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:  

http://celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2012/01/david-cameron-to-clamp-down-on-company.html 

British Government suggests prison for reckless bankers:

http://celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2012/01/british-government-suggests-prison-for.html

Austerity destroying Britain:

celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2012/08/austerity-destroying-britain.html

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:

celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2012/09/britishparty-britains-future-prosperity.html

Prosperity Coming to Scotland:

celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2011/11/prosperity-coming-to-scotland.html

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:
celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2012/09/britains-future-prosperity.html

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.

Source:

Online publication NHS Choices (5th November 2010)

Written by D. Alexander

Monarchy in Britain

Can a Human Family Require Worship of the People?

In Britain there is one family which claims to be the head of just about everything. The Windsor family. They claim to be the head of the English Church, the head of the Government, the head of the State, the head of the Armed Forces, and the head is always seen on money and postage stamps.

But are we required to worship this family? It is unelected yet claims to be omnipresent in our lives, over our institutions, and is surrounded by thousands of guards. The same family has at its exclusive disposal palaces, castles and vast estates, and receives payments in money from the British State and even from the European Union.

However, for all their luxury and financial wealth, no-one is obliged to worship them, for they cannot rule over the soul of other people.

The Celestial Monarchy

Prosperity comes from High, from where life on earth has its origin, namely from the High City that is House to the Throne of God. Our Saviour is Jesus Christ, whom the Father sent to us as Shepherd, showing us the gate to Life Eternal. He did not say that we have to worship a human family and call them head of the Church and head of the State.

For this reason alone the Windsor family cannot require worship from us, as they have not been given divine authority to do so. They do not receive our prayers and do not give prosperity, they cannot command the Spirit, and their luxurious way of life is not even in consonance with the message of the Gospel.

The Windsor family is not the founder of the English Church, which came into being through the Kentish king Ethelbert and his Christian wife Bertha, precisely in Kent, and also in Northumbria through the Celtic missionaries from the Scottish island of Iona.

Elected Government in Britain

Our chosen form of government in Britain is democracy and the House of Commons. Through democratic election we are entitled to periodically elect the Lower House of Parliament, where elected common people are expected to govern our Country to the benefit of the British People.

Written by D. Alexander

Prosperity Coming to Scotland:
celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2011/11/prosperity-coming-to-scotland.html

The Origins of the English Church:

celticbritannia.blogspot.com/2011/12/origins-of-english-church.html

Austerity Destroying Britain

The financial crisis is having a negative impact on Britain's society, effectively destroying people's health and even physically destroying Society.

Choosing Desolation

Britain's economy could prosper, we could be planting more orchards, increasing agricultural output, producing textiles and electronics and so many other things our economy once excelled in; but instead, our society is degenerating into poverty and desolation.

An article published on Sky News on 14 August 2012, under the title: Health Suffering in Austerity Britain, reveals the results of a survey among British GPs. According to this survey, an increasing number of women are requesting abortion because of their financial situation.

Children who would be born into our society are being aborted, their developing phase of life within the womb is being terminated as a result of Britain's fall into desolation. All this is happening while bankers and chief executives of large share-companies are battling to maintain their right to receive millions of pounds a year in annual bonuses to add to their top wages.

An End to Sport Activity in Return for Anxiety

Three quarters of the 300 GPs involved in the survey stated that the economic situation is making their patients unhealthier.

Doctors are saying that 60% of their patients have given up sports activities through lack of financial means, while an increasing number of people are seeking medical help for anxiety-related problems caused through financial stress. Indeed, they have reported a rise in heart disease and cancer for these very reasons, caused by stress and anxiety.

Britain's Families at Risk of Breaking up

Another cause for concern is an increase in alcohol abuse owing to finance-related stress problems. Unemployment is one major cause for stress, and so too is the knowledge that one may become unemployed any time soon. Parents with children, with rent or mortgage bills to pay, or who risk having to mortgage their house in order to access money, are at risk of falling into Britain's increasingly vicious private debt spiral.

