundreds of trillions of loans and financial contracts they had made did not go away. And because governments had guaranteed their deposits, as in Ireland, or had to inject capital into them as Spain has been doing all last week, this private bank debt has steadily become public debt. Here is a classic case where all the gains were privatised, and all the losses were socialised. It was the much-maligned state that had to step in and clear up the mess left behind by the private sector. The free market wasn't so free after all – in fact it proved astonishingly expensive for the public purse. People across Europe still pay the price.

    This is no solution. Overstretched banks have become more cautious about lending new cash; and even strong banks are caught up in the backwash because if they step into the breach they could fall into a vortex of falling property prices and declining economic activity, becoming weak in turn. So as banks stand aside from their crucial function of generating credit, governments and central banks must step in to generate the demand that has now disappeared. But they have not done so to a sufficient degree. Part of the problem is that the more bank debt that governments guarantee, the less room for manoeuvre they feel they have – especially as their stagnating economies forces up welfare spending and depresses tax revenues. But the larger problem is intellectual. The dominant ideology of the day – from the same roots that delivered the crisis – forbids it. A consensus stretching from US Republicans through to Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats via George Osborne's Treasury continues to claim that the state is the source of economic bad. The state threatens enterprise, invites damaging taxation, and is the root cause of spreading inflation. The state must balance the books just as the private sector must.

    This is not just an economic but a moral necessity, they argue. Living within one's means rather than "maxing" out on debt appeals to American, British and German individualistic Protestantism. Inflation is even more a sign of moral degradation: it means reneging on promises, rewarding spendthrifts and penalising savers. We had the good years. Now we must take our medicine. The public and private sectors must retrench simultaneously worldwide. Enterprise and free markets will do the rest. The "march of the makers" will step in to fill the void left by public austerity measures. This is a first-order moral and economic mistake. Human beings need each other for mutual support. In economic terms this means that no individual, either as a person or a company, can manage existential risk by themselves. That risk needs to be shared and mitigated otherwise the risk is not accepted. There would be no enterprise or innovation – the risks of failure too great. That is why there is a role for both private and public sectors. It is governments who provide the means through which we express our social obligations and pool our risks. This is the heart of Keynesian economics – a different set of moral and economic propositions than those which prevail. Today we can see an almost laboratory experiment on a global scale of why Keynes was right and his detractors wrong. There is no doubt what Keynes would advocate now: a government-sponsored increase in demand co-ordinated across as many countries as possible and an acceptance of a temporary but closely managed increase in inflation to reduce the real value of debt.

    The enormous legacy of private debt – whether in Britain, Germany, Spain, the US or Greece – and the fiendishly complicated way so many of the loans have been organised and distributed around the world financial system cannot be easily unwound. Sir Philip Hampton, chair of RBS, warned this week it might take a generation for RBS investors to recover their money. The choice is thus stark. To commit to decades of economic stagnation, the break-up of the eurozone, the risk of trade protection and autarchic economic policies, the dismantling of the west's social contracts, the imposition of high unemployment and the political fallout that will follow. Or to change course.

    The technical means are relatively simple. Governments must replace targets for inflation with targets for the growth of prices and growth of output combined. Central banks should inject money into their financial systems by offering to buy new bank loans made to support new investment, new innovation or new infrastructure – helped by partial government guarantees. Governments also need to increase demand. They can do this directly – with targeted and time-limited tax cuts or spending increases. They can also move indirectly, taxing the rich more aggressively and re-allocating the proceeds in tax cuts to those on middle incomes and lower who tend to spend more – along the lines that both presidents Obama and Hollande have proposed. There is also a case for a financial transactions tax – both to raise crucial revenue and to cap the growth and frenetic speed of financial transactions. Finance has become too powerful. It needs constraining. Will any of this happen? The west is at a cross-roads, and although such proposals will be fiercely opposed by the British, German and American right they need to be beaten back. After all, it is their ideas that have brought us to this pass. It is not too fanciful to argue that the future of western capitalism depends upon how this argument plays out – and how quickly, if at all, there is a change of course.

    nick clegg Clegg will say that two years in government have convinced him the establishment (made up of a majority of freemasons) is rotten

    Bowing to Murdoch turned politics rotten, says Clegg as he launches attack on senior Tories

    Nick Clegg will today launch an attack on David Cameron and other senior Tories for their decision to ‘bow and scrape’ before Rupert Murdoch. The Deputy Prime Minister will condemn the behaviour of the Prime Minister and successive Labour leaders in what he terms Britain’s ‘broken establishment’. He will condemn the ‘sordid spectacle of phone hacking’ and say cosying up to the media baron is evidence of the death of ‘clean politics’.

