How many times this year have we seen stories of local authorities prying into our lives?  First it was Poole Council using anti-terror legislation to spy on a family for weeks just to be sure they sent their child to the school in the right catchment area.  Next councils were using the same laws to spy on dog walkers.  Now Mid Sussex Council is exposed for having students go through people’s rubbish.

Enough is enough already.  Who on earth do these petty Town-Hall-Trotsky’s think they are?  We pay them – too much as it is – to dispose of our rubbish, not to go through them to see what people are throwing away.

Mid Sussex Council claim this was done anonymously so those going through the rubbish didn’t know where it came from.  That’s not the case if someone, entirely by accident, has thrown away a phone or utility bill with their name and details on it.  Moreover, why should we believe a word these councils say when they routinely use anti-terror legislation to spy on us and won’t even tell us what they’re doing with the information they get.

Gordon Marples is the leader of Mid Sussex Council.  You can contact him by phone on 01273 843643 or by email [email protected].  It is strongly advised if you live in the area to ask him if your rubbish has been taken away and monitored.  Furthermore, don’t take any risks.  Shred any documents with your name, address and details on before throwing them away.  Be sure that these Council bureaucrats don’t get their hands on any information that is yours for your own privacy.

Also, please contact Councillor Brian Hall who has led the charge against this abuse of power.  You can contact him on 01444 450347 or by email [email protected].  I’ll be contacting him to get some more information on this matter that we can pass onto our supporters and if he knows of any other councils willingly intruding into people’s private lives.

Finally, it’s worth contacting your councillor to see if your council is taking your rubbish away so it can intrude even further into individual private lives.

With so many human rights abuses around the world, the United Nations Human Rights Council should be busy reporting on issues of enforced starvation, executions of people for their lifestyle choices and the denial of the vote to huge numbers of people around the world.  Instead, they have turned their attention to Great Britain, and issued a report claiming we need a referendum on the Monarchy and a the idea of a written constitution.

In return for the £69 million British taxpayers send to the United Nations every year, we should be able to expect that humanitarian crises in Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea, Iran and Somalia leave little time for interfering in our own constitutional affairs.  Many members of the commission – such as China, Saudi Arabia and Cuba – should pay a little more attention to their own human rights record.  Unfortunately, the United Nations Human Rights Council thinks these issues aren’t quite pressing enough to preclude meddling in an advanced democracy with a globally admired way of settling constitutional issues. Next time the United Nations comes begging for more support we should remember this insulting waste of money.

Lest anyone think that it’s only MPs and MEPs who make a pretty penny out of the taxpayer in return for their public service, a post over at Iain Dale’s Diary draws our attention to Councillors’ "allowances". Iain’s point is of course set against a party political background, but even disregarding the rights and the wrongs of the case it’s amazing how much money some Councillors can make.

The Councillor particularly in the spotlight here is one Les Byrom, who Iain says earns £7,596 for leading the Tories on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority, plus £9,996 for Chairing the Local Government Association’s Fire Committee. According to Sefton Council’s Constitution, as a Councillor he gets a further £7,017.

On top of that he presumably earns an allowance for being part of the unelected North West Regional Assembly – although I couldn’t find details of the allowances on their web site, and no-one seems to be answering the phone at their rather expensive office.

All in all, then, that’s an annual earning of £24,609 in so-called "allowances", not including the wedge as a member of the Regional Assembly. Not a bad deal if you can get it!

Never ever doubt the tenacity of a TPA activist and heaven help a politician who gets in their way.  Over the past week TPA activists have appeared in all sorts of press coverage, from TV and radio to running stories in local papers. 

Stephen Picot commented here on a story you simply couldn’t make up.  Stockport Council spent £11,000 on a huge fence that ended up breaking its own planning rules.  Stephen kindly offered a quote and the story is the headline on the Stockport Express Website.

Our newly formed Islington branch made waves with this piece in the Islington Tribune slamming the Council publicity budget and calling for reductions in Council Tax.  This week the branch has made the front page, criticising the Lib Dem leader’s taxpayer-funded jolly to the United States . 

As you will see from our other blog on this today, yesterday’s Council Tax protest in Norwich got onto the TV, radio and local newsprint.  Our campaigners Barbara Lockwood and Tony Callaghan gave comment to press, TV and radio and continue to do so on a very regular basis.

