PJC Journal – Original

• Promising low charges then rapidly increasing them once the scheme is in place.
• False “trial periods” to make people think the scheme will be re-evaluated when there is no such intention.
• Avoiding referenda (like the one in Edinburgh) at all costs.
• Using a psychological trick called “Dissonance Theory” to make
  people believe that road pricing is inevitable and that “resistance is
  futile”. This also induces effects like less anger, less resistance,
  weaker intentions to protect their freedoms. In other words, their
  minds should be manipulated.

“If
council officials are involved in a covert mind-bending exercise to
manipulate public and politicians alike into accepting congestion
charging, then it is an extremely worrying development. ”

• is a regressive tax which is unfair on low earners. This is now acknowledged by CURACAO officials too.
• cannot work at reducing congestion without punitive charges which will harm the economy.
• will incur huge collection costs which will have to be paid on top of existing motoring taxes.
  involves keeping detailed records of people's movements.

NOTES FOR EDITORS
 
1. Coordination of Urban RoAd-user ChArging Organizational Issues
 
2. www.curacaoproject.eu
 
The Curacao scheme draws together experience from previous European
congestion charge projects including PROGRESS which featured failed
attempts to introduce congestion charging in Bristol and Edinburgh.
 
Cities have access to a 'state of the art' handbook ('SoA').
 
In 2006 a questionnaire was sent to 42 cities asking what were the
barriers to road pricing in their city. Among the 22 cities who replied
were Nottingham and Manchester who identified PUBLIC OPPOSITION as the
biggest barrier.
 
The advice to local UK officials to overcome public opposition includes:

1. To make people feel that they must bow to the inescapable
   by a psychological effect they call the Dissonance Theory. This also
   induces effects like less anger, less resistance, weaker intentions to
   protect their freedoms. In other words their minds should be
   manipulated. (SoA 10.3.1.4 and acceptability paper graph)
    
   Quote: 'They show that persons with a strong convictions that road
   pricing will be introduced indeed developed more positive attitudes
   than persons who were less convinced of an early introduction. However,
   the authors explain the results on the basis of the theory of cognitive
   dissonance (Festinger, 1957) which predicts that people increase the
   attractiveness of an unavoidable event in order to maintain a
   consistent cognitive belief system. Once, RUC is decided or looks
   likely to happen and citizens can no longer avoid it, their attitudes
   towards charging become more positive (needs to be further validated)'.
    
   'According to dissonance theory the introduction of road pricing evokes
   feelings of cognitive dissonance. However, this is only the case, if
   the introduction is (perceived as) inescapable.'
   'Persons who got the impression that the introduction of road pricing
   is almost inescapable report:
   • less negative emotions like anger
   • a lower importance of toll free use of infrastructure.
   • a weaker infringement of freedom.
   • weaker motivations (intentions) to defend or restore personal freedom
   e.g. by taking action against the toll.
    
   These politicians have all claimed that road pricing is inevitable and that 'Doing nothing is not an option':
    
   • Ruth Kelly (Cabinet Minister), 24th September 2007
   • Douglas Alexander (Cabinet Minister), Telegraph 16th February 2007
   • Sir Richard Leese (Manchester councils/AGMA) 2007
   • Alistair Darling (Cabinet Minister), June 2003
    
   
2. To get the media and other key stakeholders on
   side at an early stage. What inducements are to be offered is left to
   the imagination.
   
3. Officials are advised that the risk of
   rejection in a referendum is too high. In addition a negative result
   could impair the prospects of other schemes elsewhere in Europe”
   “Referenda are still a game with very high stakes (people have the
   chance 'to escape')”
    
   “a referendum just before the last steps of the scheme introduction is
   very likely to hit the lowest level of support, and therefore runs the
   greatest risk of failure.” (SoA 10.3.2)
   
4. European experience suggests that the charge should start low and be increased over time if necessary
    
   “In
   a similar vein experiences from the PRIMA [project] cities indicate
   that rather low starting levels are needed and that the charges can be
   increased successively to meet financial requirements” (Harsman, 2003)
   (SoA 10.3.1.3).
    
