Labour Party


blair to stand down

WWW.J-LOU.COM

Blair set to announce resignation

Tony Blair is expected to standing down as Labour leader after a decade in Downing Street, paving the way for Gordon Brown to succeed him as Prime Minister.

Mr Blair will first tell Cabinet colleagues of his intentions at their regular Thursday morning meeting at No 10, then travel to his Sedgefield, Co Durham, constituency to make a public pronouncement.

Weeks of speculation over the timing were ended by the PM’s official spokesman, who told reporters: “There will be a Cabinet at 9 o’clock. I don’t think that will be quite as long as usual.

“The Prime Minister will then go elsewhere to make an announcement and that will be all that happens. There will be nothing said in Downing Street.”

Mr Blair remains as Labour leader until his successor is formally elected at a special party conference, and as Prime Minister until he hands in his seals of office to the Queen.

Labour’s National Executive Committee will meet within 72 hours of the confirmation to agree the exact timetable for an election to replace both Mr Blair and his deputy John Prescott.

The whole election process will take about seven weeks, meaning Mr Brown - if he is elected - will take office some time in late June or early July.

Mr Prescott announced at Labour’s annual conference last September that he would quit at the same time as the Prime Minister. A report in The Sun newspaper suggests Mr Prescott will delay his own announcement until Sunday.

It was confirmed that former Labour MP Chris Leslie will run the logistical side of the Brown campaign, working under Commons leader Jack Straw.

The Chancellor is likely to face only a token left-wing challenge from either backbencher John McDonnell or former minister Michael Meacher. The two will announce which of them is to try to stand against the Chancellor.

new women’s fashion

GORDON BROWN BUDGET 

Gordon Brown Just Loves Payday !!!!!!

The Conservatives today renewed their assault on Gordon Brown’s 11th and final budget, dubbing it a “con trick“.
In the most eye-catching performance since Nigel Lawson in 1988, (ouch!) the Chancellor appeared to wrong-foot his Tory opponents with a promise to reduce income tax by 2p next year - the lowest rate for 75 years.

But George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, today told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that Mr Brown had confused the electorate into thinking that taxes were coming down.

“Their income tax bill went up yesterday and I don’t think after listening to that Budget they would have thought that,” he said.

“No-one listening to the Budget yesterday would have worked out that the whole thing is a con trick.”

Mr Brown this morning defended his performance, (he would wouldn’t he) denying it was misleading and claiming it was “nonsense” to suggest that he was taking away as much as he was giving. ( don’t they just love to lie )

He told Sky News: “We’ve made a number of changes to get to two rates and two thresholds.

“I’ve tried my best by everyone - on average, it’s £100 per household better off, for families with children about £250 per household and what I’ve tried to do is look at the needs of particular groups as we make this major change in the tax system.”

He said he was “trying to do the right thing by the country” ( yeh Right gordon) and claimed that after the discussion surrounding the Budget had died down, people would say he had done the right thing.

But both the Conservatives and the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies claim that many middle-class families and even lower earners would face higher bills.

Up to one family in five is likely to lose out, according to independent financial experts.

While the Chancellor promised to cut the basic rate from 22p to 20p, he also abolished the lower 10p starting rate.

It means taxpayers will start paying at 20p in the pound, effectively doubling the rate of tax for those earning less than £15,000 a year.

The Tory leader David Cameron said: “It’s not a tax cut, it’s a tax con”.

GORDON BROWN MP

Gordon Can Con the public, Just Like That !!!

Mr Brown’s package was intended as the springboard for achieving his lifetime ambition of becoming Prime Minister - and trumping Mr Cameron with an audacious raid into traditional Conservative tax-cutting territory. The Chancellor also announced:

• Corporation tax cut from 30p to 28p.

• Inheritance tax threshold up to £350,000 from £285,000 in 2010.

• Upper limit for cash ISAs raised to £3,600 per year.

• Road tax on the highest-polluting vehicles raised from £210 to £300 from midnight last night and to £400 from April 1 next year. To build oxygen tents for mp’s so they can live to 170 years old like Micheal Jackson. They feel that Mps should get the real benefits of their fat Pensions.

• Diesel and unleaded petrol to go up by 2p a litre from October.

Another fuel crisis looming?

• Education spending in England to rise by 5 per cent a year to £74 billion in 2010.

The cut in basic rate tax will take effect in April 2008, when Mr Brown may be considering calling a snap election if he has achieved a “bounce” in the opinion polls.

The theatrical way in which he kept the cut until the closing seconds of his 48-minute speech delighted Labour MPs. Deflated Tories looked on glumly.

Mr Brown also tried to demolish Tory plans for “green” taxes on frequent fliers and a new tax allowance for married couples.

Labour MPs said it confirmed his status as Prime Minister-in-waiting. The Chancellor demonstrated his mastery of the Commons, brushing aside with a joke the criticism of his “Stalinist” style and openly acknowledging that he saw himself moving into No 10 within months.

The Tories accused him of using “smoke and mirrors” to achieve the promise of a 2p tax cut. He had taken one tax down after 99 tax increases. Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, said anyone earning less than £15,000 would pay more in income tax. The 2p reduction was “an income tax cut for the wealthy dressed up as a tax cut for the poor”.

The 2p cut will cost the Treasury more than £8 billion a year but abolishing the 10p starting rate will save £7.3 billion and higher national insurance charges will bring in another £1.1 billion.

The Tories said single people, couples without children and some middle-income earners would be hit by changes to tax and national insurance contributions, while lower-income families would have to apply for means-tested tax credits to get back the extra money they will be paying to the Treasury.

The Treasury claimed that by 2009, families with children would on average be £200 a year better off and a single earner couple with two children on £27,000 a year £500 a year better off.

The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies said the changes to personal taxes and tax credits would cost the Treasury £2.4 bn in 2009-10.