Time and time again, the South West Surrey TPA is quoted in the Surrey news as you can see here and here from May alone.  Via a combination of meetings with MPs (including a shadow minister) as well as numerous letters and quotes, our SW Surrey branch is becoming a force to be reckoned with in Surrey.

This is the grassroots campaign in action.  People like you, with normal jobs paying too much tax, getting involved in the political process.  We can’t let the politicians have a monopoly over politics.  When they do we end up paying through the nose for their expenses, salaries and other perks. 

Our campaign looks to bring you into the political system so we can all fight for lower taxes and change our politics.  All our volunteers have one aim – lower taxes.  You can make a difference to your community just as Stephen, Barbara, Tim, Peter and our thousands of other activists are doing day in, day out.  Have a read about our grassroots campaigns and contact me to find out how you can contribute to the campaign.

Today’s FT reports that the Government have become so worried about the number of companies being driven to Ireland by high-tax Britain that they are considering supporting EU tax harmonisation. In essence, having gone a long way towards ruining our economic competitiveness with tax and red tape, they have decided the fault lies not with themselves but with our neighbours who have wisely created a welcoming environment towards business.

This corrosive idea that "tax competition" is a bad thing that somehow lets low tax economies "steal" revenue from high tax economies is one that the EU Commission and various Unions have been peddling for quite some time, and threatens to do a lot of economic – and diplomatic – damage.

Ireland’s economic success, for example, has been founded on low corporation tax rates. Faced with companies like Shire moving to the Republic, the obvious path would be for UK Plc to emulate the Irish and cut our own rates to similar levels to encourage businesses to stay and to spur our economy on. The harmonisation approach is simply jealousy – trashing someone else’s success rather than trying to achieve anything yourself.

The unfortunate thing is that whilst smashing your neighbour’s new car in a fit of jealousy might seem the best thing to do at the time, it will swiftly have repercussions on the vandal as well as the vandalised.

First up, companies like Shire will simply go somewhere else that has low taxes, and instead of Britain losing out, Britain and Ireland lose out – not exactly the result you were after.

The obvious next step (obvious if you’re a harmoniser, of course) is to try to extend the enforcement of high taxes. That’s what’s been happening in recent years with the EU trying, sporadically, to bully Switzerland into increasing its tax rates, and it’s hardly a pleasant way for friends and neighbours to behave towards each other. Pressurising other countries to change their domestic tax policies in order to protect your economy from the effects of you high taxes is not only unedifying, it’s anti-democratic. It’s very revealing of the EU’s true opinions that underneath all the guff about peace across Europe, the greater Europa and a brotherhood of nations, as soon as one country dares maintain some independence and uses it to be successful, the Commission rounds on them with threats.

Even if you eventually succeed in forcing the whole globe to have universally high corporation tax (God forbid), the only result is that the global economy is made more sluggish by the level of taxation, resulting in lower profits, reduced GDP, fewer jobs and more misery.

The alternative is simple. If Ireland are outdoing us because they have got a tax system that works well, we should emulate it, not try to stamp it out as so called "unfair competition". It’s not as though they have some unfair advantage – we have the power to slash corporation tax tomorrow, we just choose not to. It’s stupid policies on our part, not some kind of weasily deception from the Irish.

Politically speaking, the harmonisation approach does not only store up economic problems and human misery for the future, it will make life much more difficult for the Government as a whole. Britain is short on allies, especially like-minded allies, in the EU, so alienating Ireland on such a crucial issue is a bad move. Furthermore, it makes people like Kitty Ussher MP sound rather hollow when they claim to stand up for business and national freedoms in the face of top-down EU legislation, as she does elsewhere in the same FT edition.

The Government have mismanaged the public finances to such a degree that they are really starting to panic – they must be careful that their short term thrashing around to find a scapegoat does not result in the economy, friendly relations with our neighbours and our democratic right to self-determination taking a beating we can ill afford.

There are few parts of the public sector where the valour, skill and professionalism of those at the sharp end contrast so strongly with the incompetence, mismanagement and bungling of the bureaucrats in overseeing them than the contrast found in Defence. It is true that the impression is made starker by the high standard of our troops, but it is also down in no small part to the fact that the MoD is one of the least effective arms of government.

One of the most jaw dropping examples of that incompetence is highlighted across the media today as a result of the Public Accounts Committee’s report on QinetiQ.