   To have a champion or figurehead leader of the politicians to take
   ownership of the scheme. And to preserve the politicians by having a
   trial period then a referendum when it is most likely to succeed. “They
   (politicians) may avoid a clear commitment to the scheme, especially if
   they are not sure about the outcome of the political process. But a
   lacking strong political commitment acts as a benchmark for other
   stakeholders. Their attitude may become more negative as well. This
   also contributed to a slower or even stopped introduction. In this
   situation, a political champion or figurehead, who takes ownership of
   the congestion charging concept clearly facilitates the implementation
   process. However, unlike the officials involved in the preparation of
   any scheme, politicians depend on re-election, and the fear of losing
   elections by promoting road user charging holds many politicians back.”
   (SoA 10.3.2).
    
   To “Consider how to implement the scheme against the majority of voters and car drivers”:
   Considering the social dilemma situation, “how to implement RUC against
   the initial majority of voters and car drivers?” (Acceptability paper.
   (3) Plans for future research).
    
   The authors acknowledge that the biggest impact of Congestion Charging
   is on the poor. “Firstly it is likely that the wealthy experience
   greater costs than the poor; since wealthy people are more likely to
   drive cars than the poor, they pay more under road pricing. However,
   one could also equally and validly argue that the poor experience
   greater costs than the wealthy; since the toll is a flat rate tax, a
   disproportionate share of their income is required to pay road pricing
   fees. This technically makes the flat road pricing charge 'regressive'.
   In addition, the poor are less able to alter their driving times to
   avoid peak period travel to incur the highest charges. A general
   conclusion from various studies is that low-income car users or
   less-flexible car users (e.g. based on gender or flexibility of working
   schedule) are likely to be the worst-off groups as a result of road
   pricing. In addition, it is possible to argue that the wealthy
   experience greater benefits than the poor since by definition, the
   wealthy possess a higher value of time and will be less likely to be
   'tolled off'. Equally valid though is the counter-argument that the
   poor experience greater benefits than the wealthy because the poor are
   more likely to use public transport and therefore less affected by the
   cost of road pricing.” (SoA 9.3.1)
   
5. Failure adequately to canvass the opinions of
   those most concerned can lead to 'irrational' resistance. On such a
   sensitive topic as peoples` right to personal mobility, the
   introduction of Road User Charging could lead to active opposition that
   might extend beyond protests and demonstrations as far as sabotage.
   (ITSS, April 2007)
   
6. “The CURACAO User Group is a select gathering
   of 20 EU cities who take the lead in road pricing strategies for urban
   areas. The User Group has been asked by the European Commission to
   formulate concrete actions regarding road pricing in the follow up to
   the Urban Transport Green Paper.”
    
   It includes:
    
   UK:
   • Belfast
   • Tyne and Wear
   • Durham
   • Nottingham/Derby/Leicester (both County and City)
   • Shropshire
   • Cardiff
   • Plymouth
   • Cambridgeshire
   • London (TfL)
    
   Europe:
   • Barcelona, Spain
   • Dublin, Ireland
   • Genoa, Italy
   • Amsterdam, Netherlands
   • Utrecht, Netherlands
   • Emilia-Romagna region (Bologna), Italy
   • Deutsche Städtetag (German Cities Association) {Deutsche?German}
   • Warsaw, Poland
   • Helsinki, Finland
   • Riga, Latvia
   • Vilnius, Lithuania
    
   

Notes for Editors about the ABD

Related Reading:

Stop the War Coalition: Main Page, Osama Bin Laden, John Rees, Communist Party of Britain, Communist Party of Great Britain Provisional Centre, Committee

Indian Literature: Sanskrit literature, Main Page, Mahabharata, Classical language, Sangam literature, P?li Canon, Vedas, Indian epic poetry, Assamese ... Bengali literature, Bhojpuri language

Driving Change: How the Best Companies are Preparing for the 21st Century

Driving Change: How the Best Companies are Preparing for the 21st Century

Structured Experience Kit-Main Pages

• Promising low charges then rapidly increasing them once the scheme is in place.
• False “trial periods” to make people think the scheme will be re-evaluated when there is no such intention.
• Avoiding referenda (like the one in Edinburgh) at all costs.
• Using a psychological trick called “Dissonance Theory” to make
  people believe that road pricing is inevitable and that “resistance is
  futile”. This also induces effects like less anger, less resistance,
  weaker intentions to protect their freedoms. In other words, their
  minds should be manipulated.

“If
council officials are involved in a covert mind-bending exercise to
manipulate public and politicians alike into accepting congestion
charging, then it is an extremely worrying development. ”

• is a regressive tax which is unfair on low earners. This is now acknowledged by CURACAO officials too.
• cannot work at reducing congestion without punitive charges which will harm the economy.
• will incur huge collection costs which will have to be paid on top of existing motoring taxes.
  involves keeping detailed records of people's movements.

