ring-fencing

The ring-fencing of local funds is the biggest problem in local authority funding and also the ring-fencing of product and service specific finance is impossible with today’s global finance schemes.

Monies are shifted from one project to another and what is paid for directly is not used for direct local services to be ploughed back to the source of the income.

The local jurisdictions cannot function with international money transfers and as long as there are no laws that guarantee ring-fencing for locally produced funds the local economies  are grieving the loss of business that will permanently stay away.

Today’s finance reporting hardly ever mentions these very basic and essential facts of local economies and service provisions and it is absolutely essential to get to grip with this matter or we see a devastation of local economies shifting from locality to locality, depending on where global finance fancies to invest in. How should it help a small local business to be able to borrow when there is no sustainable economy to trade in?

To you and me, in practical terms this means that rent monies collected by local authorities are given to the government to finance the war and local estates suffer loss of services. To customers of companies it means that pension funds can be invested into something else or even harvested to channel  money to elsewhere and in companies, monies collected from one service are used to prop up another.

Companies can export all monies they like to other regions of the world and so locally raised taxes are only a temporary income for fiscal purposes or as long as the company likes the trading conditions. What this does to local people is the main question because families do not just exist for the duration of a trading year, they build on generations of off-spring and social networks are depending on a social fibre that has to be functioning to be healthy.

It’s not all finance because often the mental health of social groups depends on the ability to trade and/or earn a honest living and not to live on handouts because the company has decided to move elsewhere. It is a matter for the law to make provision for this problem as companies’ only function these days is to make profit and no other social responsibilities are expected. The third sector finance in local matters depends also on trading and profitiering from local ecnomies. People cannot get a relationship to finance if that finance is remote.

The division of monies away from local social responsibilities is the biggest stumbling block in building long-lasting local economies that are also socially satisfying.  In ancient cultures, even as recent as Roman times, the local economy always sprung up where the people lived but that is no longer the case to the detriment of the people I should say.  The larger those multi-million pound companies grow the less are they sustainable because costs are swallowing up sustainable profits and those profits are gained on short-term investments that has a high cost of sales ratio as springing up those companies is expensive because of branding and other issues.

Today we see failing companies taken over by others, which means that all branding items have to be changed each time at huge cost, the matter of keeping the company going is more expensive than the actual income from sales revenue.

Today’s governments expect social responsibility from companies but those companies have huge costs to meet that are unsustainable in the long run. The short-term and the long term responsibility is causing a clash in today’s parliamentary democracies coupled with company laws that prevent long-term responsibility as well and now the EU is wondering why no country wants to contribute to the EU tax burden it wants to impose.  International finance doesn’t bow to local jurisdcitions and we have a mish-mash of problems that is  incoherrent and non-sensical.

They threaten to leave the sinking ship

Money is an international matter and not a local business say the bankers who would consider relocating if the EU considers direct EU taxes, which would burden the financial sector the hardest.

The local power is not important anymore because business is run by international conglomerates who can just channel moneys from country to country without worrying about physical borders.

That could leave whole regions of our planet earth neglected by the finance industry who just move their money elsewhere.  There is no obligation to maintain localities, that Peoples and cultures are settled in. If that happens our regional cultures will disintegrate for the sake of business transactions around the world that will put their money where the tax is the lowest.

Yet most member states within the EU want to pay less and not more into the EU coffers.

What seems to be the case is that although laws are valid within country borders, moneys can float around the world as if borders do not exist. As long as there are no financial export or import restrictions that will be the issue the EU commissioner will have to grapple with.

Local economies in the UK are suffering whilst in some other regions of this planet the economy thrives. This international economic governance policy is in direct confrontational course with local jurisdictional laws and legal processes.

Obama cancels EU-US summit

One of the more amazing political decisions lately made by Mr Obama. Just when I thought Europe and the US get together closer and chummier, Barak barricades himself into his stronghold and doesn’t want to get closer now.

This aged friendship and relationship between Europe and the US should prosper and not welter.

Whilst the UK is very busy keeping the UK-US relationship alive and ticking, the UK has much opposition to Europe. Can one have only one and not another?

Britain should get stuck into Europe and develop the Union to its taste from within this wicked institution. The biggest upset are the agricultural subsidies but those are a sheer result of our taxation and financial systems that were developed in the Middle Ages and now don’t seem to work that well any more. Our whole world now revolves around the central monetary system and regional political groups, find it difficult to manage around those worldwide influences on them.

As I previously said, the principles of taxation are something to be looked at. The principles of equality in spending should be looked at. The principle of how much a person – expressed in percentages – of their income they should pay for articles, instead of all paying the same regardless of income. If taxation would consider a consumer based tax on what we use, we would improve many things.

We already use it in law, in carbon emissions. A pay as you use tax expressed in the price of the product relating to the income of the purchaser should seriously be considered.

