The UK needs a 'fiscal cliff'

There is much talk about the 'fiscal cliff' that is facing the USA.  This refers to the tax increases and spending cuts which come into effect on January 1, 2013 unless some action is taken to repeal or amend the relevant legislation.  The aim of the original legislation was to require the US Congress and Administration to address the ever increasing budget deficit and US debt.

As one would expect, politics has intervened and a game of fiscal chicken is now underway.   The Democrats, buoyed by the results of the presidential election think they have a mandate to tax more and not cut expenditure.  The Republicans seem to be trying to reach a compromise which reduces the level of tax increases but still has some expenditure cuts.  As so often with Obama, though, there is a lot of talk and no real action.

However, I was thinking that the UK needs its own 'fiscal cliff'.  So, for that matter does Europe but let's stay with the UK.

As a nation, we need to face-up to our situation.  Forget all the rhetoric about 'responsibly' cutting public expenditure from the Tories or 'swingeing' cuts from Labour.  The reality is that public expenditure is not being reduced by any meaningful level.  There will be all the usual suspects lining-up to defend the 'steady as she goes' approach and saying too much has already been cut etc., but the plain and simple truth is that the UK, as a nation continues to live way beyond its means.

It won't happen, but here is what I think we need.

First, a Chancellor that is focused on the UK economy not one who always has his eye on the electoral impact.  I hesitate to say this but someone like Ken Clarke was, after 1992.  Someone that builds the economy for the economy's sake and damn the electoral consequences - hence the Labour landslide of  1997!!  My belief is that Clarke's insistence on something approaching fiscal rectitude, gave Labour a 'golden legacy' and the Tories defeat!

Second, honesty as to the course of action that is to be undertaken.  Tell it like it is.  I know that sounds incredibly naive but some Britons are actually grown-ups.  They are having to deal with their own fiscal cliff and managing and struggling to do so.

Third, demonstrable cuts across the board.  Yes that includes the 'sacred NHS' .  Demonstrable?  How about a 15% cut in expenditure for ALL departments.  Zero based budgeting.  What did we spend in the last 12 months?  That number less 15% is what we spend in the next 12 months.

Fourth, cease payments, within 60 days, to the EU.  Simply stop.  Make no further payments until, CAP is abolished, until the books are audited and approved, until the EU bureaucracy is reduced by at least 50%.  Until.............  the whole damn place is under control and that means democratic control - not political appointees.  No more money until all of the above is achieved.

Fifth, cut overseas aid.  Make all overseas aid actually only 'in kind' and only is UK manufactured products.  Any 'on the ground' costs must be met by the recipient nation.  End all overseas aid to India, China and Brazil, immediately.  I read today that the average age of retirement, in Brazil, for private sector workers, is 53 years of age.  Makes Greece look miserly!

Sixth, instruct the NHS and other public institutions to initiate immediate discussions with their Private Finance Initiative  (PFI) providers and the starting point is a dramatic reduction in the payments that are to be made under these agreements.    If not, the NHS Trusts to declare bankruptcy.  Who exactly do we think holds the whip hand?  The NHS, who can make use (or sometimes misuse) of the relevant facilities or the financing companies?  What will the latter do with bankrupt hospitals?

Seventh, and we are back to # 3 make the cuts even more demonstrable - abolish a complete government department.  The Department for Energy and Climate Change would get my vote for abolition, along with the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office - I know that's three and I am in danger of fuzzy maths but.....   All of the displaced personnel to receive redundancy pay in line with the statutory limits - so not the usual 'golden parachutes'.

Eighth, Cut support for local government by 25%  - This will lead to a decline in employment opportunities for 'diversity officers' and LGBT empowerment posts but we will just have to get by.

Nine, 'means test'all benefits,  Welfare should be a 'safety net' not the lap of luxury.  And yes, 'means test' including those for pensioners.  Why should a pensioner get free bus pass?  Or a winter fuel allowance, if they don't really need it? 

Ten, abolish the so called 'green taxes' that have been imposed upon all energy users and go 'hell for leather' to promote shale gas exploitation.  This will require ignoring the lies from the BBC and Greenpeace but at least, if # 7 is followed, there won't be anyone at the Cabinet table pushing these lies and distortions.

As I said at the outset, it won't happen but it was nice to get this off of my chest.  Instead the UK will slide towards IMF bailouts and austerity much like the above but it will be administered by 'foreigners'.  And we will have the usual bogeyman of bankers to blame, so that's all right then!!

The USA has a chance to turn back from the financial abyss but politicians being what they are, the problems are as likely to be kicked down the road over there, as they are in the UK.

US - Please don't deport Piers Morgan

I would like some democracy-loving American to start a petition to keep Piers Morgan in the USA.

The grounds would be the what I believe are his comments being protected under the  First Amendment to the US Constitution.  The framers maybe didn't anticipate the abuse of the rights nor the mindless mutterings that would be protected under the amendment but they were good people acting in a good way and they would, I believe, have accepted that sometimes the greater good is served.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I do have another motive.  I don't want this over-rated ass, back in the UK.  The USA is a big country and you have absorbed the witterings of many fools, in the past, so please, do the UK this favour.

A major concern, for me, is that people might look at Morgan's journalistic record and conclude that his First Amendments privileges are forfeit because of his prior mendacity or rather the lying that occurred on his watch.  He was the editor of the UK tabloid, the Daily Mirror, when they published expose photos that purported to show British troops torturing Iraqi prisoners.  Thing was, the photos were speedily exposed as being frauds.  I can't remember the exact details but I seem to recall something of the apology which said that 'yes, these were made up but they depict real events'  Or words to that effect.

Please though put this to one side and consider the service you are doing for an old ally. 

Of course his ravings about gun-control, coming as they do, from someone raised in the super-controlled (some would say, over-controlled) European environment, take no account of how the US has come about and stayed together as a union.  How could they?  In Europe, the concept of protecting your own home or life is something that is 'farmed out' to the police.  In the UK this is particularly worrying when there are regular exposes of police lies, cover-ups and evidence fabrication, such that, today, many question who it is the police actually protect.  

The US Constitution and its Amendments are not to blame for the horrific massacre in Newtown.

Neither are the gun manufacturers.  We don't blame car manufacturers when the product they produce is involved in the deaths of three times more people than die of gun related deaths.

The one to blame, seems to be universally accepted as being Adam Lanza.  You might, just might look at apportioning some responsibility to a state that didn't offer better medical treatment for people with mental health issues but fundamentally, it was a person, Adam Lanza, that did the killing.

Morgan and his gun control zealots can take all of the guns away from all of the people but that won't, I am sorry to say, stop mad people killing innocents.

On the same day as the Newtown massacre, a madman ran amok in China and stabbed 20 children.  So, ban knives?

2012 Books read

In this I include Kindle versions.  I love the 'feel' of real books but Kindle is just so practical when I have to travel so much in connection with my job.

Here are some of the books I have read in 2012, and comments.

Watermelons - James Delingpole - Excellent expose of the scare-mongering and downright lies at the heart of the  so called Global Warming industry.  Delingpole delves into the organizations that are milking this manufactured 'scare' and exposes the hidden agenda of control and the inherent socialist 'principles' behind this scam.  He does this with a light touch and manages to convey complex information and facts in a not too serious and never dull manner.  Hopefully he will stick with the mission and maybe look at Fracking next?

The Hunger Games triology - Suzanne Collins - Read these and skip the very poor movie adaptation of the first book.  These books really do 'grip' and one gets the sense of despair and isolation - something that is so missing in the movie.

Jack Reacher series - Lee Child.  Not meaning to be disrespectful but these are good 'airport' books (even if read on Kindle!)  They are not deeply challenging intellectual books but a good yarn about someone with a strong moral compass who seems to attract trouble and who knows how to deal with it! Oh!  I have just heard there is a Jack Reacher movie!  Tom Cruise in the title role - why oh why would you make a parody?  Because the lightweight and vertically challenged Cruise could never seriously be cast as Reacher.  Does Hollywood ever read books?  Or are they too busy making caring ads seeking to control other peoples' lives?

Jerusalem - Simon Sebag Montefiore  This is a 'biography' of a city.  For me it sounds an unusual concept but this works and one does get a sense of the character of the city and how it has developed, over such a long time.  My only complaint is that the most recent history seemed to be the least explored.  I found myself at the end of the book before I realized I was close!  The % counter on the Kindle misled because of all of the notes and, a Kindle drawback, one doesn't get that visual check that one does, from a real book.

Our Culture - What's left of it - Theodore Dalrymple - Always enjoyed his columns for The Spectator and this books carries on the tradition of observations on a world that most of us don't see - the under-belly of British (or maybe that's just English) society.  The writing is clear and precise.  This really should be required reading for all of the 'ology' students at universities.  All those who aspire to rule us should understand what exists out there in the real world rather than what they believe exists in their welfare- dependent Utopia.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series  - Stieg Larsson - Again, better than the film version.  Gripping and the way that this history unfolds?  Brilliant.