NOTES FOR EDITORS
 
1. Coordination of Urban RoAd-user ChArging Organizational Issues
 
2. www.curacaoproject.eu
 
The Curacao scheme draws together experience from previous European
congestion charge projects including PROGRESS which featured failed
attempts to introduce congestion charging in Bristol and Edinburgh.
 
Cities have access to a 'state of the art' handbook ('SoA').
 
In 2006 a questionnaire was sent to 42 cities asking what were the
barriers to road pricing in their city. Among the 22 cities who replied
were Nottingham and Manchester who identified PUBLIC OPPOSITION as the
biggest barrier.
 
The advice to local UK officials to overcome public opposition includes:

1. To make people feel that they must bow to the inescapable
   by a psychological effect they call the Dissonance Theory. This also
   induces effects like less anger, less resistance, weaker intentions to
   protect their freedoms. In other words their minds should be
   manipulated. (SoA 10.3.1.4 and acceptability paper graph)
    
   Quote: 'They show that persons with a strong convictions that road
   pricing will be introduced indeed developed more positive attitudes
   than persons who were less convinced of an early introduction. However,
   the authors explain the results on the basis of the theory of cognitive
   dissonance (Festinger, 1957) which predicts that people increase the
   attractiveness of an unavoidable event in order to maintain a
   consistent cognitive belief system. Once, RUC is decided or looks
   likely to happen and citizens can no longer avoid it, their attitudes
   towards charging become more positive (needs to be further validated)'.
    
   'According to dissonance theory the introduction of road pricing evokes
   feelings of cognitive dissonance. However, this is only the case, if
   the introduction is (perceived as) inescapable.'
   'Persons who got the impression that the introduction of road pricing
   is almost inescapable report:
   • less negative emotions like anger
   • a lower importance of toll free use of infrastructure.
   • a weaker infringement of freedom.
   • weaker motivations (intentions) to defend or restore personal freedom
   e.g. by taking action against the toll.
    
   These politicians have all claimed that road pricing is inevitable and that 'Doing nothing is not an option':
    
   • Ruth Kelly (Cabinet Minister), 24th September 2007
   • Douglas Alexander (Cabinet Minister), Telegraph 16th February 2007
   • Sir Richard Leese (Manchester councils/AGMA) 2007
   • Alistair Darling (Cabinet Minister), June 2003
    
   
2. To get the media and other key stakeholders on
   side at an early stage. What inducements are to be offered is left to
   the imagination.
   
3. Officials are advised that the risk of
   rejection in a referendum is too high. In addition a negative result
   could impair the prospects of other schemes elsewhere in Europe”
   “Referenda are still a game with very high stakes (people have the
   chance 'to escape')”
    
   “a referendum just before the last steps of the scheme introduction is
   very likely to hit the lowest level of support, and therefore runs the
   greatest risk of failure.” (SoA 10.3.2)
   
4. European experience suggests that the charge should start low and be increased over time if necessary
    
   “In
   a similar vein experiences from the PRIMA [project] cities indicate
   that rather low starting levels are needed and that the charges can be
   increased successively to meet financial requirements” (Harsman, 2003)
   (SoA 10.3.1.3).
    
   To have a champion or figurehead leader of the politicians to take
   ownership of the scheme. And to preserve the politicians by having a
   trial period then a referendum when it is most likely to succeed. “They
   (politicians) may avoid a clear commitment to the scheme, especially if
   they are not sure about the outcome of the political process. But a
   lacking strong political commitment acts as a benchmark for other
   stakeholders. Their attitude may become more negative as well. This
   also contributed to a slower or even stopped introduction. In this
   situation, a political champion or figurehead, who takes ownership of
   the congestion charging concept clearly facilitates the implementation
   process. However, unlike the officials involved in the preparation of
   any scheme, politicians depend on re-election, and the fear of losing
   elections by promoting road user charging holds many politicians back.”
   (SoA 10.3.2).
    
   To “Consider how to implement the scheme against the majority of voters and car drivers”:
   Considering the social dilemma situation, “how to implement RUC against
   the initial majority of voters and car drivers?” (Acceptability paper.
   (3) Plans for future research).
    
