Second Home Tax

I don't often agree with the French, but I must admit a sneaking admiration for Sarkozy's latest wheeze for raising some tax revenues. He's going to tax second homes.

There are about 200,000 Brits n France who own holiday homes there. Sarkozy proposes to hit them with a 20% tax based on the rental value of that property. This means that a £350,000 two bedroom house in Normandy would attract an additional property tax of around £700 per annum. The new tax comes in to effect in January next year.

Understandably, the poor hard up owners of the these SECOND homes are up in arms, bleating that having to find an extra grand so they can maintain TWO houses will bankrupt them and force them to sell! This is, of course, complete and utter bullshit. If you can afford £350,000 for a spare house, then you can afford £700 in extra taxes.

We have an extensive building program in this country to house our expanding population. For some time now I have felt that it is obscene that houses stand empty because rich people - and frankly anyone who can afford two homes can in no way be considered poor - want to own a status symbol. Fair enough, if you can afford two houses, then I support your right to do so. This is, after all, a democracy. But please don't insult my intelligence by telling me you can't afford to pay for the privilege.

In the north of Norfolk, there are dozens of villages blighted by the second homes of Londoners looking for a weekend or holiday retreat. These towns are deserted during the week. If locals wanted to live there they would find no local economy because the weekenders bring all their stuff with them. House prices are pushed beyond their reach because of the demand for boltholes. There is little or no commerce or industry.

It is a national scandal that there are people in this country who cannot afford a home while we blight vast areas with holiday homes for the affluent.

So I am with Sarkozy on this one. Let's think about putting a few billion in the tax coffers by taxing second homes in this country. The owners can afford it...

Second Home Tax

I don't often agree with the French, but I must admit a sneaking admiration for Sarkozy's latest wheeze for raising some tax revenues. He's going to tax second homes.

There are about 200,000 Brits n France who own holiday homes there. Sarkozy proposes to hit them with a 20% tax based on the rental value of that property. This means that a £350,000 two bedroom house in Normandy would attract an additional property tax of around £700 per annum. The new tax comes in to effect in January next year.

Understandably, the poor hard up owners of the these SECOND homes are up in arms, bleating that having to find an extra grand so they can maintain TWO houses will bankrupt them and force them to sell! This is, of course, complete and utter bullshit. If you can afford £350,000 for a spare house, then you can afford £700 in extra taxes.

We have an extensive building program in this country to house our expanding population. For some time now I have felt that it is obscene that houses stand empty because rich people - and frankly anyone who can afford two homes can in no way be considered poor - want to own a status symbol. Fair enough, if you can afford two houses, then I support your right to do so. This is, after all, a democracy. But please don't insult my intelligence by telling me you can't afford to pay for the privilege.

In the north of Norfolk, there are dozens of villages blighted by the second homes of Londoners looking for a weekend or holiday retreat. These towns are deserted during the week. If locals wanted to live there they would find no local economy because the weekenders bring all their stuff with them. House prices are pushed beyond their reach because of the demand for boltholes. There is little or no commerce or industry.

It is a national scandal that there are people in this country who cannot afford a home while we blight vast areas with holiday homes for the affluent.

So I am with Sarkozy on this one. Let's think about putting a few billion in the tax coffers by taxing second homes in this country. The owners can afford it...

Green tax

No doubt about it..... Chris Huhne is definitely off his rocker!

The latest blockbuster from this totally out-of-touch-with-reality fuckwit is that we should increase Council Tax bills for people who don't insulate their homes.

The Lib Dem minister said he expected councils to favour households who made their properties more energy efficient.

He told MPs on the environmental audit committee that councils could help reduce carbon emissions by subsidising green households at the expense of those who don’t insulate lofts or install double glazing.

Now you might well think that this is complete ecoCrap pie in the sky. And you'd be right.

Exactly how are councils expected to implement this ridiculous idea? Even if it was practical, in a time of economic austerity, it would cost millions more to assess and collect than the revenue it would generate...

