Savings and Investment to fix the economy
Last night, George Osborne set out how the debt-fuelled model of growth that Gordon Brown pursued for the past decade is fundamentally broken. Gordon Brown’s debt is the single biggest threat to the recovery and our economic future. We have to deal with our debts to get the economy back on its feet. And we need a new economic model built on saving and investment.
Labour’s argument that we can afford to wait until 2011 before dealing with the deficit is complacent and puts the recovery at risk. We need to start dealing with the deficit in 2010 for three key reasons: the lack of confidence in the public finances is already undermining the recovery; if Britain loses the confidence of international markets, the result would be emergency cuts that would indeed be swingeing and savage; and real public sector reform takes time, so starting early on the deficit creates space for more targeted cuts that protect the poorest and front line services.
Labour’s argument that we can afford to wait until 2011 before dealing with the deficit is complacent and puts the recovery at risk. We need to start dealing with the deficit in 2010 for three key reasons: the lack of confidence in the public finances is already undermining the recovery; if Britain loses the confidence of international markets, the result would be emergency cuts that would indeed be swingeing and savage; and real public sector reform takes time, so starting early on the deficit creates space for more targeted cuts that protect the poorest and front line services.
Comments
Two: it is YOUR problem that your "moral compass" is so far out of whack that you consider it a valid political tactic to use the families of your political opponents in your attack strategies.
Traditionally most politicians in Britain don't cross that line, including the Blairite wing of New Labour: one of the things I most dislike about the Brownite "Forces of Hell" is that they don't share that scruple.
If "Anonymous" has the guts to start signing his or her name I will permit him (or her) to continue this argument. Any further unsigned posts along similar lines will be deleted.
With regard to Freemason's only men of good character are permitted to join. Good character includes responsibility for ones own actions and consciousness of the needs of your community. Freemasons are the biggest givers to charity outside the National Lottery. If you donate to Freemasons' charities you will not become a millionaire, but you can be assured the Government will not top slice the fund for tax (the tax the poor queue up to pay.) The money will go to the cause intended.
The conspiracy theories around Freemasonry are ridiculous. It is not a prerequisite to be a Tory MP nor does it prevent a Labour politician being a Mason. There are people from all walks of life in Freemasonry from school bus drivers to top surgeons or council bin men to High Court judges. In the lodge all are equal and all trades serve a necessary purpose. I do not see why any of this is ODD!
It is a rule within the Lodge not to discuss religion or politics. In the lodge all men are brothers irrespective of colour, creed, political or religious belief or denomination.
Incidentally you do not have to be a relative of a freemason to be a recipient of a charitable cause.
Get real anonymous, give up the conspiracy theories and get into real debate.
Do they produce reports of what they do ?
Are they a totally transparent organisation ?
Whilst the United Grand Lodge of England does not recognise lodges that admit women, there have and still are women's lodges. I believe today such lodges exist in the bigger cities, like London.
Interestingly there were Freemason women in the women's suffrage movement. Last year at Freemasons' Hall London a successful Centenary exhibition celebrated women in Freemasonary. Freemason women played a huge role in feminist history, in their support for the fight for women's suffrage.
Emmiline Pankhurst (later Conservative MP) was not a Mason but knowingly worked closely with several prominent Suggragettes who included Charlotte Despard, Ursula Bright and the Hon. Evelina Haverfield. I have also come across a photograph of Annie Bessant (circa 1903) in full masonic regalia.
Annie Cobden-Sanderson (daughter of Liberal reformer Richard Cobden is one of the best known suffragette activists. She was a member of the Women's Freedom League. She joined Freemasonary in France and later belonged to Co-Masons (Le Droit Humain) in England.
When Ms Cobden-Sanderson was arrested and imprisoned in Holloway, following a demonstration for women's suffrage, Le Droit Humain sent the following message.
'This Lodge desires to to convey the assurance of its sympathy for Sister Cobden-Sanderson in her present suffering and self-sacrifice in the cause of equality for the sexes, and to express admiration for her courage and endurance in conditions so trying.'
