Daily Mail: With recent police activity, anti-terror adverts and CCTV everywhere no wonder we're all scared stiff

Slug path

asi-in-the-news/asi-in-the-news/daily-mail-with-recent-police-activity-anti-terror-adverts-and-cctv-everywhere-no-wonder-were-all-scared-stiff

Joomla-id

3313

Old Teaser

Written by Dr Eamonn Butler, Director, Adam Smith Institute

Big Brother state? Britain has more CCTV cameras than the rest of Europe put together

So it has now become one of the main causes of anxiety. Among all the other worries that people face  -  the recession, crime, hospital superbugs and terrorism  -  a new fear has emerged: that of the Big Brother state.

According to a survey by the Mental Health Foundation, we are a pretty fearful lot. In fact, more than seven million of us are living with some sort of anxiety problem.

And the proliferation of surveillance equipment such as CCTV cameras (of which we have more than the rest of Europe put together) only makes people more worried of the very things the cameras are designed to tackle: crime and terrorism.

It is ironic that something which is supposed to put our minds at rest has exactly the opposite effect.

But there is also a darker side to the proliferation of monitoring equipment which should also be a cause of great concern to us all.

The evidence can no longer be ignored that after a decade of New Labour, Britain has become a far worse place for honest citizens to live their lives as they please, away from the eyes and ears of the state.

In the name of 'efficiency' and 'national security', our civil liberties have been systematically eroded.

We have calmly allowed our rulers to grab enormous and unprecedented power. They claim it is needed to protect us from criminals, but in fact they are using it to bully and enslave us with a litany of regulation and red tape.

Police and other state officials have turned from our servants into our masters.
Ian Tomlinson

A policeman pushes Ian Tomlinson, who later died, during the G20 protests: 'Police have turned from our servants to our masters', says Eamonn Butler

We have granted these sweeping powers to our rulers on the understanding they would only be used against the most determined and brutal terrorists.

But, in fact, they have been used to browbeat ordinary, honest, tax-paying citizens  -  particularly when they oppose the Government's point of view.

Now they can be used to check on your rubbish bins, an extension to your home, or even that you do actually live where you claim to live when applying to a local school.

If Taliban extremists ever did bring Britain under their control, you might imagine that the first thing they would abolish would be our right to free speech. But they wouldn't need to. We've already done it for them.

It's already a crime to demonstrate your views peacefully, or heckle a politician, or even wear a T-shirt making fun of one.

Meanwhile, the Freedom of Information Act, which is meant to allow us access to what is happening, is under threat of being watered down to the point of being pointless.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is behind plans for a 'super database'

The 7/7 bombings showed that terrorism is a real threat; so is organised crime.

But as Dame Stella Rimington, head of MI5 from 1992 to 1996, has made clear, it is far better to deal with those risks rather than frighten people into accepting new laws that actually enslave us.

Typically, the Home Office has defended its approach as 'proportionate'  -  which simply shows that it has no concept of how authoritarian it has become.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is behind the plans for the new 'super database' to record all our emails, internet searches and phone calls, just in case one of us might be a wrong 'un.

If the police do pick us up, she wants to keep us under interrogation for up to six weeks without trial.

That's worrying, because now the police can arrest us, not just for serious crimes, but for even the most trivial reasons. And with the hundreds of sweeping laws New Labour has brought in, or the 3,609 new offences that it has created since 1997, there's quite a choice.

The police  -  plus 1,407 other official bodies  -  can now impose on-the-spot fines for things as trivial as dropping an apple core. Refuse to pay up and you'll be arrested and tried.

Now, even photographing a policeman could land you with a ten-year jail sentence.

Under Section 76 of the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Act, any picture 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism' is strictly banned.

A new series of ominous TV adverts certainly does nothing to allay people's fears, but rather increases them. The sound of a normal street scene is described as 'the sound of a bomb not going off' because someone had reported some suspicious activity.

While being alert to threat is commendable, there is the danger of making people afraid of just about anything.
TV licensing

Fear: Even TV licence adverts are designed to frighten people into submission

And if you do fall foul of these sweeping new powers, once arrested, your DNA will be swabbed and added to the largest DNA database in the world, with 4.8 million samples.