None of this, of course, occurs to Huhne because he's just here to save the planet.

Thankfully, Eric Pickles dismissed the idea by pointing out that people were fed up with Council Tax rises and had no appetite for any more.

I think that's a polite way of telling him to bugger off...

Green tax

No doubt about it..... Chris Huhne is definitely off his rocker!

The latest blockbuster from this totally out-of-touch-with-reality fuckwit is that we should increase Council Tax bills for people who don't insulate their homes.

The Lib Dem minister said he expected councils to favour households who made their properties more energy efficient.

He told MPs on the environmental audit committee that councils could help reduce carbon emissions by subsidising green households at the expense of those who don’t insulate lofts or install double glazing.

Now you might well think that this is complete ecoCrap pie in the sky. And you'd be right.

Exactly how are councils expected to implement this ridiculous idea? Even if it was practical, in a time of economic austerity, it would cost millions more to assess and collect than the revenue it would generate...

None of this, of course, occurs to Huhne because he's just here to save the planet.

Thankfully, Eric Pickles dismissed the idea by pointing out that people were fed up with Council Tax rises and had no appetite for any more.

I think that's a polite way of telling him to bugger off...

Happy New Year!

Yes, I know it's April - but for some of us sad buggers, it's new year. I refer of course to the New Tax Year.

Out with the old and in with the new! Just when you've seen the last of the bloody bank and building societies trying to ram ISAs down your throat, along comes that lovely brown envelope 'inviting' you to submit a tax return.

Now for many of you, this is most likely not a problem, but for us old farts that are trying desperately to make ends meet with our meagre pensions and even more meagre savings this is pretty much the last straw. I don't have a huge income, but what there is is spread around all over the place in little bits, so the result is that I always end up overpaying tax and then having to claim it back again every April.

HMRC are now so piddled with me doing this every year, that they like to launch a pre-emptive strike. Hence their kind 'invitation'. Somehow, only our esteemed Revenue Service could cock up your taxes, then send you a demand to fill in a return and tell you that it's an 'invitation'.

So, fresh off the blocks this afternoon I shall be sending off the usual letters, making the usual phone calls and sending the e-mails that are required for me to gather in all the supporting paperwork that enables me to compose this annual extravaganza. It's a absolute pain in the neck, so if Boy George reckons he can simplify the system, then good luck to him. He gets my support - even if I will believe it when I see it.

To be fair to HMRC, once the claim is in the cheque comes pretty quickly. That's about the only good thing I have to say about it all.

Now, where's that strong black coffee?...

Happy New Year!

Yes, I know it's April - but for some of us sad buggers, it's new year. I refer of course to the New Tax Year.

Out with the old and in with the new! Just when you've seen the last of the bloody bank and building societies trying to ram ISAs down your throat, along comes that lovely brown envelope 'inviting' you to submit a tax return.

Now for many of you, this is most likely not a problem, but for us old farts that are trying desperately to make ends meet with our meagre pensions and even more meagre savings this is pretty much the last straw. I don't have a huge income, but what there is is spread around all over the place in little bits, so the result is that I always end up overpaying tax and then having to claim it back again every April.

HMRC are now so piddled with me doing this every year, that they like to launch a pre-emptive strike. Hence their kind 'invitation'. Somehow, only our esteemed Revenue Service could cock up your taxes, then send you a demand to fill in a return and tell you that it's an 'invitation'.

So, fresh off the blocks this afternoon I shall be sending off the usual letters, making the usual phone calls and sending the e-mails that are required for me to gather in all the supporting paperwork that enables me to compose this annual extravaganza. It's a absolute pain in the neck, so if Boy George reckons he can simplify the system, then good luck to him. He gets my support - even if I will believe it when I see it.

To be fair to HMRC, once the claim is in the cheque comes pretty quickly. That's about the only good thing I have to say about it all.

Now, where's that strong black coffee?...

That penny off petrol...

Let's see if we can cut through the bullshit about petrol duty by taking an objective look at the pros and cons of Boy George's duty cut...