   The authors acknowledge that the biggest impact of Congestion Charging
   is on the poor. “Firstly it is likely that the wealthy experience
   greater costs than the poor; since wealthy people are more likely to
   drive cars than the poor, they pay more under road pricing. However,
   one could also equally and validly argue that the poor experience
   greater costs than the wealthy; since the toll is a flat rate tax, a
   disproportionate share of their income is required to pay road pricing
   fees. This technically makes the flat road pricing charge 'regressive'.
   In addition, the poor are less able to alter their driving times to
   avoid peak period travel to incur the highest charges. A general
   conclusion from various studies is that low-income car users or
   less-flexible car users (e.g. based on gender or flexibility of working
   schedule) are likely to be the worst-off groups as a result of road
   pricing. In addition, it is possible to argue that the wealthy
   experience greater benefits than the poor since by definition, the
   wealthy possess a higher value of time and will be less likely to be
   'tolled off'. Equally valid though is the counter-argument that the
   poor experience greater benefits than the wealthy because the poor are
   more likely to use public transport and therefore less affected by the
   cost of road pricing.” (SoA 9.3.1)
   
5. Failure adequately to canvass the opinions of
   those most concerned can lead to 'irrational' resistance. On such a
   sensitive topic as peoples` right to personal mobility, the
   introduction of Road User Charging could lead to active opposition that
   might extend beyond protests and demonstrations as far as sabotage.
   (ITSS, April 2007)
   
6. “The CURACAO User Group is a select gathering
   of 20 EU cities who take the lead in road pricing strategies for urban
   areas. The User Group has been asked by the European Commission to
   formulate concrete actions regarding road pricing in the follow up to
   the Urban Transport Green Paper.”
    
   It includes:
    
   UK:
   • Belfast
   • Tyne and Wear
   • Durham
   • Nottingham/Derby/Leicester (both County and City)
   • Shropshire
   • Cardiff
   • Plymouth
   • Cambridgeshire
   • London (TfL)
    
   Europe:
   • Barcelona, Spain
   • Dublin, Ireland
   • Genoa, Italy
   • Amsterdam, Netherlands
   • Utrecht, Netherlands
   • Emilia-Romagna region (Bologna), Italy
   • Deutsche Städtetag (German Cities Association) {Deutsche?German}
   • Warsaw, Poland
   • Helsinki, Finland
   • Riga, Latvia
   • Vilnius, Lithuania
    
   

Notes for Editors about the ABD

Related Reading:

Structured Experience Kit-Main Pages

Old Yishuv: Musta'Arabi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Four Holy Cities, Jerusalem, Main Page, Safed, Tiberias,Jaffa, Deluge Myth

Indian Literature: Sanskrit literature, Main Page, Mahabharata, Classical language, Sangam literature, P?li Canon, Vedas, Indian epic poetry, Assamese ... Bengali literature, Bhojpuri language

Philby: intelligence service aux mains d'un agent soviétique

Front Page (Sterling Main Street)

One of the flagship policies of the Libertarian Party is to scrap income tax, to be paid for by eliminating the majority of Britain's worthless Quango's..

Our critics say that this is an uncosted policy, would be impossible, would hit front line services and would create an unstable economy. I say that is Bunkum.

When NuLab came to power in 1999 there were a total of 135 Quango's, and in the first manifesto they promised to reduce that number and make government smaller.

Today, The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) presents the full list of the UK’s
vast quango industry, a detailed run-down of the staff and cost of the
1,162 bodies, boards and agencies that make up Britain’s Unseen
Government. It is now five years since the Parliamentary Select
Committee on Public Administration recommended that the Government
publish such a list, a recommendation that the Government has failed to
fulfil. In the absence of an official list, the TPA has compiled one
instead, providing the public with the most comprehensive information
available on the organisations that increasingly spend their money and
influence their lives without democratic oversight. The report can be
found here (PDF).

Key Findings:

• There are 1,162 quangos in the UK, running at a total cost to the taxpayer of £64 billion, equivalent to £2,550 per household.
• Even under the Cabinet Office’s restrictive definition of quangos, the cost of these bodies has risen 50% in the last ten years.
• UK quangos now employ an army of almost 700,000 bureaucrats.
• Even the Government itself does not know the full extent of the
  unaccountable quango industry, which range from the massive e.g. Job
  Centre Plus (Staff: 70,042, Cost: £3.5 billion) and the Courts Service
  (Staff: 19,986, Cost: £704.8 million); to the bizarre e.g. the British
  Potato Council (Staff: 49); or the West Northants Development
  Corporation (Staff: 34, Cost: £15.3 million)
• When the total number of quangos is added to the other government
  subsidiaries such as local authorities and NHS trusts, the total number
  of organisations controlled by the UK Government rises to 2,063, costing the taxpayer £257 billion and employing over 5.1 million people.