Youth is no defence. Of the 722,464 swabs taken in 2006-7, some 350,000 were taken from children under 15.

It took a six-month legal battle to get the DNA of one 13-year-old boy, falsely accused of writing graffiti, removed from the database.

In fact, the police are incentivised to make criminals of us, rather than prevent crime.

In London last year, three officers wasted half the night by holding a 19-year-old student for five hours before cautioning him for holding open the door of a lift in an Underground station.

But then police chiefs can get up to £15,000 in annual performance bonuses depending on how many people they spot-fine, caution or charge.

So be careful near the end of the month when they are trying to fill their monthly quotas.

The whole system encourages the police to go after the easy targets  -  the peaceful, unthreatening, decent majority  -  rather than the criminals and terrorists they should focus on.

The TV licensing advertisements sum up this nightmare as eloquently as anything.

We're told in no uncertain terms: 'Your town, your street, your home. It's all in our database. It's impossible to hide.'

Well, I agree that people should pay their taxes. But these bullyboy tactics wouldn't look out of place in Stalin's Russia.

It is impossible to hide. Britain has more CCTV cameras than any other country. The number of speed cameras alone has trebled in the past six years.

Some 800 organisations can have our phones tapped, including, of course, all those local councils who suspect you might be leaving your wheeliebins out too early.

There is something dark in New Labour's psychology that makes it regard such oppression as 'proportionate'. Its need to keep control of a perpetually wayward party mutated into a desire to control a bloodyminded public.

And New Labour really believed it knew what was best for us. If our traditional rights and institutions  -  trial by jury, habeas corpus, Parliament and the judiciary  -  got in the way, they could quite legitimately be swept aside.

This week, more than 100 climate change protesters were arrested before they protested about anything, but just because of what they might do.

So now we are defenceless against even more oppression. And that's not just my view.

In a speech at Exeter University recently, David Blunkett  -  the former Home Secretary  -  warned that a planned government 'super-database', storing people's emails, internet traffic and other personal data, would be a threat to individual rights.

And Sir David Ormand  -  Whitehall's former security and intelligence co-ordinator  -  has warned that the Government's plans to gather ever-increasing amounts of data on citizens 'will involve breaking everyday moral rules'.

The International Commission of Jurists has suggested that countries like Britain were doing the terrorists' jobs for them, enacting laws that undermine the very values and freedoms they claim to be protecting. Even at the highest levels, there is clearly unease at the extent of 'Big Brother Britain'.
Let's hope these alarms are loud enough to wake us up to the full horror of what we've created. No wonder we're all so worried.

Eamonn Butler is Director of the Adam Smith Institute and author of The Rotten State Of Britain published by Gibson Square Books.

Published in the Daily Mail here

BBC: Tom Clougherty on 'In Search of England's Green and Pleasant Land'

Slug path

asi-in-the-news/asi-in-the-news/bbc-tom-clougherty-on-in-search-of-englands-green-and-pleasant-land

Joomla-id

3308

Old Teaser

Click here to watch Tom Clougherty on BBC on In Search of England's Green and Pleasant Land (14:00 minutes)

Expenses give MPs multi-millionaire lifestyle

FOR RELEASE: Monday 13 April 00:01

MPs' generous expenses, index-linked pensions and second-home allowances give them a multi-millionaire lifestyle that their constituents could scarcely dream of, shock figures reveal today.

The effective income of the average MP is £319,165 – nearly 18 times the pay of the average voter, according to Bournemouth University tax expert Richard Teather, who has also produced a 'fat-cat ranking' for each of our Westminster representatives.

In his report, for the independent think-tank the Adam Smith Institute, Teather takes MPs' basic salaries – ranging from£64,766 for backbenchers to £194,000 for the Prime Minister – and adds in their pension rights, another £17,357 for backbenchers, up to £52,059 for Gordon Brown.

But what is the value of all those expenses claims – from barbecues to bathplugs – that the rest of us would never have a hope of getting through our employers, never mind Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs? Teather says that to pocket what the average MP claims in expenses, free of tax and National Insurance, the rest of us would have to earn £228,215.

It all amounts to a total pay package worth £319,165 – and that is just the average. Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy tops the league table with a package of pay, pensions, and expenses worth £423,932 a year. That is more than 28 times the average income of his Torfaen constituents.

On the best interest rate currently available – 1.83% from Birmingham Midshires, you would need over £23 million (£23,165,683) to get an income matching Paul Murphy's annual £423,932. You would need over £17 million (£17,440,710) to earn in interest what the average MP earns from Westminster.

The Fattest and Leanest Cats

The top ten fat cats are all Labour MPs, including Hazel Blears, Jack Straw, David Miliband and Geoff Hoon – recently embroiled in the 'three homes' row –their total income boosted by their ministerial salaries.

Eight out of the leanest ten MPs are Conservatives, including Malcolm Rifkind, John Redwood and Sir Nicholas Winterton – perhaps now chastised after taking £66,000 in expenses for 'rent' on a home owned by his family trust.

The MP who cleans up most from expenses is Ann Keen (Labour, Brentford & Isleworth), whose £167,306 expense claims are worth a staggering £283,569 before tax and National Insurance.

The Keen family is remarkable. Ann's husband Alan Keen is also an MP, with a salary and expenses package worth £330,272, and her sister Sylvia Heal is an MP as well, with a package worth £338,294. That is more than £1m (£1,071,617 in fact) between the three of them.

The Regional Fat Cats

Welsh MPs are the fattest regional cats, with earnings equivalent to £323,068 – over 20 times the pay of their constituents.

The leanest are MPs from London, at £308,881 or nearly 15 times the pay of their constituents – but that is because many London MPs live too near to Westminster to claim a second-home allowance.

Fat Kittens

Along with the £1,000 fireplaces and £550 sinks, MPs' expenses also include the costs of assistants. Teather who is the Adam Smith Institute's Senior Tax Fellow, defends the inclusion of these staff costs in the figures, pointing out that MPs routinely employ family members to boost their household income.

The most blatant was Derek Conway, who claimed for his full-time student son, but the Institute asks whether even Jacqui Smith would pay a non-relation £40,000 a year for the administrative help that her husband provides. The rest of us are challenged by HMRC when we employ relatives, and have to show that their job justifies the pay. But MPs' affairs are dealt with by a special HMRC office in Cardiff, which seems to exempt MPs from this sort of scrutiny.

In addition, much of the work of MPs' assistants involves campaigning for their re-election. Critics of the Parliamentary expenses system see this as corrupt as those MPs who claim their full expenses allowance and then make large donations to their local Party – in effect, a taxpayer subsidy to their political grouping and their general election campaign.

Adam Smith Institute Director, Dr Eamonn Butler, says the figures confirm the claim of his new book, The Rotten State of Britain, that MPs have "conspired in an organized and systematic scam against the public". Richard Teather's figures show just how extensive that scam really is. Dr Butler commented:

"MPs are always embarrassed to raise their salaries, so they decided to take 'stealth salary' instead, as expenses. They organized their affairs to get the maximum benefit – making their sister's spare room their 'main residence' or charging 20p a mile for cycling to Westminster – never imagining for a moment that their expense chits would ever see the light of day.

"How wrong they were. And it is not just the huge range of goods and chattels that they've been claiming for, but the huge scale of the scam that appals their voters. To live like an MP, anyone else would have to be a multi-millionaire."

END

Parliamentary Fatcats 2009 by Richard Teather, with an introduction by Eamonn Butler: http://www.adamsmith.org/parliamentary-fatcats-2009/

Slug path

expenses-give-mps-multi-millionaire-lifestyle

Joomla-id

3418

Sunday Times: Save the tax havens – we need them

Slug path

asi-in-the-news/asi-in-the-news/sunday-times-save-the-tax-havens-we-need-them

Joomla-id

3307

Old Teaser

Written by Dr Eamonn Butler, Director, Adam Smith Institute

What is it about tax havens that makes the G20 leaders so keen to crack down on them? Outrage against all those Russian mafia bosses secretly laundering their prostitution and protection racket money through Luxembourg or disgust at Third World dictators being able to siphon millions of their people’s money into numbered Swiss bank accounts in case they need to make a quick exit one day?