Formerly the Defence Evaluation and Reseach Agency, QinetiQ is a defence technology copany formed in 2001 and part-privatised. In a field where speed of innovation and competitive drive are key, and where research can cost a huge amount of money, bringing in the private sector to raise money and set the company on a competitive footing was a good idea in principle.

To turn it from a good idea to a good sale, though, required quality agents to handle the sale. Instead, the taxpayer had Ministry of Defence officials to defend their interests. The result? A catalogue of errors:

• A preferred bidder, Carlyle, was announced ridiculously early, thus limiting the benefit of competitive bidding and allowing Carlyle to negotiate a further discount as the negotiations went on that would have been unlikely had other potential buyers still been in the running.
• The sale was pushed through a time when the equity market was languishing (apparently the Treasury insisted on the timing, showing once more the killer sense for selling at the bottom of the market previously displayed in the gold sales fiasco).
• Shares in the company were sold at a massive underestimate of what turned out to be their market value.

Essentially, the taxpayer’s estate agents sold their house for the price of the garage. A number of commentators have tried to suggest this is down to some inherent wickedness on the part of Carlyle, but it is in fact a serious failing on behalf of the MoD.

Everyone knows private equity firms are out to drive a hard bargain – that’s the point, as if they didn’t negotiate well they wouldn’t have made the money they now use to invest. Indeed, the MoD wanted to bring Carlyle’s business acumen and insistence on turning a profit into QinetiQ in order to spur the organisation on. Knowing that they are good businessmen, it behoves the seller to drive a good bargain.

Unfortunately for you and me, though, the MoD civil servants drove a lamentably bad bargain, either through naivety, incompetence, lack of experience, absence of the feeling that they had shareholders to anwer to or – most probably – a combination of all four.

The lack of professionalism can be seen in the fact that senior civil servants from DERA, who were investing in the firm, were allowed to play a part in devising incentive schemes from which they themselves would benefit. As a result, several of them got such good bargains that they enjoyed a 20,000% return on the day of flotation. Behaviour like that would be unacceptable in the City – or anywhere else for that matter.

If a company got a deal like that, they’d put it to their shareholders and get a resounding "Not on your life". With the government, though, the shareholders of the state – taxpayers – were ignored and disenfranchised. The people who actually stood to lose out financially did not have a say in how their assets were being sold. Without that interest or accountability, the bunglers negotiating the deal were free to blunder on as if they were being marvellously successful.

Indeed, the Government bleats that the taxpayer made hundreds of millions of pounds through the privatisation of QinetiQ, but in reality we got a bargain basement price for an excellent resource. The bottom line is, to make a good sale you either need to be good at selling, knowledgeable about your wares and informed about the market, or you need a good agent. The MoD lacked all of the former, but failed dismally to engage the latter. Result = taxpayers’ money down the drain.

Barbara Lockwood, a longstanding TPA campaigner and Council Tax protester, was in court yesterday charged with non-payment of half her Council Tax bill.  Barbara maintains that her Council Tax has soared well above her ability to pay and as a result she’ll only pay for what she is getting from the Council.  Would you pay an increased price for a service that’s been cut in half whilst it pays its bureaucrats more and more?  Well, Barbara isn’t going to pay, so she was taken before the courts.

The say started early, but with excellent coverage from Anglia TV filming Barbara and our Norfolk Organiser Tony Callaghan (who deserves a medal for arranging so much media coverage ).  In addition to this, BBC Radio Norfolk interviewed Barbara and held a phone-in, receiving numerous calls of support. 

Then it was to the Courthouse where we were met with Barbara’s supporters, numbering about 20 in all (though some had to leave early).  In the court, Broadland Council brought forward non-payment charges to 374 taxpayers within the Broadland borough.  Only one – Barbara – was there to protest and appeal the charges against her.  Such are the ruthless rigidity of the rules, Barbara wasn’t allowed to make her defence – despite the council springing another £200 charge in ‘backdated’ non-payments of Council Tax.  On her summons, however, the Council fail to disclose what specific amounts are demanded from previous years.  The 373 other taxpayers’ cases were dealt with all at once, and with the stroke of a pen, all were handed liability orders as well as a £56 charge for being taken to court in the first place.

