Posts Tagged ‘City of London’

Which way will you vote in the EU Referendum?

March 28, 2016

Which way will you vote in the EU Referendum?

www.darkolitricks.com.

As the debate rages around the UK on whether we should leave or stay in the EU. The question is are people really thinking for themselves or are they just believing all the crap that the daily rags tell them to?

We have owners of multiple papers who live offshore most of the year just to get out of paying their fair share of UK tax, telling us tax payers what to do. Is this really fair? It’s just the rich elite who are always going to go from strength to strength as long as no-one stands up to them enforcing their will on the people as they always do.

Will people who vote actually make a real decision or will they be swayed like the US electorate always is to vote for the person with the biggest smile, angriest most bullish comments and plans to “restore America to greatness” as if it had suddenly become a third world country without the biggest economy and military in the world?

So the BREXIT referendum all rests on whether people believe the “deal” Cameron brought back was worth the paper it was written on or not.

To me Cameron’s “Deal”, is just a tinkering around the edges that prevents migrants from claiming benefits for years, and allows Britain to cap the number of people entering the country. It really doesn’t make much of a difference at all.

We will still will be bound by the European Court of Human Rights, pay our monthly millions to be part of the EU, and whilst the Euro zone members make important financial decisions we will now be left out of them and probably still be asked to pay towards any bailouts such as those for Greece and Ireland etc.

I never got to vote to join the EC in the 70’s.

That was the Economic Community, a joining together of countries for free trade without tariffs between members and a supposed opening up of the many countries nationalised utilities and businesses.

It was not a vote on whether we should join a European Super State, with its own Defence Force, a 3 tier decision-making system where the most democratic body, the European Parliament, has the least power.

People complain about the number of EU migrants that enter Southern Europe and are then just waved through multiple  counties until they reach Germany or Calais hoping to get to England. However we must remember that about 1.8m Britons live in Europe, with Spain boasting an expat population of just over 1m UK citizens.

Of the Britons living in Europe, 400,000 are claiming a state pension from the UK.

The question is, if free movement is good for us, what will happen when it is shut down. We may be able to control the number of migrants from the EU entering the country but what will happen to the retired wrinkled leather tanned grannies of the Costa Del Sol?

leather tanned grannies
An ex Pat, enjoying the Sun and beach

Will these ex pats all have to go through some sort of immigration test as if they were trying to get green cards in the US?

I cannot even imagine many Brits passing any part of a test that expected them to know the hosts language and culture.

It could be that we manage to make arrangements that doesn’t affect Brits with jobs OR money from going out to live in the EU however I am guessing a lot of EU members are really pissed off with us at the moment for getting a “special membership deal”.

Whilst Germany and France wanted to keep us in the EU for the risk that it might fall apart, I can well imagine many newer members are thinking, why does the UK always try to get it’s own way?

From my perspective it would have been good if Cameron had reached a consensus with other members that would have reformed the EU properly.

You know basic things like make it truly democratic, removed any moves to keep pushing for a super state, restored it back to a trading block that was good for business without all the imported laws and of course stopped all the massive fraud which has prevented a real audit for many years now.

There are lots of things wrong with the EU and the constant push towards a superstate is one of them. One of the original ideas was to try and make a block of states that was an equal balance to the power of the US but instead we have just turned into the USA’s cross pond bitch.

So I believe Cameron’s almost Chamberlain like “Peace in our time”, excitement at having got his deal, is going to bite him in the butt just as Chamberlain found out when the NAZI’s ignored his magic bit of paper and rolled across Europe.

This is small fry being pumped with steroids to make it seem like a massive change in our relationship with the EU. In reality it is some small changes around the edges.

If ever someone had made a worthless deal and wanted to sell it to the public as if it was a magic exemption from all the EU’s meddling in our lives, like the EU Human Rights Law that protects us from this Police State country over reaching in its step, then this is it.

When I was younger I liked being able to hop on a plane and just go to Spain to live. I had no job but that didn’t matter, free movement of people and workers meant we could all go where we wanted when we wanted without border checks, citizenship tests and green cards.