There's been a lot of hoo-hah about petrol stations putting up the cost of fuel on Wednesday morning just so they could put it down again in the afternoon and pocket the penny a litre. The retailers quite reasonably say that the 1p cut in duty won't actually be passed on untill they get their next delivery, because they already paid the 1p on the stock in their tanks. This is a perfectly reasonable argument.

However, this should mean that over the next few days prices start to come down. Call me a cycnic, but I will believe it when I see it.

And whilst we are on this subject, there is VAT on this duty at 20% so we should see prices go down by 1.2p per litre. Anyone like to place a bet on how many petrol stations will be displaying .7 instead of .9 at the end of their prices? Do let me know if you spot one.

Osbourne says he has cut duty by 6p a litre. Well sorry, George, but that's rubbish. You cannot claim that cancelling Labour's extra penny and not implementing the 4p escalator - for which, incidentally, the statutory requirement was abolished many years ago - is a cut. On that basis, I've cut the sale price of my car by £1,000 because I was going to ask £1,000 more. If you haven't added it yet, then not adding it is a fair point, but claiming it as a cut is arrant nonsense.

The retailers claim that the increase Wednesday morning was a coincidence because wholesale prices had risen anyway. I don't buy that. It's profiteering. It's treating us as mugs. Just like the energy companies, petrol retailers are quick to increase prices when the costs go up and slow to drop them when the costs go down. We fall for it every time because, frankly, we have no choice.

But with petrol we do. Some time ago there was a campaign to boycott the largest suppliers and force them to lower their prices. I think this is a good idea. Let's pick one - say, BP - and see what happens when their forecourts are empty.

I'd like to think this would work, but I expect that the great British public will do what they always do - go down the pub for a pint and a good moan...

That penny off petrol...

Let's see if we can cut through the bullshit about petrol duty by taking an objective look at the pros and cons of Boy George's duty cut...

There's been a lot of hoo-hah about petrol stations putting up the cost of fuel on Wednesday morning just so they could put it down again in the afternoon and pocket the penny a litre. The retailers quite reasonably say that the 1p cut in duty won't actually be passed on untill they get their next delivery, because they already paid the 1p on the stock in their tanks. This is a perfectly reasonable argument.

However, this should mean that over the next few days prices start to come down. Call me a cycnic, but I will believe it when I see it.

And whilst we are on this subject, there is VAT on this duty at 20% so we should see prices go down by 1.2p per litre. Anyone like to place a bet on how many petrol stations will be displaying .7 instead of .9 at the end of their prices? Do let me know if you spot one.

Osbourne says he has cut duty by 6p a litre. Well sorry, George, but that's rubbish. You cannot claim that cancelling Labour's extra penny and not implementing the 4p escalator - for which, incidentally, the statutory requirement was abolished many years ago - is a cut. On that basis, I've cut the sale price of my car by £1,000 because I was going to ask £1,000 more. If you haven't added it yet, then not adding it is a fair point, but claiming it as a cut is arrant nonsense.

The retailers claim that the increase Wednesday morning was a coincidence because wholesale prices had risen anyway. I don't buy that. It's profiteering. It's treating us as mugs. Just like the energy companies, petrol retailers are quick to increase prices when the costs go up and slow to drop them when the costs go down. We fall for it every time because, frankly, we have no choice.

But with petrol we do. Some time ago there was a campaign to boycott the largest suppliers and force them to lower their prices. I think this is a good idea. Let's pick one - say, BP - and see what happens when their forecourts are empty.

I'd like to think this would work, but I expect that the great British public will do what they always do - go down the pub for a pint and a good moan...

International Climate Week

Did you know that this week was International Climate Week? No.? Well, until I saw it on the BBC breakfast programme yesterday morning, nor did I.

Apparently, Monday 21 March 2011, marked the start of the UK’s first ever Climate Week. It is a new national occasion, backed by the Prime Minister, has-been eco knobhead Al Gore and celebrities such as Paul McCartney, as well as "a huge number of people and organisations from every part of society".