Britain has to be more positive to the EU and push forward reforms when the time is right.

 and 

Carl Mortishead, World Business Editor, The Times, 11 February

” Britain should not sit smugly watching the worms wriggle under the eurozone stones. This is a political opportunity to find common cause. When the costs of a bailout, the waste of EU regional and agricultural aid, are truly revealed, it will be deeply unpopular in Germany . At that point, Britain should push very hard for EU budgetary reform.”

We rely heavily on food imports and cannot revert to a cynical position like we don’t really need the EU when we obviously do. One cannot turn back the clock and we should be more cheerful and look forward to the future rather than bemoan the past.

What’s wrong with democracy?

Is that it has no control as to quality and quantum. So if enough crazy people vote in a crazy leader, then that is accepted as a democratic decision, regardless of how much destruction it may cause.

When I saw this poster of David Cameron on Facebook where he holds a placard with the words: Another 5 years of Labour your choice, I thought well I wish it was because it is quite clear that Labour is not able to run the country or my local authority yet enough people keep on voting them in regardless of how bad they administer their constituencies. Apparently in Tower Hamlets only the minority of eligible voters goes to the polls but had we gotten a law about the quantum of voters, the picture could turn out quite different.

Why would people in their right mind vote in a council that sends payment reminders to those paying by direct debit because there are bank holidays over the Christmas period? I have plenty of direct debits but no other commercial organisation complains about my payments over the Christmas period with the exception of Tower Hamlets council. Well maybe the fact that 2/3 of councillors are non Christians helps to understand this mismanagement of our council taxes.

Allowing the running of a public administration on a minority vote is asking for trouble and unfortunately the long march through the courts is very long because if something goes wrong the nearest objective legal stopcock is the European court of Human Rights who enforce the Human Rights Act, able to prevent an abuse of the rights of the person. What does make the system so expensive is that one has to go through lengthy legal proceedings in the country’s courts first before the European Court can look at it.

What is wrong with democracy is that it allows locals to vote in tyrants and despots and allow them to do the job until they do it so obviously disastrous to the detriment of the population that an outside military force has to stop them from doing it. The question is what can we do to prevent this from happening again? What objective measures can we put into place to stop locals making the objectively wrong choices? Apparently the quantum of wrong decisions doesn’t make a decision right in any case.

We should allow a direct comparison to the Human Rights Act in local decisions but for that purpose the Human Rights Act doesn’t go far enough, because it should be a major heading in the Human Rights Act that everyone has the right to drink clean water and breathe fresh air.

Incidentally what brought the Roman civilisation to its knees was the fact that they drank poisoned drinking water from lead pipes but because all went crazy at the same time, they did not know it or notice it until the barbarians managed to topple them because then the Romans were too weak to defend themselves against the continuous attempts of the Barbarians to overthrow them.

Looking at  that example, we could also bring the other obvious one, the Germans voting in Hitler. Those types of developments are merely an expression of local desperation and what we need is the ability to step in at the beginning of things going wrong instead of waiting until a considerable amount of people have suffered humiliation and death or deterioration of their health.

We’ve seen it with the asbestos, the cigarettes, now the cars, then earth warming but there seems to be no ability to stop it in the tracks. That’s what’s wrong with democracy. I do not have a solution to the problem but know that there is a problem and I want people to think about this more.

Obviously there is no perfect social model that does not upset some people within it but there is not enough objectiveness on local decisions and democracy is not a good measurement at all. I am not saying, get rid of democracy, I am saying improve democracy, so that it builds in quality controls that avoid abuse of the system.

Once could say, if enough people want to be terrorised by their leaders let them, but unfortunately it doesn’t work that way because those terrorising their own often enough try to widen out their terror and want to terrorise others as well, as we’ve seen with Hitler, the Taleban and others. It’s not only those extremes that are a worry because we cannot wait until problems escalate to such extent that they do become a worry to us all, we need to stop wrongdoing in its tracks. We need less personal greed and more joint up thinking and Labour can’t do either in my view.

Here in Tower Hamlets voting for Labour has become a local habit, people simply cannot think above that old habit but when they count the cost of voting Labour since generations they should make a more sensible decision and allow common sense to prevail. Unfortunately the weekly brain-washing paper East End Life doesn’t help. See also this article in the East London Advertiser.

Of course the argument of cost comes up to put an objective measure of value and righteousness and if the cost doesn’t justify the means then a policy should be scrapped. Such demands require an independent panel to enforce such measures because here in Tower Hamlets we have a Labour Council wasting tax payer’s money and we have a Labour government that is supposed to curb that bad habit and somehow the chances of that happening are very slim indeed.

You could argue we already have the courts and the House of Lords and now also a Supreme Court and the Juridicial Review process but non of those really avoid widespread health risks or money wasting councils or government policies.  It takes years to achieve any change and then only once things have gone disasterously wrong. Maybe the monarch should be able to interfere into parliamentary business and local government decisions, we haven’t tried that one yet have we?

Blog Stats

  • 55,048 hits
%d bloggers like this: