The Shake-Up

Man City's new signing Jo has given his first interview since joining the squad and playing in the UEFA Cup qualifier in the Faroe Islands. He seems positive:

"After I spoke to the manager I was very pleased. I was told Manchester City are a club going forward. We can go places, that is our objective."

There is certainly a lot of buzz around the club, driven by the fact it now has a billionaire owner and a proven manager, and because it even felt capable of pursuing Ronaldinho for so long, an impossibility a year ago.

However, some of the smiles are uneasy. The squad has deep problems. Man City has nine strikers, even more if you consider that both Petrov and Castillo can play well up-front. The problem is that none of them have proven themselves to be adept goal-scorers, though both Bojinov and Jo haven't had chances yet, the former stricken by an injury all of last season. Worryingly, Darius Vassell is the most reliable of the nine, although even he has been preferred by previous managers to play in midfield.

If Hughes is to overcome City's key problem, the lack of goals, he will have to play more up-front. Both Erikkson and Pearce preferred the 4-5-1 formation, that had the advantage of having a tying up opposition players in the midfield, creating a deep defence, but made the team often dependent on breaks by Elano, Petrov, and even Ireland. Hughes has not been averse to the same formation at Blackburn, but it is more likely he will move towards 4-4-2, a formation that creates problems as to where you play Elano, and who you play on the right-wing, a problem position for City.

Not to mention the very obvious problems in defence. Man City's defensive deficit became very clear in the final weeks of last season, when Richards and Onuoha were out with injuries, and Elano had to move into the left-back position, a position he certainly made a good go at, but one which didn't make the most of the talent he displayed in the first couple of months of the season.

Hughes seems determined to overcome these problems, but with the new season approaching steadily, he needs to make some good transfers very soon to fill the gaps in defence and on the right-midfield. He also needs to hold a cull in the strike force immediately, if just to see whether he even needs to make some fresh signings there. At least we can rest assured that we have a chairman only too willing to pour out the funds necessary for the shake-up.

The Sacking of Glasgow-East

"... badger-baiting. It’s an experience you don’t easily forget. The badger is tremendously strong and utterly fearless. One bite can take off a dog’s leg, crush its skull even. They put the badger in with several dogs. At first the dog’s task seems hopeless. They get horribly damaged. And then one dog gets in a lucky snap and draws blood, and the rest take heart."

Said by Francis Urquhart in The Final Cut. The "lucky snap", of course, took place some time ago, whether it was Crewe-and-Nantwich, the local elections, or before that even. Although some may see the SNP victory in Glasgow as helping to bring forward the break-up of the Union, even the separatists acknowledge that this by-election was always going to be a verdict on the Westminster Government rather than that on Holyrood or on Scottish independence.

Labour deserved to lose, not just because of what's it doing nationally, and because its campaign has been full of lies and contradictions, but also because it has let Glasgow languish, ridden by dependency and drug culture. They took the constituency for granted, and have paid the price.

Gordon Brown will stay, simply because there is no viable alternative within the the Labour Party. But any chance of a Labour recovery grows more distant by the minute, and the situation the party was in less than one year ago now seems as much ancient history as the second sacking of Rome.

Distinguishing Features

We keep our insignificant blemishes so that we can blame them for our larger defects ... I think of the monarchy and aristocacy as Britain's bent nose. Foreigners find our ancient nonsenses distinguished, while we think them ridiculous and are determined to do something about them one day. I fear that when we do get rid of them ... we are going to let ourselves on for the psychic shock of discovering that the process has not made us one jot freer or one ounce more socially equittable a country ...

There will be a great psychological damage done tp us if we take the step of constitutional cosmetic alteration. We would unwind our bandages ... and await the fawniong compliments and gasps of admiration. How hurt we will be when we see that the international community is actuallly yawning and, far from being dazzled by the blaze of justice and freedom and beauty that radiates from our features, they are rather indignant that instead of dining in splendour and pageantry with a crowned monarch, their heads of state will in future be lunching at President Hattersley's Residence or sipping tea with Lady Thatcher in some converted People's Palace.

- From Moab Is My Washpot, by Stephen Fry

An American Matter

Today's example of institutional bias in the BBC manifested itself in the live broadcasting of Barack Obama's speech in Berlin for at least five minutes on the Six O'Clock News. It was rather sickening to watch so many gullible people naively cheering on this stage-managed demagogue. Although, this is the Germans we're talking about, who have a bit of a history for this sort of thing.

But there's another issue here. For those who didn't watch it, the five minutes of Obama was adjoined with a couple of minutes analysis on either side, as well as a report on the pace of the race back in the US. Beyond today's example of bias, we have to wonder why the BBC decided to dedicate such a large amount of its news airtime to what is, for all its eventual implications for the wider world (which the BBC never discusses anyway) an American matter.

I would have far preferred just a little more time discussing the probability that Britain's new generation of nuclear power plants will be in the hands of the French government.

Fully Assured

It can only be a good thing if a merger between the Conservatives and Ulster Unionists were to take place. Not only would it help reaffirm the Province's place as part of the United Kingdom, it would also help reaffirm unionism within the Conservative Party itself, despite the UUP's rather diminished representation in Parliament (one MP).

Although, it may yet be the case that there are many in the UUP who recognise the rather 'watered-down' Toryism that is now prevalent within the Conservatives. Enoch Powell, a High Tory, found in the UUP more kindred spirits than he ever did in within the actual Tory Party. We could always hope that the interchange between the two parties would be bilateral, rather than simply the Conservatives forcing their agenda upon the new faction. A Tory Party fully committed to the unity of the realm, the supremacy of the Crown-in-Parliament, and national sovereignty would be a dream come true. Perhaps this merger may help towards its realisation.

Of course, Ulster's place in the UK will never be fully assured until its devolved legislature, along with those in Scotland and Wales, are abolished, but we should thank God that at least one of the three major British parties takes Ulster and the integrity of the Union seriously.

The World Gardener

One thing you might notice we haven't much from the Conservatives about is foreign policy. We get the usual noises about the European Union, but that is, and has been for a while, more a domestic issue than a foreign policy one.

The EU therefore pops up a few times in Conservative Home's latest feature in its "A Government Worth Having Series". As is the convention for the use of the term by any political party in Britain, it appears alongside words like "renegotiation" and "reform". The problem is that this has been the case for over thirty years. If the Conservatives were to "go nuclear", as Praguetory has said often enough, and threaten withdrawal if Britain did not get what she wants, then we might consider the words on Conservative Home and everywhere else where they emerge. However, without such action to back-up the failing of words, then talk of "reform" and "renegotiation" is pointless, and we shouldn't care for whatever the Conservatives or anyone else have to say on the matter until they provide such a threat.

It's not as simple as that when you get to the UN. What we must do is get past the modern and common view that the UN holds a remit to interfere in the internal affairs of nation-states. However, the UN was never intended to be some kind of world gardener, its peacekeeping forces rushing hither and thither removing weeds as they emerge. It is only when nation-states clash with each other and threaten international stability that the UN begins to have any sort of remit. Yet, it very often does nothing, at least not to any meaningful extent. It is a diplomatic boardroom, nothing more. When diplomacy breaks down, it is the militaries of individual nation-states that have and will settle disputes. It is important that we recognise it the UN as a mere tool for diplomatic convenience than as serving any meaningful purpose.

By the same token, any kind of international organisation of the kind like the UN and its predecessor is useless, including the League of Democracies, which struggles from the concept stage because of how to define a true democracy. The British Government should recognise that meaningful international action should and can only be undertaken in "coalitions of the willing" by nations with vested interests.

For it is only by national interest that foreign policy can operate. Such hot-air about the notion of "human rights" being at the heart of Conservative foreign policy should be greeted with suspicion. It is downright arrogance to assume that Britain somehow has a moral duty to preserve the world's civil liberties, and it is downright stupidity to do so at the bidding of demagogues, Washington, or The Hague.

To shed this arrogance, just as we have shed our status as a world power, should be the primary Tory aim, combining what should be the two pillars of Conservative foreign policy: national sovereignty and national interest.

Warm Welcome

Russia has continued to express displeasure at the expansion of the United States' military umbrella over Europe. The British MSM seems to have stood aloof as oil supplies to the Czech Republic fell by 40% the day after their Government gave the nod for the US to install a radar tracking system in the country (hat-tip: EU Referendum).