Climate Week apparently provides an opportunity to raise awareness and highlight and inspire innovative ideas which will help protect our planet and the people who live on it. As far as I can see it has failed spectacularly!

Basically, it's a bit of touchy feely bullshit thought up by the Department for International Development. You can read about it by clicking here. I especially like the flash at the head of the site where it thanks 'British Taxpayers' which I found particularly offensive. No bugger asked me if they could give my money away at a time when I need it myself.

Apparently this amazingly inconspicuous set of events is sponsored by Tesco, Kelloggs, French energy supplier EDF (Hmmmm...is this appropriate?) and RBS which you will remember is also funded by the taxpayer. Still, it did get an award for "Best Initiative for a Government or Statutory body (see here) as did HM Revenue and Customs for "making environmental targets a departmental priority.

I am tempted to say that collecting tax from loads of people who haven't paid up might be a better priority for HMRC because, after all, they haven't contributed to this piece of pathetic self aggrandisement - it's just us mugs...

International Climate Week

Did you know that this week was International Climate Week? No.? Well, until I saw it on the BBC breakfast programme yesterday morning, nor did I.

Apparently, Monday 21 March 2011, marked the start of the UK’s first ever Climate Week. It is a new national occasion, backed by the Prime Minister, has-been eco knobhead Al Gore and celebrities such as Paul McCartney, as well as "a huge number of people and organisations from every part of society".

Climate Week apparently provides an opportunity to raise awareness and highlight and inspire innovative ideas which will help protect our planet and the people who live on it. As far as I can see it has failed spectacularly!

Basically, it's a bit of touchy feely bullshit thought up by the Department for International Development. You can read about it by clicking here. I especially like the flash at the head of the site where it thanks 'British Taxpayers' which I found particularly offensive. No bugger asked me if they could give my money away at a time when I need it myself.

Apparently this amazingly inconspicuous set of events is sponsored by Tesco, Kelloggs, French energy supplier EDF (Hmmmm...is this appropriate?) and RBS which you will remember is also funded by the taxpayer. Still, it did get an award for "Best Initiative for a Government or Statutory body (see here) as did HM Revenue and Customs for "making environmental targets a departmental priority.

I am tempted to say that collecting tax from loads of people who haven't paid up might be a better priority for HMRC because, after all, they haven't contributed to this piece of pathetic self aggrandisement - it's just us mugs...

Osbourne's petrol U-turn

Incredible as it my seem, the Mighty Milipede's mouthpieces are accusing chancellor George Osbourne of doing a U-turn on petrol duty!

Their bleet relates to the Consevative promise to introduce a fuel price stabiliser mechanism in their election manifesto. They accuse the government of going back on this promise.

The price of petrol has hit £1.35 a litre due to the price of crude and the increases in VAT to 20% so Osbourne - as far as I can see in an effort to keep his promise - is considering reversing Alistair Darling's increase of 1p per litre due to come in in April.

It will come as no surprise to you to know that the Milipede is not anxious to describe this 1p change as a U-turn!

The scrapping of Labour's post dated tax rise is seem as an opportunity to be shown willing to find a working system and to allow time for the mechanics of that system to be ironed out. Business Secretary Vince Cable told reporters at Westminster that while a fuel stabiliser ‘could be made to work’ it would be difficult, ‘because what is the price around which you set the ups and downs (of the oil price)?’ He added: ‘There are real technical difficulties in operating such a system.’

Mr Osborne is determined to use his Budget on March 23 to respond to public disquiet about petrol prices.

For Labour, shadow transport secretary Maria Eagle said: "The Conservative-led government is all over the place on fuel prices. Each week ministers raise expectations of action but they've still done nothing. Warm words from George Osborne about a 1p change on fuel duty are all well and good, but families are paying 3p a litre more at the pump because of the VAT rise he chose to bring in."

Here at least is one senior Labour figure who fails to remember that it is Labour's 1p it is proposed to scrap and that Labour intended to raise VAT to 19%.

People who live in glass houses, really shouldn't throw stones...

Osbourne's petrol U-turn

Incredible as it my seem, the Mighty Milipede's mouthpieces are accusing chancellor George Osbourne of doing a U-turn on petrol duty!

Their bleet relates to the Consevative promise to introduce a fuel price stabiliser mechanism in their election manifesto. They accuse the government of going back on this promise.

The price of petrol has hit £1.35 a litre due to the price of crude and the increases in VAT to 20% so Osbourne - as far as I can see in an effort to keep his promise - is considering reversing Alistair Darling's increase of 1p per litre due to come in in April.

It will come as no surprise to you to know that the Milipede is not anxious to describe this 1p change as a U-turn!

The scrapping of Labour's post dated tax rise is seem as an opportunity to be shown willing to find a working system and to allow time for the mechanics of that system to be ironed out. Business Secretary Vince Cable told reporters at Westminster that while a fuel stabiliser ‘could be made to work’ it would be difficult, ‘because what is the price around which you set the ups and downs (of the oil price)?’ He added: ‘There are real technical difficulties in operating such a system.’

Mr Osborne is determined to use his Budget on March 23 to respond to public disquiet about petrol prices.

For Labour, shadow transport secretary Maria Eagle said: "The Conservative-led government is all over the place on fuel prices. Each week ministers raise expectations of action but they've still done nothing. Warm words from George Osborne about a 1p change on fuel duty are all well and good, but families are paying 3p a litre more at the pump because of the VAT rise he chose to bring in."

Here at least is one senior Labour figure who fails to remember that it is Labour's 1p it is proposed to scrap and that Labour intended to raise VAT to 19%.

People who live in glass houses, really shouldn't throw stones...

"Vat's the way to do it.."

I have become very angry over the last 24 hours listening to the absolute bollocks that has been peddled by TV news (ITV and BBC for a change) about yesterday's increase in VAT.

Let's look at some of the quotes that have been shown in interviews with politicians and on the street vox pops :

"My business will suffer because the increase in VAT will leave people with less disposable income" - absolute bollocks. It will have no effect whatsoever on disposable income as it is a tax on spending not income. Nice scaremongering though.

"I'm worried about the increase in food prices." This from a student. As there is no VAT on food, the only reason I can think of for believing this - apart from the fact that he may possibly be a brian washed leftie that believes Milipede propaganda - is that a student's version of food comes across the bar or in takeaway wrappers. That's not real food, mate, so it doesn't count. Learn to cook!

"We're no going to be able to go out down the pub with our mates or eat out when we want. It's not fair!" I think that just about sums up the out of touch with reality element in this country.

"A family on £25,000 a year is going to be £396 a year worse off." Now what the fuck do you base that on? Needless to say the calculation is not explained. As VAT is on spending not income, exactly how are we able to make this comparison? Lies, damn lies and statistics...

"It hits the poorest families more than the rich." More bollocks. It's nonsensical to look at the effect on earnings as it is a tax on spending. If I earn a million quid a year and spend sod all, then there is no VAT. Ditto if I earn fifteen grand. More accurately, you should look at the effect on spending power and not income. When you do this, it actually hits the richest worst.

"Comsumer groups warn that businesses will put up prices by between 5 and 8 per cent not just the 2.5% VAT element." Well for a start the actual increase is less than 2.5% because it's on the NET figure not the figure that already includes tax. Furthermore, if this is the case, it is called PROFITEERING and that is fuck all to do with the VAT increase - it's just opportunistic greed!

Miliband says it is the wrong tax at the wrong time. He refuses at all junctures to answer the question "What would you do instead?" This is because the only viable alternative is National Insurance - and that really does hit the poorest worst because it hits their wage packets and employers' wages bills.

He also conveniently forgets that the last Labour government tried to raise VAT twice but the move was blocked by Gordon Brown. And the perpetrator of the idea was - er - Ed Miliband.

