Thursday, 16 December 2010

The Case For Lower Taxes

There is no such thing as a normal downturn. Each economic circumstance is unique, created by the changes in economic behaviour that have preceded it.

How could the current downturn be anything like previous ones when, in the intervening period, we have undergone structural changes such as the huge increase in on-line shopping impacting the high street retailers, a reduction in the use of cheques and the resulting loss of a three to four day free credit facility, the increase in the availability and access to information resulting in faster reactions and movements in all markets.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but these three examples serve to show that it is not possible for on economic downturn to be anything like a previous one.

Therefore, the solution will never be the same. This downturn requires a fresh approach. It is time for Plan B. The financial noose of debt is tightening around the throats of every family in the United Kingdom. Our neighbouring countries are in dire straits.

In late September 2008, global financial markets suffered the monetary equivalent of a heart attack. We all know this. And it is now clear that Governments and central banks reacted with unusual speed and an apparent readiness to learn from each other, providing safety nets for their financial systems in the form of loans and by cutting interest rates to energise the money and credit markets.

However, despite the drama, such measures cannot restore a healthy flow of credit to households and businesses overnight and we have been told for over two years that this healing will take time. Lower interest rates can stabilize household spending, stimulate business investment and ease debt-service burdens only if the stimulus can pass freely through the financial system.

In the early phase of a recession, economies face the risk of a downward spiral as households and businesses, concerned about their future amid a mounting avalanche of bad news, reduce their spending. In doing this, they add to the decline in overall demand for goods, services and labour. The knock on effect is that this then translates into falling sales revenues and rising unemployment.



The United Kingdom is in this spiral and needs a way out.

But the system itself is still in intensive care, the money isn’t flowing quickly enough. As a result, it will take longer for the effects of bank rate cuts to fully kick in. This is the first reason for the Coalition Government to consider a fiscal stimulus program in the form of major tax cuts for households and businesses, now.

This would be the shot of adrenalin directly into the heart of the dying patient.

This boost is so vital that it is unthinkable not to do it. This direct injection of money, of energy and oxygen, will lift the ailing economy and has to be done whilst keeping interest rates unchanged.

By cutting tax rates money will be put directly into the pockets of the working people. In the first few months the majority of people will use this additional money to pay off debts and thus the money flows back to the banks and businesses and as a society we will begin to get away from the vast debts overhanging us.

In the following months the nation’s spirits will lift and confidence will creep back slowly. Demand and spending will begin to rise.




The Prime Minister knows that lower taxes help ordinary people in their everyday lives


The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has always said that he wants the government to get out of our lives. That he wants to support families and businesses. I agree.

I want the Government out of my life too. I want the Government to stop taxing my insurance premiums. I want the Government to stop forcing me to buy a TV Licence, Road Tax Licence and VAT at 20%. I want the Government to stop threatening me with court action because one of its Departments paid me too much. I want the Government to stop taxing my holiday. I want the Government to stop threatening me with fines if I don’t file the paperwork that one of its Departments is going loose. I want the Government to leave me alone with my wife and children to build my business, pay my bills and have an occasional break from my hard work to enjoy my family and friends.

One way, and some would say it's the best way, is to tax us less and let us spend our own money.

Campaign for Plan B - #CutTax

Monday, 15 November 2010

Feed the Starving - Crazy Rabbits and Fish Part 2

Is it not a moral disgrace that we throw away food while others starve?

The EU Common Fisheries Policy limits the quantity of fish that fishermen are allowed to catch, in an attempt to improve dwindling stocks. But it also bans fishermen from landing any fish, caught inadvertently, that are not included in the quotas.  

These fish are thrown back into the sea in a practice known as ‘discarding’ and such fish is referred to as ‘discard’ or 'bycatch'.


The EU estimates that up to 60 per cent of fish caught by trawlers in the North Sea is discarded, damaging the sustainability of fish stocks and the marine environment.

English and Welsh fishing boats have thrown five million cod back into the North Sea in the last three years. In 2007, they had to throw back three out of every four plaice caught.

"Discarding" also makes it more difficult for scientists accurately to assess stock levels, which makes it harder to set appropriate quotas.


Failure to comply with these regulations has resulted in prison sentences for some of the UKs fishermen and some have even been prosecuted under legislation originally drawn up to deal with drug dealers and terrorists.

The White Ferrets Solution

The White Ferret believes that fishermen should only throw back fish that are alive. Over-quota fish should be landed and not discarded, but that no direct commercial payment should be made for these fish. Fisherman should be partially compensated for landing fish that would otherwise be discarded, without making it profitable for them to deliberately target the wrong fish.

Instead, these over quota fish should be declared to the authorities as being over quota and responsibility for them should pass to the authority. These fish should then be looked at and recorded by the scientific community so that a full and better understanding of all fish stocks can be achieved with the aim of using this information to develop better fishing methodologies and practices.