For those who have never lived abroad and have only gone to Ibiza on your holiday or maybe a trip to Paris on Valentines day then you won’t really think about the difference between a holiday and actually being able to pick up your bags and literally run off to any part of Europe with no questions asked.

However whilst Spain has always been the old stereotyped destination for our UK retirees it seems over recent year the US, Australia and the rest of the world have overtaken Europe for the primary destination for those with one foot in the grave.

The top 10 destinations for Britons to retire to are now:

  • Channel Islands: 73,030
  • Germany: 96,938
  • France: 172,806
  • Ireland: 253,605
  • South Africa: 305,660
  • New Zealand: 313,850
  • Spain: 381,025
  • Canada: 674,371
  • United States of America: 758,919
  • Australia: 1,277,474

So maybe the modern “cultured” Brit is changing their retirement plans and thinking a bit more further than the Costa Del Crime nowadays.

Spain has always been our number one destination for holidays and retirees. A place where you can enjoy the 40° heat and drink British beer in pubs frequented by famous English gangsters on the run.

So many famous British gangsters have been out to the Costa Del Sol no wonder we call it the Costa Del Crime.

However it seems we are looking wider than Med for our retirement plans – that’s if we get any pension money. I doubt I will ever see any from the thousands I have put into the system over my working career. It seems the Tories want us to work until our 80’s and the age is constantly being pushed upwards.

There have been rumblings from Tory think tanks for years now from people already on hundreds of thousands of pounds a month pensions who believe we should do voluntary work in our retirement to collect our hard earned pension.

Leaving the EU won’t stop any evil Tory plans from coming to fruition and if we want a REAL CHANGE in our democracy and the way we act in the world we should be thinking about NATO. What would we do if Turkey start a war with Russia over Syria, we would be forced to fight on their side whether they started the war by deception or not. I am more worried about World War III happening due to duplicitous NATO allies at the moment than the amount of money we pay in and get back in rebates from the EU.

We should also be thinking about how the Tories have tripled our national debt in the years they were supposedly “fixing the roof whilst the sun was shining”, and supposedly cutting the ever so important deficit. The deficit may have dropped but the total amount of debt has increased hugely due to the Tories thinking that the poorer we all are, the more money we will spend.

They have failed us. In Europe, on the world stage and most importantly at home.

Austerity hasn’t worked at all and the national debt has ballooned because of the Tories core voters (the grey brigade), will vote against anyone who dares to cut their pensions.

These take up a vast proportion of the social security budget and will undoubtedly be ignored whist the disabled and poor are forced to suffer through the bedroom tax, universal credit, and the severe lack of social housing we have in this country.

Europe has no control over these areas of our lives and if we want to sort out our country we really need to get rid of the failed Tories and try their method of printing money, not at 0% interest rates so the Banksters can lend it to us through companies like WONGA at 5,853% APR, but to invest in infrastructure, building new homes and putting people through education. If we can do it for the banks why can’t we do it for the people?

Remember we were in a much worse off state in the years after WWII. We only just finished off paying our debt to the US a few years ago under Gordon Brown. Despite that we still created the NHS, cleared the slums of London and built thousands of new houses and multiple new towns for the people moved out of London. Plus we ushered in an age of economic prosperity that latest decades.

It is only short-sighted Tory thinking that keeps us in the current trap we are in. One where bankers must be bailed out even though they should be in jail, and the poor are paying off the national debt, despite having no money.

If only we would just wipe any national debt on citizens like Iceland did to many mortgage holders that were linked to inflation. It sounds crazy but would put money in the pockets of those most likely to spend it, plus create a huge demand for goods and a rise in GDP. Having a “National Bank” that can print money as long as it’s for investment in houses and jobs could give us full employment, cheaper rent and accommodation costs and more money in the pocket to spend to increase GDP.

At the moment our whole economy, just like it was during Labours time in office, is built on the house of cards made from debt. People remortgaging houses or taking out loans to spend on goods. An unsustainable recovery. Screw the bankers who say it cannot be done. We did it for you, why can’t we do it to actually help rebuild our country?

So the question is, are people going to think with their heads or their hearts about this exit from the EU.

A lot has changed with the European project to stop a further European war after WWII, with France and Germany the two main actors in this union coming together to ensure that the rest of Europe sticks together and shows “solidarity”.