Ben Farrugia, author of the report and Policy Analyst at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“Government
in the UK is now so large, diverse and complex that it is impossible
for anyone to manage effectively, let alone by Ministers with no prior
experience of management and little in-depth understanding of the work
carried out by their departments. Government today tries to do too
much, and consequently fails; the structure of government needs to
change if we hope to see better value and significant improvements in
our public services.”

The full report provides
a full list of the quangos along with individual data on staff numbers,
taxpayer funding and expenditure as well as national totals and can be
found here (PDF).

A Libertarian Government would look to remove the majority of these worthless Quango's, using the money saved to scrap Income tax, Capital Gains tax, Inheritance tax and reduce the burden on business by cutting Corporation tax to the lowest in Europe.

As a Libertarian I believe in small government. Labour dont, The Conservatives don't, and neither do the LibDem's.

They would be happy to continue needlessly spending your money, indeed the Conservatives have already pledged to keep the same level of spending as Labour, wasting it on worthless Quango's and still asking for more to pay their inflated salaries, a 30% wage rise, expenses and now the new Childcare allowance for MP's worth many thousands.

There IS another way!

Your Life, Your Country, Your Choice.

Related Reading:

Philby: intelligence service aux mains d'un agent soviétique

Un tour du monde des écoliers, à portée de main

Stop the War Coalition: Main Page, Osama Bin Laden, John Rees, Communist Party of Britain, Communist Party of Great Britain Provisional Centre, Committee

Old Yishuv: Musta'Arabi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Four Holy Cities, Jerusalem, Main Page, Safed, Tiberias,Jaffa, Deluge Myth

Soviet Main Street

One of the flagship policies of the Libertarian Party is to scrap income tax, to be paid for by eliminating the majority of Britain's worthless Quango's..

Our critics say that this is an uncosted policy, would be impossible, would hit front line services and would create an unstable economy. I say that is Bunkum.

When NuLab came to power in 1999 there were a total of 135 Quango's, and in the first manifesto they promised to reduce that number and make government smaller.

Today, The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) presents the full list of the UK’s
vast quango industry, a detailed run-down of the staff and cost of the
1,162 bodies, boards and agencies that make up Britain’s Unseen
Government. It is now five years since the Parliamentary Select
Committee on Public Administration recommended that the Government
publish such a list, a recommendation that the Government has failed to
fulfil. In the absence of an official list, the TPA has compiled one
instead, providing the public with the most comprehensive information
available on the organisations that increasingly spend their money and
influence their lives without democratic oversight. The report can be
found here (PDF).

Key Findings:

• There are 1,162 quangos in the UK, running at a total cost to the taxpayer of £64 billion, equivalent to £2,550 per household.
• Even under the Cabinet Office’s restrictive definition of quangos, the cost of these bodies has risen 50% in the last ten years.
• UK quangos now employ an army of almost 700,000 bureaucrats.
• Even the Government itself does not know the full extent of the
  unaccountable quango industry, which range from the massive e.g. Job
  Centre Plus (Staff: 70,042, Cost: £3.5 billion) and the Courts Service
  (Staff: 19,986, Cost: £704.8 million); to the bizarre e.g. the British
  Potato Council (Staff: 49); or the West Northants Development
  Corporation (Staff: 34, Cost: £15.3 million)
• When the total number of quangos is added to the other government
  subsidiaries such as local authorities and NHS trusts, the total number
  of organisations controlled by the UK Government rises to 2,063, costing the taxpayer £257 billion and employing over 5.1 million people.

Ben Farrugia, author of the report and Policy Analyst at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“Government
in the UK is now so large, diverse and complex that it is impossible
for anyone to manage effectively, let alone by Ministers with no prior
experience of management and little in-depth understanding of the work
carried out by their departments. Government today tries to do too
much, and consequently fails; the structure of government needs to
change if we hope to see better value and significant improvements in
our public services.”

The full report provides
a full list of the quangos along with individual data on staff numbers,
taxpayer funding and expenditure as well as national totals and can be
found here (PDF).

A Libertarian Government would look to remove the majority of these worthless Quango's, using the money saved to scrap Income tax, Capital Gains tax, Inheritance tax and reduce the burden on business by cutting Corporation tax to the lowest in Europe.