This was, of course, a warning from Russia, not just to the Czechs - who are apparently looking for alternate suppliers anyway - but to the rest of the nations within what was formerly Moscow's "sphere of influence".

Now, though, it transpires Russia may have a chance to - pardon the phrase - take its fight to the enemy. Hugo Chavez has called for an alliance between Venezuela and Russia to "protect" his country from the United States. As well as allowing three Russian oil companies into his country, Chavez would also give a "warm welcome" to Russian military forces.

Not to say Russian fighter jets will soon be running exercises over the Orinoco. We're a long way from such blatant two-finger salutes to Washington. However, the means now exist for Russia for create a strong military presence in the hemisphere that the US has traditionally seen as its own. One could even see such an event, or even a formal alliance, as a breach of the Monroe Doctrine.

Some say we're in a "new Cold War". Perhaps we shouldn't go that far yet, but now we are seeing, and shall continue to see, Russia trying to catch up with the American Empire after that quite rude interruption in December 1991.

Noise Pollution

Express: TRADITIONAL ice cream vans could become a thing of the past after council killjoys branded their cheery chimes as noise pollution.

Worcester City Council says it introduced the guidelines to make the system fairer.

I only ever get an ice cream when I'm at the cricket, but still ...

The Adolf Hitlers Among Us

I'd love to see the amount of revenue the duty on alcohol brings into the Treasury coffers. Of course, it's never enough, but nothing will ever be able to fill the black hole New Labour has eaten into the state finances.

You'd think they'd be grateful, wouldn't you? No. The war against smokers is nearly won. So - God forbid they'd do anything about the real problems in this country - Labour turn to score some more points with the Adolf Hitlers among us by beginning the assault on alcohol:

Time is being called on happy hours and two-for-one offers on alcoholic drinks as figures indicate that excessive drinking puts 800,000 people in hospital a year at a cost to the NHS of £2.7 billion a year.

They conveniently forget who actually pays for the NHS at this juncture. They also conveniently forget who it was that brought in 24-hour licensing.

Radovan Karadzic Found ...

... running the Church of England.

Then again, perhaps having someone on the far-right at its helm would have done the Church of England some good, or at least put it in a better state than it is. Probably better to go with the "He's at Newcastle United" gag:

The Green Mask of Socialism

Via The Englishman, we learn that we only have 100 months to save the planet. Such is the gloomy warning from the Green New Deal Group. What evidence is has to suggest we only have this number of months doesn't seem to be on offer, but they do helpfully recommend ways Britain can prevent the burning up of planet Earth:

The group's recommendations include:

• massive investment in renewable energy and wider transformation in the UK


• the creation of thousands of new "green collar" jobs


• making low-cost capital available to fund the UK's green economic shift


• building a new alliance between environmentalists, industry, agriculture and unions

Or, what we used to call the subsidisation of industry and "worker participation". Oddly enough, seems to be what Labour were offering from 1901-1992.

Settled

Public service broadcasting is an awkward thing, isn't it? There are many of us who are continually accusing the BBC of bias, not just in terms of programming but institutionally too. A chap named Humphrey Lewis once phoned in to the Corporation to complain about a bias towards multiculturalism, only to be told that the "BBC wholeheartedly support multiculturalism".

Ofcom has said something akin to that today, in its investigation into the Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. 265 people felt their green consciences burning so badly they felt obliged to complain under the pretext of Channel 4 breaching the Broadcasting Code. One even found enough time between recycling and chaining himself to power plant gates to write a 176-page document detailing 136 such breaches.

Ofcom expressed concern the conclusion did not reflect a range of views. However, it did not find anything too wrong with the lion's share of the documentary. Good news for us who enjoyed the brief break in the environmentalist droning, but some of us are not a bit too happy about why they found no problems:

Ofcom's logic is that "the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007".

Ofcom, a state regulator, is saying that all the arguments surrounding climate change are "settled". There is no more room for debate. It is exactly why the environmentalists got so red in the face about the programme. They can't bear a view that is not their own getting such public exposure. They can't bear debate, because it might lead to some things coming out they don't like.

I Merely Report ...

Daily Express: THE acre is set to be banned after the EU announced that Labour has agreed to the abolition of yet another part of the British way of life.