Shark loans are common practice in Britain, when banks decline to give a loan and people turn to the shark loan scene. British Law does not pose any limit on interest rates, and so extortionate interest rates can be exacted on loans, such as 40% interest a month, or 4000% interest a year.

In Britain, this is perfectly legal, and the result it has on people's health, and on the breaking up of families, does not seem to bother in the least the high-class wealthy society of the rich. The money-lenders are quite happy to exact their pound of flesh on desperate folk, squeezing blood from a stone, as our society is being sacrificed to poverty, home-eviction and desolation.

Written by D. Alexander

For Sky News article see the following link:

news.sky.com/story/972215/health-suffering-in-austerity-britain

Flowers of the Forest played by the Scots Guards:
http://youtu.be/0k7c6croM-I

The English Civil War: Battle of Edgehill

In 1642, at the start of the English Civil War, two English armies headed into battle to solve a constitutional dispute between King and Parliament.

On Sunday 23 October 1642, the first major battle of the English Civil War was fought at Edgehill in Warwickshire. On one side stood the army loyal to King Charles I, who was marching on London; on the other were the forces sent out by the English Parliament to prevent him reaching the capital.

Military Preparations Prior to the Battle of Edgehill

After falling out with Parliament, King Charles departed from London on 10 January 1642 and with his retinue travelled around England, testing the level of support among the people in his cause against Parliament. Having failed to gain possession of an important military arsenal in the walled port of Hull, the King left Yorkshire and headed south to the Midlands, with a military force numbering 2,000 men on horse and as many infantry.

Charles reached Nottingham, where he raised his standard on 22 August, declaring his intention to march on London and confront Parliament with force of arms. The King's cavalry was under the command of his nephew, Prince Rupert of the Rhine, the twenty-three year-old son of the Elector Palatine. Having seen combat in the Netherlands and in Germany's Thirty Years War, Rupert was considered the most experienced cavalry commander in the King's service.

As Summer drew into Autumn, thousands of volunteers assembled at the Royalist encampment, and the army's numbers swelled to over ten thousand, many equipped with standard fighting weapons, others with implements such as pitchforks and cudgels. During this time, aristocratic families all over England were sending donations of money and silver to the King's headquarters, thus enabling the commanding officers to provide for their men and purchase fodder for the horses.

Meanwhile, London's local militia, known as the London Trained Bands, had been mobilised by Parliament. Numbering around 7,000 men at arms, the capital's Trained Bands rapidly developed into a standing army, with thousands more men arriving in London to increase the numbers.

From the outset of the military preparations, the English Parliament lacked sufficient funds to finance a large and improvised military force, and having gained the loyalty of the English Navy in a preemptive move before it could pass over to King Charles's cause, the treasury was obliged to meet the combined costs of both the fleet and the army.

Command over the parliamentary army had been assigned to the Earl of Essex, a veteran who, like Rupert, had seen action in the Netherlands and in Germany. At the outbreak of the war, Essex's forces numbered 21,000 infantrymen and 4,200 cavalry, and with 46 pieces of field artillery and numerous horse-drawn supply wagons, his army was effectively a fully fledged fighting force.

Military training among the soldiers, however, was far from complete, and there were as yet no reconnaissance units that could give the commanders vital information on the movements and numbers of the Royalist forces. When on the march, Parliament's army used forced requisition of food as a means to supply the troops.

Heading Towards English Civil War

In the month of September 1642, the two opposing English armies began to march out of their bases, located respectively at Nottingham and London, to fight what they believed would be a single battle to solve the constitutional dispute. Neither side knew that the first battle would give way to a prolonged civil war.

The Royalists crossed through the Midlands, reaching Stafford and then Shrewsbury, continually increasing in numbers as more men joined King Charles's regiments. As was the case with Essex's army, the Royalist forces were not fully trained and were equally without any form of intelligence network.