Eye of the Needle and others - Ken Follett -  Good yarns, well written and researched and well worth re-visiting.

Blood Hunt and Doors Open - Ian Rankin.  There really isn't much to say - Rankin, as always, is simply superb.

Shibumi, Satori and The Loo Sanction - Trevanian - I first read Shibumi and the Loo Sanction something like 30 years ago.  The return to this much under-rated author was well-rewarded.  I urge you to find out the quality, for yourself.

2012 blogging

I have just passed the 12 month anniversary of my first blog and, since we are approaching the year-end thought I would look back over the past year.  Don't worry, there will be no slow-motion clips, a la BBC Sports Personality of the Year!

First though a thank you to the more than 12,000 people who took the time to look through this.  Even if you didn't agree with what you read I appreciate your participation in the dialogue!

So...

Scotland and the independence vote was a much-written about topic for me and for those that comment on my musings/rants.  As Hogmanay looms, the people of Scotland know that they will have a vote and it will be a yes or no type of vote and in late 2014 but that's about it.  They have stories and counter-stories about whether they will remain in the EU or not and thus use the Euro or £ Sterling.  They have still heard little to nothing about how Scotland's economy and public spending will manage without the UK subsidy (making the EU membership question that much more important).  Hopefully, 2013 will bring some reasoned arguments to the debate.  I am encouraged by Alistair Darling leading the anti-independence side of the discussion.  I get the sense that he will also pick-up sympathy votes for having had to live and work with Gordon Brown for so long!

The topic that brought the most comments was the Government's plans for so called 'gay marriage'.  Many of the comments accused me of being homophobic.  I don't believe I am but I do recognize that that is the way that debate gets stifled.  Mention immigration and you are suddenly a racist BNP supporter, for example.  The Government conducted a sham public consultation exercise, where their view was already made-up and they will now push ahead with legislation and it will include certain safeguards including not allowing such 'marriages' to be conducted in Anglican churches  This is a meaningless sop to try and buy-off disgruntled and bemused Tory MPs and voters.  The government know that that part of the legislation will be challenged by homosexuals under Human Rights legislation.  Commenting on pro-homosexual  legislation that was passed in California, back in the 1970's, the comedian Bob Hope, said that he would soon have to leave that state, before they made homosexuality, compulsory.  I often wonder if that is the goal of the so called charity  Stonewall and the whole host of media that champion 'gay rights' to the detriment of the non-homosexuals in society?   The question I repeatedly posed - what does this legislation give homosexuals that they do not already have under the Civil Union act - remains unanswered.

Europe and the Euro were popular.  Time to confess that my predictions of  Greek exit from the Euro have been premature though I do believe that the whole project is still very precariously balanced and in jeopardy.  The big question though, is will David Cameron recognize the need for getting off of the fence and offering the electorate a clear In/Out vote on continued membership of the EU?  If he doesn't and Labour beats him to the punch then those people who have defected to UKIP can be counted on staying away from the Tories in 2015.

Then there is the UK political scene and particularly the pussy-footing way that the Tories deal with their supposedly junior coalition partner.  From dithering on Europe to pandering on 'gay marriage' to sparing the knife on public spending cuts, the Tories have bowed and scraped to the Lib Dems , time after time.   Taxes still remain high - Income, VAT, National Insurance and the phoney Green Taxes - and so does Public Spending - welfare payments still make low paid work uneconomic to take-up and many middle class receive tax credits and other stipends back from the State,  that they have just paid over in taxes!  And then there is the poor management of news!  The March Budget became focused on pasties and grannies just at a time when we needed the hard questions to be addressed.  It seems that can-kicking is not only done by the Left!

If you ignore rank hypocrisy and pure political opportunism (just for the sake of politicking) then Labour has had not too bad a year.  They were aided by the ineptitude of the Tories (see budget above) but Ed Miliband has come into his own this year.  He still grates when he talks and then there is what he says but, he has done better than I expected.  Fortunately, the other Ed, Balls that is, has had a bad year.  One senses that his heart isn't in it anymore.

I don't want to get on to Leveson as that comes back to Tory stupidity - we have a problem with the press, let's appoint a judge and commission a report for some time in the future!  Why would we expect anything less than a restrictive response from a British judge?  At the end of the day, judges, like politicians, think they know better than us, what is best for us!  Think not?  Think of how many times you have heard of a ruling and thought - No way, that's just crazy (Abu Qatada ring any bells??)

So to close out - I wish you and yours a blessed Christmas and hope that 2013 brings health and happiness to you. 

Newtown, CT

What to say? 

Words to describe the evil that was visited upon this small town will always seem inadequate.  As you will have seen though, that doesn't stop the 'talking heads' jumping to all sorts of conclusions and such.  I guess that includes me!

Also included among these is President Obama who has rushed in to say that 'meaningful action' must be taken.  He is referring to trying to push through some kind of gun control laws in the wake of the Newtown horror.  Don't be surprised!  Like all socialists, Obama looks at all events through a political prism - how can I use this to push 'the agenda' forward?  In this case, how can I put forward a plan for greater state control?  He is aided by the usual suspects such as Diane Feinstein of California.  Surprisingly, there is no rush to say that treatment for mental health should be improved, though one must believe that the killer cannot have been anything but insane!

For Europeans, gun control is 'accepted'  - as in, 'the powers that be' impose it and that's it.  No democracy, no popular vote, just 'we know best'. 

Britain had its own horrific event at Dunblane and then rushed through legislation which had the effect of removing legally registered guns from most law-abiding citizens but not affecting the criminals nor the mentally unbalanced that commit such acts and can always seem to find weapons, when they need them.

Does anyone see the LA gangs giving up their hardware?  Or will it just be the law-abiding people in small, isolated communities, who are then exposed to the gun-toting criminals, who don't give-up theirs?

Now though, is not the time for politics. 

Now we should really reserve our thoughts and prayers for the families that found themselves, with holes in their lives, suddenly appearing last Friday.  I am truly amazed when I hear these people speak.   Their love for the children is obviously apparent but their compassion towards the surviving members of the Lanza family is truly Christian.

Many of the teachers are being hailed as heroes and rightly so, but I also think these suffering parents deserve this accolade for the dignified and spiritual way that they are facing this tragedy.

Keep them and the departed in your prayers.

Politicians - please resist the temptation to intervene!  

Starbucks, Hodges and Tax

Before we all get carried away on a victory-tide of people power and a generally euphoric feeling of goodwill and such, consider this.

How much will the 'voluntary' tax that Starbucks is paying, actually cost it?  I suggest that the answer is zero. Why?  Well firstly the taxes that they pay in say the UK, get deducted against the taxes that they must pay in their home base, the USA.  Secondly, once all of the fuss has died down, I suspect that Starbucks will, offset this payment of taxes against future UK Corporate tax bills - so this payment acts as a kind of pre-payment.

In the first instance above, this deductability gets a little convoluted because of the complex corporate structures that companies like Starbucks put in place but fundamentally, when they eventually send these low-taxed profits back to the USA, to, for example pay shareholder dividends, then they get the deduction.

Remember though that Starbucks have done nothing wrong or illegal.  They have simply managed their tax affairs, efficiently.  There are some, that talk of morality and such.  These include politicians, particularly from the left of the spectrum.  Okay, so hold the indignation at those that have themselves so far into the public trough that their snouts can barely be seen.  Think of this.  Where is the morality in taking more than 50% of what someone earns as a tax?  Where is the morality in tax earnings multiple times - once through PAYE, then what's left gets taxed as VAT or fuel duty or idiotic Green taxes or a TV tax?

Consider also that Margaret Hodges the chair-person of the UK Parliament's Public Affairs Committee, has a family firm, in which she is said to have a financial interest, that paid just £163,000 of corporate tax, in 2011, on sales of £2.1 Billion.  To put that into perspective, Starbucks sales in that year were approximately £377 million or 1/6th and they paid 5 times the corporation tax that Stemcor, the company with which Hodges has links, paid.

Again, Stemcor have likely done  nothing wrong or illegal.   Equally, corporate taxes are not levied on sales but on profits but since Ms Hodges feels obliged to regularly and very publicly castigate large corporations on their tax payments, using what can only be described as inflammatory but essentially ignorant language that is designed to feed the mob with soundbites we must put Stemcor out there as a potential 'villain' as well.  Then perhaps we must question the suitability of Ms Hodges to be leading this crusade against business.  Would anyone suggest that the, much-maligned, Fred Goodwin, is a suitable person to lead the attack on excessive pay for bankers?   

So once again, from the 'mother of parliaments' we hear the hypocritical screeching and snorting of politicians complaining because the insatiable beast that they have created needs feeding with ever more taxes.   In one of the great ironies, the Department of Health (lavishly funded by the UK taxpayer) tells the British public that as a nation we need to lose weight and get healthier, all the while itself, feasting and getting fatter on UK tax money!

