The TaxPayers' Alliance - Campaign

Taxpayers fund £500,000 Human Rights farce as Islamist hate preacher allowed out

The right of British people to protection comes below that of a foreign national to not be deported to their country of origin.  Abu Qatada preaches hate against the west and this our country. However, the very freedoms he preaches against now protect him from deportation.

Not considered is whether the British people want him here. Whether we would rather spend the £500,000 it costs to keep him on a leash on other things. We could put this money towards providing appropriate equipment for the Britons charged with fighting Qatada’s ideological soul mates in Afghanistan and Iraq. We could provide appropriate compensation to some of those injured defending our nation. Alternatively we could deploy the policemen charged with monitoring him to catch criminals. However we chose to spend this money on monitoring a person who preaches anti western hate who refuses to move from the west.

The bail conditions are stringent but not satisfactory. He cannot use phones, must stay in his house for 22 hours a day and cannot associate with Osama Bin Laden. This is an odd condition because Osama Bin Laden is unlikely to pop in to visit Qatada. Osama is the world’s most hunted man. He probably has more important things to do – uploading his latest video on You Tube no doubt.

If Bin Laden did pop by for a cup of tea/glass of lemonade – whatever his chosen tipple is - presumably we would be obliged to arrest Bin Laden. However, having arrested him we would not then be able to deport Bin Laden to either America or Saudi Arabia. Both of them would sentence him to death. The ECHR prevents us deporting people to countries that practice the death penalty or would torture or ill treat the deportee. Hence we would have to put Osama under some form of house arrest while charges were brought – paid for by you the taxpayer.

How Qatada is meant to associate with Bin Laden anyway given he has no access to the internet or a phone is a mystery. Presumably Qatada will begin breeding carrier pigeons. This is bad news for public monuments across our fair cities. They will now bear the full brunt of our Governments new tough policies on terror.

One wonders what Qatada will do in his 2 spare hours. Is he allowed to store them up? Is it a case of use them or lose them? Qatada has a lot of time to consider how to spend his free 2 hours. He is currently in receipt of state benefits. These are needed to sustain him. Unable to leave the house for 22 hours a day it is difficult for him to actively seek work. Presumably the Government will one day announce a New Deal for Jihadists but until that day happens he is unemployed and unemployable.

This begs the question how many people like Qatada are subject to such monitoring and are living in council houses at the taxpayer’s expense. If we re-housed them all in the same property presumably we could save a great deal of money. If you televised it I am sure Channel 4 would buy it. A sort of Jihadist Big Brother could be produced. Qatada is in the diary room - he is very upset at having his mobile phone taken away.

But seriously if we were interested in enforcing the law we could have averted this. Qatada arrived in Britain under a forged passport in September 1993 and claimed asylum. Why was he allowed to subvert the correct procedures? Why when we realised he had forged his passport was he not immediately deported. Instead we allowed him to stay. We granted him asylum. In February 2001 anti terror police found he had £170,000 in cash and £805 in an envelope marked "For the Mujahedin in Chechnya". No charges were brought. Such incidences beg the question of what the point is in having border controls if they are not enforced. Britons rightly expected the law to be enforced and this man to be put on a plane and deported but he was not deported.

However, it is not all doom and gloom. The good news for Britain is that Abu Qatada has been released just in time to be the Labour candidate in Haltemprice and Howden. I think the campaign could prove a winner - People like me should not be on the streets, back 42 days.

Tony Blair gets it on Terrorism - Gaza

I attended Tony Blair’s testimony to the International Development Select Committee this morning. He had come to give a disposition on Gaza as the Quartets representative. I entered the room surrounded by assorted representatives of NGOs such as Oxfam and some self appointed human rights monitors. Not the sort of company I revel in. Eavesdropping on their pre event discussion I became aware that the differences between us were as intractable as the conflict itself.

To Oxfam it appears the problem is Israel’s. They are intransigent. If only they opened the border and recognised Hamas and negotiated with them this would all end. Absent from their discussion was any indication that Hamas attacks and the movements refusal to recognise Israel’s right to exist might have something to do with it. I entered the room fearing that Tony Blair may offer this baying mob some meat. He might condemn Israel’s Liberal Democracy for its actions concerning Gaza. Hoping that by playing to the press gallery and assorted great and good he would win support for his role. I was pleasantly surprised.