The Earl of Essex assembled his troops at Northampton, and on 14 September headed towards Coventry. He then turned west towards Worcester in order to block the road to London, this being his first and foremost objective in order to prevent Charles from reaching England's capital, London.

On 23 September, advancing cavalry units of the opposing armies engaged in combat near the Worcestershire village of Powick. In this first skirmish of the English Civil War, Prince Rupert was able to demonstrate his commanding abilities, routing a large column of parliamentary cavalry while leading a surprise attack.

The Royalist army continued to slowly advance on London, and by 22 October Charles approached Banbury, commanding an army of 15,000 men, including over 3,500 cavalry, and an artillery train of 20 cannon of various calibres. On their arrival, no-one in the Royalist army was aware that the Earl of Essex, after marching out of Worcester, had assembled the larger part of his army – around 12,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry – outside the nearby village of Kineton.

About one third of the parliamentary army was still heading towards Kineton when news reached Essex's headquarters that the King's army was encamped only four miles away upon a ridge, holding a strong defensive position overlooking the road to London. The parliamentarian soldiers abruptly realised that the King had overtaken them along the route to England's capital.

Edgehill, the Opening Battle in the English Civil War

The following day, 23 October 1642, the Earl of Essex paraded his infantry on the plain below the ridge known as Edgehill, hence the name of the battle that was about to take place there. Twelve parliamentary regiments were deployed in three brigades, flanked on each side by the bulk of the cavalry; two more regiments of horse remained in reserve, spread out among the infantry.

Rather than conducting an uphill attack on the strongly defended positions held by the Royalists, Essex gave orders to hold firm on the plain, as the rest of the infantry and artillery would arrive within a day. He knew that the King's forces entrenched on the heights would be obliged to come down in order to have access to food from the surrounding villages, and, more importantly, to avoid being surrounded from two sides after the arrival of the parliamentary reinforcements.

It was around 2 in the afternoon when King Charles's regiments marched down in full force, advancing within half a mile of the opposing army. Three brigades held the front line, with two behind flanked by Rupert's cavalry. Several regiments of horse were kept in reserve, with orders given them by Rupert to actively support the infantry as soon as they engaged in battle.

The footsoldiers on both sides included units of musketeers and pikemen, the 16-foot long pikes being an effective defence against a cavalry onslaught. With both armies remaining immobile, the only contact came about through exchanges of artillery fire. At 3 o'clock the first hand to hand fighting took place as Rupert, moving from the right with a great number of the King's cavalry, took on Essex's left flank, careering head-on towards the parliamentary cavalry gathered on that part of the field.

Then the left flank of the Royalist horse charged down, sweeping upon Essex's right flank and taking on all his cavalry positioned there. Within minutes, the parliamentary riders on both flanks turned and fled, heading back in the direction of Kineton towards their base, some three miles away. Rupert's mounted men pursued them, riding far from the battlefield and eventually coming upon their opponents' supply wagons in Kineton.

Unknown to Rupert was the spontaneous decision of all the mounted Royalist reserve units to join in the pursuit. In so doing they disobeyed his orders, for King Charles's infantry had meanwhile moved forward engaging the opposing foot regiments, but found themselves exposed to Essex's two reserve regiments of horse, which, being positioned among the infantry, had avoided the Royalist cavalry onslaught.

The tables were turned, and now it was Essex's remaining cavalry charging upon the king's infantry and artillery, unopposed by Rupert and his cavalrymen who had effectively abandoned the field. The Royalist riders returned shortly before nightfall, exhausted, to find the two contending armies in a position of stalemate, with neither side having obtained a military advantage.

The battle rapidly concluded as the parliamentary army withdrew from the field under cover of darkness, heading back to Kineton. King Charles's army withdrew to the heights, and one thousand five hundred men lay dead and dying below Edgehill.

Written by D. Alexander