Tony Callaghan spells out his shock at the Magistrates who, with the stroke of a pen, were able to judge on cases without even hearing the details of the charges.  It seems if the Council is right, then the people are wrong:

If from one borough, on a Monday morning, 374 people had outstanding Council Tax payments – then what about the rest of the country?  Borough after borough must have hundreds, even thousands, of people who can’t or won’t pay their Council Tax.  My question is – where are these people?  Stand up and be counted like Barbara.  Join the campaign and make your voice heard!

For some reason, the TPA seems to end up responding to an abnormally large number of stories about waste or other costly ideas dreamed up by Essex County Council – and today is no exception. I don’t know if they’re better (or should I say worse?) at thinking up ways to waste money, or simply better at publicising their whizzo wheezes, but today’s news is a corker.

Lord Hanningfield, the Leader of ECC, has announced that the Council will be making a job offer to the runner-up on the Apprentice. That’s right, he thinks it would be a great idea to recruit them irrespective of who they turn out to be. What’s more, "the exact job description remain[s] flexible" – i.e. Lord H is even going to make up a job just for them.

This is, according to their press release, about making clear that

Essex County Council is as ambitious as any private company

Unfortunately, ECC seems to have a rather odd understanding of exactly what it is that private companies do. Unlike councils, they don’t pride themselves on how much money they spend, rather on how much money they make – and that certainly doesn’t involve just buying up reality TV stars irrespective of who they are, what they do or whether the organisation has a use for them.

The taxpayers of Essex don’t care whether minor celebrities are working for them – they would much rather have the roads mended properly and cost effectively by someone they’ve never heard of than offer the job to someone off the telly regardless of their abilities. Even if you can do a pretty good impression of a reverse Pterodactyl, it still shouldn’t be the main criterion for employment at Essex County Council.

On the back of Stephen Glover’s article in the Daily Mail, Tim Montgomerie at ConservativeHome has an interesting piece about changing the way our politicians interact with the state. He cites Maude’s Law, which lays down that

good policy is 10% brainwave, 10% idea development and 80% implementation

This is a crucial realisation that deserves publicising to those at the helm of the State. No matter how good your idea is, if you don’t have the requisite tools to implement it, it is likely to be doomed to fail.

In the case of the British State, if you have Ministers overseeing vast departments, directly supervising scores of agencies, quangos and other bodies and individually responsible for a mind-boggling range of responsibilities, of course you will run into problems. The problem is arguably exacerbated by Ministers being moved helter skelter from one department to another without the time to build up sector-specific expertise, but some Ministerial positions are beyond the capabilities of any one human being, no matter how experienced.

This argument does not, of course, excuse the bad policies which are all too common, but if we are ever to get services running properly and save taxpayers’ money we must recognise that the current system is liable to bog down a lot of good ideas, too. The current failure is a mixture of bad ideas foundering on their own lack of merit and good ideas being sabotaged by the fundamentally flawed structure of the public sector.

It’s no good just changing the set of politicians and the set of policies – to get the job done, the state must be properly set up and the practitioners must have the right tools.

I attended Tony Blair’s testimony to the International Development Select Committee this morning. He had come to give a disposition on Gaza as the Quartets representative. I entered the room surrounded by assorted representatives of NGOs such as Oxfam and some self appointed human rights monitors. Not the sort of company I revel in. Eavesdropping on their pre event discussion I became aware that the differences between us were as intractable as the conflict itself.

To Oxfam it appears the problem is Israel’s. They are intransigent. If only they opened the border and recognised Hamas and negotiated with them this would all end. Absent from their discussion was any indication that Hamas attacks and the movements refusal to recognise Israel’s right to exist might have something to do with it. I entered the room fearing that Tony Blair may offer this baying mob some meat. He might condemn Israel’s Liberal Democracy for its actions concerning Gaza. Hoping that by playing to the press gallery and assorted great and good he would win support for his role. I was pleasantly surprised.

Throughout, his testimony Tony Blair showed that he was fully aware of the many pressures Israel’s leaders are under and the basic features which need to be present if a lasting peace deal is ever to be concluded. He was strong and resolute in what he believed and gave a vivid account of the situation and thoughtful vision of how both sides could work their way out of the current malaise.

On Israeli security he explained the need to ensure that any peace deal involve Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to security. He outlined the need to build up the Palestinians security capability to ensure that attacks against Israel could be prevented. Some members of the committee needed to be informed that no Israeli administration would sign a deal unless they could be sure that the Palestinian leadership they signed it with were willing and capable of ensuring peace between the two states. Blair stated that Israeli leaders should withdraw from the West Bank but we needed to ensure that if that occurred the militias would not merely move in as with Gaza.