Or is it just envy – the feeling of unfairness that billionaires can sip cocktails on their yachts off Bermuda, paying nothing in tax, while poorer mortals like us have to work and slave?

It’s probably a combination of all three, because G20 politicians have hated tax havens for so long that they’ve started to believe their own spin on the subject. But the business of tax havens is actually far more prosaic than any of these rather exotic images. And the real reason why our leaders hate them is that they simply can’t stand the competition.

If you want to pay less tax – as about five billion of the world’s population doubtless do – you have two options. You can evade taxes, concealing your income from the authorities, which is, of course, illegal. Or you can avoid taxes, which is perfectly legal. You might simply claim the full deductions allowed by the tax authorities or maybe move your money into a place where taxes are lower.

It’s avoiders, not evaders, who are the tax havens’ staple customers. The image of drug money being washed through the Cayman Islands is the stuff of thrillers rather than reality. Criminals generally launder money at home because it’s far riskier to move it across borders. The bread and butter of tax havens is people like you or me, who put their modest life savings into a respected investment company in the Isle of Man. And we do it because that way our savings don’t get clobbered for capital gains tax every time our account manager decides to sell one batch of shares and buy another.

Few honest people have qualms against clamping down on criminals. But despite all the Godfather-style spin, it’s actually the rest of us whom the politicians want to clamp down on. They figure – correctly – that if we remain at liberty to put our money in the Virgin Islands or some other place where taxes are lower, we are likely to do just that. And our ability to escape puts limits on just how much they can tax us.

This explains why even Gordon Brown is calling for curbs on tax havens, despite the fact that many of them, including the Channel Islands, are British dependencies. Other countries want even tougher sanctions.

It’s pure financial protectionism. The G20 leaders signed a communiqué praising free trade and deploring anticompetitive barriers in goods and services. That’s because leaders don’t make goods and services. But they do make taxes and are really keen to keep out the competition in that sector. They don’t mind us shopping around the world for the cheapest goods, but they certainly do mind us shopping around for the cheapest taxes.

They have only themselves to blame. It’s not just that governments seem unable to rein in their bureaucracies and keep their costs under control. It’s that they have made taxes so complicated. The last time I looked, the UK tax code ran to 9,973 pages, and that was back in 2007. Complexity inevitably creates loopholes – which lean, nimble tax havens are delighted to help people exploit.

Many countries have lower taxes on foreigners who invest there. That’s because they figure their own residents are largely captive. But they know that international investors can put their money anywhere in the world, so countries have to make themselves attractive in order to pull them in. When you have two different tax rates for the same thing, however, you must expect trouble. And you get it. What happens is that domestic investors simply send their money to a tax haven, then send it back again as if it were “foreign" investment and pocket the difference in the rates.

You can’t blame the tax havens for this kind of wheeze. The root cause is high and complicated taxes. The surest way for the G20 to get rid of tax havens would be to cut and simplify their own taxes – to take on the competition directly.

Until they do, that competition serves a useful purpose for the public. It does make politicians think twice about adding to tax rates or complexity. In particular it limits the burden they can put on savings and investment – the engine of economic growth.

If tax havens boast some of the highest living standards on the planet, that’s got very little to do with money laundering. It’s because low taxes encourage enterprise, stimulate growth and promote personal freedom, too. Rather than trying to kill tax havens, wouldn’t the world be better if our politicians instead sought to beat them at their own game?

Published in the Sunday Times here

Mail on Sunday: The survey's shocking figures that show exactly how much MPs earn compared to an average constituent

Slug path

asi-in-the-news/asi-in-the-news/daily-mail-the-surveys-shocking-figures-that-show-exactly-how-much-mps-earn-compared-to-an-average-constituent

Joomla-id

3306

Old Teaser

Nothing demonstrates more clearly the gulf between MPs and the real world of their constituents than the difference between their feather-bedded pay and conditions and ours.