The institute’s Mike Brewer said: “The changes to personal taxes seem to have been carefully designed to ensure that this Budget is not a tax raid on the rich: those earning over around £42,000 a year will find their disposable income almost unaffected by the personal tax changes. However, almost one in five families in the UK will lose. Unusually for a Brown Budget, the losers come from across the income distribution, and include some families with children.”

The Budget “red book'’ published by the Treasury showed that the overall tax burden is set to rise from 39.2 per cent in the current year to 40.4 per cent by 2008-09.

Don’t you just love them?

ladies tops

gordon brown and income tax cut

WWW.J-LOU.COM Chancellor Gordon Brown has defended the changes in income tax in the Budget as “about being fair to people”. 

In his 11th and almost certainly final package delivered on Wednesday, Mr Brown sprung a surprise by announcing a 2p cut in the headline rate of income tax. But opposition parties were quick to denounce the centrepiece measure as a “con”, claiming that scrapping the bottom 10p rate would offset the benefits taxpayers received from the cut. 

Speaking on GMTV, Mr Brown insisted the Budget would give more money to health, education, families and pensioners. “I think what we’ve tried to do is make sure health and education have the money, while at the same time be fair to people, and the tax reform is about being fair to people. I think with having the two rates now it is going to be better for the future,” he said. 

“The purpose of these changes is to do the best by this country. This was the time to make the tax reform that helps incentivise work, does more for families and is very sensitive to the needs of pensioners.” Mr Brown dismissed Opposition claims that the Budget was “a con” in which the Government was taking as much away as it was giving to people. 

He told Sky News: “That’s absolute nonsense - there is £2.5bn extra going into the personal tax system. “We wanted to make sure we had a modern tax system for business and for individuals and it is the biggest tax reform for 20 years.” 

“Now, if you’ve got a 4×4 vehicle, there are environmental taxes. If, on the other hand, you are looking at the personal tax system - and this is where the issue lies - we’ve made a number of changes to get to two rates and two thresholds. “I’ve tried my best by everyone - on average, it’s £100 per household better off, for families with children about £250 per household and what I’ve tried to do is look at the needs of particular groups as we make this major change in the tax system.'’ 

He said he was “trying to do the right thing by the country” and claimed that after the discussion surrounding the Budget had died down, people would say he had done the right thing. 

http://www.j-lou.com/section/0/ladies-jeans/clubwear

 

http://technorati.com/claim/my2sindmf” rel=”me”>Technorati Profile

tony blair road pricing policy tax

WWW.J-LOU.COM

I signed the pay as you go road tax policy and here is the responce for the petition.

>From: 10 Downing Street <pmreply@petitions.pm.gov.uk> 
>To: e-petition signatories <pmreply@petitions.pm.gov.uk> 
>Subject: E-petition: Response from the Prime Minister 
>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:10:42 +0000 
> 
>The e-petition asking the Prime Minister to “Scrap the planned vehicle >tracking and road pricing policy” has now closed. This is a response from >the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. 
> 
> 
>Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on >the Downing Street website. 
> 
>This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, >an independent review of Britain’s transport network. This study set out >long-term challenges and options for our transport network. 
> 
>It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy >answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could >provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put >these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more >before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, >feasible. 
> 
>That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is >not about imposing “stealth taxes” or introducing “Big Brother” >surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without >a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank >debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That’s why >I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we >intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not >the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you >to take it further. 
> 
>But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about >national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. >We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in >establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. >Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us >more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national >scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve >transport in those areas. 
> 
>One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It’s bad >for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It >affects people’s quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That >is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government. 
> 
>Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven >by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now >than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue. 
> 
>Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most >of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since >1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on >trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for >decades. And we’re committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 >billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We’re also putting a >great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 >Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving. 
> 
>But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling >traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting >worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the >expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political >leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road >pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, >and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and >cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of >addressing congestion. 
> 
>One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the >forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within >and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that >would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs >on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in >wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct >cost on businesses. 
> 
>A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We >could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our >congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. >Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is >why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we >cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence >suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity. 
> 
>Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring >substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and >health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway >costs as much as £30m, you’ll have an idea of the sums this approach would >entail. 
> 
>That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution >road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone’s >interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road >pricing without exploring it further. 
> 
>It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package >of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in >our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give >definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. >Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance >schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the >Government doesn’t hold information about where vehicles have been. But >there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new >technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there >will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic >jams, not create a “Big Brother” society. 
> 
>I know many people’s biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a >”stealth tax” on motorists. It won’t. Road pricing is about tackling >congestion. 
> 
>Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, >there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring >taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel >at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural >areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel >longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. >But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm >decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national >scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they >depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided. 
> 
>Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that >we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as >individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don’t have all >the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national >road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further >consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will >Parliament. 
> 
>We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around >the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our >businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links >to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage >in further debate. 
> 
>Yours sincerely, 
> 
>Tony Blair 
> 
> 
>Further information 
> 
>Both the 10 Downing Street - http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp - and >Department for Transport - >http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/roadpricing/debate - websites offer much >more information about road pricing. 
> 
>This includes a range of independent viewpoints - >http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page11031.asp - both for and against. 
> 
>You can also read the Eddington Report - >http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10961.asp - in full. 
> 
>You can reply to this email by posting a question to Roads Minister Dr. >Stephen Ladyman in a webchat - http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10961.asp - >on the No 10 website this Thursday. 
> 
>There will be further opportunities in the coming months to get involved in >the debate. You will receive one final e-mail from Downing Street to update >you in due course. 
> 
>If you would like to opt out of receiving further mail on this or any other >petitions you signed, please email optout@petitions.pm.gov.uk 

Next Page »