From stopping a war to free trade agreements and a central bank. Then a EU flag, courts and parliament. Then laws enforced on us which we don’t want. All whilst we pay billions to be part of a club that’s money could be better spent on hospitals and schools. That is one argument for leaving.

The problem is that war fades in people’s minds, especially those who never fought in WWII or who had family who did.

“What does the EU have to do with WWII” many people will ask.

Now that the EU project is more about creating a super state, it spies on us and hands over all bank transactions to the US as well as traces of our Internet history and anything else the NSA overlords demand. However even if we leave the EU I guess due to our “special relationship”, with the US, we would still carry on letting our GCHQ be the NSA’s bitch, so nothing would change on the police state front.

Also whilst we may collaborate as a big trading block to face China, the BRICS and North American trading blocks, can the BREXIT crew really convince us that on an economic scale we would really be better outside this trading block.

Selling tea to India, ornaments to Russia and other small manufactured products across the world is the BREXIT plan. We don’t build big things anymore. Our ship building industry is almost gone and we have offshored so many jobs that actually make things, you know jobs good for all those skilled manual workers we are trying to find jobs for, that we are just a service economy. Selling ideas, concepts and of course bank trickery.

If we leave the EU will we survive without the cheap gas and electricity we import from the EU, or will we get extra tariffs put on them putting us even further into debt. The French/Chinese nuclear power stations that were supposed to be on their way have only just been signed off.

It will take another 20 years at least until we see these new power stations so we will be relying on our dwindling North Sea Oil stocks and imports seeing that we never really bothered investing in green energy. This is despite being an island surrounded by multiple ways of making energy from natural sources such as the sea, wind and sun. We have loads of places to put under sea turbines that use wave power and windmills off shore to take in their blustery winds. We really never tried as we suffered from a  “not in my back garden” mentality, whenever a wind farm was proposed to be build anyway near a house.

So will people even consider the financial terms of leaving or will they think what the Sun, Daily Mail and other trash papers tell them to think?

The EU is a debt ridden collection of states that turned the thumb screws on Greece, Italy and Spain all so that they could enforce austerity, increase taxes and pay back Goldman Sachs and that other evil trio, the European Bank, IMF and World Bank.

Do we want to live in a place that see’s solidarity between nations as one that involves throwing the poor to the dogs so that their rich Banksters who caused the mess can be fully compensated. Plus solidarity is not where Germany gets to bend the rules but smaller states can’t lest they risk German austerity plans as the cost of remaining in the Euro.

This financial crisis that has still not been solved since 2008 is just waiting for another explosion. When it comes it will make 2008 look like a picnic.

Will the UK, the hub of banksters from the terrorist supporting, Mexican drug dealing, al-Qaeda funding HSBC to the corrupt Barclay’s brothers, really be better inside or out when the next economic explosion occurs.

As the City of London is basically it’s own country within a country, where the leaders of the companies and banks get to sit on their special council and can “command” the Chancellor to appear before them, they will probably see no difference in their money making schemes whether we leave or stay.

To me it all depends on who is in charge.

The Tories seem to want to put the strain of any recovery on the backs of the working class whilst rewarding their rich friends. Their recent budget removed £30 from the disabled people of our country that gave them support to get dressed and move about and instead they have given the richest more tax breaks. It is clear where their priorities lie. Voting Tory is like voting for a gang rape on yourself. Why people do it I have no idea.

On the other hand Labour, SNP, the Greens and Lib Dems feel that a more even policy that involves banksters going to jail and splitting up the banks between Casinos and Savings is called for. On top of that more measures that don’t punish the poor but instead help them climb up the ladder whilst the rich who have become more wealthy in the last 5+ years are made to contribute their fair share.

Whether they will actually stick to their words is a totally different matter. We just have to look at the Lib Dems when they got their taste of power to see how power corrupts and good promises become faded memories.

So what will make you vote yes or no when the time comes?

EU Democracy or the lack of it?

The prospect of war?

Finance and austerity?

Migration?

Not being held to account to the European Convention of Human Rights (an act the Tories wrote after WWII to show how civilised we are)

Or something else?

Let me know.