One word of common sense came from a pensioner : "We've all got to pull our horns in 'cos we've got no money. Labour spent it all. Anyway, we've managed before and we'll do it again"

That last one was on the local news. I'll bet it doesn't make the nationals...

"Vat's the way to do it.."

I have become very angry over the last 24 hours listening to the absolute bollocks that has been peddled by TV news (ITV and BBC for a change) about yesterday's increase in VAT.

Let's look at some of the quotes that have been shown in interviews with politicians and on the street vox pops :

"My business will suffer because the increase in VAT will leave people with less disposable income" - absolute bollocks. It will have no effect whatsoever on disposable income as it is a tax on spending not income. Nice scaremongering though.

"I'm worried about the increase in food prices." This from a student. As there is no VAT on food, the only reason I can think of for believing this - apart from the fact that he may possibly be a brian washed leftie that believes Milipede propaganda - is that a student's version of food comes across the bar or in takeaway wrappers. That's not real food, mate, so it doesn't count. Learn to cook!

"We're no going to be able to go out down the pub with our mates or eat out when we want. It's not fair!" I think that just about sums up the out of touch with reality element in this country.

"A family on £25,000 a year is going to be £396 a year worse off." Now what the fuck do you base that on? Needless to say the calculation is not explained. As VAT is on spending not income, exactly how are we able to make this comparison? Lies, damn lies and statistics...

"It hits the poorest families more than the rich." More bollocks. It's nonsensical to look at the effect on earnings as it is a tax on spending. If I earn a million quid a year and spend sod all, then there is no VAT. Ditto if I earn fifteen grand. More accurately, you should look at the effect on spending power and not income. When you do this, it actually hits the richest worst.

"Comsumer groups warn that businesses will put up prices by between 5 and 8 per cent not just the 2.5% VAT element." Well for a start the actual increase is less than 2.5% because it's on the NET figure not the figure that already includes tax. Furthermore, if this is the case, it is called PROFITEERING and that is fuck all to do with the VAT increase - it's just opportunistic greed!

Miliband says it is the wrong tax at the wrong time. He refuses at all junctures to answer the question "What would you do instead?" This is because the only viable alternative is National Insurance - and that really does hit the poorest worst because it hits their wage packets and employers' wages bills.

He also conveniently forgets that the last Labour government tried to raise VAT twice but the move was blocked by Gordon Brown. And the perpetrator of the idea was - er - Ed Miliband.

One word of common sense came from a pensioner : "We've all got to pull our horns in 'cos we've got no money. Labour spent it all. Anyway, we've managed before and we'll do it again"

That last one was on the local news. I'll bet it doesn't make the nationals...

How to solve bankers' bonuses

OK - let's cut through the bullshit...

Here's the problem : how do we solve the problem of bankers paying themselves fucking great bonuses whilst at the same time allowing them to carry on paying themselves fucking great bonuses?

Simples, init? This is how we do it :

The income tax rate at £100,000 plus is 50%

Employer's NHI contributions run at 12.8%

Corporation tax is payable on profits at 28% - which incidentally is too low!

What we do is this - we make bankers bonuses non-deductible when calculating corporation tax and subject to employers' NI whether they are paid in cash or not. This means all bonuses over £100,000 will return 90.8% to the country.

Frankly, we could put large company corporation tax back to 40% (which is where it was under Gordon), and leave small companies paying 20%. Then the taxpayer would get 102.8% - which is much more like it! So a £1m bonus would mean the recipent still gets £372,000 but the exchequer gets £1,028,000 in tax and NI.

Also this takes CT from big companies that can afford it and gives incentives to smaller companies who are stifled by it. So a boost for the economy and job creation as well...

So there you go Vince and George! Problem solved!

Got the balls to go for it?

How to solve bankers' bonuses

OK - let's cut through the bullshit...

Here's the problem : how do we solve the problem of bankers paying themselves fucking great bonuses whilst at the same time allowing them to carry on paying themselves fucking great bonuses?