Throughout, his testimony Tony Blair showed that he was fully aware of the many pressures Israel’s leaders are under and the basic features which need to be present if a lasting peace deal is ever to be concluded. He was strong and resolute in what he believed and gave a vivid account of the situation and thoughtful vision of how both sides could work their way out of the current malaise.

On Israeli security he explained the need to ensure that any peace deal involve Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to security. He outlined the need to build up the Palestinians security capability to ensure that attacks against Israel could be prevented. Some members of the committee needed to be informed that no Israeli administration would sign a deal unless they could be sure that the Palestinian leadership they signed it with were willing and capable of ensuring peace between the two states. Blair stated that Israeli leaders should withdraw from the West Bank but we needed to ensure that if that occurred the militias would not merely move in as with Gaza.

Recognising the need to provide Palestinians with employment Blair revealed how the international aid promised could only be successful if there were peace. Hamas’s refusal to recognise Israel’s right to exist and the rockets attacks were noted as impediments to progress. Given their military grip on Gaza he noted that if Hamas wanted to stop the majority of attacks she could do so. Instead Mr Blair pointed out Hamas were acting hypocritically. They were using the humanitarian situation in Gaza to put pressure on Israel but then attacks were conducted on fuel shipments at the checkpoints. In the process 2 innocent Israeli civilians were murdered. These attacks meant Israel could not open the checkpoints and thereby allow in more humanitarian aid. His solution was for Hamas to call a ceasefire. Only then could progress be made.

Blair was asked if he was the man to perform the role of mediator in this conflict. Blair was accused of a pro Israel bias because of his unwillingness to attack Israel for her actions in Lebanon. There was also the little matter of his leading role in the Iraq war. How could the Arabs trust him? Here Blair showed the skill of a consummate political professional. A deal between Israel and Palestine had to involve Israel. In order to seal this deal Palestine needed someone trusted by Israel to conclude it. Thereby being seen as close to America and Israel was no sin to the Palestinian people because they needed just such a person to conclude for them the deal that would end the occupation. This is probably why no Palestinian leader had ever asked him this kind of question. The answer was pitched perfectly. Its delivery impeccable.

The membership of the committee is by no means favourable to Israel. Committee members Mr Stephen Crabb and Mr Marsha Singh asked intelligent insightful questions offering hope that objective analysis is not entirely absent from the proceedings. However, the opinion of the overwhelming majority of members appears to be that Hamas should be engaged in negotiations regardless of whether they cease attacks and recognise Israel’s right to exist. The Committee opposes the position of the Quartet that makes both these conditions necessary before Hamas can enter talks.

Some Committee members insisted on engaging in a fruitless debate as to whether promoting any economic development in the West Bank merely legitimised the occupation. However, Blair brought the debate back on track by rightly pointing out that most Palestinians were more concerned in getting a job than this kind of legalistic approach. Only by providing the Palestinians –many of which are under 25 – with work could a lasting peace be built. Announcing a plan to sponsor Palestinian mortgages Blair in a nice interplay with Marsha Singh informed him it was no longer his role to propose such things for Britain. At this point a broad grin emerged and you could sense Blair was enjoying himself.

As Anthony Blair stated a series of truisms unlikely to impress the NGOs and their spokesmen on the committee I developed a healthy respect for him. On virtually everything else we are in complete disagreement but on this issue Blair seems to get it. He seems comfortable in his role and optimistic as to the chances of achieving a lasting peace. I watched the testimony in a room dubbed the spill over room (the Boothroyd room). This was a powerful response to any delusions of grandeur politicos such as I may have i.e. being a non pass holder I could only view Blair’s performance on a tv screen. As I left I saw Oxfam guy shake his head. I think Blair did well today and we should all wish him well - in this role - in the future. Hopefully he will provide Oxfam with much to tut tut about in future.

Government promises jihadist anonymous sessions paid for by you

Jacqui Smith believes jihadists are vulnerable sensitive individuals. Smith believes they need counselling, and that it should be provided by the state. That means you, the taxpayer, will pay for it. This is a continuation of the ‘Islamist as victim’ theme that the Government is prone to indulging. However we need not worry because the Government has proposed tough qualifying conditions that any recipient must meet before receiving this aid. The wannabe jihadist must prove that they fit the profile of someone who has been through hard times.