    Mr Clegg’s outburst will be greeted with dismay by senior Tories as Home Secretary Theresa May and Education Secretary Michael Gove give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on press standards. It is also clearly aimed at Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who gives evidence on Thursday and whose job is hanging by a thread over revelations of his closeness to the Murdoch empire. In a speech to a group of political reform campaigners, Mr Clegg will say the close ties between senior politicians and the media mogul have brought Britain to a ‘critical point’.

    The Lib Dem leader will say: ‘Almost the entire political class competed to bow and scrape in front of Rupert Murdoch. The whole thing was rotten, and it inevitably came crashing down. ‘The economic crisis and political crisis aren’t separate. They are part and parcel of a deep failure of our established institutions. You cannot build a healthy economy without strong, clean politics.’ Mr Clegg will say that two years in government have convinced him the establishment is rotten.

    ‘My view, hardened by two years on the inside, is that Britain is not broken at all. It is the British establishment that is broken. It is the institutions at the top that have let down the people,’ he will add. He will tell campaign groups such as the Electoral Reform Society, 38 Degrees and Unlock Democracy that the only way to clean things up is to pass his proposed reforms of the House of Lords and change party funding rules. But his closest allies admitted that the speech was intended as ‘a pop’ at the Tories.

    ‘It’s a plague on both their houses,’ a source said. ‘We’re equally as damning of Labour.’ Mr Clegg’s speech is a significant declaration of hostilities since both coalition partners have so far refrained from outspoken remarks about the other on sensitive ministerial issues. Senior Lib Dems believe Culture Secretary Mr Hunt should resign after it emerged that he aggressively campaigned for Mr Murdoch’s News Corporation to take over BSkyB. They are likely to wait until after Lord Leveson rules on Mr Hunt’s behaviour before breaking cover publicly, unless fresh evidence against him emerges this week.

    Tories meanwhile will be looking closely at Business Secretary Vince Cable’s evidence tomorrow. He was stripped of responsibility for the BSkyB bid after being recorded saying he had declared war on Mr Murdoch. Conservatives believe Mr Cable acted even more blatantly than Mr Hunt. They also believe Mr Clegg is a hyprocrite since he has played tennis with Murdoch lobbyist Fred Michel, whose children attend the same school as his own. Mr Clegg’s special adviser Lena Pietsch also exchanged text messages with Mr Michel and even invited him in to Downing Street. However, a source close to Mr Clegg said: ‘The idea that Liberal Democrats ever really courted the Murdoch press is ridiculous.’


    or a BBC scam to look distant from a government they have backed throughout?

    Tory scum taking money from the poorest and giving millions to their
    pals who no doubt fund them come election time
    cameron obey

    tory quote

  • Tory scum and filth faced with new rift as MPs prepare to mount coup against Cameron
    Tory scumbag Thatcher started the tax dodging that allowed Cameron's father to hide his money abroad

    David Cameron's father ran a network of offshore investment funds to help build the family fortune that paid for the prime minister's inheritance, the Guardian can reveal.

    Though entirely legal, the funds were set up in tax havens such as Panama City and Geneva, and explicitly boasted of their ability to remain outside UK tax jurisdiction. At the time of his death in late 2010, Ian Cameron left a fortune of £2.74m in his will, from which David Cameron received the sum of £300,000.

    Cameron and other cabinet members have recently suggested that they would be willing to disclose their personal tax filings amid growing scrutiny following the budget, but this would only shed light on annual sources of income rather than accumulated wealth or inheritance. The structure employed by Cameron senior is now commonplace among modern hedge funds, which argue that offshore status can help attract international investors. UK residents would ordinarily have to pay tax on any profits they repatriated, and there is nothing to suggest the Camerons did not. Nevertheless, the dramatic growth of such offshore financial activity has raised concerns that national tax authorities are struggling to pin down the world's super-rich. Ian Cameron took advantage of a new climate of investment after all capital controls were abolished in 1979, making it legal to take any sum of money out of the country without it being taxed or controlled by the UK government.

    Not long after the change, brought in by Margaret Thatcher after her first month in power, Ian Cameron began setting up and directing investment funds in tax havens around the world. Leaving his full-time role as a City stockbroker, Ian Cameron went on to act as chairman of Close International Asset management, a multimillion-pound investment fund based in Jersey; as a senior director of Blairmore Holdings Inc, registered in Panama City and currently worth £25m; and he was also a shareholder in Blairmore Asset Management based in Geneva. However, the family will – a public document seen by the Guardian – only details the assets of Ian Cameron's estate in England and Wales. Offshore investments would only be listed in submissions to HMRC for inheritance tax purposes. It is unclear what those assets – if any – are worth and which family member owns them.

    In 2009 the compilers of the Sunday Times Rich List estimated Ian Cameron's wealth at £10m. He was survived by his wife, Mary Fleur Cameron, who as his spouse would not have had to pay inheritance tax on sums transferred between them. In 2006 Ian's eldest son, Alexander, became the sole owner of the family's £2.5m house in Newbury, Berkshire, where David had been brought up.

