ACCORDING to recently released figures, around one million young people are unemployed – and more than half a million pupils who left school, college or university under Labour have never had a job.

Other grim figures released (during the middle of last month) by the Office for National Statistics include:

+ Unemployment in the UK for the fourth quarter of last year was 7.9%. This was up 0.1% on the previous quarter.

+ The total number of unemployed jumped by 44,000 between October and December to 2.49 million – and the number in work dropped by 68,000 over the same period.

+ Youth unemployment rose by 66,000 to 965,000. This is the highest since records began in 1992. The jobless rate is now 7.9 per cent, with the rate for the young jobless running at 20.5 per cent.

+ One in five 16- to 24-year-olds is jobless and searching for work at a time when five unemployed people are chasing every vacancy.

+ The number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance increased by 2,400 between December 2010 and January 2011. Those now claiming JSA number 1.46 million.

Whilst the seeds of these figures were laid on Labour’s ‘watch’ the Coalition’s drastic cuts may multiply the numbers. Rather than balancing the books by reducing expenditure we suggest once again the Banks pay more for their mistakes!

EARLIER this month we reported on the news that Sir Stephen Bubb – the chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations – had called for bank bonuses to be taxed. (1) He suggested a tax rate of 50% – with the proceeds given straight to good causes to help protect them from government spending cuts.

Our article – Will the government tax the super-rich bankers? – noted that these “bank bonuses come at a time of massive job cuts and increases in student fees. They also come at a time when the voluntary sector’s income from state sources could shrink by between £3bn and £5bn as a result of the cuts.”

We highlighted what sort of money was involved in these bank bonuses, and said that we’d be interested in the Con-Dem government’s response to the call to tax them. Our feeling was that Cameron and Clegg would fail to tax these super-rich bosses in order to help poorest and most vulnerable in society. We also felt that the government would effectively “just let the banks dictate terms as they have always done.”

Sadly, all the early indications look like we were bang on the money ourselves. For the Wall Street giant JP Morgan Chase (2) has just announced that it will give its investment bankers an average payout of £233,000 ($369,651) for 2010. The bank employs around 10,000 British-based staff.

But it doesn’t stop there. According to the Mail Online (3) “Goldman Sachs, which unveils its financial results on Wednesday, is tipped to dish out £8billion in salary, bonuses and other perks for 2010 – down from £10billion for the previous year.

Royal Bank of Scotland, 83 per cent owned by the taxpayer, is set to pay out around £1billion in bonuses to staff at its investment bank.

The chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group, Eric Daniels, could be in line for a £2million bonus for 2010 – even though he led the group into its disastrous takeover of HBOS and the ignominy of a taxpayer bailout.

And Bob Diamond, the boss of Barclays, is expected to receive an £8million bonus for last year.”

Now, let’s get one thing straight. The National Liberal Party is not opposed to people having money. Nor are we opposed to people being rewarded in some way for doing a good job. Indeed, some of us are trade unionists – and it’s our job to fight for better wages for our members.

However, there needs to be a sense of proportion here. The banks should be about providing a service. They should not be gargantuan trans-national money-making machines.

It’s not right that some of the most needy and poorest people in society have to survive on benefits and the minimum wage, whilst others are swimming in obscene amounts of money.

Neither is it right that ordinary British working folks are taxed up to the hilt whilst many of Britain’s biggest companies “employ complex and secretive tax arrangements to limit the amount they hand over to the exchequer.” This is a practice that has gone on for years. (4)

At the moment it looks like there’s one law for us – and another for the banksters and big companies. This has to stop.

(1) http://nationalliberal.org/?p=1806

(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jan/14/jp-morgan-bankers-share-10bn

(3) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347253/David-Cameron-Its-wrong-revenge-250k-bank-bonuses.html#ixzz1BDHR2hgm

(4) http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/02/tax-gap-avoidance

The launch of the cross-party campaigning body the People’s Alliance (UK) opens up new possibilities for the UK’s small parties and Independents. Apart from the main three ‘establishment’ parties and what are seen to be ‘single-issue’ parties such as the Greens or UKIP or extreme one such as Respect and the BNP, there are a multitude of smaller centre ground groups and individuals who are unable to get their voices heard and thus stay small. Just as however, two of the largest parties have agreed to work together in a governing Coalition, then why not the smaller ones too for mutual advantage?

