Tuesday, 25 September 2012

State Owned Business Bank UK

The State Ready to Establish Business Bank
Business Secretary Vince Cable has announced the imminent creation of a State-owned business bank to help Britain's productive economy. Speaking from the 2012 LibDem party conference in Brighton, the Liberal Democrat Minister announced the Government is set to invest £1 billion of taxpayers' money into the project, a sum which the Treasury will not claim back. It is expected that this sum will be matched or exceeded by private money. The objective is to increase lending capacity to small and medium-sized firms in the British productive sector.

According to Sky News on 24 September 2012, Mr. Cable intends to boost British manufacturers, announcing: “We need a new British Business Bank with a clean balance sheet and an ability to expand lending rapidly to the manufacturers, exporters and high growth companies that power our economy.”

No More Property Speculation and Financial Gambling
In a bid to signalise a break from Britain's notorious system of financial speculation within the economy, Vince Cable went on to state: “We are so good at so many things in this Country – but for too long the mirage of growth based on property speculation and financial gambling has hidden the harder virtues of making things productively.”

The project for a new State-owned business bank, which could start operating in late 2013 or early 2014, has met the enthusiastic support of the British Chambers of Commerce, whose Director General, John Longworth, said: “We are pleased that ministers are heeding our call to create a business bank that goes well beyond a re-badging of existing schemes.”
According to the British Chambers of Commerce, 60% of firms say they would be more confident with a State-backed business bank in the United Kingdom.

Accountability in the Banking System
The UK banking system essentially crashed in 2008 as a result of speculation-driven investments, whereby the debtors, both in Britain and abroad, were faced with artificially high mortgages and high interest rates and could not pay back their debt, thus leaving many banks to declare a state of insolvency. The banks had progressively participated in the creation of a pyramid debt in the property market, whereby profits were made through the systematic and relentless increase in house prices, steadily pushing property values far in excess of their real value.
Other forms of financial gambling, often interlinked with the property market, and with no anchor in the real economy, were all designed to assure consistent profits to the banks, and, not least, to ensure consistent bonuses to bankers.

However, since 2008, British banks have done nothing to reverse the artificial prices of properties, and many people in Britain are burdened with mortgages and other forms of private debt, in many cases coupled with high interest rates. The uncertainty attached to regular repayment of debt has led the banks to become reluctant in giving out loans, even to businesses, with the banks preferring to sit on their stock of cash.

As all this is proof of fake accountability on the part of UK banks towards the real economy, the business bank envisaged by the British Government must surely be based on accountability, on economic reality, and not less importantly, on the basis that a lending bank cannot make enormous profits if it is to serve free market enterprises, such as small and medium-sized businesses.

Furthermore, in the free market sector of private businesses striving to perform in the economy, there can be no scope for self-serving bankers attempting to line their pockets with annual bonuses that by far exceed their top-salary. Whenever bankers collectively detract billions of pounds a year in bonuses from the banks' balance sheet, surely this money must come from the customers who have been grossly over-charged, or misled into investing in schemes that later become toxic debt.

In conclusion, the British productive economy cannot afford to rely on private banks whose first and foremost objective is to garner billions of pounds a year in bankers' bonuses, as this money would have to come from free enterprise, which in turn would tend towards bankruptcy.

Written by D. Alexander

Read on:
Britain's future Prosperity:

Wealth tax coming to Britain:

Sunday, 23 September 2012

Wealth Tax Coming to Britain

The LibDems Call for a Wealth Tax
Britain has never had a wealth tax, apart from the Window Tax of 1696, which was based on the assumption that only wealthy people could afford large houses with numerous windows.
However, from their 2012 party conference in Brighton, the Liberal Democrats have announced plans for a Wealth Tax on houses worth at least £1 million. According to Sky News on 23 September 2012, the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, stated: “the vast majority of people in this country won't find it acceptable if further fiscal austerity was implemented on the backs of the poor”.

Wealth Tax as a Condition for Further Spending Cuts
The LibDems have made it clear they will not support any further spending cuts proposed by the Conservative Coalition partners unless some form of Wealth Tax is agreed upon. But what would happen if the Tories refuse? This would imply that, in order to push through a new round of cuts in budget expenditure, the Conservatives would need to bring to an end the Coalition with the Liberal Democrats, or await the next General Election and attempt to go it alone.