Don't knock Starbucks, Google and Amazon for being smart.  Remember that they employ thousands of people, in the UK, (far, far more than Stemcor) and all of these employees pay UK taxes and National Insurance and spend their money, in the UK.  Remember also that Starbucks et al also pay employer National Insurance contributions, which is a tax by any other name but one that the lefties chose to ignore.

BBC waste

Here are some numbers:

Brazil 1
Russia 2
India 3
China 8

OK so you guessed these are the so called BRIC countries.  The ones with the fastest emerging economies.  The ones where the UK really needs to focus its efforts on selling and understanding these markets, so that we can export our way out of the economic crisis.


Here are some more numbers:

USA & Canada 26
of which Washington, 14
Europe 22
of which Paris, 6 and Rome, Moscow  and Madrid 2 each

Latin America 10

Asia Pacific 32

So the US, Canada and Europe gets a combined 48 - these, to remind you are the old economies.

The numbers?  They are the BBC correspondents assigned to those countries.

14 correspondents in Washington and 5 in Paris - I know the relationship is special and the entente is cordiale but really?

Only 1 in Brazil?  Only 1 to report on what is happening in a country of almost 200 million people with a booming economy?  Only 1 to help us Britons gain a better understanding of the culture of this country?

India and China fare no better - populations of 1.3 and 1.4 billion respectively and booming and complex economies and the BBC can hardly be bothered to turn up.

If David Cameron, William Hague and Vince Cable are serious about promoting trade and getting GB out there, then they really need to speak to the Culture Secretary, Maria Miller, and tell her to get the BBC to be more focused on where the UK needs to be rather than on the cosy and highly remunerative posts in the old world.

And Mr Hague, I would be very surprised if the distribution of Foreign Office overseas staff didn't closely correlate to that of the BBC.

Why the title?  Think about those 5 correspondents in Paris or the 14 in Washington - does anyone think they are free?  That they do not have BBC paid for accommodation, high and tax protected salaries and frankly a good lifestyle?  It's waste because we are not getting value for the money we pay in TV Tax.  

Those of us that suspect the BBC is pro-EU will look at those 5 in Paris and the other correspondents in Europe and will understand why, for the BBC, they really can't see outside of this continent.  They will look at the number for Washington and see why the BBC was so pro-Obama - what better way of exporting the failed social policies of Europe?

Don't expect this to appear on the Saville-denying BBC but other media might follow-up, unless of course they too, have a cosy, easy posting focus rather than one that is forward-looking.

More Greenpeace lies and BBC complicity

The BBC is reporting a story from The Independent that up to 60% of the UK could be subjected to fracking operations for shale gas.

The BBC quotes:

The Energy department  spokesman said: "There is a big difference between the amount of shale gas that might exist and what can be technically and commercially extracted.
"It is too early to assess the potential for shale gas but the suggestion more than 60% of the UK countryside could be exploited is nonsense.

John Sauven of Greenpeace is quoted as follows:

"We have commissioned the British Geological Survey to do an assessment of the UK's shale gas resources, which will report its findings next year."

The government is currently considering a report by an independent panel of experts published in April on the future of fracking in the UK.
The report recommended fracking should continue, but under stricter regulations.
Environmental campaign group Greenpeace has said its own analysis shows the extent of potential shale sites is widespread.
Greenpeace Executive director John Sauven said: "Two thirds of England, including large swathes of countryside, is now under active consideration for a risky, polluting, expensive form of fossil fuel extraction.

"The potential for shale gas to bring down bills is overhyped, while experts agree local opposition is a serious threat to the industry's viability. (my italics)

Overhyped?

The only meaningful study of the economic effects of fracking and shale gas production requires a review of what is occurring in the World's largest energy user, the USA.  

Consider these statistics from the US Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (which boasts of providing Independent Statistics and Analysis).

Price per Thousand Cubic Feet of Natural Gas

February 2003   $7.98

July 2008    $ 15.64

September 2012  $8.17

I don't know about you but a reduction of more than 47% doesn't look like 'overhyped' to me.

Between January 2010 and September 2012, the US increased its daily production of Shale gas from 11 billion cubic feet to around 26 billion feet.  This dramatic increase is only made possible by fracking - be very clear on this - and it is leading the US to lower energy prices and greater energy independence.

These facts are very easily available on the US Department of Energy site.  We can expect that Greenpeace won't check things out and they certainly have no interest or requirement to present a balanced story.  The BBC though, does.

Simple thing is, Greenpeace are not being truthful about the positive economic consequences of shale gas because they are obsessed with a renewables- only policy.   They also don't care that the UK energy users are suffering more and more fuel poverty because of these ridiculous and excessive 'green taxes'.

Votes and Leveson

Another week and more messages from the public for the main party leaders.

For David Cameron, the recurring theme is UKIP.  The easiest solution (and yes this really is easy) is for Cameron to state,  unequivocally, unambiguously or any other way that clearly demonstrates that, within 90 days of the next election, a Conservative led government would hold a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the EU.  A simple In or Out poll.

For Ed Miliband the message may, at first sight be a good one - three resounding victories out of three - but consider.  These are stronghold seats for Labour and yet in these so called times of austerity with an allegedly 'Tory toffs' led government, the Labour voters could barely be bothered to vote and register their 'disgust' at the government's policies.  Voter turnout at Rotherham was just under 34%  and Midllesborough and Croydon, just 26%.  So hardly a ringing endorsement of Miliband's leadership or policies.  If Labour can't get them off of their couches now, when can they?

So take the messages a stage further and consider the results of the Leveson enquiry.  While you do so, consider that if this judge has his way, there will come  time, in the no too distant future, when blogs like this and comments on Twitter, will also be subject to control (or as he puts it regulation).

Labour have instinctively jumped in and demanded that Leveson's recommendations be implemented in full.  Those who accuse them of rank hypocrisy, given their earlier very close ties to the media, miss the point.  Labour is all about winning and like all 'left' parties down the years, see control of the free press as an ideal way to make sure that the right' message is the only one that people get.  Also, a free press is a danger to all politicians and those that rule us because it can ,and sometimes does,  shine a light into the dark areas where these people steal from us.  I cannot believe, for one minute, that the MPs expenses scandal would have been exposed under Leveson.

I think that the Conservatives have almost got it right, in taking a more considered view and opposing a statutory regulator approach.

My own view has hardened around there not being any need for more legislation.  Remember what sparked this?  Phone hacking.  Particularly when it was alleged that the phone of murdered schoolgirl, Milly Dowler, was hacked.

Leave aside, for a moment the morality of such a thing and just know that this was a violation of the law.  How would a press regulator be any more able to enforce the law than the lack of enforcement that already existed?  That surely is the fundamental question.  We don't need more laws, especially one that puts power over the press in the hands of politicians, we do need enforcement of the laws we have.

Rightly or wrongly, I would suggest that most people put the victims of hacking into two categories.  The first is what I would call 'true victims'.  The Dowler family for example.  The hacking that is said to have occurred was a gross violation of decency and should be punished to the full extent of the law.  The second category are what I would call 'celebrities'  People in the public eye and those who want to remain in the public eye.  These people use the print media to promote themselves and their personal agendas but then don't like it when their own craving for public adulation leads them into areas which they then wouldn't like to see publicized.

I have much sympathy for the people like the Dowlers.  The intrusion that they endured was and is, unspeakable.

I have no sympathy for the celebrities that seek to control what it is they show and don't show.  Now they are rushing forward to jump on the 'shackle the free press' bandwagon and so to push their ' we know best because we are famous' routine.  What makes a book writer more qualified to be widely quoted as supporting restrictive laws than other members of the public?  Has the UK really come to the state that we will be lectured on morality by people that get caught in flagrante paying for  and having oral sex performed by a prostitute or those who think that the drug laws don't apply to them?

And what of the BBC?  They have pushed and pushed the Leveson story.  Think though, under Leveson, does anyone think that we would now be talking about Jimmy Saville and his odious crimes?  

Leveson should not be implemented, just pulped.  The laws that we have should be enforced.

EU Budget

Don't get caught up and angry over the expensive wines and stuff - you didn't really expect those that rule us, to be having Chateau Neuf de Plonk at £3.99 or 3 for £10 from ASDA, did you?

For me a sure sign of the unraveling of the whole 'project' is that our EU  'leaders' couldn't even manage to agree on a covering statement.  They couldn't even use their collective wit to pass off a piece of the usual fudge  - give the UK, Germany, France et al a fig leaf of budgetary restraint, to keep the plebs (sorry taxpayers) at home happy and then go on spending like crazy anyway.


These are the same people that extol the virtues of austerity for others.

The same people that talk about probity and summon multinational companies for grillings  (while their accounts remain unaudited, year after year after year!)