    Another family home in Kensington, London, worth £1m, passed to his two daughters in equal share. Cameron's father was "instrumental" in setting up the Panamanian company, Blairmore Holdings, in 1982, which was exempt from UK tax, when David was a pupil at Eton aged 16. The fund shares its name with the family's ancestral home in Aberdeenshire, Blairmore House, in which Ian Cameron was born in 1932 but which the family no longer owns.

    A lengthy prospectus for Blairmore Holdings written in 2006 and meant to attract high net worth "sophisticated" investors, with at least $100,000 to buy shares, is explicit about how the fund sought to avoid UK tax. At the time more than half of the fund's 11 directors were UK nationals. Under Panamanian law the fund was excluded from taxation derived from other parts of the world. "The fund is not liable to taxation on its income or capital gains as long as such income or capital gains are not derived from sources allocated within the territory of the Republic of Panama," the 2006 prospectus reads.

    "The Directors intend that the affairs on the Fund should be managed and conducted so that it does not become resident in the United Kingdom for UK taxation purposes. Accordingly ... the Fund will not be subject to United Kingdom corporation tax or income tax on its profits," the prospectus continues. The investor document also credits Ian Cameron as a founder member of Blairmore Holdings and states that as an adviser he would be paid $20,000 a year – the highest paid director – whatever profits were realised. In fact, the long-term Panamanian investment fund performed above market rate over many years averaging a 116% return from 2002-2007. Today many of the fund's largest holdings are in blue-chip stocks such as Apple, Unilever and Coca Cola.

    Before his death, aged 77, Ian Cameron was also chairman and shareholder of Close International Equity Growth Fund Ltd, registered in Jersey and worth £9m according to papers filed in 2005. In that year just under half of the fund's holdings were in UK listed stocks. A third fund set up in Geneva, Switzerland, had a shorter life span and finally dissolved in 2007 but had many of the same registered shareholders as the Panamanian outfit. These included a number of former employees of Panmure Gordon, the stockbroking firm where Ian Cameron spent much of his career and those from Smith and Williamson investment management where Cameron senior was a consultant. One notable investor into the Panama fund was a charity established by Tory peer Lord Vinson. Accounts from 2009 show that a charitable trust set up under his own name invested £82,000 into the fund – almost one quarter of its investments in shares.

    Vinson's trust that year went on to donate tens of thousands of pounds to rightwing think tanks including the Institute of Economic Affairs and Civitas. David Cameron has recently remarked on companies who have taken advantage of offshoring to legally avoid tax. Speaking at the start of the year to small business leaders in Maidenhead, he said: "With the large companies, that have the fancy corporate lawyers and the rest of it, I think we need a tougher approach. "One of the things that we are going to be looking at this year is whether there should be a general anti-avoidance power that HMRC can use, particularly with very wealthy individuals and with the bigger companies, to make sure they pay their fair share."

    The row also comes as the top rate of tax was lowered in last month's budget from 50p to 45p and the rate of corporation tax continue to drop to achieve the chancellor's ambition of giving the UK one of the lowest rates of corporation tax in the G7. Responding to opposition criticisms over the lowering of the top tax rate, Cameron said: "The cut in the 50p tax rate is going to be paid five times over by the richest people in our country." Downing Street said it did not want to comment on what was a private matter for the Cameron family.

    A spokesperson added: "The government's tax reforms are about making sure that some of the richest people in the country pay a decent share of income tax." The investment managers Smith and Williamson, for whom Ian Cameron worked, chose not to comment.

  • Cameron's family fortune: the Jersey, Panama and Geneva connection

    Listen to how he is expected, as all MP's do, to swear allegiance to the royal parasites and NOT TO the people who voted for him in Bradford. All of this is a massive fraud and treason against the public who voted him in to office .

    "I George Galloway do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bare true allegiance to her majesty Queen Elizabeth her heirs and successors according to law"

    Cameron flies off around Asia avoiding his criminality of selling himself to millionaire's for £250k a meal at 10 Downing Street and to prop up the vile tory coffers.

    He promotes democracy in Burma as if he is the defender of free speech but he only defends the WEST's form of democracy as long as his freemason lodge buddies control that process.

    NO ONE who stands against the three major political parties has much chance of denting the facade of open elections when the only politicians who get publicity and who are backed by freemason millionaires and billionaires are their lodge pals. The press barons like Murdoch and Harmsworth are all part of the masonic structure that protects at all costs the hierarchy that ensures inequality and an illusion of democracy, when all we really have is a hand picked bunch of criminal thugs to chose from.

    Sir Ronald Cohen , Zionist and Royal henchman runs Zionist Cameron's Big Society money pot. How many non-zionist or non-masonic companies will get a single penny??????????
  • Big Society Capital
  • Ronald Cohen Big Society Capital chief's dodgy history

  • Email and web use 'to be monitored' under new laws