... The move was agreed at a meeting of the EU’s agriculture and fisheries committee. Other EU nations sent full cabinet ministers to Brussels but Britain was only represented by the low-ranking Jonathan Shaw, the Minister for Rural Affairs.

Not Even The Name

"Gordon Brown gives Iran two weeks to back down on nuclear programme"

... announces a headline in The Times. Makes him look like a strong leader, doesn't it? And of course through him, it makes Britain look like a strong world player too, like we are still a power in Middle-Eastern politics.

Don't bet on it. For all the pronouncements by Brown and 'patriotic' newspapers, the truth is that Britain's policy on Iran regarding its nuclear programme is now orchestrated through the channels of the EU. In the AFP report on the same threat, it is said that talks with the "EU foreign policy chief", Javier Solana, have broken down. Russia's part is mentioned, the United States' part, of course, is talked of, but not even the name of the United Kingdom appears.

Before our eyes, we see the United Kingdom fade into history. We are, apparently, so possessed with debating whether we even want to survive as a nation, that the rest of the world is forgetting us.

I Merely Suggest ...

There appears to be some fear in the upper ranks of the Conservative Party that admitting that they may have to raise taxes would further estrange them from the traditionalist party 'core'.

May I, then, make a suggestion? Simply be stronger on the issue of the EU, i.e., take a far harder eurosceptic line. Above all else, that should ensure the support of the 'core' no matter what else.

Appeasement

Gordon Brown has announced £30m (38m euros; $60m) of additional financial support for the Palestinian Authority (PA), on a visit to the West bank.

There you have it: Gordon Brown is indirectly subsidising terrorism despite the fact Britain has a budget deficit.

Help Themselves

To think, one year ago, at this very moment, I was stuck on a bus half-way between home and school, threatening a Thai kid at the front of the bus who thought it would be hilarious to wind up a load of pissed off, soaking, bored prefects. Of course, I got home and thought everything was going to be fine. I even made a post about a shoplifting seagull to lighten the mood. And then came the morning after ...

I was awoke at about seven this morning by my dad coming into my bedroom. "Well, here's some good news: nan and grandad's house is flooded." I stirred. "They just phoned me. Water's all over the lounge just coming into the kitchen. Looks like we're going to have some lodgers for a couple of nights".

That "couple of nights" turned into ten weeks or so. By midday, their bungalow was under five foot of water. One of their cars had been flipped over, their picnic table had been dragged twenty yards across their garden and turned on its side, and everything in their shed emptied into the river that had once been the main road.

As I walked up the high street, I saw cars, full of families and anything they could cram into the boot, fleeing the town - obviously, one of the roads was not shut. I had heard the football grounds were bad but I wasn't prepared for the extent of the disaster. Walking towards it, I heard a recurring emergency announcement from the leisure centre which had been evacuated early in the morning. It said, "All personnel report to the car park". Well, there were no personnel, and no car park. There was anything from seven to fifteen feet of water that had swamped the football fields, poured into the leisure centre and had consumed the nearby road, just about to break into the market.

The rest of the day was spent dragging sandbags into friends' houses and pumping up airbeds at the civic centre, that had been transformed into a kind of refugee camp. Above, air ambulances were regularly swooping downwards to collect the stranded. A local farmer was doing rounds on his tractor, the only vehicle big enough and capable of travelling through the treacherous waters. Surveying the damage at the bungalow was hard the next day, especially since a good deal of your childhood had been swallowed by the maelstrom.

Frankly, I thought it was in a better state than I would have expected considering the amount of water I saw yesterday. My nan didn't. She was on the brink of crying, so she said, so I saw. I don't know if she has since.

Laban, too, had had his troubles the night before. Things for him looked better the next day, however. Or maybe he was overcome with an uncharacteristic feeling of optimism:

The news from home is good. Susan's heroics with a spade have saved the house, the eldest son has (foolishly IMHO) attempted to wade home seven miles with no jacket or waterproofs and been picked up after three, probably with mild hypothermia, by a Good Samaritan in a Land Rover. Middle son is at a friends house with two other stranded kids.