With regards to accountability. Yes, Freemasons publish accounts and reports. They are accountable to the Charities Commission and comply with charity law. The publications are public information.
The Freemasons are not a secret society. They do however have secrets, concerning the rituals. Of these I have no knowledge as it is not my business, not being a member. However these are traditions that go back to the building of the great Cathedrals, when a journeymen identified himself by sign language. Freemasons also comply with the Data Protection Act and protect members personal information. If any member becomes a councillor he declares it as an interest along with any other societies he/she supports. Freemasons comply with the laws of the country like any other respectable mutual aid/charitable organisation.
I hope this clarifies some of your points Tim.
1) Yes. Most lodges in this country are single sex, but there are masonic lodges for women and I have met lady masons in both Cumbria and Hertfordshire.
2) Yes, the masons publish reports of their activities: you can find masonic centres in the phone book and masonic websites on the internet, and much of the information they publish is available to non-masons.
3) I don't know how you would define a "totally transparent organisation" which sounds like a counsel of perfection, but in terms of publishing who their officers are, their accounts, and what they do, the masons compare favourably with most similar social and charitable organisations.
(I was going to say that IMHO the freemasons are considerably more open than some political parties but you could probably argue that political parties ought to be a lot more transparent and open, and I would probably agree with you!
Anonymous - if I was afraid of debate I could have put comment moderation on this blog and blocked any hostile posts (instead of only removing the ones I think are offensive or expose me to a risk of libel action).
I work extremely hard to represent the ward, and as for your paranoid suggestion about protecting "my interests" this dos not make sense. Where there is a conflict of interest I always declare it.
What have you done about any of the numerous, Legal, Planning and Health and Safety breaches by Whitehaven Golf Club? Absolutely nothing, you have went and hid for fear of upsetting the golfing fraternity, you are protecting your own interests, you are certainly not upholding democratic accountability.
It is a matter of public record that I have raised planning issues relating to the mounds and the dry stone wall at full council.
It is also a matter of public record that, at a seperate full council meeting following your challenge to the council's accounts, I asked for lessons to be learned from the terms on which the lease was originally sold, and that it was agreed that this would be taken on board.
Both I and Cllr Carroll made several attempts to meet you on site so you could show us why you thought the current arrangements for the golf driving range were dangerous. Not having succeeded in obtaining your agreement to meet us on site, we went round ourselves and could not see any Health or Safety issue.
If you want to disagree with my view of the site that's your prerogative, but to suggest that I have not done anything about the issues on the site is not true, and you know perfectly well that it is not true.
As for your remarks that "we went round ourselves and could not see any Health or Safety issue", this is because you’re incompetent Chris, the signs are big enough. Since 2006 Cumbria County Council has corruptly imposed a banning Order on the public because of the illegal hazard. The Secretary of State has repeatedly extended this banning Order because of the illegal hazard. But you couldn't see it so it doesn't exist.
The level of competence of you and your colleagues (of all flavours), never mind the Officers, beggars belief. You want us to trust you in making decisions about the dumping of Nuclear Waste when you're quite content for raw effluent to be dumped on the Golf Course, you're quite happy for them to be dumping effluent from the new club house in the River Keekle. The Council is an absolute joke.
Didn't you say "Copeland’s living, breathing countryside is one of our greatest assets, and we must protect it", you certainly aren't. It’s the same old story, you make the right noises but do nothing.
In the circumstances I can understand why you are not happy with Copeland planners or a certain High Court judge, but the list of people you've fallen out with also includes all other Copeland officers, various county officers, health and safety professionals, national organisations representing ramblers, councillors of all parties at both district and county levels, and the District Auditor.
And when you disagree with people you usually do so, as you have done on this thread, in terms sufficiently aggressive that only people like me who have a hide like Chobbham Armour will still engage with you.