Simples, init? This is how we do it :

The income tax rate at £100,000 plus is 50%

Employer's NHI contributions run at 12.8%

Corporation tax is payable on profits at 28% - which incidentally is too low!

What we do is this - we make bankers bonuses non-deductible when calculating corporation tax and subject to employers' NI whether they are paid in cash or not. This means all bonuses over £100,000 will return 90.8% to the country.

Frankly, we could put large company corporation tax back to 40% (which is where it was under Gordon), and leave small companies paying 20%. Then the taxpayer would get 102.8% - which is much more like it! So a £1m bonus would mean the recipent still gets £372,000 but the exchequer gets £1,028,000 in tax and NI.

Also this takes CT from big companies that can afford it and gives incentives to smaller companies who are stifled by it. So a boost for the economy and job creation as well...

So there you go Vince and George! Problem solved!

Got the balls to go for it?

Get real, Rowan...

Will no-one rid us of this turbulent priest?

I am well known for my views on organised religion and the Catholic Church in particular, but when I reviewed the patronising and out of touch remarks made the Archpisspot of Cunterbury in his Christmas sermon, then the words of Henry II just seemed to come echoing back to me!

So, in the interests of evening things up with the Kafliks, lets take a look at what the man in the teacloth had to say for himself :

"Faced with the hardship that quite clearly lies ahead for so many in the wake of financial crisis and public spending cuts, how far are we able to sustain a living sense of loyalty to each other, a real willingness to bear the load together?" Do what, Rowan? Exactly how much are you and your church contributing?

"We can and will as a society bear hardship if we are confident that it is being fairly shared." OK, Rowan, I'll give that one, but then you go on to say "...no interest group or pressure group is able to opt out" - well. apart from the Church of England that is.

"God, it seems, knows that whatever limitation and humiliation our human freedom lays on him, we cannot live without him; and he accepts everything for the sake of our well-being." So exactly what exactly is He doing for us - and incidentally Rowan I notice that on your website you have demoted the Allmighty to lower case 'he' which I would have thought was a little disrespectful? He is accepting what and doing what for us exactly? Please do tell, because I see no sign of it.

And please don't lecture me about how the rich need to contribute more than the poor. I have always maintained that incremental taxation already achieves this. If I earn £30,000 I pay 20% tax on it so why should I pay 40% if I earn £60,000? Why should I pay four times as much for earning twice as much. It is already grossly unfair and I don't need some guy who has a grace and favour palace in Lambeth and pays next to fuck all tax to lecture me on this subject!

And what about overseas, Rowan? Well "I remind you of our Zimbabwean friends, still suffering harassment, beatings and arrests, legal pressures and lockouts from their churches." Er, excuse me but I see you used the word 'legal' there. It's not up to you to tell other countries - or indeed our country - to go against what is legal.

And then to make it worse, you continue "Our prayers continue for Asia Bibi in Pakistan and others from minority groups who suffer from the abuse of the law." Seems you don't like the law very much do you?

How about Iraq? "It is a great grace that both Christians and Muslims in this country have joined in expressing their solidarity with this beleaguered minority." What you should be doing, Rowan, is keeping your nose out of other peoples' countries.

Henry II dealt harsely with a former Archbishop when he stuck his unwelcome nose into politics. I sincerely suggest that you need to stick to things spiritual and when I comes to politics, remember that it is not your place to comment...

Get real, Rowan...

Will no-one rid us of this turbulent priest?

I am well known for my views on organised religion and the Catholic Church in particular, but when I reviewed the patronising and out of touch remarks made the Archpisspot of Cunterbury in his Christmas sermon, then the words of Henry II just seemed to come echoing back to me!

So, in the interests of evening things up with the Kafliks, lets take a look at what the man in the teacloth had to say for himself :

"Faced with the hardship that quite clearly lies ahead for so many in the wake of financial crisis and public spending cuts, how far are we able to sustain a living sense of loyalty to each other, a real willingness to bear the load together?" Do what, Rowan? Exactly how much are you and your church contributing?