The weather reports showed my town got the highest level of rainfall in the country. Something of little consellation to the poor people of Worcester, Upton-upon-Severn, and of course, Teweksbury. The Government ran for cover, putting it all down to global warming:

Oh right! So it's not your fault that the budget for the Environment Agency was cut! So it's not your fault that the Army budget's been cut so drastically that it can't assist Gloucester and Tewkesbury! So it's not your's or your administration's fault that almost no proper preparation was made despite severe weather warnings as early as last Monday and last Wednesday! So it's not your bureaucrat army's fault that Upton-upon-Severn's flood defences are stored miles up the M5 and got stuck in traffic!

It continued ...

It is now perfectly clear what a cock-up the Environment Agency, and therefore the Government, has made over the floods. I remember on the Thursday night the severe flood warnings being issued and being told on the news that the Agency was going to meet the next day to decide whether to drive the flood barriers up the M5 to Upton-upon-Severn and Worcester.

... What's even more aggravating is the Government and the Agency's increasingly idiotic defence. It's a case of ignorance being almost as great as arrogance. Frankly, it seems as though they don't care, especially when you find out Peter Hain sound-a-like Environment Minister Phil Woolas MP, whilst watching a Newsnight report, was laughing at people saying the flood barriers weren't erected in time. His defence for the flood barriers not being up is basically "oh, they wouldn't have made any difference anyway". That's not a defence. Idiots like him and Hillary Benn have been saying for days they couldn't predict the amount of rainfall. Then how did they know the barriers wouldn't work?

Yet Gordon Brown managed to steer a way through it. It might have had something to do with David Cameron inept response. But I suppose it's hard to listen to the complaints of people who have lost everything in your own country when you're posing for a sentimental photograph in Rwanda:

Cameron should be attacking Brown, Benn and all the fools at the Environment Agency non-stop. He should be touring the flooded towns and cities of Middle England, the group he needs to win over to triumph at the next election. He should be making himself the voice of those people who are seething at the stupidity of the Government.

But no. His defence is that he's visiting and raising awareness of the people who have no clean running water or electricity or don't enjoy all of our 'comforts'. Well there's hundreds of thousands of people in his own country now who have no running water or electricity, and they're only comforts are the efforts of the emergency services and the military who are working hour after hour, day after day, and night after night.

My grandparents didn't get back into their home until March. It's not the same as before, almost all of the old furniture having made way for new smooth, showroom designs. But it's still their home, still moreorless my second home. You have to hand it to them for managing to come through it all, but even they admitted at the time they were the lucky ones. They will sit down for the Sunday roast in their own home. Many in Evesham, Teweksbury, and elsewhere will have to squeeze around their caravan tables, not comforted by the knowledge that despite the enormity of the state, despite the millions it takes from us from each year, it was unable to give them help when they needed it, and the reality dawned that individuals, families, communities, have to - and should - help themselves.

An Englishman's Home Is His Castle

March 10, 1763:

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter!"

July 20, 2008:

There are more than 1,000 laws and regulations which permit officials to force entry into homes, cars and business premises, a report commissioned by Gordon Brown has found.

The People's Referendum

Times: The man who delivered an historic "No" vote in Ireland against the EU's Lisbon Treaty has revealed far-reaching plans to give voters throughout Europe a peoples' referendum on the handover of power to Brussels.

Declan Ganley is planning to field more than 400 candidates in next June's European Parliament elections, in the 26 countries – including Britain – where voters have had no direct say on the treaty.

A referendum, of sorts. Although the "colleagues" will do their very best to discredit Ganley and his campaign at every opportunity, especially now they have seen what he is capable of with regards to the Irish "no" vote - many give him a good deal of the credit for ensuring Ireland's negative result when all of Ireland's major political parties, bar Sinn Fein, were pushing for a "yes".

The problem for those who truly wish for withdrawal from the EU should be whether to vote at all. The fact that the European Parliament is directly elected means that it derives its authority, such as it is, from its 'mandate' from the people. In this sense, it is sovereign in its own right. Even if eurosceptic candidates are elected, not only does it make no difference whatsoever to the functioning of the EU, the electors are still vesting authority in that legislative body.

If you truly an EU withdrawlist, you will not vote in the European elections.