I will repeat the offer which I made a year or two ago: meet me onsite at the Golf Course and show me why you think the health and safety officers are wrong or how they have failed to comply with the H&S recommendations and if you can convince me that there is a hazard I'll take the matter up.
Incidentally one consequence of the fuss which I and other councillors have made about poor planning enforcement, including on the Golf Course (which is one of the points where I agree with you) is that we now have a decicated enforcement officer. His work during his first year in post was reviewed at an Overview and Scrutiny meeting last week.
I don't believe the unacceptable incompetence by which the Golf Course was allowed to be built in the very location for which permission had been initially refused would happen today.
I will repeat the offer I made to you a couple of years ago: meet me on site and show me why the Health and Safety recommendations are inadequate, or how they are being broken, and if you can convince me I will take the matter up.
Or perhaps you could point out to me or email me details of the effluent issue, which I don't think we had discussed prior to your blog post a few days ago.
The ‘danger to the public’ is solely due the Golf Club’s illegally created Driving Range.
I will spell it out for you - WE THE PUBLIC SHOULD NOT HAVE OUR RIGHTS REVOKED BECAUSE OF THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES OF THE GOLF. Action should be taken against the Golf Club to remove the Hazard and not against the public removing our rights because of a hazard they have illegally created. If I am wrong here please tell me where I am wrong.
If I am correct then how did the original Prohibition Order come to be made?
Cumbria CC refused to take action against the Golf Club for breach of the highways act, why? because Copeland BC refused to take action against the Golf Club over breach of planning conditions.
Cumbria CC Legal Department decided to make an Emergency Prohibition Order to circumvent legal action I was taking against them for failing to act against the Golf Club. Why use an Emergency Prohibition Order? because it could be done without consultation, and it is difficult and expensive to challenge. The “Emergency Prohibition Order” was made by a Highways Engineer employed by Capita who had no lawful authority to make it, it was made over six weeks after the Council were made aware of the Hazard - that’s some Emergency! The Prohibition Order continues in force today because Cumbria CC keep reapplying for it, and all the Secretary of State does is rubber-stamp the Council’s request.
You and your colleagues at Copeland BC and Cumbria CC maybe happy with this blatant corruption of legal processes to revoke the rights of the people of Cumbria and Britain, but we are in the 21st century the law should apply equally to the general public and Golf Clubs.
Now back to this Hazard. The only person that claims there is no Hazard is YOU. Having someone holding your hand and pointing it out to you wont change anything. If YOU honestly do not believe there is a Hazard what have you done to get this corruptly made Prohibition Order revoked? Nothing?
All the details of the breaches of planning conditions can be seen by inspecting the plans and conditions imposed. Lawson’s Dyke impacts daily on thousands of people, the plans are quite clear but the Council and their “dedicated enforcement officer” Nick Hayhurst couldn’t care less about destruction of the landscape.
The details of effluent being dumped on the Golf Course and plans to dump in to a tributary of the River Keekle are contained within the planning applications (planning applications the Council refuse to make readily accessible). Of course Councillors don’t read those do they even if it’s in their ward.
I have been repeatedly lied too by the highest Officers of Copeland BC, Cumbria CC, the Government Office for the North East, and even the District Auditor. I now have a simple rule if in any doubt as to the facts I have been told do a Freedom of Information request for the evidence, very rarely have I found those concerned to have been open and honest. As for Councillors, at the first sign of anything that might upset a few of their electorate they all just run and hide, the only one who stuck his head above the parapet recognising that what I was saying about the Golf Course was correct (I gave him the evidence) and stood up and objected to what was going on, had his head swiftly removed, first by removal from committees then by being given no support by his party at the election. He was concerned about upsetting his party at the outset, he was proven right.
As for you Chris, bleating about things isn’t the same as following things through until a problem is resolved, unfortunately you’re the same as the rest allowing everything to drift. When you start taking action and I see evidence of you getting things done then you might gain some respect, until such a time you will be grouped with the rest of them – all talk – no action.