According to the government, any Muslim frustrated due to employment issues who simultaneously joins an extremist group can fit the profile. But what does employment issues mean? Not having a job or merely having a demeaning low paying job? This seems a little wide to me. My job is very enjoyable. However, given my inflated sense of my own abilities I feel I should be governing the known world by now. I am 26 and people are starting to ask questions. Somehow I don’t think it is right for the government to give me a get out of jail free card. Also the kind of counselling I would need would likely to be very expensive and there are probably more deserving cases. British soldiers returning home injured or psychologically scarred defending their country in Iraq and Afghanistan would seem an obvious example. Then again maybe instead of fighting jihadists in Afghanistan these vulnerable individuals also need counselling – Osama on the couch.

But hang on, the Government don’t mean to give everyone freedom to disobey the law. Apparently this licence only applies to Islamists. Islamists alone are to be given special dispensation to commit crimes without being charged. It appears vulnerability has its advantages. Islamists are to be given a licence to disobey British laws. A licence not extended to all citizens. This is being granted on religious/political grounds to a specific minority group. The Government is targeting those who have joined radical terrorist groups but who have not yet enacted the major offences they are planning. Presumably the Government is signalling its intention to not prosecute Islamist offenders for possessing extremist literature and materials. This u-turn comes after 8 years of Government laws to make possession and viewing of such items a crime.

The Government promises that if they have second thoughts they will not be prosecuted. Not prosecuting these offenders is not, in itself, a bad idea. It could have merit. We sometimes give ordinary criminals reduced sentences if they save the taxpayer the costs of proving them guilty by pleading guilty. In exceptional circumstances informants are given pardons for previous misdemeanours in exchange for information that leads to major arrests. However, each of these cases represents a government bribe designed to elicit tangible benefits from the bribed i.e. less costly court proceedings or help in achieving more and bigger arrests. If we are to pardon Islamists for current or past crimes what do we get in exchange? It appears that we get their attendance at expensive counselling session we pay for and their promise not to do it again. This is not enough.

The Government deems the crimes the Islamists have committed as still worthy of being prohibited. They are not proposing legalising such acts for all citizens. Thereby, if anyone is to be given a pardon for the commission of offences they should provide something tangible in return. This could be real actionable intelligence that leads to the conviction of other Islamists. Alternatively these ex Islamists could take a lead role in their communities combating Islamic extremism. An Islamic extremism they have spent years trying to nurture and are responsible for. Hassan Butt appears to be adopting this route at the moment, although the police - in a rare display of crime fighting initiative - have now decided to charge him for the crimes he committed while he was an Islamist. Presumably he refused to attend these counselling sessions.

What form will these counselling sessions take? One hopes they are not group sessions (“jihadist anonymous”). If they are, presumably everyone will get together and discuss the reasons why they were attracted to radical Islamism. Gathering together a series of possible jihadists in a room and getting them to discuss their grievances may not be the best route to convert them to moderation. It could actually reinforce their grievances as they realise how many others share such opinions. They might then meet up with their new associates independently – not for drinks obviously. So previously we had one guy who had read Milestones and felt a bit annoyed about the Iraq war, now there could be ten guys coordinating an attack. The Government will be bringing people together in a spirit of community, but not for the kind of aims we want to promote.

The report states that Islamism feeds off domestic inequalities and racism and that by reducing these inequalities we can undermine the Al-Qaida narrative. The report notes that the promotion of violent extremism “relies on encouraging a sense of victimhood” (p.6). However, it does not realise the government’s acceptance that these communities face racism and economic disadvantage unjustifiably adds credence to the narrative of extremist’s. Britain’s Muslim community enjoys more freedoms of association, speech and worship than their co-religionists enjoy in the regions in which they predominate. The economic situation of poor Muslim citizens is not dissimilar to poor white working class Britons and thereby they do not suffer a profound or distinct disadvantage. Indeed such communities are advantaged because the Government would not ever describe BNP activists as vulnerable and disadvantaged and in need of government grants. With far right extremism the government rightly recognises the views as abhorrent and the movement as something to be taken on and beaten not sponsored.