But with the Liberal Democrats losing public support in Britain, many see it as a forgone conclusion that this party will rather choose to hold a firm stance and confront the Conservatives at the ballot box, than give up their attempt to introduce fairer laws in Britain concerning the distribution of wealth. So the only safe way forward for the Coalition is to agree on the introduction of a tax on accumulated private assets.

The Conservative Party and Wealth Tax
Supporters of the Conservative party are generally opposed to any form of tax on accumulated wealth, no matter how rich a person may be. To push through Parliament some form of taxation on accumulated assets would constitute a precedent in British history, something completely new, possibly opening the door to a social society where limits are fixed on how far an individual can go in storing private assets.

Such a law could be built upon, increasing the tax percentage on higher amounts of personal wealth, including financial securities such as gilts and bonds, as well as shares. It could see Britain's aristocrats being taxed on their mansions, palaces and estates. All things adverse to Tory philosophy could be achieved once a Wealth Tax were introduced, as Conservative way of thinking in Britain is to preserve the wealth of the rich while inflicting spending cuts on the masses.

And yet, in order to appear successful in the eyes of the public opinion, the Coalition Government needs to be reciprocal. It must agree on at least some major principles of each of the parties comprising the Coalition. So perhaps we will soon see a change of heart in the Conservative way of thinking, an acceptance that, in times of harsh austerity, the Country must come first, and that individual hoarding of wealth needs to be addressed. 

Written by D. Alexander

See also: David Cameron to clamp down on company directors:  

British Government suggests prison for reckless bankers:

Austerity destroying Britain:

Thursday, 20 September 2012

Britain's Future Prosperity

British Party: Britain's Future Prosperity
Page 2
The Public Debt
Britain's public debt, also known as national debt, is the money the State owes to purchasers of UK bonds and gilts. In 2002, Britain's national debt was equal to 29% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). As of August 2012, the money the State owes stands at around £1.032 trillion. That is one trillion and 32 billion pounds, equivalent to just over 65% of GDP. This is an increase of £150 billion from May 2010, when the present Coalition took office. At that time, the public debt was £850 billion.

The Coalition's spending cuts in the economy, which include a programme to reduce public sector employment by around 700,000 people over a period of several years and to drastically cut council budgets, have had no effect in reducing our Country's Debt. In fact it would appear that public spending cuts can do nothing to change the financial ruin Britain is facing, as the roots of the problem have not been analysed by the economists.

The economic reality is indeed worse: the official figures for Britain's national debt do not include the Net debt, which equals around £2.3 trillion, to be precise, two trillion and 311 billion pounds. The Net debt includes a series of factors relating to State interventions in the financial sector, such as the costs for the bailout of a number of British banks in 2008, and is equivalent to 147% of GDP.

Cost of Public Debt
The cost for servicing the national debt is the interest the State pays to purchasers of government bonds and gilts. Currently, the interest paid by the British State on the public debt is between £40 billion and £50 billion a year, but as the debt is expected to increase to 100% of GDP by 2015, the interest will progressively go up by tens of billions of pounds a year, reaching possibly £70 billion and more by 2015.

This means that, as things stand now, over a four year period from the start of 2012 to the end of 2015, we will have paid between 200 and 250 billion pounds on public debt interest. These figures do not include any further interest which is owed by the State on the total Net debt of £2.3 trillion.

The money to pay the interest on Britain's national debt comes partly from taxing the Public in general, including businesses. Further money is raised through the sale of State assets, such as British commercial ports to give just one example. And in part the money comes simply through the sale of more UK bonds and gilts, thus increasing the public debt even more for future years!

A result of this debt, and the interest paid on it, becomes manifest through increased poverty within the economy caused by spending cuts, generally known as austerity. This involves scaling back the number of public employees, reducing public sector pensions, reducing benefits, cutting back on council budgets and essential services. The general financial recession in Britain and many other countries means that the private sector cannot offer sufficient employment or bring in extra revenues to compensate for the financial gap brought about through austerity.