The same people that have hoodwinked the UK government into going down a disastrously expensive, so called 'green route' which leads to ever higher energy taxes and the despoiling of our countryside for no real environmental benefit. 

The same people that publicly condemn 'sharp (but actually legal) tax practises' while privately benefiting hugely from tax free salaries and perks, that would have made the Soviet nomenklatura blush.

David Cameron will receive some praise for his sticking to his guns but don't get carried away.  He almost certainly did this to avoid massive trouble from within his own party and indeed, cabinet.  I think that UK interests ranked a poor second to those political ones.

I think that on Europe, Cameron is frit, to coin the Lincolnshire word used by Lady Thatcher.  And, this particular rabbit is not just caught in the headlights but, is likely to be run-over by UKIP on Europe.

Think about the challenges facing the Conservatives

Where they have strength, folks will move to UKIP because they like their honesty on EU policy and see that DC has turned on them and he and his metroplitan clique are more interested in pushing marriage for homosexuals than solving the country's economic crisis.
Where they are weaker, they will lose to Labour because the rhetoric about austerity, though not actually matched by action, is being painted, by the BBC and their Labour Party allies as having devastating effects.

I keep coming to the same conclusion that unless a spine is inserted, along with a Conservative brain and a Conservative heart, the Tories are in trouble, and, along with them, the UK.
  

Corby messages

So Labour duly reclaimed the parliamentary seat of Corby?  Big surprise?  I don't really think so as the former Conservative MP, Louise Mensch, had a rather slim majority, anyway.  Also this was a lowish turn-out of around 45% and so maybe the Conservative supporters just stayed at home?

Nevertheless, this result does pose questions and provides lessons for David Cameron and the Tory leadership.

The minority-coalition partner, Liberal Democrats, were badly beaten into fourth place.  How badly should not be under-stated.  This party that seeks, from a very minority position, to dictate (successfully in most eyes, so far it must be said) the tone and direction of UK Government policy and yet could garner less than 1,800 votes!  A lesson for David Cameron?  Maybe there is no need to be so super-nice to these folks?  Maybe you should press on with boundary reform? And deeper welfare reductions.

The big winner of this by-election, was the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).  UKIP came a very respectable 3rd getting almost 15% of the votes and three times that of the Liberal Democrats!  UKIP's main policy objective is the exit of the UK from the European Union.  In national opinion polls, UKIPis now regularly polling in third position.  A lesson and and opportunity for David Cameron and the Tories.

As I have posted here before, I believe that whichever of  the major party - Tory or Labour - that has the courage to clearly announce a policy of re-negotiation of the relationship between the UK and EU, a policy that does not rule out a possible exit, will greatly benefit in electoral terms. 

In spite of Labour's sudden conversion to an anti-EU stance on the EU budget issue, we know that they are fully on-board with the statist and protectionist policies of the EU as well as their federalist politics and direction. 

After all, in Europe, Federalism means 'do as I tell you. I am an EU politician and therefore I know best!  Okay so I wasn't democratically elected but I still know best and you need to know your place!!  You, are a taxpayer and provide funds for my lavish lifestyle, I don't need your opinion, just your money!'

So there is a great opportunity for the Conservatives to, at a stroke, gain political popularity and seize the political initiative.  I doubt though that they will grasp it.  I sense that come the next general election, of the four main parties, Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems will all offer a common platform of 'negotiation rather than confrontation' with the EU and so will keep the UK saddled with this enterprise-stifling and dangerously undemocratic organization.

The biggest danger for the Conservatives is, what if UKIP just doesn't 'fade away?   What if they continue to poll third, nationally?  What if they start to put together a policy platform that holds-up all of the Socialist policies that the EU has fostered and brought countries like Greece, Spain and Ireland to their knees and the edge of anarchy, and show that this is the direction where the UK could head?  Then they would be stealing the economic policy of the Tories, as well.

Not good times for the Conservative leadership. 

Must Republicans change?

Following the US Presidential Election, the media, on both sides of the Atlantic is rushing to advise the Republicans that they need to change.  If I was a Republican, I would wonder why people, who are most definitely not my ally (Fox News being the exception), would be giving me friendly advice - what's in it for them?

Maybe I would also think, okay so we didn't win but did we massively lose?  The answer there is clearly no.

I would also look at say the UK and consider the fate of the nominally right of centre Conservative party.  They lost elections, badly, to the left leaning, statist Labour party.  The advice they received was 'you are seen as being too right wing' and 'you are the nasty party'.  So they changed their policies, they moved further to the centre.  Much further than many of their traditional supporters liked or wanted but these people still came out and backed them in elections.

The result?  The UK has a coalition government that is supposedly led by a centre-right Conservative party.  Supposedly?  Well yes, look at the agenda of the UK government - 40 years ago that would have been a dream for the socialists and would be unrecognizable to a  Conservative from that era.  In short, the Conservatives have 'sold their soul' for no real political gain.  They are in bed with the Liberal Democrats who know that they are a minority party and know that they always will be and so they act like one, all the time.  Their whole policy in government is to push their agenda and frustrate and block any truly Conservative policies. 

Recent polls suggest that the Lib Dems have now slipped into fourth place in the UK and are now trailing the anti-EU UKIP party.  The platform of UKIP is the most natural territory of the Conservative Party but the ' modernizers' that have David Cameron's ear shy away from showing any courage on Europe and instead think that pussyfooting around and making empty threats is going to impress either our European partners or the UK public.

So, my advice to American Republicans is hold true to your principles and beliefs.  Resist the siren calls from the leftist media - their motives at least, are clear.  Remember that there is still an incredibly high number of Americans who value free enterprise, pride in country, faith and other Republican values.  Remember also, on November 6, 2012, America elected a President that doesn't have a plan, one that is facing the 'fiscal cliff' without a clue how to solve it or address America's fiscal debt and deficit or to define America's role in the world.

If you ditch and run from your principles, simply for supposed electoral gain, on what do you stand?

The US election - a foreigner's perspective

I can't vote in Tuesday's presidential election in the US but if I could, my vote would go to Mitt Romney.

Why?

Well, on the economy, I just think that Obama really doesn't understand America or Americans. All those Americans that I have ever met are aspirational.  They look at the (failed) European social model and say ' that's not for us, that's not the American way'.  This isn't restricted to WASPs or successful professionals, Americans want success and view it, not as something to be despised but to be admired.

On foreign affairs, what has Obama achieved?  Okay, so he got the Nobel Peace Prize.  Hmmm!  I can't help thinking that that was some kind of tokenism from the Norwegians!  Otherwise, what?  His softly softly approach with Iran?  How has that worked out?  All indications are, that Iran has used the last four years to advance its nuclear capabilities - and I mean its military capabilities.  Africa?  A much vaunted visit to Egypt and a big speech in Cairo, doesn't really cut it (especially since his Cairo speech seems to have fallen on deaf ears).  Asia Pacific?  Well he upset some Europeans when he told them that the future defence focus would be on the Pacific rather than Atlantic but then he proceeded to allow China to run rampant and bully its way through the South China Sea, with America abandoning its allies long the way.

Energy?  All that talk about 'alternative sources' and renewable energy'.  Net result?  Dubious dealings with companies that can only survive on US government backing.

Unemployment?  However you cut the numbers, employment is at the same level as when he took office.  How's that pump-priming working out?  What happened to all of those 'shovel-ready projects' that were just crying out for government (as in US taxpayer) money?

Deficit?  Need I say anything?

So that's Obama then.  What about Romney?

Well, firstly he offers a change and, something that Obama doesn't - a way forward that isn't another wasted four years.

On the economy - tax cuts - that is similar to Obama's quantitative easing but instead of just printing money and bailing out banks, puts the money into the pockets of the US taxpayer.  Or more accurately, doesn't take it out, in the first place!  It isn't just that 'trickle down' works, it's how do you get money being spent in local businesses -  by individuals or by federal or state governments?

Foreign Affairs?  Has a no nonsense approach to Iran.  Unequivocal.  Will not let Iran obtain a nuclear military capacity.  That clarity alone should win him the election!  His stance on China and their managed currency rates as well as their other trade policies are very encouraging. 

Healthcare - repeal of Obamacare will remove an additional tax from ordinary people and give people freedom.  Take a look at social healthcare systems like the failing British NHS - is that really what Americans want?  A vast beast with an insatiable hunger for more and more money?

Energy - Would promote an energy policy that realistically approaches energy independence.  So, doesn't exclude offshore continental shelf deposits and allows the Keystone pipeline from Canada.  Doesn't exclude 'alternative' energies but makes them compete, fairly.


So, Romney for change and hope, Obama for a slide towards the chaos and despair that is Greece.

Stonewall, Cardinal O'Brien and free speech

Wikipedia, a reasonable enough source,  defines bigotry as

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".^[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, economic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, political alignment, race, region, religious or spiritual belief, sex, or sexual orientation. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view.

Stonewall, the 'charity' that promotes homosexual causes has awarded Cardinal Kieth O'Brien, the head of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland, the title of 'Bigot of the year'.

This is presumably because Cardinal O'Brien openly and strongly opposes the UK government and Scottish parliament changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. 

Among the senior public figure opponents of these proposals, Cardinal O'Brien is probably a safe bet.  He isn't going to be issuing any fatwas, after all, as some other opponents might.  Plus, by displaying their own intolerance of any opinion that differs from their own,  Stonewall still manage to keep the issue on the 'front page'.

One has to wonder at what point Stonewall will consider they have achieved their aims?  When everyone is homosexual - surely not - don't they proclaim it is all about choice?  So someone can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual - right?  However, to pass any comment about homosexuality is somehow bigotry?

Read the definition again.  Where or when has Cardinal O'Brien ever spoken hatred against homosexuals?  Yes, Catholics consider homosexuality a sin and yes Cardinal O'Brien can be expected to speak out against it, just like he does against poverty etc..  However, in my experience Catholic teaching condemns the sin and not the sinner - so, I would suggest that it is the act of of homosexuality which is against Church teaching and that the homosexual person is not the target.

I would go further, when reading the definition and consider that the actions of Stonewall constitute bigotry since they are;

obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;

and, in Stonewall's case are religiously motivated.  Or perhaps that is anti-religiously motivated.

Ruth Davidson, the homosexual leader of Scotland's Conservatives won Stonewalls Politician of the year award at the same time.  If she has a shred of decency, she should immediately decline this in the strongest possible terms.  Being associated with bigots cannot ever be right.

Barclays Bank are considering their sponsorship of Stonewall.  Considering?  What's to consider?  Surely they can see that their donations are being used to fund bigotry?

Coutts Bank are also considering their position- last time I looked, Coutts were owned by the majority sate-owned bank RBS - yet another example of the elite using taxpayers money to promote their agendas.

Incidentally, aren't charities supposed to refrain from politics?   Don't expect too much of a backlash though, minorities somehow have a completely dis-proportionate grip on the levers of power and the political agenda in the UK.

Energy hypocrisy - not to be missed

The UK utility companies have all now, save for e on, issued announcements of significant and way above inflation increases in fuel prices. 

The latest was French giant EDF which announced increase which average out at 10.8%.  Naturally the media rigorously investigated the cause or need for such a large increase - oh wait!  They didn't.

EDF stated that the reason that this increase was necessary was because wholesale gas prices had risen by 4%, oh, and the rest was caused by power users needing to subsidize renewable energy costs and the vulnerable.

I do not have a problem with EDF making a profit, reported to be £ 1.6 billion, last year.  This, on a turnover of more than £52 billion doesn't seem excessive.  Anyway, isn't Ofgem there to see that the utility companies are not gouging us?

I do though have a problem with having to subsidize the ugly and inefficient renewables power sector.  And to be subsidizing them in such a great way but also in such a concealed way.  Why are political parties not shouting, loudly and often, that the greater portion of our energy costs are being used to sustain an otherwise totally unsustainable industry?  Where is the media outrage at this wholesale daylight and nighttime robbery?

I am afraid you won't see it because to do so would be to attack two of the greatest of modern day myths - The EU and the 'man-made Global warming' lie.

The EU is pushing for and legislating for carbon emission reductions - the UK is in the forefront of closing down coal fired power stations.  So much in the front that Ofgem predict we will experience wide-spread power outages within a couple of years.  Not because we can't afford the fuel or because it isn't available but simply because we are choosing to follow idiotic and half-baked (and certainly un-joined-up) Green policies.

The James Delingpole book, Watermelons, does a far better job than I could ever do at exposing the sham and shaming so called 'science' about 'man-made Global warming'.  I strongly recommend this as a must-read.  Delingpole painstakingly and convincingly confronts the myths being perpetrated  and exposes them for the lies that they are.

 Then there is the other purported reason for the higher than wholesale price increase - namely that the energy providers are now taking on the social responsibility of subsidizing the 'vulnerable in society'.  Yes that's right!  Energy prices now act as a re-distributive tax to take from some and give to others.

What's next?  Mothercare or Tesco charging higher prices for disposable nappies and then subsidizing those poor teenage mums who made the wrong 'career choice'?

Surely if these 'vulnerable members of society' needed help in paying their bills then the state's welfare programmes should be used?  Not some hidden 'poor tax' in our energy prices.

Oh, and think again about those wholesale gas price increases.  Where in the world have they decreased rather than increased?  The good old US of A.  Why?  Because the USA has embraced shale gas and is full-on exploiting it.  In  the UK and EU though, this is something that the 'greens' simply can't allow.  A hair shirt is only effective if it hurts make it from angora and it just doesn't achieve the redistributive goal!

Don't let anyone tell you that these price increases couldn't be avoided!  And, when you and your family are sitting around a candle, wrapped up in sweaters and overcoats, remember it is the 'greens' that pushed us to this and consider that, if they have their way, those man-made fibres that are barely keeping you warm, will have to go as well!         

David Cameron must know about this con game, he must.  Apparently his father-in-law is a major beneficiary of the wind-power subsidy.  Why the pretend that he wants to do something about energy prices?  Did someone mention hypocrisy?

BBC rotten at its core

I have written here before about the liberal and left-wing bias of the BBC.  This applies to its news coverage particularly but also is reflected in it's drama and comedy and light entertainment progamming as well as that which might be described as 'documentary'.

However, that bias was frankly clear to any keen observer and I was in danger of stating 'the bloody obvious', especially to anyone with 'right' leaning political tendencies.

I don't think that any of us could have really been prepared for what is now unfolding at the BBC, relative to the Jimmy Saville cover-up.

For the uninitiated, Saville was a  (then) much admired entertainer and charity funds raiser who transitioned from being a radio DJ into an 'all around good guy' on the BBC.  All the time though, it seems, he was allegedly  sexually abusing under-age girls.  Oftentimes on BBC premises.  Sometimes in the company of other abusers. 

The revelations show that many at the BBC were aware of his sick (and let's not forget illegal) activities but chose to do or say nothing about them.

Following Saville's death, a female reporter, Liz MacKean, put together a TV programme that would expose the  activities of Saville and include first-hand accounts from his victims. 

The BBC chose not to air the segment.  Charitably you might say, because it was going to conflict with two celebrity puff pieces that the BBC was running on Saville and the BBC couldn't really laud him in these and expose him, in the other.  That is the most charitable one could be.  That the BBC didn't want to appear hypocritical!  Heaven forfend!

The less charitable view is that this reflects the view of the liberal intelligentsia and those at the top of the BBC, that the normal rules of society don't apply to them.  This 'elite' (mostly male-dominated) think that balance, fairness and above all else common decency and adherence to the law, shouldn't apply at their 'lofty' levels.  They see themselves as the shapers of opinion - leaders not followers - and well, if the 'public' haven't yet caught-up, 'don't worry, they will, if we, long enough and exclusively, feed them this line'.

So who do I mean, when I say 'liberal intelligentsia'?   The journalists, the editors, the presenters, the governors on the BBC trust - all of these at the BBC.  Look then at media outlets like The Guardian and The Observer which push every 'right-on' cause, simply because, yes simply because, it is 'right-on'.  The same can be said of our 'arts establishment' - those that push cows in formaldehyde or piles of bricks and say it's 'art' and, what's more, the tax payer should fund it!

Politicians and union leaders are not exempt either.  They too look down on 'Joe Public' as just someone to be abused and 'fiscally raped' at every opportunity.

So, what to do?

How about starting with the sacking of the board of governors of the BBC Trust?  Don't let a token resign in a fit of suddenly being overcome with rightful shame - sack the lot - all of them.  Don't replace them with those that are media or politically qualified - that's just fishing in the same polluted pool. 

Move on for a cull of anyone event remotely tainted with the Saville affair.  Yes, that might not be fair but since when has fairness ever meant anything to the BBC?

Then end the BBC TV tax - AKA the TV License Fee - Maybe, just maybe, when the organization is subject to the colder winds of commercialism then the BBC just might be less concerned about constantly sniping at and ridiculing those that pursue the profit motive and favouring those parasites whose only goal in life is to look down on 'Joe Public' and the great unwashed.

Don't for one minute, expect resignations - Peter Rippon, the Newsnight editor responsible for 'spiking' the story, hasn't resigned, he has just stepped back, while the 'investigations' plod on - no, resigning requires a sense of moral duty, of knowing what's right and wrong.  The BBC, as with so many public institutions, don't hire people with that!

If I think back over resignations from senior public roles, the only one that comes to mind, where true integrity was displayed, was that of Lord Carrington.  He was Minister of Defence at the time of the Falklands invasion.  He resigned, not because it was his fault but because he felt his department was at fault and so the honourable thing to do was to quit.

Oh, and don't worry about or believe all of the rubbish about a 'great British institution' - that is just part of the myth - the BBC is just a media company - it has no higher role nor is it independent, save in that it is independent of the people that fund it! 

To those who chunter on about great British institutions, such as the BBC and the 'blessed' NHS and the 'mother of all parliaments' take a look at this sorry and shaming tale.  Still proud of the BBC?  Think back to the MP expenses saga, think of Stafford Hospital and Bristol - Still think these are wonderful?

I am ranting because I am angry!  The 'powers that be' will do nothing, as usual.  A few tokens will be sacrificed and then the gravy train will rumble on but my spleen is a little easier now!

Obama's shame and poor character

Speaking on Jon Stewart's TV comedy show, President Obama has been reported as categorizing the death of four Americans, at their Benghazi consulate as ' not optimal'.

You think!

The deaths of four servants of the American people isn't 'optimal' .  In seeking to garner the votes of the sneering elite that really don't like America, Obama has shamed his office and his country.

This would always be wrong but given the story of a cover-up that is fast emerging, is especially worrying.

Obama and the White House are struggling to explain why they reduced security at the Benghazi consulate, even after attacks on it, which now seem clearly to have been trial runs, and after a request for ramped-up safety measures.  Also after attacks on a senior British official and the Red Cross.

They are also struggling to explain why they conflated this brutal attack with the anti-Islamic video and initially insisted that this was the outcome of some kind of spontaneous public protest demonstration when it seems clear that this was a planned and well executed attack by terrorists.

Now the story (from the White House) is that this was always known to be a terrorist attack and they claim they said so (the evidence is extremely flimsy and based on making the stretchiest use of the English language and the use of a couple of words out of hundreds spoken the day after the horrific events).

Consider though that this is the only evidence, nothing more was said about 'terror;' for two weeks.  Indeed, this attack on Americans was so riveting that President Obama didn't see the need to cancel a fundraiser on the other side of the country and remain in the White House to deal with this.  No he went to Nevada and cashed in!

Now we see people from the administration being sacrificed to save Obama.  However, Hillary Clinton has already stepped in front of the bus and so now there is no one else, except for Obama himself. 

Don't hold your breath though!  Europeans know that leftists never take responsibility or blame and as Obama has dragged the USA towards a European 'social' model, that is one trait that he and his followers have swiftly adopted.

As polling day looms, the key issue around the election is now moving to one of character and integrity - that is the honesty of Obama - rather than the economy and America's debt and deficit 'habit'.

As a 'Brit' I cannot vote in the US elections but if I could, I know, absolutely, that Obama's character could not allow me to vote for him, leave alone all his other dangerous policies.

Nobel Economics Prize Suggestions

The Nobel Committee has awarded this year's Peace Prize to the EU.

This is the same committee that awarded the same prize to:

• Henry Kissinger, then US Secretary of State - while the US was secretly bombing Laos.
• Yasser Arafat -  If not the father of modern terrorism, at least the uncle.
• Barack Obama - When he was newly elected and less than a year into his presidency and who has since sat on the international sidelines!  (How has that 'open for dialogue with Iran worked out?)

More on the Peace Prize, below.

So the Prize Committee have a track record of what might be termed odd or eccentric awards.

The 2012 Nobel Prize for Economics has yet to be awarded - given recent events who are the likely candidates?  Greece's head of National statistics?, Jean Claude Trichet and Mario Draghi for their work defending the Euro project as the heads of the European Central Bank (flogging a dead horse might not seem a peaceful spectacle but it needs to be done) - but maybe that would make the award too Euro-centric - or, Ben Bernanke and Mervyn King for their work with Quantitative Easing - a policy designed to put money in the hands of banks that caused an economic crisis through their profligate policies , at the expense of future inflation, or maybe Gordon Brown - he touted himself as the 'saviou'r of the World economy back in 2008/9 (okay, so he squandered a golden fiscal inheritance and impoverished the UK along the way but still, you don't make a 'no more boom and bust omelet' without breaking some eggs. 

Since institutions are the vogue how about Banking Regulators worldwide?  Competence and foresight doesn't seem to be a requirement for the role so no blame for the economic state we are in, can be (or indeed is being) laid at their doors.

Or maybe, global leaders?  Those that continue to deny and still add to deficits.  I must confess an interest here because then our very own David Cameron and George Osborne could get a share of the prize.

I am not an English scholar and so don't know the word to describe when we move beyond parody but I think we just have!

Back to the Peace Prize.  What to do with the 8,000,000 Swedish Krona (£750, 000, US$1,195,000) prize?  This wouldn't fund Greece or Spain for many minutes (nor is there much hope that the money would actually reach the suffering people of those countries!).  My suggestion, donate it to the families of the victims of Srebrenica.  These people suffered directly as a consequence of the peace efforts of the EU.  The toothless peacekeepers, from the EU, operating under the auspices of the UN (also a past  Peace Prize winner) who stood by and let more than 8,000 mostly men and boys be taken away and massacred.  This occurred in July 1995, just two months after 'Europe' and the EU was patting itself on the back and celebrating 50 years of 'peace' since the end of the Second World War.

Yes, give the money to Srebrenica, that is the true memorial to the EU!

Ryan/Biden Debate - A view

I am currently in the Middle East and so had the opportunity to see the VP debate 'live'.  Some observations.

Generally this was a good debate - arguments were put forward and countered and so on.  I have seen that some commentators have referred to Joe Biden's interruptions as rude.  I am not so sure.  I would classify them as dis-respectful.  He doesn't come across as naturally rude (but I suppose he wouldn't).

There were four substantive issues - Health/Medicare, the Economy, Foreign Affairs and Abortion.

Health/Medicare - I won't pretend to understand the minutiae of this issue but I didn't hear Biden offering a strong defence of 'Obamacare' nor refuting Ryan's claim about the double counting of spending or showing savings on one programme and then shifting the same funds to another.  Maybe he spent time at the feet of the multi-times spender Gordon Brown?  GB managed to spend and spend but (fortunately) some of the promised spending was simply the same promised money, again and again.

The Economy - Got less attention than I expected, given the at best anemic 'recovery'.   Ryan is obviously strong on this and did land punches on the '43 months of greater than 8% unemployment'  but I guess his strongest point here was the emphasis on where employment growth will come from - the small business throughout the USA - and the need to reduce the tax burden on these.  Biden's response of trying to paint hedge fund companies as small companies looked a little desperate.

Foreign Affairs - Ryan defied expectations and was well informed on the topic (so no Sarah Palin moments) and projected a coherent strategy especially concerning the withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Biden seemed to rely on the fact that the other international participants want out by 2014 and so the US approach is right - kind of a strange defence to me and the fact that withdrawal is so fixed must surely undermine the talks that are taking place with the Afghan Taliban.

Abortion - Both are practicing Roman Catholics but though they each claim that their politics and integrity is shaped by their faith, Biden seems to have a very liberal view of that shaping, as it comes to abortion.  Ryan put forward a compelling argument for a review of US abortion legislation, when he spoke of such laws should be made by politicians following the will of the electorate rather than by unelected judges.  They didn't touch on 'gay' marriage but Biden's very liberal views are in direct contrast to the traditional and staunchly Catholic views of Ryan.

One thread that ran through the debate was the respect and admiration that the 'middle class' have in the US psyche.  In the UK, 'middle class' is almost a pejorative term whereas in the US this is aspirational. 

Polls seem to suggest that Ryan narrowly 'won' the debate but you can expect the Obama-loving media to paint this as a draw. 

Abortion limits - do the maths!

The new UK Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt has shared his view that the time limit on abortions should be reduced to 12 weeks. 

Given that more than 90% of the, in excess of , 190,000 abortions that occur in England and Wales happen within 13 weeks, Hunt is not talking about affecting a significant number of abortions.  Though, if you oppose abortion, 19,000 is still too many.

Of course that doesn't stop the usual suspects jumping up and screaming about 'right-wing politicians pushing an agenda' or 'this is about women's choice and has nothing to do with men and men should keep quiet on the whole issue!'

However, think for a minute about the timeline.   Surely within 4-8 weeks of conception, a woman knows she is pregnant?  Then she has tests?  Then ponders?  So how much time for pondering?  Consider that this 'pondering' is a solitary task - after all, the man concerned or any man for that matter, has no right to offer any input - simply because he is a man!

So isn't 4-8 weeks enough time for pondering?

OK, so as a man, I should keep quiet but.......    I think that most women will already have a view on abortion.  They will have given thought to 'what would I do' if I found myself inconveniently or accidentally  pregnant'.  So the ponder time doesn't sound like it should be any hurdle.

So 12 weeks sounds like ample time.

Oh and if it avoids those 19,000 abortions, that, for me, would be a step in the right direction!

Next step?  After getting the timeline reduced, re-examine the rationale and arguments that were put forward in 1967, when the abortion law was passed and see these in relation to the excuses given for abortions, today.  I recall we were told that this law was required to end back-street abortions and for rape victims and for those expectant mothers who had health issues.  No one, not even David (now Lord) Steele said we would end up with abortion on demand and become the abortion capital of Europe.

So from a time perspective, the maths suggest that 12 weeks is much more than enough time.!

The Conservative Agenda

As the Conservative Party prepares to gather for its annual conference, I offer these items, in no particular order, which should be being discussed, if they want to have a chance of re-election and an outright majority after 2015.

Note that there is nothing to stop them actually starting to implement these, now.  Yes, I know that they have coalition partners but perhaps even the Lib Dems would baulk at publicly opposing some of these?

EU Referendum
The Conservative Party needs to come out now and state that it will offer the people of Britain a straight In or Out referendum after the next General Election.  That is, within a stated time after that election and this to be not more than 12 months.

EU Reform
Preceding the EU Referendum, and starting immediately, initiate a process of root and branch review and reform of all EU institutions and laws and directives - all!  Hopefully this will be done with the cooperation of EU partners but if not, it should still be done.  This needs to be undertaken and completed before 2015, so that, going into the General Election and the subsequent EU Referendum, voters will clearly know for what it is they are voting. 

The review should take a profoundly British and Conservative view of EU law and see how this serves our British and Conservative interests and as a minimum must ask these questions concerning all EU legislation.

• Why does this need to be done by the EU and not by the UK government?
• Does this legislation discriminate against Britain and British interests?  
• Does this legislation include any option for a member country to not implement it?
• Does this legislation reflect the paramount status of the UK legislative institutions?  That's Westminster, in case you have forgotten.

The result of the review should be presented to the British voter as - if we stay in, then this will happen (continued control from unelected officials) or if we leave, Britain will be taking care of this or will ditch this piece of legislation or EU body.  For example, if we stay in, our Foreign Affairs will be controlled by the unelected High Commissioner for External Affairs or if we leave, Britain will manage its own Foreign Affairs and sign its own treaties.
  
 
Public Expenditure Cuts
These need to be implemented, accelerated, call it what you will but real cuts need to be made.  Real?  That is cuts that reduce the overall level of spending, year on year for all departments, except Defence.  And yes, that does include the bloated and inefficient NHS.  The Health budget and that of Welfare take a very large slice of the expenditure pie, so these could naturally  produce the largest contribution to cuts. 

Regional Pay
No need for discussions.  Instruct ministers and their departments that forward from the next pay round, all salary settlements will be on a regional basis and reflect local pay and conditions and not negotiated and set at a National level. 
 
Tax  and Business Regulation Reform
I posted recently on tax cuts  ( http://bit.ly/PdhgtG )   but additionally  the Conservatives need to be pushing a pro-business agenda.  Britain needs to have the lowest Corporate Tax rate in the OECD.  Employer NI contributions need to incentivise companies to hire not penalise them if they do.  Same applies to employment legislation.

We do not need talk of a bonfire of red tape, we need that actual bonfire (Guy Fawkes night is just around the corner, only saying!).  A simple rule should be applied - what is the economic impact of any law or directive or legislation or whatever.  It's a bit like how you run a business - can we afford to do this or that?

The Regions and Devolved Assemblies
The interminable delays sought by the Scottish Nationalists must be thwarted.  If they do not come to the table with a date and the single Yes or No question, then Westminster should by-pass them and go to the Scottish people, directly.  Oh, and no concessions on more powers being devolved - None! 

However, and I know this will upset the Unionists, the price should be made clear before any independence vote is taken.  If independence is chosen, Scotland may align itself with Sterling but will have no say in the formulation of economic policy.  A fair distribution of National Debt will be undertaken - fair equals something like that which reflects Scotland's percentage contribution to the UK economy (I know that proportionally, Scotland is probably getting a good deal from such a share out but let's be clear, let's do it and move on).

For the Regions and the devolved assemblies, whatever the outcome of the Scottish independence vote, a commitment that the Conservatives will scrap the Barnett formula and replace it with a new process for the distribution of  government spending.

BBC
This organization needs to become a commercial organization and not one that is funded by a TV tax.  Then they can drop the facade of impartiality and show their 'leftist' colours more openly.

Pilgrims
This only needs David Cameron to tell Francis Maude to stop dithering and end this iniquitous process, immediately.  No discussions just get it ended.  If any local council or other organization refuses to end their Trade Union implants then immediately reduce their funding by 5 times the cost of the 'pilgrim'.  Hey, that could be a great way to cut Public Expenditure!
 
Nuclear Energy
See also the following point.  Initiate and then drive through a programme of dramatically increasing the percentage of Britain's energy needs that is derived from Nuclear power.  Start building nuclear power plants.  So start by enacting legislation suspending Planning laws for same.  Since we will need so many, these can be spread around the country so ultimately they are close enough to be in all of our backyards - that should silence the NIMBYs
  
Green Energy
Shouldn't really need to say this but, if we must have wind farms spoiling the landscape or other fanciful schemes, then let them be self-funding.  End the 'Green taxes'.  Give people back the choice.  Do you want 'green energy' if yes, then it will cost you more.

Policing Reform
How can it make any sense to have so many different police authorities throughout the country?  So many different purchasing organizations, HR groups, Finance groups etc..  End this grossly inefficient farce and merge these organizations into a national force, answerable to the Home Secretary

Quangos
Set a date by which time all will be automatically abolished.  First though make sure that all initiate processes that ensure that any redundancy payments paid out, match government levels and cannot exceed the Income Tax, tax free deductible levels.  Then, these organizations can put the case for being re-constituted, laying out a business case for what they do and why they are needed and, why they are needed in a particular format (maybe some might chose to merge or otherwise amalgamate).

Fundamentally though, all must be directly answerable to a minister.


So what else?
Well, the above is a busy programme, so parliamentary recesses will need to be much shorter - say something like the 4-5 weeks vacation that most people get?  Then given the absence of pandering to special interest groups (who will NEVER vote Conservative anyway) the legislative agenda might be achievable!

Taxing matters

If you can accept that Nick Clegg's so called 'wealth tax' is a contribution to the debate, then you will note that tax is starting to feature more and more in the current political and media discussions.

Clegg and, earlier Cable, have prattled on about a 'mansion tax' or a 'wealth tax'  If I understand the latter this will be some kind of tax on assets.  If it is, then as Anthony Hinton pointed out, in the London Evening Standard, this then acts as a bringing forward of Inheritance Tax and, for those elderly people, who are asset rich but cash poor, would present a very difficult situation.  The 'mansion tax' would seem to present the same issues.  So trying to spend tomorrow's money, today.  You might even call it, borrowing from the future!

I have tried to find out 'who pays, what' as regards Income Tax.  That is, what percentage of the working population pay what percentage of the total taxes?  We hear that something like the top 10% of earners currently contribute more than 50% of the total tax take.  Is contribute the right word when it is compulsory?
I digress.

Do these Lib Dem 'rocket scientists' and their socialist colleagues in the Labour Party, have an absolute number in mind for the top tax rate - for their so called 'fair tax'?  That is, have they modeled their tax and tax 'plans', to see just how much revenue would actually be raised?

I sense (and stand ready to be proved wrong) that the only way that further tax will be effective, is if the higher rate is spread wider - so more and more of the masses in the 'middle classes' are brought deeper into the fold - I just don't think that the 'rich' can be  taxed sufficient to feed the beast that is government spending.

 I come at the tax question from a different angle.  I believe that the most effective way to stimulate the economy would be to cut taxes.  If there are any ITEM members out there, maybe they could model this?

Raise the tax threshold to £15,000, abolish the 45% rate, reduce the 20% rate to 15% and the 40% rate to 35% and reduce fuel tax by 5% and eliminate the green levies being applied on fuel provision.  Give an NI holiday to employers who take on new employees and hold it for three years.

Of course this will cost money - that is the great maw that is government will initially  receive lower direct income - and so to overcome the gap, the choice is either real cuts in government expenditure or more QE.  The proper and courageous solution is for cuts to be made but given the Lib Dems baleful influence on government policy we can expect 'bleeding hearts and stumps' to be used to persuade politicians to avoid the work for which we employ them and the decisions that we expect them to make.

If there are leftists out there who can prove that tax cuts will not stimulate the economy and/or that further government spending will, then do so, otherwise, join the campaign to get tax cuts implemented as a priority.

If there are any Conservative MPs that understand the founding principles of their party, then perhaps they can push their party to act like Conservatives!



 

  

BBC NHS bias - nothing new

The BBC is splashing big on an NHS scare story today.  BBC Breakfast show was trawling for viewer comments and managed to get some along the lines of 'why is it so difficult to get a doctor's appointment'.

Their website says
:

Fresh fears are being raised in England that cuts will have to be made to the front line of the NHS if it is to cope.

