Readers will have noticed I haven’t been posting too frequently.  As such, I’ve decided to bite the bullet and put a freeze on this blog whilst I spend time on other projects I have on the go.

You can still contact me by simply clicking here to find out how.

Just a quick comment on today’s events. Today the City Council voted on the introduction of the Corporate Plan and a budget increase of 3.95%. I voted against both proposals.

My reason for doing so is consistent with the principles upon which I stood for election in 2007. I said that I would campaign to reduce Council Tax and that in order to see real cuts in local taxation, we would have to see a reduction in the size of the council and a reduction in what the council does for people. If the council actually did less for people, and instead helped folk to do more for themselves, eventually they will start to reap the rewards of their own activity, for example, greater community spirit and development, personal empowerment, lower taxes, etc.

Both the Corporate Plan and the Budget proposals, though the intentions were admirable in many respects, displayed far too much nanny statism and paternalism for my liking. The City Council, despite any rhetoric about empowering local people and communities, continues to shows reluctance to let people go and let them live their lives how they see fit.

The Council, made up of all Parties and none, continues to prescribe and dictate, and continues to insist upon the need that ‘it’ should provide services to local people. I on the other hand believe that in many cases local people can provide or buy in services for themselves and their neighbourhoods by operating in the free market. In many cases, and with a little facilitation and capacity building from the Council, there is absolutely no need to use force or aggression, i.e. the taxation system, to ensure that local services like grass cutting, litter collection, neighbourhood road resurfacing, etc are achieved. There are other, more constructive and voluntary ways to achieve the desired ends than relying on the threats of bailiffs and imprisonment if taxation is paid forthwith.

This situation of top down management between the Council and the people is similar to the relationship between central government and the Council. Central government espouses the virtues of ‘localism’ - enabling local councils and local communities to do more for themselves, but in reality it has no faith in the ability of the localities to make their own decisions and govern for themselves. They show the same nanny statism, paternalism (and if one was really cynical about central government, one would suggest arrogance) that local government shows its people.

It’s no secret that I loathe our country’s Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.  She spouts her moral nastiness to us all, the result of which will inevitably lead to more of us becoming criminals despite us not harming anyone else.

However, having just read The Times article about how she’s claiming her MP’s second home allowance for her family home in her constituency of Redditch, whilst lodging with her sister in London, I start to think of rocks and glass houses.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, was under fire today for claiming thousands of pounds of Commons expenses for her family house by listing it as her ‘second home’, while effectively lodging with her sister.

Ms Smith is able to claim the maximum £24,006 a year in taxpayer funded allowances for her £300,000 property in the West Midlands because she lists her ‘main home’ as a London property owned by her sister, where she says she spends the bulk of her time.

Campaigners told the Mail on Sunday that her claims, of £116,000 over several years, were “morally questionable”. The Home Secretary insisted she had done nothing wrong and her expenses claims were in line with Commons regulations.

“The Home Secretary has always abided fully with Parliament’s clear rules on expenses and has long-standing written approval from the Parliamentary Fees office for any agreed expenses,” a spokesperson said.

Ms Smith’s husband and two children live in the West Midlands property and a spokesperson said the Home Secretary tended to “go home Thursday evenings” and return to London on “Sunday or Monday”. Her website says that she “still lives in Redditch”.

Her spokesperson insisted: “She spends the majority of her time in London attending to government business and has full approval for any associated expenses relating to her second home in her West Midlands constituency.”

The spokeswoman denied Ms Smith was “lodging” with her sister, and said the two “shared the house”. She said the Home Secretary “makes a contribution to the household”, but would not confirm whether she pays rent.

The Home Secretary has not done anything wrong under Commons regulations, which allow MPs to nominate which are their main and second homes. The main residence is deemed to be that where the MP “spends more nights than any other”.

Recent guidance said “value for money” for the taxpayer could be used as a factor if there was doubt which home was the main one.

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP, told the newspaper that Ms Smith’s claims seemed “extraordinarily bad value for the taxpayer”.

“This suggests that the steps taken to eliminate unsatisfactory elements of the housing allowance system have not yet been completed,” he said.

Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of The Taxpayers’ Alliance, said: “Many people looking at this situation will consider it morally questionable that Jacqui Smith should have claimed this allowance. Now that Parliament’s reputation has been tarnished so much, it is up to senior ministers to be whiter than white. Jacqui Smith has not done this.”

The newspaper also claimed that Ms Smith was costing the taxpayer £200,000 a year in police protection by choosing to live at her sister’s house rather than a “grace and favour” ministerial home in Whitehall. If she lived in one of the vacant ministerial properties, which already have police protection, she would not be allowed to claim the second home expenses.

Ms Smith’s spokesperson said: “She has lived with her sister in London since she was a backbench MP and is perfectly happy with it. Most people would think that is a nice thing.”

So whilst she is being all moralistic about drugs and prostitution, she herself fails to act morally when it comes to stealing money from the taxpayer.  She, like many moralists, expect you to look up to them and obey them without question, and what’s sad is this - you do.  You and your neighbours will sign up to the vomit these politicians spew.  They continue to undermine your basic right of self-ownership, that is, you having the right to do what you like with your own bodies just so long as you harm no-one else in the process.

These politicians continue to tell you how you should live your lives and sadly most of you (not me of course) follow obediently.  Why?  It maybe because you obedients don’t use prostitutes, don’t use drugs, don’t smoke, don’t drink, don’t eat fatty foods, etc, etc, etc.  Because you don’t participate in a particular activity you think it perfectly reasonable to deny other people their rights to live their lives how they see fit.

That mindset is wrong.  I ask people to think about these and other issues rationally, independently, and objectively.  Don’t let your emotions guide you and most definately don’t let moralists like the tax-fleecing Home Secretary Jacqui Smith guide you.