Jihadists are not victims. Islamists are not vulnerable. They are sane, logical individuals who happen to believe in an ideology which is profoundly evil. They are not subject to a condition from which they need to be cured. They are not planning suicide attacks or helping those who do because they need a hug and a chat. This announcement by the Government completely misreads the motivations and mentality of those we seek to target. It is borne of a Muslim as victim thesis the government’s politically correct mindset cannot admit is false. As my colleague Nicholas Connor has said, the £12.5 million should be spent on re-education classes for Jacqui Smith. Until she abandons her politically correct views on Islamism we, and not the Islamists, are vulnerable.

The EU forces British taxpayers to fund NGOs campaigning for the abolition of Israel

The EU diplomatically supports a two state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict based on two democratic entities which have secure borders and are at peace with each other. An honourable objective we should all support. Given this objective it is strange that the EU funds groups diametrically opposed to this vision. NGOs which oppose a two state solution, advocate the abolition of Israel, equate Israeli Liberal Democracy with apartheid South Africa and advocate recognition of and engagement with Hamas receive EU grants. A report by NGO Monitor entitled “Europe’s Hidden Hand, EU Funding for Political NGOs in the Arab-Israeli Conflict" details (in as much depth as the public can access) who we are funding and what the groups advocate. Its findings are pretty shocking.

NGOs active in the Arab-Israeli conflict region receive funding by two main mechanisms. These are the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership for Peace (PfP). NGOs headquartered in the EU were financed under a third mechanism entitled co financing until 2008. As of 2008 these NGOs will be funded under a new program named “Non state actors and local authorities in development” which aims to pursue the UN’s Millennium Development Goals. It is too early to judge the success of this new program and given the change fruitless to assess the success of the previous program. Thus the NGO Monitor report mainly concentrates on assessing EU financing of NGOs active in the Arab- Israeli conflict region.

As one would expect of the EU – a body which has never had its financial accounts approved by auditors – it is difficult to ascertain accurate data on EU funding of NGOs. Finding out who is paid what, why, by whom and for what purpose is not easy to identify. Funding figures are displayed over different time periods making comparisons difficult. Requests to the Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid (the body responsible for distributing grants to projects executed by UN Agencies) for specific information and guidelines were not answered. NGO Monitor also notes “There are no mechanisms for the public (European, Israeli, or Palestinian) to follow or understand the process, applications are not available for the publics review, and no external party has access to the information necessary too challenge the EU’s judgment”.

Questions asked by MEP Paul Van Buitenen in December 2006 revealed what the EC are not prepared to tell us about its funding of NGOs. We are not entitled to a full list of the NGOs the EU funds (some don’t want to publicise their details). However, we are assured that grants are independently assessed. The identity of the ‘independent’ assessors chosen is not revealed. We do know the ‘independent assessors’ are chosen by the “headquarters” of the people they are assessing. An interesting fact this – these bodies choose who assesses them. I think if it was me and I was looking for a fair and impartial assessment of my actions I would choose my mum to do it. I reckon her assessment would be fair and unbiased. But then again under EU rules we would not be able to know the criteria under which she judged my decisions (detailed funding criteria are not revealed) nor would we know what mark she gave me (the results of these independent assessments are not open to public view). Given we are not told who is paid what, against what criteria and how successful they were in achieving their aims the value of this independent assessment is highly suspect.

The EU claims it funds projects in isolation on their merits. Indeed the authorizing officers cannot refuse an application based on a NGOs political stance. The EU does not fund the NGOs that operate these schemes they just fund the schemes. They do not consider the other political activities the NGO is engaged in. However, this distinction is false. Funding of specific projects raises the profile of an organisation. It supports its infrastructure paying for staff, equipment, office space, publicity for the organisation etc. It also frees up resources to spend on other activities. The report notes that organisations such as ICAHD and ARIJ which support boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel do not operate strict separation arrangements when they display the EU flag on many of their publications. Publications not part of the specific EU project funded.  The display of this EU flag essentially means these organisations are choosing to highlight their link with the EU and associate it with the publications that feature it and by implication their own organisation. In some quarters this may add credibility to their organisation.

However, even if the direct EU funding of NGOs was clear and transparent there would still be problems. This is because the report notes “NGOs are able to re-grant a portion of the funds they receive to other civil society organizations, yet NGO candidates are not required to identify the names of potential re-grant recipients when they submit their application”. Therefore, it seems you can make an application and gain funding for the Kids for peace and love campaign to provide starving kids with cookies. This money can then be given to the adults who hate kids program for general destruction.  We do not know the identity of third parties re-granted money by the NGOs we support or the amounts involved because the EC does not publish this information.