The government has promised to protect the health service, but research by the King's Fund, based on interviews with 45 NHS finance chiefs, raises doubts.
The think tank said 19 expected care to get worse over the next few years and that 2013 could mark the turning point.
Meanwhile, a BBC survey of 1,005 people suggested 60% believed services would have to be cut.
The majority of the 45 NHS directors of finance who took part in the think tank's study said they were currently managing to make savings without harming care.

Let's deconstruct that a little.

The King's Fund asked finance chiefs within the NHS.  This suggests that they asked people with a vested interest in showing a need for more funding, and in showing an inability to do their job - manage the finances available to them.  Hardly surprising that they want more money from the taxpayer!

19 of these finance chiefs expected care to get worse over the next few years.  That is, finance chiefs are now qualified, according to the King's Fund,  to comment on the future level of care that patients can receive.  I think I might have been a tad more convinced if a physician had stated that!

Then we get the BBC survey.  A meaningless statistic which asks a small sample of people a loaded question.  Did the BBC ask 'Do you think that there is waste in the NHS?'  Did they ask' Do you think doctors and consultants and 'managers' are overpaid and that the majority of NHS pensions are padded at the expense of yourself, the taxpayer?'

No they wouldn't, because it doesn't serve their own vested, leftist interest

The King's Fund said these sentiments were supported by the latest performance statistics which showed the NHS was performing well.
Waiting times in A&E and for non-emergency operations, such as knee and hip replacements, had fallen slightly and were well within target, while hospital infections rates continued to drop.

But health minister Lord Howe maintained the NHS was "on track" to achieve its savings target.
He said £5.8bn was saved last year, while performance remained good.
"Waiting times have been kept low, infections have been reduced, there are more doctors, more diagnostic tests and more planned operations," he added.

So savings appear to have been made, and the level of service (maybe that could be called care?) remained good!  While that cannot continue indefinitely, an annual budget of £104 Billion, should afford scope for further savings.

The BBC poll, carried out by ComRes, asked members of the public in England a series of questions about the NHS.
Some 61% agreed that they expected the NHS would have to stop providing some treatments and services in the future due to rising costs and increasing demands.
Nearly three-quarters also said they did not trust the government with the health service.
Over half of respondents said it did not matter whether private firms provided care as long as it was free of charge - the government's reforms have come under heavy criticism amid a perception they would lead to greater private sector involvement.

This must really upset the BBC and it's leftist allies.  More than 50% of people don't care who gives them health care, just that it is free at the point of delivery.  Can this mean that the scales are dropping from the eyes of the people?  Are people now starting to understand that this bloated bureaucracy needs reform?  Maybe some of the respondents have seen, first hand, what healthcare is like and how it can be efficiently funded, in other countries?

But 2013 was seen as the year when it could start to unravel by many of the finance directors.

Why?  Yes the Public Sector pay freeze ends but what is to say another one can't be imposed?  Or that the pay settlement can't be held to a low percentage?  What about reduced NHS pension contributions?  What about these same Finance Chiefs getting around the table with their PFI providers and squeezing them?  Same applies to other service and material suppliers, such as pharmaceutical companies.  That's what happens in the private sector.  When times are tough, you talk to you suppliers and get them to share some of the pain.  You make them see it is in their interest.

Andrew Mitchell

I posted earlier, that I thought Andrew Mitchell should go.  Either voluntarily or be sacked.  What he is alleged to have said was plain wrong even if all of the words were not spoken!

Writing on Twitter, Iain Martin (@IainMartin1) poses the interesting question of why Andrew Mitchell, was stopped from taking his bike through the Downing Street car-gates, in the first place? 

The newspapers are quoting from the police 'log' of the events as if it had been inscribed by Moses himself which, given past experience (was it only last week we heard about Hillsborough?) suggests an over-reliance on a source that was previously found to be 'dodgy' from time to time.

I would also question, why in this 'Levenson' era, the papers seem to still have such a cosy relationship with the Metropolitan Police?  Especially, The Sun.  The Sun surely has an axe to grind against the Conservatives and I guess we are seeing some of that coming into play.

All that said, Mitchell should go.  This sorry tale is distracting and allowing the Lib Dems to make all the running, on the political front with their crazy 'squeeze the rich' policies and letting Labour to push ahead on sniping about Mitchell (though they themselves, seem to have forgotten  foul-mouthed SPADs and a deranged and phone-throwing PM)

 

From where is Clegg getting all this money?

Nick Clegg, the Deputy PM has promised a further £100 Million for childcare.  While I am sure that thousands of unmarried mothers will appreciate his largesse, as this will allow them more time to spend with their 'baby-fathers' - either past or future -  I do have to ask from where is Nick getting all of this money?  I just don't believe that the YouTube royalties from his 'I'm Sorry' video will be sufficient.  Neither surely, could be his wife's salary. 

So where does it come from?

Surely, he can't be planning to spend taxpayers money?  We are living in hard times, or so we are constantly told.  It seems that this money is coming from 'government underspending'.  That's right.  They have taken more money from taxpayers than they needed to and, rather than give it back, will fritter it away on providing 100,000 nursery places for 2 year-olds.  Will this allow these mothers to go out and find work?  What do you think?  Hint - we are told by the Labour Party that there are 'no jobs out there' - so why provide extra nursery spaces?  Surely, it couldn't be that he wants to allow these mostly unmarried mothers to have the time to get pregnant and become a greater burden on the taxpayer?  That would be too perverse, even for a Lib Dem!

In truth, I don't really expect Nick Clegg and the socialist Lib Dems to understand the concept of ownership - the money I earn is mine and not the government's - but surely, at the heart of the Conservative-led Coalition, there are some people who still understand the basic principles of Conservative belief?  Someone?  What about in the Conservative Party?


Urgent Note to David Cameron - Andrew Mitchell - he should go and go today.  His comments were crass and stupid but more importantly, the story is distracting government from the business of government - namely fixing the economy!  I must declare an interest though, I can't forgive Mitchell for being the International Development Minister and giving my tax money to overseas while cutting spending in the UK.  Unforgivable!  That isn't hypocrisy.  I don't want the government to take my money and waste it overseas and I don't want them to waste it here in the UK, either

Spanish thoughts

Just as Spain seems about to embark on seeking a bailout of, some say 480 billion Euros (but don't call it a bailout as the Prime Minister doesn't like that word and said he wouldn't ask for one!), I thought to share some observations from my recent trip, to the country.

Employment
The unemployment statistics talk of a rate of 25% unemployment but I don't think that British readers will fully appreciate what this means because in Spain, it is the Spanish that work.  The waiters in restaurants and hotels are Spanish, the street sweepers are Spanish as are all of the hotel and shop workers.  These jobs are not filled by grateful East Europeans, as in Britain but by locals.  Perhaps it is the far less generous Spanish welfare system that obliges the Spaniards to take jobs that are 'beneath' their unemployed UK counter-parts?  Or maybe it is just that the Spaniards understand the dignity gained by working rather than just taking State hand-outs?

What I see as worrying though, for Spain, is that this means there is no 'slack' in the system that can be used to swap migrant labour for locals.

Construction
I have been traveling in the Alicante/Granada/Malaga triangle and apart from one or two road building projects (and I mean one or two) there seems to be next to no activity on the many unfinished construction sites that one sees.  What activity there is, is essentially 'hand to mouth' where a property is finished simply so that funds can be obtained to keep things just ticking over.

Given that construction has been such a large employer in the past, it is easier to understand the unemployment numbers, when you see so many dormant building sites and idle crane gantries.

Talking of construction - what roads there are in Spain!  Great carriageways that allow you to be transported distances at speed and in comfort.  And what nice looking and modern, public buildings!  I am supposing that the ten years of access to very cheap Euro money was used to finance these but have to wonder if that has been money well spent?  We all hear of stories of un-visited 'cultural and arts centres' and airports where no planes land but I don't understand why nobody is called to account for this.

Loss of spirit
Not quite sure how to say this but on this trip (I have had the pleasure of visiting Spain on a number of occasions, before), I have noticed that the Spanish seem more subdued or resigned.  Maybe it is because it is not the 'high season' for tourists or because we went off of the beaten tourist trail but that Spanish zest for life just didn't seem to be there.  If you have visited Spain before you may know what I am getting at.  That boisterousness and vitality seems to have been sucked out of the people - something that won't show up on any Euro-based study or statistic or ever be used to bolster the (failing) Euro project but a great shame, nevertheless.  

I promise not to bore you with vacation snaps but this has been a mixed trip.  Good from a personal perspective but worrying to see how a Franco-German obsession with a fatally-flawed and doomed project can bring once proud sovereign nations to their knees and just plain suck the life out of the place!  What a shame!

Finally
One thing Spain might want to think about - the Siesta.  Maybe it is time to end this?  I know about this but it is still frustrating to have stores closed when you want to look around and maybe buy something.  I know that there is more to life than retail but.................