View the original article at www.darkolitricks.com.

By Dark Politricks

 

 

© 2016 By Dark Politricks

Advertisements

What if the ultra rich liked paying taxes rather than abusing their power

July 12, 2012

By Dark Politricks

I have just watched last nights episode of Tom Hartmans “The Big Picture” on Russia Today (watch live online here)

Tom is obviously a Democrat and a liberal but in his last segment something he said I found quite interesting.

Basically the leading founding father Thomas Jefferson  knew the dangers of corporations and unlimited greed and said so in a great speech – abbreviated here:

“I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Thomas Jefferson obviously was aware of the dangers of unlimited corporation power, money and influence and it would be good if some of the Tea Party members who are so fond of the founding fathers actually read more of what they actually said about standing armies, corporations, a Federal bank and undue political influence by lobbyists.

Tom Hartman then followed that up with other Presidential quotes throughout the ages all of which said that there was little need for people to earn so much money that it couldn’t be spent in their lifetime.

Not only does it prevent a true meritocracy from occurring – as huge amounts of wealth are passed down the family line like an aristocracy – the thing the founding fathers fought against in the American Revolution. But it leaves people with so much money that could be used for the good of the nation as a whole except many of these super rich people would rather pay no tax at all than do some good for their country. It also showed that high tax rates have no correspondence with job creation, productivity or industrial or technical innovation.

As you can see Tom’s main point was that the top rate of tax has dropped from a whopping 94% in the mid 1940’s, to 70% during the 1970’s and then its current position of 35% and this has no correspondence with the high times of American society.

It does however correspond with huge wealth inequality between the rich and poor. With the richest few percent getting richer and the middle classes basically staying the same. Tickle down economics doesn’t seem to work too well it seems.


Historical US Tax Rates

During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90% and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

The 1950’s were a golden time in American society where there were plenty of jobs, houses, affordable education and guess what – the richest few percent (those job creators) didn’t up sticks and leave America to another country with lower tax rates. They stayed and paid their taxes.

He also talked about a study that showed that once a person is earning enough money to cover all their basic needs e.g housing, food, travel, clothing etc then earning more money does NOT make them happier.

This reminds me of learning about Maslows hierarchy of needs at college.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Once you have all your basics covered, maybe married or in a relationship and doing a job you like or maybe other activities that fulfill your life then your pyramid of needs are satisfied.

The question then becomes what happens to all those people who have so much money that there is nothing left on earth to do with it.

I am talking about people who earn billions of dollars, fly around in private jets, own multiple huge boats and have garages full of the latest Ferrari’s and Porches.

They may play golf all day or do other hobbies but I reckon there is another need that is missing from the pyramid that only comes when all the others are fulfilled and the person has  enough money to achieve or attempt to achieve it plus a certain character trait that is the opposite of altruism – a hunger for power.

Some people are born alpha dogs, others aren’t.

Some people in the old days where physical power was all that mattered would have been battered to the floor and trod over like a carpet (people like Bill Gates or the Koch Brothers for instance).

Today things are different and money (lots of it) equals power or the ability to achieve it through various means. This might mean running a huge global corporation or the attempted ownership of countries and even blocks of them (i.e. the EU).

This is what many people believe the Citizens United Ruling has allowed to occur with the super rich trying to “buy” the Presidency through their use of Super Pacs, and huge financial donations.

Whereas Obama is having to rely on lots of small donations and seems to have lost out on those big money givers he had last time around Mitt Romney only needs to attend a couple of functions with the Koch Brothers and he walks away with a few hundred million dollar bills in his pocket.

These ultra rich are not “wealth generators” or “altruistic job creators” for if they were they would say to themselves:

“Well I have more money than I can ever spend in my lifetime. Or leave to my children who will just end up spoilt entitled brats who probably won’t do a day’s work in their lives. With all this money I will do something good for my country and leave a lasting legacy like the Victorian philanthropists and I don’t mind taking a hit on my immense fortune by opening factories and other businesses in the USA and pay the taxes and benefits that come with creating jobs in my country.”

“Yes it might cost more than off-shoring all my labour and manufacturing to China or India but as I have more money than I could possibly spend it makes no difference to me if I have to pay slightly more in wages or health benefits if it means that it brings jobs back to desolate American towns like Detroit or New Orleans.”