Victor's Justice

On Thursday, Andrew Lilico at Centre-Right declared that a Tory should oppose the International Criminal Court on the same grounds that he is a eurosceptic. The Huntsman begged to differ. It's better to read his whole post, but here appears to be the sum total of it:

I confess to being at a loss to discern any similarity between the body of law which falls within the jurisdiction of the ICC and the issue of loss of sovereignty implicit in our membership of the EU. With the various treaties (from Rome to Lisbon) we have surrendered huge swathes of sovereignty and perhaps 80% of our laws are now passed by unelected foreigners in Brussels. But our acceptance of the laws which are justiciable by the ICC and our accession to the Rome Statute of the ICC (and thus acceptance of its jurisdiction over the UK and its denizens) was as a result of the lawful and sovereign act of the United Kingdom Parliament which had been democratically elected by the people of the UK.

To which I responded ...

It is a question of whether you believe the United Kingdom should be an independent, sovereign nation, and that we should be a people who hold our loyalties to the Crown in Parliament and no other earthly body. If you truly believe this, then you accept that Parliament has the sole authority to create laws. This is the reason I am a eurosceptic, and I trust you are.

The ICC derives its authority from "international law", that you say derives in its modern version from the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials. These trials were nothing more than victor's justice. Much of the time, it was blatantly phoney - German and Japanese defendents were being tried for breaking 'international laws' created after they perpetrated the crimes. They were, to all intents and purposes, show trials. The ICC too depends upon 'victor's justice'. Firstly because 'international law' has no enforcement body, which would require a police institution and a world government. Secondly because rogue and powerful states will, and do, simply ignore its jurisdiction. Like the UN now, and its predecessor the League of Nations, it is powerless without the full complicity of its most powerful members. International law is actually two-tiered: the law for the weak, and the law for the strong. This is completely contradictory to the ideal of the rule of law itself. If you like, you can draw another historical parralel between the ICC and the League of Nations, a rather pivotal one - neither have enjoyed the support or membership of the United States.

The ICC is unelected and unaccountable. Yet, just like the European Court of Justice, it has the authority to make a ruling against a citizen of this country. If you accept the authority of the ICC, then you are accepting that an earthly body has greater authority than the Crown in Parliament. You are choosing to exchange the writ of Parliament for the writ of unelected judges. But must also accept that you do not believe in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

It is not puzzling for a Tory to be hostile to the ICC. It is entirely right.

The Shift (In PR) To The Left

They should be measuring New Labour gradual move leftwards (of course, they've always been on the left - this is PR speaking) on the 'Thatcherometer'. Nearly a year ago, Gordon Brown invited Baroness Thatcher to 10 Downing Street, praising her and comparing himself admirably to her.

Move on into 2008, and, with a fresh need to appeal to the 'core' Labour vote, we've already had the familiar leftie jibe of Thatcher having "destroyed British society" from the once admiring Prime Minister.

In Glasgow-East it's gone a step further. Apparently, the local Labour Party has ignored orders from supreme command, saying of Harriet Harman, "There's no way she's getting involved". Like Hitler in the Fuhrerbunker, they've started seeing conspiracies all around them, accusing the SNP of "colluding" with the Conservatives. They've also began blaming Thatcher for the "wreckage" they see around them. This, in spite of the fact she has now been out of office for nearly eighteen years.

I've said it before: if you're still blaming an administration that left office eleven years ago for the country's problems, you have to answer for what on earth you have actually been doing all this time. In this case, it seems to be rearranging the desks - or rather, loosing the laptops and memory sticks - in Whitehall.

Which One Would You Trust?

Gordon Brown, having completely failed at governing the country, tries to win the "Best 'PM Holding Machine Gun' Picture" competition. Still comes second place to the classic ...

Thou Shalt Not Steal, But ...

Telegraph: The government is to give councils the power to refuse to collect rubbish if home owners fail to abide by draconian rules which may include leaving bins in the right place, sticking to weight restrictions and following strict recycling policies.

Labour is quietly pushing the new rules through parliament without any debate after it proposed amendments to a 130-year-old law which has, until now, made it a statutory duty of local authorities to collect household waste.

If they did refuse, then I would expect a council tax rebate. Could you imagine handing over your money to a shopkeeper, and then him refusing to give what you've bought to you because you're standing slightly to the left of where he wants you?

This is going to give binmen an extraordinary level of influence. It will make them believe they are little gods on earth. Would you ever expect them to make the effort to empty your bin if they could find an excuse not to?

But still ...

Despite this, there will no reduction in council tax for home owners.

There's a word for that - stealing.