For the rest of us to pocket the amount that the average MP claims in expenses, we would have to earn £228,215 before tax and national insurance.

None of us has a hope of getting past our bosses the sort of tax-free perks that MPs claim – never mind getting them past HM Revenue & Customs.

To calculate what MPs really get, we start with their salary, which – like you and me – they pay tax on. Then we add what taxpayers contribute to the MPs’ gold-plated pension scheme – 26.8 per cent of salaries. Pensions expert Ros Altman has called it ‘the most generous pension just about anywhere in the world’.

Then we add the expenses that MPs claim for things such as buying their second homes – and furnishing them in style from the infamous ‘John Lewis list’ – as well as their travel between those homes and Westminster and to and from constituency offices.

This figure includes what MPs claim in salaries for their staff and researchers, who are often family members and involved mostly in political campaigning. Then we work out what MPs would have to earn to take home that amount if – like you and me – they had to pay 40 per cent tax and one per cent National Insurance on the income.

This all shows that to live like an MP, the rest of us would have to be earning hundreds of thousands a year.

Published in the Mail on Sunday here

Sunday Times: Alistair Darling swings the axe

Slug path

asi-in-the-news/asi-in-the-news/sunday-times-alistair-darling-swings-the-axe

Joomla-id

3305

Old Teaser

For longer-term gains, Tom Clougherty, executive director of the Adam Smith Institute, the Thatcher-ite think tank, would be bolder. “There’s plenty of government spending that could be ditched altogether," he said. “Do we need a business department that does nothing for business at £3 billion a year? Do we need to spend £3 billion on culture?"

Published in the Sunday Times here

Sunday Herald: Children of the revolution

Slug path

asi-in-the-news/asi-in-the-news/sunday-herald-children-of-the-revolution

Joomla-id

3304

Old Teaser

Everyone underestimated Thatcher's resolve to deregulate and break the power of the state. Like council house sales, privatisation had been the preserve of right-wing think tanks, such as the Adam Smith Institute. Most economists believed that a modern economy required significant state ownership to regulate the free market.

Published in the Sunday Herald here

Telegraph.co.uk: Happy Easter! Hundreds of CCTV cameras are watching you this Good Friday

Slug path

asi-in-the-news/asi-in-the-news/telegraphcouk-happy-easter-hundreds-of-cctv-cameras-are-watching-you-this-good-friday

Joomla-id

3286

Old Teaser

Eamonn Butler, a director of the Adam Smith Institute, has just completed what he calls an "alternative Easter egg hunt for CCTV cameras" on the ancient Procession route from Westminster Abbey to Westminster Cathedral... Mr Butler, author of the Rotten State of Britain, walked the Procession this week and counted 155 CCTV cameras. "If I had better eyesight and a pair of binoculars, I could probably have spotted more. But with binoculars looking at CCTV cameras, I'd probably have been arrested."

Published on Telegraph.co.uk here

Evening Standard: Boris rejects bid to build housing on Green Belt

Slug path

asi-in-the-news/asi-in-the-news/evening-standard-boris-rejects-bid-to-build-housing-on-green-belt

Joomla-id

3282

Old Teaser

The idea to ease the capital's housing shortage will be studied in a BBC documentary called England's Green and Pleasant Land which will be shown on Easter Monday. Proposed by the independent Adam Smith Institute, the idea is that woodlands are created alongside housing developments.

Published in The Evening Standard here

Telegraph.co.uk: No wonder we fear and hate children

Slug path

asi-in-the-news/asi-in-the-news/telegraphcouk-no-wonder-we-fear-and-hate-children

Joomla-id

3265

Old Teaser

In his excellent new book, The Rotten State of Britain, Eamonn Butler points out that throughout history every generation has complained about the next. What is new is a welfare state that has absolved parents, especially fathers, of responsibility for their offspring, a system that encourages unsuitable people to have children and then discard them (people who the RSPCA would not allow to keep pets), and one in which the law does not back up adults who discipline children.

Published on Telegraph.co.uk here