No instead of thinking like this they chose to play king maker and attempt to buy the Presidency with Super Pacs and huge donations to their desired candidate (or the one they are stuck with e.g Mitt Romney)

People with huge amounts of wealth could do immense amounts of good to the people of the earth and I am sure lots of them exist but when the ultimate pyramid slice at the top of Maslows Hierarchy becomes “ultimate power” you end up with Koch Brothers buying Presidencies, Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove and huge experimental projects that are doomed to failure like the Euro.

You also end up with Banksters who have so much money that the only joy they get out of life is making billion dollar gambles with pension funds on the stock market, derivative overloads and the fixing of Libor interest rates. All of which have unintended consequences that affect whole countries and even the world as we are currently experiencing.

You are either this kind of person or you may have an altruistic personality, probably non alpha males, who chose to spend their money on charitable organisations. Building schools and hospitals in under privileged areas and all the sort of things that leave a lasting legacy once they are gone from this earth apart from a mention in a Wikipedia article as one of the banksters who was complicit in the great financial meltdown of 2008.

This leads me to another interesting point in which an ex female banker appeared on the “This Week” programme last Thursday in which she said that due to the “alpha male” culture of bankers in the City of London there was more risk taking and therefore potential for disaster.

If women ran banks and trading floors she reckoned the financial crisis probably would never have happened in the first place.

An interesting thought…

David Cameron vetoes European agreement to protect the City of London

December 10, 2011

By Dark Politricks

For those of you that have a worldview that exists outside your national boundaries (I’m talking to you USA) then you might have heard about a little thing called the European Sovereign Debt crisis that is moving once proud nations from democracies to mere subsidiaries of Eurocrat / German power.

For the UK, this is worrying to many people for many reasons. Not only are we not members of the Euro, and have no wish to be, but the thought that Europe is going to end up being controlled by the same nation we fought two wars against to prevent having the same power that we are now edging towards horrifies many of the older generation.

For the younger generation the fact Germany is a powerful country is not so much a problem as the lack of democracy that is inherent in the European institutions that encroach on our daily lives more and more year by year.

Forgetting that Germany is actually the only real industrial power making quality goods left in Europe, we should be concerned that this financial crisis is being used by Euro fanatics and bureaucrats to bring about their dream of a United States of Europe – something that has been dreamt by many from the time of the Roman Empire.

So far we have seen two once proud nations, the originators of democracy and the form of government we still see used across much of the planet fall to the diktats of Europe and the Bond vigilantes.

Both Greece, the home of democracy and Italy, the last country to rule the whole of Europe and who’s republican government has been the basis of many others including the USA, have crumbled under the weight of their sovereign debts.

The threat of unsustainable debt levels and high interest rates has seen their governments fall and their democratically elected leaders replaced with more pliable and “acceptable” leaders, much to the disgust of their nations people.

This last sumit of Europeans leaders was meant to be the final drink in the last chance saloon and during the run up leaders of France and Germany, Sarkozy and Merkel, were both declaring that there was only a few hours to “save the Euro”.

Many people were hoping that they would fail for reasons other than financial instability and it seems David Cameron, the UK PM has delivered their desires on a silver platter by vetoing an EU-wide treaty change designed to tackle the euro-zone crisis.

He claimed changes to the much hated Lisbon Treaty that would have given up even more UK sovereignty to the EU was not in the countries interests due to due to it’s tougher budget rules and a plan to implement a “tobin” tax that would have affected the City of London unfairly.

“We were offered a treaty that didn’t have proper safeguards for Britain, and I decided it was not right to sign that treaty,” he told the BBC.

“We’re still in the single market. That is the best safeguard of keeping markets open,” he said.

Its main provisions include:

  • A cap of 0.5% of GDP on countries’ annual structural deficits.
  • “automatic consequences” for countries whose public deficit exceeds 3% of GDP.
  • The tighter rules to be enshrined in countries’ constitutions.
  • The EU’s permanent bailout facility, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), to be accelerated and brought into force in July 2012.
  • The adequacy of 500bn-euro (£427bn; $666bn) limit for the ESM to be reassessed.
  • Eurozone and other EU countries to provide up to 200bn euros to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help debt-stricken eurozone members

Being outside the Euro it is understandable that the UK does not want to join a fiscal union with Euro using nations but a tax on financial transactions could have been an ideal solution if implemented world wide for many reasons.