As a Libertarian I believe in small government. Labour dont, The Conservatives don't, and neither do the LibDem's.

They would be happy to continue needlessly spending your money, indeed the Conservatives have already pledged to keep the same level of spending as Labour, wasting it on worthless Quango's and still asking for more to pay their inflated salaries, a 30% wage rise, expenses and now the new Childcare allowance for MP's worth many thousands.

There IS another way!

Your Life, Your Country, Your Choice.

Related Reading:

Indian Literature: Sanskrit literature, Main Page, Mahabharata, Classical language, Sangam literature, P?li Canon, Vedas, Indian epic poetry, Assamese ... Bengali literature, Bhojpuri language

Driving Change: How the Best Companies are Preparing for the 21st Century

Driving Change: How the Best Companies are Preparing for the 21st Century

Stop the War Coalition: Main Page, Osama Bin Laden, John Rees, Communist Party of Britain, Communist Party of Great Britain Provisional Centre, Committee

Soviet Main Street

One of the flagship policies of the Libertarian Party is to scrap income tax, to be paid for by eliminating the majority of Britain's worthless Quango's..

Our critics say that this is an uncosted policy, would be impossible, would hit front line services and would create an unstable economy. I say that is Bunkum.

When NuLab came to power in 1999 there were a total of 135 Quango's, and in the first manifesto they promised to reduce that number and make government smaller.

Today, The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) presents the full list of the UK’s
vast quango industry, a detailed run-down of the staff and cost of the
1,162 bodies, boards and agencies that make up Britain’s Unseen
Government. It is now five years since the Parliamentary Select
Committee on Public Administration recommended that the Government
publish such a list, a recommendation that the Government has failed to
fulfil. In the absence of an official list, the TPA has compiled one
instead, providing the public with the most comprehensive information
available on the organisations that increasingly spend their money and
influence their lives without democratic oversight. The report can be
found here (PDF).

Key Findings:

• There are 1,162 quangos in the UK, running at a total cost to the taxpayer of £64 billion, equivalent to £2,550 per household.
• Even under the Cabinet Office’s restrictive definition of quangos, the cost of these bodies has risen 50% in the last ten years.
• UK quangos now employ an army of almost 700,000 bureaucrats.
• Even the Government itself does not know the full extent of the
  unaccountable quango industry, which range from the massive e.g. Job
  Centre Plus (Staff: 70,042, Cost: £3.5 billion) and the Courts Service
  (Staff: 19,986, Cost: £704.8 million); to the bizarre e.g. the British
  Potato Council (Staff: 49); or the West Northants Development
  Corporation (Staff: 34, Cost: £15.3 million)
• When the total number of quangos is added to the other government
  subsidiaries such as local authorities and NHS trusts, the total number
  of organisations controlled by the UK Government rises to 2,063, costing the taxpayer £257 billion and employing over 5.1 million people.

Ben Farrugia, author of the report and Policy Analyst at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“Government
in the UK is now so large, diverse and complex that it is impossible
for anyone to manage effectively, let alone by Ministers with no prior
experience of management and little in-depth understanding of the work
carried out by their departments. Government today tries to do too
much, and consequently fails; the structure of government needs to
change if we hope to see better value and significant improvements in
our public services.”

The full report provides
a full list of the quangos along with individual data on staff numbers,
taxpayer funding and expenditure as well as national totals and can be
found here (PDF).

A Libertarian Government would look to remove the majority of these worthless Quango's, using the money saved to scrap Income tax, Capital Gains tax, Inheritance tax and reduce the burden on business by cutting Corporation tax to the lowest in Europe.

As a Libertarian I believe in small government. Labour dont, The Conservatives don't, and neither do the LibDem's.

They would be happy to continue needlessly spending your money, indeed the Conservatives have already pledged to keep the same level of spending as Labour, wasting it on worthless Quango's and still asking for more to pay their inflated salaries, a 30% wage rise, expenses and now the new Childcare allowance for MP's worth many thousands.

There IS another way!

Your Life, Your Country, Your Choice.

Related Reading:

Front Page (Sterling Main Street)

Philby: intelligence service aux mains d'un agent soviétique

Driving Change: How the Best Companies are Preparing for the 21st Century

Old Yishuv: Musta'Arabi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Four Holy Cities, Jerusalem, Main Page, Safed, Tiberias,Jaffa, Deluge Myth

Driving Change: How the Best Companies are Preparing for the 21st Century