Richard Dannatt: Former British High Commander, present Lord. Can you trust him?

A few days ago, when Palestine Action was on the news, this the man that communicated that he had been asked by an American organisation to promete banning Palestine Action. Now he has been found to have used his influence to obtain financial gain by seeking support from the British government by stating that his private mining business in Ghana was "in the UKs national interest". 

He is also a rabid anti-Russian, promoting a more aggressive military approach that could endanger the United Kingdom, one of those who could your children on the line of fire and not necessarily "in the UKs national interest".

The Lord and Former High Commander of the British Armed Forces, is already under investigation over his lobbying for several companies. A company called Blue Gold - Lord Dannatt holds shares of the said company. Lord Dannatt stated that he does not know the value of the shares. Well, at present, the Ghanaian government has revoked the company´s right to exploit the so called Bogoso-Prestea mine, one of the largest gold mines in Ghana. In early 2024, it was reported that the British Treasury had lent the said company 3.3 million Pound, using the so called Future Fund "to held startup and innovative firms survive the pandemic by extending them loans that converted into equity".

Going back to Palestine Action, Lord Dannatt asked British ministers to ban Palestine Action and he did so on behalf of a US Defense Company that pays him as adviser. And there is a lot more. The stench is much greater than that. 

Rachel Reeves: Do you increase salaries across the public sector without raising taxes?

 

Just hours ago the Labour Party launched an attack against Conservative policies regarding National Service and possibly concription because of the cost of such policies. But after that, Labour Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves stated that a Labour government would increase salaries across the public sector. Well, how much will it cost to increase salaries across the public sector. I reckon that it would be a lot more than National Service or Conscription.

Right before an election the mountain of contradictions rises on a daily basis. Just before Rachel Reeves spoke about salary increases in the public sector, Keir Starmer said that he would not get rid of the two children cap when it comes to Children Benefits in spite of the fact that he would want to do so. I guess the Labor Leader was thinking about cost of getting rid of the two children cap.

Services are necessary, but services cost monies that need to be paid with higher taxes at a time when interest paid on public borrowing is extraordinarily high. Labour says that it will not implement austerity, but you cannot promise to pay high interest on public borrowing and raise salaries without increasing taxes. And if you start increasing taxes, you can guarantee that companies that pay higher taxes are going to turn those higher tax payments into higher prices to balance the books. There is also the danger that higher taxes will lower consumption thus affecting the monies that the state can collect as taxes. Higher rates and lower amount of monies coming to the Treasury. And what about companies that are struggling to make ends meet? Less customers coming through the doors and higher taxes pushing up prices are not a recipe for success.

This is the way it works. If you collect 100 Pound as taxes and suddenly prices go up, then you will collect 100 Pound as taxes but only nominally. You are going to be able to buy less with your 100 Pound. State employees will be getting salaries that are worth less money in spite of nominal increases.

If you are paying 2500 for rent and suddenly the cost of renting goes up to 3500 then your salary has actually been devalued. Nominal increases will make things a lot worse.

Nigel Farage and a golden opportunity to reform the banking system

 

We are going deeper and deeper into the Digital Era, but even in the Digital Era there are thousands upon thousands of people that do not have bank accounts.

On top of issuing legislation that prevents any banking institution from using its leverage to cancel bank accounts for political purposes, there is also the issue of those that for no fault of their own have fallen by the side.

In the egalitarian society there are so who have bank accounts and those who don't and this is something that must be remedied.

If private banking institutions don't allow everybody to open a bank account, legislation must follow to guarantee that everybody can have access to his or her bank account. 

The time is long overdue to have a fairer banking system, a more rational banking system and especially taking into account that taxpapers saved private financial institutions from collapse more than once.

It is also relevant to emphasize that people must also have the option of using digital money and conventional currency. In a society in which there is always emphasis regarding choice, individuals must have the choice of using cash or not using cash at every point in time. It is well known that some businesses have decided to accept only digital currency. How is this allowed? Why is this allowed? Cash should always be legal tender.