The report notes that non partisan organisations do exist which focus on implementing a positive agenda bringing communities together. Some receive EU funding. These include The Arava Institute which funds environmental projects, Bitterlemons.org an internet dialogue forum between Arabs and Israelis and Internews Europe which the report says has worked to increase the “quality, diversity and professionalism of Palestinian local radio”. Each of these organisations promotes the EUs stated aim of “demonstrating the advantages of working together for mutual benefit and tangible results”.

Unfortunately the EU also funds many groups whose activities seem designed to nurture the hatred which sustains this conflict and frustrate the development of a two state solution to which the EU is committed. Christian Aids statements are particularly disgraceful. The collapse of the Palestinian Unity government and the conflict between Hamas and the PA are apparently “the predictable result of prolonged Israeli blockade and political isolation by the International community”. The report notes that “Hamas’ radical ideology...corruption, and terror attacks against Israeli civilians are entirely missing”. Such statements are part of a broader campaign by Christian Aid to encourage “boycott, divestment and sanctions” against Israel. How much of the 850,000 Euro granted by the EU is diverted towards these disgraceful campaigns which hamper genuine efforts to build peace and understanding in the region we do not know.

The report concludes with a series of constructive recommendations to ensure transparency and accountability in EU funding of NGOs. These include a complete list of NGOs funded by the EU by country, region and activity. We should know who applied for funding, who was approved and on what basis they were approved. Any list of the successful applicants should contain relevant details such as the recipient, contact information, amount, project name and a description of that project. This should be obtainable in a standardised format to enable comparisons between different bodies. NGOs applying for funding should have to disclose which other third parties they will fund through re-granting in advance as part of the applications process. This information should be publically available. Professional consistent impact assessments should be done regularly in to each program. These programs should be assessed against whether the activities of the NGO as a whole support achievement of the EUs regional objectives as stated in the relevant EU guidelines. Red Lines need to be drawn to ensure that the EU is not funding any activities by groups which engage in unacceptable behaviour. This behaviour includes calling for the destruction of a state or calling for its delegitimisation. This would bring the EU in line with standards set by private bodies such as the Ford Foundation which ensures its recipients do not “promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state, nor will it make sub-grants to any entity that engages in these activities”.

The system of allocation is clearly a shambles with little accountability or assessment of the value of making these grants. However this crisis also presents us with an opportunity. The European Commission issues “Calls for Proposals” on the web sites of its offices in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. All you need is to found/find an NGO with a base in Israel/Palestine think of a specific project and detail how it will fulfil the objectives of the CfP. Then submit an application. In each cycle of applications the EC receives up to 200 applications I think we can increase this number. The quality of the current winner’s projects standards indicates that standards are not high. It may be worth making an application.

Until the EU reforms its processes for granting, administering and assessing it’s funding to NGOs and makes the information public such funding cannot be viewed as legitimate. These funds will appear to be little more than a slush fund for the EU to play both sides of the conflict. Diplomatic commitments to a two state solution mean little when the EU funds groups engaged in promoting policies which make such a solution much harder to achieve.

The Department for International Development contradict themselves

Today our study on Hate Education in the Palestinian territories was reported in the Express.  The report included a response from the Department for International Development:

"A spokesman for the Department for International Development said: “We don’t fund the Palestinian Authority directly and therefore don’t fund textbooks."

How strange, on the 11th of July last year they put out a press release titled:

"UK leads the way in resuming direct aid for Palestinian Authority"

The release continued:

"The UK has underlined its support for the Palestinian Authority with a contribution of £3 million to allow it to begin paying off its private sector debts, Douglas Alexander, Secretary of State for International Development, announced today.

A month after Hamas’ takeover of Gaza and the establishment of a new Government by President Mahmoud Abbas, today’s announcement makes the UK one of the first countries to resume direct financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority." [emphasis added]

Beyond that, the problem isn't just direct contributions, as the Express notes: "the TaxPayers’ Alliance said that, by funding worthwhile activities, Britain was freeing up funds which could be spent in more sinister areas."