"We can and will as a society bear hardship if we are confident that it is being fairly shared." OK, Rowan, I'll give that one, but then you go on to say "...no interest group or pressure group is able to opt out" - well. apart from the Church of England that is.

"God, it seems, knows that whatever limitation and humiliation our human freedom lays on him, we cannot live without him; and he accepts everything for the sake of our well-being." So exactly what exactly is He doing for us - and incidentally Rowan I notice that on your website you have demoted the Allmighty to lower case 'he' which I would have thought was a little disrespectful? He is accepting what and doing what for us exactly? Please do tell, because I see no sign of it.

And please don't lecture me about how the rich need to contribute more than the poor. I have always maintained that incremental taxation already achieves this. If I earn £30,000 I pay 20% tax on it so why should I pay 40% if I earn £60,000? Why should I pay four times as much for earning twice as much. It is already grossly unfair and I don't need some guy who has a grace and favour palace in Lambeth and pays next to fuck all tax to lecture me on this subject!

And what about overseas, Rowan? Well "I remind you of our Zimbabwean friends, still suffering harassment, beatings and arrests, legal pressures and lockouts from their churches." Er, excuse me but I see you used the word 'legal' there. It's not up to you to tell other countries - or indeed our country - to go against what is legal.

And then to make it worse, you continue "Our prayers continue for Asia Bibi in Pakistan and others from minority groups who suffer from the abuse of the law." Seems you don't like the law very much do you?

How about Iraq? "It is a great grace that both Christians and Muslims in this country have joined in expressing their solidarity with this beleaguered minority." What you should be doing, Rowan, is keeping your nose out of other peoples' countries.

Henry II dealt harsely with a former Archbishop when he stuck his unwelcome nose into politics. I sincerely suggest that you need to stick to things spiritual and when I comes to politics, remember that it is not your place to comment...

Blair - The ultimate hypocrisy

I shamelessly nicked this diagram from a 2009 article in the guardian which you can read by clicking this link

In the ultimate irony, as the fat hypocrit, Lord Prescott, warns that the Labour Party is going bust, the same cannot be said of it's ex leader Blair. Believe it or not, the bugger is actually opening his own BANK.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has last week registered Blair's new Mayfair-based investment bank, Firerush, which could act as dealmaker in investments for the super-rich. It will contribute to his considerable fortune, which is already reported to be in excess of £20 million. Coincidentally, that's the same amount Prescott says that Labour owes. Spooky, or what?

20 bloody million... and after all the scheming hypocritical sod said about bankers and rich people avoiding tax through complex tax avoidance schemes. Pass the bloody bottle... and a large glass!

Now I'm not for a minute suggesting that Blair is doing anything illegal, but my God his moral compass is pointing in a very odd direction indeed.

Still, now he's a Catholic, I expect he'll be meeting the Pope next month - and he'll give him absolution...

Blair - The ultimate hypocrisy

I shamelessly nicked this diagram from a 2009 article in the guardian which you can read by clicking this link

In the ultimate irony, as the fat hypocrit, Lord Prescott, warns that the Labour Party is going bust, the same cannot be said of it's ex leader Blair. Believe it or not, the bugger is actually opening his own BANK.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has last week registered Blair's new Mayfair-based investment bank, Firerush, which could act as dealmaker in investments for the super-rich. It will contribute to his considerable fortune, which is already reported to be in excess of £20 million. Coincidentally, that's the same amount Prescott says that Labour owes. Spooky, or what?

20 bloody million... and after all the scheming hypocritical sod said about bankers and rich people avoiding tax through complex tax avoidance schemes. Pass the bloody bottle... and a large glass!

Now I'm not for a minute suggesting that Blair is doing anything illegal, but my God his moral compass is pointing in a very odd direction indeed.

Still, now he's a Catholic, I expect he'll be meeting the Pope next month - and he'll give him absolution...