The People’s Alliance is not a precursor to a unified party or a supreme decision making body but a co-ordinating body allowing its’ members to benefit from a potentially nationwide coverage of an issue they can all agree on. But can anyone join?

The founders, the National Liberal and United People’s Parties, remain independent parties and both profess to be ‘nationalists’, the former nationalist Liberals the latter liberal Nationalists. In essence both believe that the nation is (should be) a positive force for good. In a world where globalisation has seen the opening up of borders the question of nationality and identity have, within Europe, become once again hot topics. We are not however ‘Traditional Nationalists’ that believe in an ethno-nationalism or racism as the basis of our ideal nation-state. We have all seen in history the dangers of promoting such a world view and the treatment of ‘outsiders’. We on the other hand see the nation as providing the glue that helps hold a people’s together (with family and community) rather than apart. We revel in its’ values of tolerance, fair play, individual liberty and patriotism. We invite all within our state to embrace those values.

If therefore ‘Traditional Nationalists’ such as the BNP would not fit in within our core values then of course those who reject the concept of nationhood out of ignorance or ideology e.g. Marxists would not fit in either. We do not and will not invite such groups to join. But what about those who do not focus or even see themselves as ‘patriotic’?

Firstly, we as National Liberals don’t profess to deal with all matters with the same vigour and interest as we do with regards to, for example, civil liberties, democratic reform or national independence. Others might focus on issues of inequality, education or ecology. We will probably agree with them too. As a rule of thumb if members do not vehemently object to the policies of other members (as they may well to those held by parties on the extreme-left/right) then there will be room within the Alliance.

Secondly, although the PA may ultimately lay the foundation for a ‘Grand Coalition of the Centre’ it is presently and primarily designed to co-ordinate national campaigns. If any of its’ members do not wish to promote a particular one they would be free not to. Although the PA may facilitate or encourage a ‘coalition’ mentality the level of co-operation will be at each member’s discretion.

So, the stage is set for an alternative ‘Coalition’ to that in Westminster. One composed of small, centrist parties that will co-operate to increase the common-sense voice of the ‘Silent Majority’. Who will join us?

Hertfordshire member Brent Cheetham sent the following story to the Herfordshire Mercury which they reprinted on Xmas eve.

A Christmas story (fairy tale)

Mr Scrooge sat behind his mahogany desk and viewed through his glasses the two cold and bedraggled characters seated before him. For it was no less that Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg. Mr Scrooge lived in a big house in the old London town and looked down at our two downtrodden man. He said with a beam on his face “now you two owe me a fortune you need to pay me the debt that you both owe as the national debt has to be repaid now”. But replayed Cameron “it’s all down to that nasty uncle Gordon Brown who spent the money on unwise things” “be that that as it may” retorted scrooge” you still owe me the money and you will have to cut spending.

First to go will have to be Mr Clegg’s Christmas promises to his children over higher tuition fees” Mr Clegg broke down in tears and sobbed in his handkerchief “my baby my baby“ “I don’t know what your smiling at” said mr scrooge to mr cameron you to will have to cut down spending perhaps you could cut prison spending or the armed forces or the civil service but I must be repaid now“ Mr Cameron was now all doom and gloom for it was going to be hard times for him and Mr Clegg. They left mr scrooge downhearted to go home to a bleak house. “No turkey for you two this Christmas” shouted Mr Scrooge down the street as Cameron and Clegg trundled heads down into the snow storm in their long a weary walk home.

And so it was that the children of Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg were to toil and starve, and starve and toil for four solid years. After the four long years were over the national debt was brought down to zero Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg were happy and Mr Scrooge was happy for he was a rich man as he had been repaid his original loan ten times over. As for the children of Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg there was full employment, food in their belly’s and everyone had a roof over their heads, in fact they lived happily ever after. (I did say this was a fairy tell didn’t I ?). Happy Christmas Every body!

American Libertarian Ron Paul was recently quoted about Wikileaks as saying: “In a free society we’re supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, then we’re in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it.”

Alternatively, American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wikileaks’ actions were “an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conventions and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity” and State Dept. Adviser Harold Koh says they “could place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals” as well as “ongoing military operations”.

Whose right

Join in the discussion on http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=52739504313&v=app_

2373072738#!/topic.php?uid=52739504313&topic=14730

If you agree – support the avaaz petition in support of Wikileaks

http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/?vl