Our report raises serious issues about how the UK contributes to the long-term prospects for an end to the Israel-Palestine conflict.  It makes positive recommendations, modelled on longstanding practice in Northern Ireland, for how our aid money can encourage an end to radicalisation and hate education.  The DFID should look at those recommendations instead of issuing nonsensical rebuttals.

How British taxpayers are funding hate education and violence in the Middle East

In the first of a series of papers analysing the effectiveness of expenditure on overseas aid, the TaxPayers Alliance has published a paper looking at the effects of British aid spending in the Palestinian territories. Funding Hate Education reveals disturbing evidence showing how British taxpayers’ money has been spent helping to fund hate education and promote violence in the Middle East. The full report can be read here (PDF, 6MB)

Matthew Sinclair, the author of the report and a policy analyst at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“With moves towards a peace settlement at Annapolis and an American Presidential visit to Israel, there is real hope that a peace deal can be reached.  In order for a deal to stick over the long term, however, it is essential that the Palestinian population fully accepts it.  This is why it is particularly concerning that British aid is supporting the radicalisation of the Palestinian population, particularly the children.”

Funding Hate Education shows that part of the £47.5 million of British aid to Palestine is supporting:

• Textbooks that praise insurgents in Iraq, argue for the execution of apostates and idealise martyrdom.
• Television broadcasts, many aimed at children, that urge violence against non-Muslims and promote the view that Israel should not exist.

Matthew Sinclair continued:

“The future of the peace process in Israel and Palestine depends at least as much on positive attitudes among young Palestinians as it does on success at the negotiating table.  British taxpayers’ money is supporting the radicalisation of Palestinian youth and hurting our objectives in the region.  This needs to, and can, change.”

David Lidington MP, Shadow Foreign Office Minister, said:

“I was disturbed to read the findings within the Taxpayers’ Alliance report, ‘Funding Hate’. It is imperative that future generations, wherever they are, are taught a message of reconciliation and mutual understanding. I have contacted both the Palestinian representative in London and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to discuss the issues the Taxpayers Alliance has raised.”

Patrick Mercer OBE MP said:

"It worries me deeply that British taxpayers' money is being used, quite improperly, for destructive purpose.  Whilst aid needs to be directed to the needy, its abuse for terrorist purposes is grotesque."

MEP Hannu Takkula, Vice-Chairman Committee on Culture and Education at the European Parliament, said:

“The right to education is one of children's fundamental rights. I should emphasize that this includes right to a hate-free educational system. Since the European Union is financially supporting the Palestinian administration including the educational system, it has to ensure that the values taught to these kids correspond to the fundamental values of Europe itself. We, MEPs and European citizens, must ask for more accountability on one hand and for less incitement on the other hand."

A Viking revolt over indirect taxes?

In 787 AD, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Britain experienced its first ever Viking raid when a group of warriors sailed from Norway to Devon. On arriving in Devon, they were mistaken for merchants by a royal official, and so asked to pay a tax on their goods.

The Vikings killed the official.

Given a history like that with the taxman, it is perhaps less surprising that there is growing discontent in Norway over their tax system. Norway is well known for having very high levels of direct taxation to fund its large and generous welfare state and expansive social benefits. However, it is the high indirect taxes (known as avgifter) that may soon break the camel’s back.

To give you a flavour of the extent of these avgifter consider this: the duty placed on new cars can more than double the car’s price whilst the tax on property transactions costs homebuyers 2.5% of the purchase price. Thus the shock should not be that 75% of people think these taxes are too high, but that it took this long for the tide to turn.

This ought to be a warning to our politicians, for whom indirect taxes are becoming all the rage as they allow them to cut the headline rate of income tax whilst still spending wildly and also claiming to do "something" (whether it be over the environment or the nation’s health) at the same time.

People do not like stealth taxes. They do not like health-fascists taxing the foods that are deemed inappropriate. They do not like environmental do-gooders using the coercive instruments of the State to appease their consciences over the environment.

People do not like seeing more and more of their hard-earned income taken by bloated government, for it then to be wasted on lining the pockets of politicians and channelled off to fund the pet projects of bureaucrats. None of this discontent is unique to Britain it seems, even if the public in high-tax socialist havens like Norway have just taken a little longer to lose patience and voice their opposition.