Finally, and crucially, these over quota fish should be given to NGOs for free to feed the hungry and starving.

Warehousing, packing, transportation etc should be paid for by the UK Government from Overseas Development funds. The White Ferret believes that this would be a better use of UK taxpayers money as it would help to feed others while at the same time support our own needs and the marine environment.

Overall, fishermen using sustainable practices would receive a larger share of the revenue.






If you like this idea, why not do something to help make it happen?
 whiteferrret@hotmail.co.uk  @thewhiteferret

Friday, 12 November 2010

Crazy Rabbits and Fish – Part 1

The following details are from the latest Press Release from the EU Commission and are helpful for those seeking to understand the structure of the UK’s own fishing policy – i.e there isn’t one, it's all controlled by the European Commission. How can the UK Coalition Government, that is telling UK citizens to help reduce the involvement of Central Government in their lives, continue to take orders from the unelected EU Commissioners.

Men have been imprisioned for catching the wrong fish. Millions of pounds wasted in administering a system that fails to protect fish stocks. High food prices and damaged local economies.  Why do we let this continue?

The details below show you the bedrock of a system that looks reasonable at first glance but is, in reality, rotten to the core.

What are TACs and quotas?

A TAC – which stands for total allowable catch – is a legal limit on the overall amount of fish of a particular species that can be taken from the sea in a given area and brought ashore over a specified period (usually one year).

A quota is a share of the TAC that can be fished by one Member State.

The Commission proposes regulations with TAC levels covering all fish stocks managed under the Common Fisheries Policy, but final power of decision rests with the Council of fisheries ministers.
TACs are needed to limit fishing so that the amount of fish caught and landed does not inhibit the stock’s capacity to spawn and to bring young fish into the stock. A longer-term objective is to bring fishing to those levels of intensity that will produce the highest yields.

Conservation lies at the core of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP); some of the CFP’s main measures are aimed at calculating and enforcing safe levels of capture.

The regulations adopted by the Council also contain an allocation key for sharing out the TACs in the form of quotas among Member States. When the CFP was established, a formula was devised to divide TACs up according to a number of factors, including countries’ past catch record. This formula is still used today, on the basis of what is known as the principle of ‘relative stability’, which guarantees Member States a fixed percentage share of fishing opportunities for commercial species (species targeted by fishermen).

What is the relevance of the World Summit on Sustainable Development to TACs?

In 1992 at Rio de Janeiro, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development reached a wide range of decisions concerning many environmental and development issues. One decision affecting fisheries was that fish stocks should be exploited so that stocks can produce the highest possible long-term yields, known as maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Clearly if too many fish are taken in the short term, stocks become depleted and catches will fall. If stocks were underfished, the sea would be populated by overabundant and ageing fish that would grow slowly and yield little.

Fishing at MSY is about striking the right balance for the long term.

At the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, States decided that a deadline should be fixed for MSY for fish stocks, which should where possible be reached by 2015.
As all Member States of the EU are signatories to this implementation plan, ICES has provided advice on moving towards MSY fishing and the Commission has adapted its working method to the same purpose.

How are TACs and quotas decided?

Each year TACs for the following year are decided by the Council of fisheries ministers. Fishing opportunities for the Baltic Sea are decided in October, for the Black Sea in November or December, and for the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea in December. The TACs for deep-sea species are set every second year – with a proposal under discussion in 2010.

The Council’s decision is the last stage in a long process involving scientists and stakeholders through the Regional Advisory Committees (RACs). Every spring the Commission publishes a consultation document outlining the principles it will use to interpret scientific advice when proposing fishing opportunities for the following year (see IP/10/574).

Scientific advice is provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), which uses biological data collected by national research institutes from research campaigns and landing records from commercial fishing activities to assess the state of the main commercial stocks. The stock assessments for the north-east Atlantic are then examined by the group of national experts who sit on the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management (ACFM), which then delivers a report containing its analysis and recommendations for TACs to the European Commission.
The European Commission subsequently consults its own group of independent experts who together make up the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries (STECF).

Negotiations are also held with non-EU countries and regional fisheries organisations with an interest in or responsibility over the same fishing grounds or stocks. In the case of joint stocks, such as cod in the North Sea, the Commission negotiates bilaterally with Norway.

The Commission then analyses the various options and sets out proposals for the following year’s total allowable catches and the conditions under which they may be caught. These proposals are discussed informally with stakeholders and with the Member States, before being submitted to the Council of Ministers for a final decision.

This annual mechanism has often resulted in fluctuations which have not only prevented fishermen from planning ahead, but have also failed to conserve fish stocks. Since the CFP reform in 2002, the EU has moved to setting long-term quantifiable objectives for attaining and then maintaining safe levels of fish stocks in European waters, together with the measures needed to reach these levels, so that annual TACs are not isolated annual decisions, but part of a multi-annual management approach.