  1. The financial crisis was mainly caused by large financial institutions going crazy with their speculation and risky behaviour which a tobin tax would help reduce.
  2. The tobin tax would go a long way to help fill the coffers of nations who are now suffering “austerity” measures due to the taxpayer bailing out these financial institutions therefore it would placate many people who are currently outraged that the banksters have been able to bankrupt whole nations, place the burden of paying the debts on the back of the taxpayer and who continue to pay themselves huge salaries and bonuses.
  3. The large majority of financial trading is automated, computers trading with other computers and the practise of high frequency trading and front running legitimate trades has been a major source of concern for those who are aware of the practise. A tobin tax on trades that were only held for a few seconds at most would not hurt legitimate investors, pensions firms and other long term investers but it could help reduce the amount of risk that comes about from computers making trading decisions.
  4. The UK economy is too unbalanced towards reliance on financial services. The governments supposed plan to help reduce the deficit and restore growth to our stagnated economy was to increase high tech industry, increase exports and reduce our reliance on financial services in the City. A tax on the very businesses that make our country the most money which are companies that can obviously afford to pay it (as their recent profits and bonuses reveal) plus companies who caused the mess we are in, in the first place would go a long way to helping restore public trust in that part of our economy whilst satisfying a wide public lust for some form of justice in the face of massive cuts to public service, tax rises, rising inflation and rising unemployment.

Obviously at the moment our governments plan to re balance the economy has gone nowhere and the UK is still overly reliant on the City for revenue generation and in this regards it was probably wise for Cameron to put our own interests above those of the Euro members.

However much commentators have lamented his actions as destroying Britain’s place in Europe at the decision making table it was always going to happen sooner or later unless we joined the single currency.

No-one can expect a non member of a monetary union between multiple states to have an equal say over how that group of states is run and how close they work together and in the same way that closely integrated group of countries cannot expect to apply the same rules they obey to countries outside their common fiscal and monetary policies

If the rest of Europe wishes to give up their national sovereignty to save a doomed currency then so be it but I doubt many citizens across Europe will be happy. Little by little their national governments are becoming little more than talking shops and real decisions about their economy and other key policy areas are now made by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg with the Germans having the loudest voice.

As the BBC Editor Gavin Hewitt succinctly put it:

“For the European people, they are in a closer Europe than they ever voted for”.

From this point of view David Cameron has pleased his Euro-sceptic back benches and many UK citizens who have never even had a chance to vote on their countries participation in a political pipe dream that was concocted during the ashes of the second world war and was designed to prevent Germany from ever again becoming the dominant power within Europe.

Whether or not Cameron and the UK go their own way, the other 26 members of the EU seem to be willing to sign up for closer economic and political union which will be done by multiple inter-country treaties instead of a single EU treaty due to Cameron’s veto.

However countries such as Ireland which have already been enslaved by Euro debt relief have to put any European treaty to a referndum so there may be more countries standing with the UK than there currently are and the talk of the UK being isolated could just be a temporary situation.

More and more people are realising that the Euro is slowing crumbling and whilst a disorganised disintegration may cause immense distress and disruption the UK should be better placed than it’s European partners to weather the storm that in undoubtedly brewing.

The hypocrisy of politicians wanting to drug test welfare recipients

November 30, 2011

By Dark Politricks

So Newt Gingrich is following in the footsteps of state governors and other GOP politicians in calling out for recipients of welfare benefits to be drug tested before they can get any help from the government.

From a recent interview with Yahoo’s Chris Moody:

[MOODY:] Speaking of Ron Paul, at the last debate, he said that the war on drugs has been an utter failure. We’ve spent billions of dollars since President Nixon and we still have rising levels of drug use. Should we continue down the same path given the amount of money we’ve spent? How can we reform our approach?

[GINGRICH:] I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.