Local Economic Administration
Britain's future Prosperity will come about through responsibility on the part of Local Government towards their own community. This is an essential part of British Party policy, and it is based on the principle that the local treasury must always be in positive, and never in debt. Councils would enjoy a larger share in revenues deriving from the local economy, with a smaller percentage of revenues going to the State treasury.

Economic boards run by Local Government will have the duty to create productive employment in their administrative areas whenever this can be of local and national benefit: in the fields of agriculture and industry, in the efficient running of public services and in employment-training programmes. The days when the vast amount of revenues were administered by Central Government will come to an end, to be replaced by close accountability on the part of District and County Government.

As a higher percentage of public revenue will go to these councils, including a percentage of income tax and corporation tax, it will be in their own interests to ensure that local prosperity, including employment, is open to the whole community and not out-sourced to cheap foreign labour. This will be particularly imperative as Local Government would never be allowed to incur a public debt of any kind, and would be responsible for paying all unemployment-related benefits in their own area.

It will be the duty of Council Government to monitor every instance of unemployment-related benefits, to help every resident entitled to employment – and in need of employment – to also gain fair access to the work market.
Britain will be free from the European Union and from any foreign parliament or foreign legislation. Accountability in the management of public finances will be a priority, and will start at the smallest level of Government.

Who Will Pay the Public Debt?
How the national debt will be paid off, and how the interest on this debt will be paid for, is a question that needs to be answered. 
Will high interest rates on private debt pay off the State's shortcomings? Will stamp duty on artificially high house prices pay for it? Will the Government sell Britain's remaining public assets to cover the costs of Public Debt?

None of these solutions would ever work, and none of them are part of British Party policies. Speculation and greed within the economy are unacceptable, as too is the idea of lack of accountability in managing the State's finances.

Written by D. Alexander

Link to page 1 of Britain's Future Prosperity:

Prosperity Coming to Scotland:

Tuesday, 18 September 2012

British Party: Britain's Future Prosperity

British Party: Britain's future Prosperity
Page 1
Economic Prosperity in Britain
The British economy needs to be redefined through a Constitution of Economy, a set of regulations that would ensure a prosperous future for our Country.
Free market decisions could be taken and free trade would be guaranteed, but within fair regulations upholding citizens' rights. Currently there are rules and regulations governing the economy, including trade and commerce, as well as taxes, so the idea is nothing new. But we do need a new book of rules, in the form of a Constitution, in order to avoid the catastrophic desolation to which our Country is heading.

At present there are thousands upon thousands of EU rules and regulations regarding economic matters, far too many, and the sheer number of regulations often leaves scope for loopholes that can be exploited to the detriment of our Society. One of the results of the current legislation is that many factories in Britain have closed down and transferred production abroad, while others have opted for employing almost exclusively non-British workers. This is generally known as exploitation of cheap foreign labour, the result of which is millions of people in Britain being consigned to unemployment.

In order to achieve Prosperity, we need a Constitution of Economy that would safe-guard our Country from the interference of Big-Government and from the interference of foreign parliaments, such as the European Union Parliament.

Local Administration and Accountability
One of the foundations of Prosperity consists in accountability, where an administrative authority has an overview of the economic situation within its own boundaries, has precise obligations towards its residents, and depends to an important extent on revenues from the economy present within these same administrative boundaries.

Central Government is not in a position to be accountable for all the unemployed people in the Country, whereas Local Government at County and District level is fully aware of all the general circumstances regarding unemployment within their area. For this reason, Local Government should have the legislative authority to ensure that its residents have the possibility to find employment.

Central Government should not pay unemployment or housing benefits, as these should be at the sole expense of the local community, such as the County or the District. This could only work if a percentage of income tax and corporation tax were paid directly to the councils. Once this percentage has been calculated, it would become the sole duty of Local Government to make sure that its incomes are sufficient to pay for all benefits relating to unemployment and low incomes.

Local administration would have the duty to require all employers registered within their administrative boundaries to comply with the constitutional laws. Employers who discriminate against British people by recruiting – out of principal – Eastern Europeans, as is the case in many minimum-wage factories in England, would be summoned to Court to respond to charges of ethnic discrimination against British citizens. They would be held accountable owing to the fact that the local community is responsible for paying unemployment and housing benefits to the unemployed.