Multi-annual plans are now being put in place for all major commercial stocks.

This change of approach means that for these stocks, major decisions on admissible catch levels are no longer being taken in quite the same way, under very tight deadlines at the end of each year. Instead, each plan sets the rules that determine the level of annual TACs and quotas on the basis of the scientific advice received. The Commission is thus able to consult extensively in advance with all the parties concerned on the objectives to be achieved under each plan and how to achieve them. All plans are based on a precautionary approach to fisheries management, which seeks to ensure that fisheries are sustainable and to minimise their impact on the marine environment.

How do multi-annual plans prevent the TACs and quotas from fluctuating as they did before?
Multi-annual management starts by setting clear objectives, then relies on a plan to meet those objectives over the long term. If reductions in fishing opportunities are needed to bring the stock up to its maximum yield, the plan allows for the resultant measures to be spread over a number of years, thereby moving the management of the resources in the right direction. In this way, fishing opportunities become more stable and more predictable. The industry is better able to plan ahead and operate more efficiently. At the same time, the risk of the stock falling outside safe biological levels is reduced.

What long-term plans are already in place? What further plans have either been proposed or will be proposed soon?

Since 2003 the Council has established long-term plans for cod in the North Sea, Kattegat, Skagerrak, eastern Channel, west of Scotland, the Celtic Sea and Irish Sea (a new version of which came into effect in 2009); for northern hake stocks; and for southern hake and Norway lobster off the Iberian Peninsula. In addition, multi-annual plans are in place for the stock of sole in the Bay of Biscay, sole in the Western channel, sole and plaice in the North Sea, Baltic Sea cod and West of Scotland herring.

The Commission has, moreover, drawn up proposals for long-term plans for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay and for the western stock of Atlantic horse mackerel.

Further details on long-term plans can be found at:


Who are the scientists who provide the Commission with advice? What is ICES?
The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) is an international organisation which coordinates and promotes marine research in the North Atlantic, including adjacent seas such as the Baltic Sea and North Sea. It currently has 19 members, which are all states bordering the North Atlantic, and draws on contributions from more than 1600 marine scientists. The 20 member countries of ICES are: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

ICES is the leading independent authority for advice on the marine ecosystem to governments and international regulatory bodies that manage the North Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas. Scientists working through ICES gather information about the marine ecosystem. As well as working to fill gaps in existing knowledge, they also develop this information to give unbiased, non-political advice on ecosystem and fisheries management.

More information can be found at the ICES website: http://www.ices.dk

The ICES Advisory Committee (ACOM) is responsible for providing, on ICES’ behalf, scientific information and advice on living resources and their harvesting, including wider ecological considerations. In formulating its advice on the management of around 135 stocks of fish and shellfish, the ACOM uses information prepared by numerous ICES stock assessment working groups.

And what is the STECF?

The implementation of the CFP requires the assistance of highly qualified scientific personnel, particularly in the fields of marine biology, marine ecology, fisheries science, fishing gear technology and fisheries economics. For that purpose the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) was established by Commission Decision 93/619/EC and renewed in 2005 by Commission Decision 2005/629/EC.

The members of the STECF are appointed by the Commission from among independent and highly qualified scientists on the basis of their expertise, and consistent with a geographical distribution that reflects the diversity of scientific issues and approaches within the Commission. The term of office of a Committee member is three years and is renewable.

The Committee may form internal working groups, whose meetings can also be attended by invited experts. The Joint Research Centre provides the secretariat of both the Committee and the working groups, and the Commission establishes the terms of reference.

The STECF may be consulted at regular intervals by the Commission on matters pertaining to the conservation and management of living aquatic resources, including biological, economic, environmental, social and technical considerations.

The Committee produces an annual report on the situation as regards fisheries resources and on developments in fishing activities. It also reports on the economic implications of the fishery resources situation.

More information about the STECF can be found at

This is the full detail from an official EU Commission Press Release. But how does this bureaucratic approach actually impact the fish in the sea, the lives of UK fishermen and their families and the prices paid by the British Housewife?  Read Part 2 tomorrow to find out more about the unelected people who influence our lives.

Please leave comments below, email whiteferret@hotmail.co.uk or follow @thewhiteferret

Thursday, 11 November 2010

Compress all Degree Courses

Yesterday’s attacks by students on CCHQ leave me in no doubt that students have too much time on their hands.

It’s not just the half-hearted, ill though out, pointless and utterly unjustified vandalism conducted against hardworking Conservative Party Workers and other businesses that share the building that annoys the White Ferret.  

It’s the fatuous and idiotic reasoning behind it.

Everyone knows that the vast majority of students are never truly stretched in their courses and have too much unfilled time and although some students use this time wisely to do many fantastic and useful things, most don't. It is apparent that many of the current courses could be condensed into a 2 year or even a 1 year programme.
A thorough over haul of all courses is long overdue.