Recognising the need to provide Palestinians with employment Blair revealed how the international aid promised could only be successful if there were peace. Hamas’s refusal to recognise Israel’s right to exist and the rockets attacks were noted as impediments to progress. Given their military grip on Gaza he noted that if Hamas wanted to stop the majority of attacks she could do so. Instead Mr Blair pointed out Hamas were acting hypocritically. They were using the humanitarian situation in Gaza to put pressure on Israel but then attacks were conducted on fuel shipments at the checkpoints. In the process 2 innocent Israeli civilians were murdered. These attacks meant Israel could not open the checkpoints and thereby allow in more humanitarian aid. His solution was for Hamas to call a ceasefire. Only then could progress be made.

Blair was asked if he was the man to perform the role of mediator in this conflict. Blair was accused of a pro Israel bias because of his unwillingness to attack Israel for her actions in Lebanon. There was also the little matter of his leading role in the Iraq war. How could the Arabs trust him? Here Blair showed the skill of a consummate political professional. A deal between Israel and Palestine had to involve Israel. In order to seal this deal Palestine needed someone trusted by Israel to conclude it. Thereby being seen as close to America and Israel was no sin to the Palestinian people because they needed just such a person to conclude for them the deal that would end the occupation. This is probably why no Palestinian leader had ever asked him this kind of question. The answer was pitched perfectly. Its delivery impeccable.

The membership of the committee is by no means favourable to Israel. Committee members Mr Stephen Crabb and Mr Marsha Singh asked intelligent insightful questions offering hope that objective analysis is not entirely absent from the proceedings. However, the opinion of the overwhelming majority of members appears to be that Hamas should be engaged in negotiations regardless of whether they cease attacks and recognise Israel’s right to exist. The Committee opposes the position of the Quartet that makes both these conditions necessary before Hamas can enter talks.

Some Committee members insisted on engaging in a fruitless debate as to whether promoting any economic development in the West Bank merely legitimised the occupation. However, Blair brought the debate back on track by rightly pointing out that most Palestinians were more concerned in getting a job than this kind of legalistic approach. Only by providing the Palestinians –many of which are under 25 – with work could a lasting peace be built. Announcing a plan to sponsor Palestinian mortgages Blair in a nice interplay with Marsha Singh informed him it was no longer his role to propose such things for Britain. At this point a broad grin emerged and you could sense Blair was enjoying himself.

As Anthony Blair stated a series of truisms unlikely to impress the NGOs and their spokesmen on the committee I developed a healthy respect for him. On virtually everything else we are in complete disagreement but on this issue Blair seems to get it. He seems comfortable in his role and optimistic as to the chances of achieving a lasting peace. I watched the testimony in a room dubbed the spill over room (the Boothroyd room). This was a powerful response to any delusions of grandeur politicos such as I may have i.e. being a non pass holder I could only view Blair’s performance on a tv screen. As I left I saw Oxfam guy shake his head. I think Blair did well today and we should all wish him well – in this role – in the future. Hopefully he will provide Oxfam with much to tut tut about in future.

Jacqui Smith believes jihadists are vulnerable sensitive individuals. Smith believes they need counselling, and that it should be provided by the state. That means you, the taxpayer, will pay for it. This is a continuation of the ‘Islamist as victim’ theme that the Government is prone to indulging. However we need not worry because the Government has proposed tough qualifying conditions that any recipient must meet before receiving this aid. The wannabe jihadist must prove that they fit the profile of someone who has been through hard times.

According to the government, any Muslim frustrated due to employment issues who simultaneously joins an extremist group can fit the profile. But what does employment issues mean? Not having a job or merely having a demeaning low paying job? This seems a little wide to me. My job is very enjoyable. However, given my inflated sense of my own abilities I feel I should be governing the known world by now. I am 26 and people are starting to ask questions. Somehow I don’t think it is right for the government to give me a get out of jail free card. Also the kind of counselling I would need would likely to be very expensive and there are probably more deserving cases. British soldiers returning home injured or psychologically scarred defending their country in Iraq and Afghanistan would seem an obvious example. Then again maybe instead of fighting jihadists in Afghanistan these vulnerable individuals also need counselling – Osama on the couch.