Local Government would be able to reach the roots of unemployment by enforcing the Law that forbids ethnic discrimination, which is one of the main causes of unemployment among people in Britain. The councils would be encouraged, and indeed obliged, to run training courses for the resident citizens that would enable them to find work in factories and warehouses - or in any other sphere of the economy - present within the administrative boundaries.

Therefore, an important incentive to motivate Local Government in reducing unemployment is by including in the Constitution a law requiring that unemployment-related benefits are not paid by the State Treasury, but by the councils. Reducing unemployment by monitoring how employers recruit workers, ensuring they do not apply discrimination against British nationals, would lead to less money being paid for unemployment-related benefits, as the cost of unemployment would rest on the local community. 

This would guarantee all British citizens a fair chance in finding work and receiving a decent income, rather than being abandoned to living on benefits owing to the absence of accountability on the part of Central Government.

So long as taxes are paid almost exclusively into the national Treasury, Central Government will continue to fail in accountability when managing and distributing our finances, ignoring the regional problems affecting the British economy. The Government will only continue adding to the Public Debt, and we will be heading into a situation where the interest we pay on this Debt becomes unsustainable. If this is not indeed already the case.

In order to ensure strict discipline in guaranteeing accountability within a fair society, Local Government would never be allowed to create a public debt, nor to circulate bonds or other paper value. However, council administrations would be encouraged and obliged to enhance the local productive economy with which they are in direct contact, not through projects encouraging immigration, but for the sole purpose of guaranteeing employment and prosperity for the local community. 

Written by D. Alexander

Link to page 2, Britain's future Prosperity:

Friday, 14 September 2012

Do Cancer Cells Have an Immune System?

Do cancer cells have an immune system of their own to counter the body's immune system?

Professor Douglas Fearon, Cambridge University
Researchers at Cambridge University have conducted a study on a cancer immune system that prevents the body's own immune system from destroying tumour cells. The study, led by the immunologist Professor Douglas Fearon, was carried out on genetically modified mice.

Stromal Cells in Tumours
The online publication NHS Choices (5th November 2010), citing a report from the peer-reviewed journal Science, reveals that the research team focused their attention on stromal cells, which form the connective tissue of tumours. Stromal cells contain a protein called fibroblast activation protein alpha (FAP), which prevents the body's immune system from destroying cancer cells.

Stromal cells carry out important functions within the body, such as in the healing process of a wound. These same tissue cells, however, have been found essential for the survival of cancer cells. A tumour manifests itself as a wound, whereby the FAP contained in the stromal cells does not protect the body from the tumour, but instead protects the cancer cells from the body's immune system that would otherwise destroy the cancer.

The FAP contained within the stromal cells becomes a shield and source of nourishment that maintains the tumour cells and in so doing allows these to continue dividing and spreading unhindered by the body's natural defences. The tumour cell's strategy lies basically in presenting the tumour as an injury that needs protecting and healing, and not as a cause of illness to the body.

Regulating FAP
The object of the research carried out at Cambridge University consisted in modifying in various ways the FAP response in mice in order to prevent the protein from protecting lung cancer cells. This resulted in the tumour cells being gradually destroyed by the natural immune system of the mice. According to Professor Douglas Fearon, an important piece may have been found within the jigsaw to healing various kinds of cancer.

The success achieved in regulating FAP in mice could become the basis for a vaccine for cancer treatment in humans, and would involve a process of training the body's immune system to confront and eliminate a tumour through FAP regulation within stromal cells. The important function that these tissue cells have on the body's natural healing process means that they have a positive value, yet they are equally important in preserving different forms of tumours, which, of-course, is detrimental to the body.

Once the FAP protein can be cut off from tumour cells in humans, a great step forward will have been achieved in cancer cure by breaking down the immune system of cancer cells. According to Professor Fearon, although the research is at an early stage, it is possible that the results achieved on mouse tumours will also work in human versions of the disease.


Online publication NHS Choices (5th November 2010)

Written by D. Alexander