Degree courses should be delivered in a shorter timeframe. This in turn would reduce the financial burden on students and as a magical by-product of this, increase the available places and thus more people would be able to benefit.
Come on Professors! Let’s get these lazy kids working and stop them wasting time under their duvets!!

What’s in a picture?

Today’s dead wood papers have used this image widely, but have of course cropped all the snappers.  Count the number of cameras! Was this a put up job? Who is the loon in the pic? Maybe he was paid? Who knows.

Wednesday, 10 November 2010

Gold Plated and Diamond Encrusted - and YOU pay for it.

Spending agreed by the Gold Plated and Diamond Encrusted Crazy Rabbits running the EU totaled £94 billion of which 90% was "materially affected" by irregularities that included the improper award of contracts worth over £4 billion, Europe's Court of Auditors has found.
The following is from the Daily Telegraph: The findings come amid a heated debate over the size of the EU budget for next year and demands from the European Commission and Parliament to defy national austerity programmes by increasing Brussels spending by six per cent despite 16 years of critical reports by auditors.

16 years of critical reports! 16 YEARS!! And let’s be clear about this. It’s not just critical reports that say ‘fair, could do better etc’ For 16 years NO ONE has signed off the accounts as being correct. That is to say, that for 16 YEARS the accounts have been INCORRECT and no one is doing anything about it. Not a single person in a position of authority is ever going to grip this nasty nettle and sort it out. Why would they? It would be the end of their career.

So the people must act. The people must demand action.

The Coalition has declared that all Councils must publish all expenditure over £500. This is a good start and strikes a balance between disclosure and the administration of that disclosure.

BUT, what of our country’s expenditure with the EU. 

We, the tax payers, need to have these figures in black and white. The White Ferret would like to know the payment dates and how this money is sent to the EU.

1. Is it daily, monthly, quarterly etc
2. On what account is it held, who gets the interest?
3. Who handles the transfers, what are their fees?
4. Which currency do we pay in?
5. Do we, as a country, have a Euro Account run by a British Bank who make millions on the overnight money markets during the transfers? What is the arrangement?

Tuesdays report into the discharge of the EU's £102 billion 2009 budget highlighted "material errors" that affected 92 per cent [92%!!!] of spending, with particular concern expressed over worsening farm subsidy payments and shoddy public procurement rules.

"Error rates remain high," said Vitor Manuel da Silva Caldeira, president of the Court of Auditors, noting a slight improvement between 2008 and 2009. OMG! So it was higher in previous years!  "Errors come mainly from incorrect claims for payment and public procurement errors." A long way of saying theft and stupidity!

This is a big reason why we are broke as a country, why our banks don’t lend, why our businesses can’t borrow, why tuition fees will rise, why you and I struggle to pay our bills, because we are giving it all away to an organization that is unaccountable and will remain so until we demand change. So, the next time your council start telling you about the money they got from the EU ask them for full details and make the time today to contact your MP and ask them some of the questions above.

The White Ferret hates waste....... and the EU is the biggest waste of money above all!

Tuesday, 9 November 2010

Benefit Fraud Investigation - can you help?

We all hear a lot about the efforts to combat benefit fraud and much is made of the larger cases that reach the attention of the hacks in the main stream media. But we all know that millions of pounds of public money is hoovered up by low level crooks and never recovered by councils due to the overly cumbersome systems and processes that prevent the hard working public servants from being effective in their jobs.

The White Ferret has it on good authority that one Council in the South East of England has instigated an age bar on prosecuting fraudsters. They do not persue any fraudster aged over 65. At the time of writing The White Ferret does not have any reason for this decision and is seeking further evidence as to the truth of this and is working to discover more.

Please contact the White Ferret by email whiteferret@hotmail.co.uk  if you can help.
We need to know some, or all, of the following

1. Your councils written Benefit Fraud Prosecution Policy (you can email or DM a link to @thewhiteferret or email as an attachment)

2. What the reality is.Is the policy followed or is life in your council very different?

3. How many cases are put forwards to the Fraud Team in your council ?

4. How many are actually procecuted ?

5. Why were cases dropped ?

It would be helpful to know the details such as:

a) The amount of overpayment
b) the period over which it occured
c) voluntary disclosure
d) previous instantces of fraud
e) mental and physical condition of the accused and their partner
f) social factors
g) inadequate evidence
h) failure in investigation
i) lack of resources to investigate etc
j) failure in benefir adminsitration
h) delays

The White Ferret knows that having a written policy is all well and good for the audit trail, but its what happens on the front desk and the deals done by the water cooler that really matter.

Many of us see these bad things occuring all around us and feel powerless to act etc. If we work together we can make a difference.

Go Team Ferret !!!!