 

It has always struck me that if you’re serious about trying to stop drug use, then you need to find a way to have a fairly easy approach to it and you need to find a way to be pretty aggressive about insisting–I don’t think actually locking up users is a very good thing. I think finding ways to sanction them and to give them medical help and to get them to detox is a more logical long-term policy.

I have many issues with this tact and the first is that just like junkies, governments always look for short term fixes.

If any government really wanted to get people off drug habits it would cost more money as proper detox and rehabilitation doesn’t come cheap. I have no problem with criminals who offend being offered treatment at proper centers instead of being locked up in prisons as they currently are but once again this will cost money, and as we keep getting told – there just aint any of that around at the moment.

My second point is what happens to any of the millions of kids born each year to people receiving benefits and who is on drugs?

It is not their fault if they are unfortunate enough to be born to parents who have a drug problem so why should they forgo food, money, clothes and any kind of state help?

Yes the parents might already be spending most of their welfare cheques on drugs but removing food from the mouths of children by stopping food stamps? I think that’s totally unfair but then I suppose these people might have other plans for the kids. Maybe we might see the return of Victorian workhouses full of kids stolen from drug users working for nothing. Well it might stimulate the economy if we can reduce worker pay and conditions….

If the government wants to stop drug taking welfare recipients then they are looking in the wrong direction.

I reckon if they piled up the amounts of coke snorted by banksters in the City, Wall Street and every other major financial institution that has recently received bailouts (welfare from us tax payers) and compared it to the amounts of various home made crystal meth, pub coke and other shit quality gear taken by the poorest of society then I think I know which pile would be worth getting stuck into.

The City of London used to run on coke and it got so bad that many firms had to start drug testing many of the workers. I reckon profits probably fell the year they did that but that’s another debate. This is from a Daily Mail article in 2006.

A study by The Rowntree Foundation which found “anecdotal evidence for an increase of drug testing in some high-profile firms, particularly in the financial sector where there are no obvious health or safety justifications.”

One corporate lawyer quoted in the Rowntree Foundation study which reveals growing drug use said: “I have known one company that had a ‘snorting room’ in the City.

“People turn a blind eye with regard to drugs and alcohol – but also with a range of other behaviour – because they don’t want to lose a key employee…someone who can make a lot of money.”

So it’s okay if the person can make the firm a lot of money but if your on your ass living in a squat or some other kind of shit hole literally living hand to mouth having to rely on food stamps to feed yourself. Where a dole cheque would last less than an hour or two if you had a proper banksters coke habit then fuck you. Go and jump off a bridge, and take your kids with you?

Why not, they are just more mouths to feed and in these times of austerity we need to be looking after our “wealth creating” drug takers rather than those useless eaters consuming up tax dollars.

Ron Paul made more than a valid point when he said the war on drugs has failed. Just like the war on terror it was always doomed to fail as you cannot beat something as intangible as the innate desire for a sizable chunk of the world population to want to change their living conditions for a temporary period by taking various substances.

Unless we can make our world a viable utopia in which the need to escape poverty, memories of abuse, lack of hope and the myriad of other reasons that cause people to drink, take drugs, gamble, have sex and any other form of escapist behaviour – we will always have drugs.

Mankind has been getting high for thousands of years and it is not going to stop by “just one more push” and a harder crack down on drug users – especially when if they actually drug tested the whole population and sacked everyone with even a hint of an illegal (or legal) stimulant or downer in their system we would probably have less than half a workforce left.

And not let forget all the politicians. They are welfare recipients as well. We pay their salaries so we deserve to know if they are taking us for a ride by snorting, jacking or nibbling a bean at the weekend.

We have all read the stories about politicians being caught with their pants down stuck in a glory hole after spending their careers denouncing gay people as “ungodly”.

And just as many have been caught with dope after spending far too much time attacking drug users. Just do a search on Google for politicians caught with drugs or with their pants down and find out for yourself the size of the hypocrisy on display.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander and in this case welfare recipients fall in the same category as politicians and many big banks as well as any other company that has been bailed out by taxpayers across the world.

Therefore if we are going to start drug testing we should start at the top and work our way down.

I think if we did that we wouldn’t be hearing so much from certain corners about drugs and sex.