But hang on, the Government don’t mean to give everyone freedom to disobey the law. Apparently this licence only applies to Islamists. Islamists alone are to be given special dispensation to commit crimes without being charged. It appears vulnerability has its advantages. Islamists are to be given a licence to disobey British laws. A licence not extended to all citizens. This is being granted on religious/political grounds to a specific minority group. The Government is targeting those who have joined radical terrorist groups but who have not yet enacted the major offences they are planning. Presumably the Government is signalling its intention to not prosecute Islamist offenders for possessing extremist literature and materials. This u-turn comes after 8 years of Government laws to make possession and viewing of such items a crime.

The Government promises that if they have second thoughts they will not be prosecuted. Not prosecuting these offenders is not, in itself, a bad idea. It could have merit. We sometimes give ordinary criminals reduced sentences if they save the taxpayer the costs of proving them guilty by pleading guilty. In exceptional circumstances informants are given pardons for previous misdemeanours in exchange for information that leads to major arrests. However, each of these cases represents a government bribe designed to elicit tangible benefits from the bribed i.e. less costly court proceedings or help in achieving more and bigger arrests. If we are to pardon Islamists for current or past crimes what do we get in exchange? It appears that we get their attendance at expensive counselling session we pay for and their promise not to do it again. This is not enough.

The Government deems the crimes the Islamists have committed as still worthy of being prohibited. They are not proposing legalising such acts for all citizens. Thereby, if anyone is to be given a pardon for the commission of offences they should provide something tangible in return. This could be real actionable intelligence that leads to the conviction of other Islamists. Alternatively these ex Islamists could take a lead role in their communities combating Islamic extremism. An Islamic extremism they have spent years trying to nurture and are responsible for. Hassan Butt appears to be adopting this route at the moment, although the police – in a rare display of crime fighting initiative – have now decided to charge him for the crimes he committed while he was an Islamist. Presumably he refused to attend these counselling sessions.

What form will these counselling sessions take? One hopes they are not group sessions (“jihadist anonymous”). If they are, presumably everyone will get together and discuss the reasons why they were attracted to radical Islamism. Gathering together a series of possible jihadists in a room and getting them to discuss their grievances may not be the best route to convert them to moderation. It could actually reinforce their grievances as they realise how many others share such opinions. They might then meet up with their new associates independently – not for drinks obviously. So previously we had one guy who had read Milestones and felt a bit annoyed about the Iraq war, now there could be ten guys coordinating an attack. The Government will be bringing people together in a spirit of community, but not for the kind of aims we want to promote.

The report states that Islamism feeds off domestic inequalities and racism and that by reducing these inequalities we can undermine the Al-Qaida narrative. The report notes that the promotion of violent extremism “relies on encouraging a sense of victimhood” (p.6). However, it does not realise the government’s acceptance that these communities face racism and economic disadvantage unjustifiably adds credence to the narrative of extremist’s. Britain’s Muslim community enjoys more freedoms of association, speech and worship than their co-religionists enjoy in the regions in which they predominate. The economic situation of poor Muslim citizens is not dissimilar to poor white working class Britons and thereby they do not suffer a profound or distinct disadvantage. Indeed such communities are advantaged because the Government would not ever describe BNP activists as vulnerable and disadvantaged and in need of government grants. With far right extremism the government rightly recognises the views as abhorrent and the movement as something to be taken on and beaten not sponsored.

Jihadists are not victims. Islamists are not vulnerable. They are sane, logical individuals who happen to believe in an ideology which is profoundly evil. They are not subject to a condition from which they need to be cured. They are not planning suicide attacks or helping those who do because they need a hug and a chat. This announcement by the Government completely misreads the motivations and mentality of those we seek to target. It is borne of a Muslim as victim thesis the government’s politically correct mindset cannot admit is false. As my colleague Nicholas Connor has said, the £12.5 million should be spent on re-education classes for Jacqui Smith. Until she abandons her politically correct views on Islamism we, and not the Islamists, are vulnerable.

This seems like a pretty good idea to me:

If MPs keep giving up powers to Europe they should be paid less

So says Peter Lilley MP in a Ten Minute Rule Bill he’s presenting to Parliament today. It’s true – our Parliament has given the EU control of migration, agriculture, trade, fisheries and vast swathes of business and industrial regulation, so surely MPs’ pay should be reduced accordingly.

The same question perhaps ought to be asked about the pay and privileges of the Ministers responsible for those areas…