Parliament Recesses - Value for money?

Does anyone know why MPs need to get such long breaks?  They have just gone on Summer recess from July 17 through to September 3.  Then they will go on another recess, two weeks after they return, for another month.

There are many people in this country who can't afford to take vacations/holidays and certainly not 2 months at a time. 

Mind you, that's because they don't get such long breaks, paid for by someone else - the taxpayer!

Isn't it about time that MPs actually set an example?  How about a short Summer break?  I know that would put them on a par with the people they supposedly represent but would that be too radical?

What would they do with the extra time? 

Here's an idea.  Not pass any more laws except to repeal the masses of un-required legislation that is stifling our economy - all those laws that say to small businesses - 'thinking of hiring one or two new employees?  Forget it!  We have laws that will make you wish you had never even entertained the idea, Fool!'

Consider reviewing all of the 'directives' that have come from Brussels and repealing those with which our UK  Parliament doesn't agree and has never even voted on or, if they have voted it has only been in a 'rubber stamp' type of way - as in - you have to approve this because Brussels has decided!

Review and repeal the stupid and fatuous commitments to reduce our carbon emissions.  Understanding that there really isn't the need and even if there were, the UK imposing carbon emission levels, unilaterally, is worse than worthless.  That's without considering the huge burden this places on the British people, with ever higher energy costs.  One day, the British people will look back at the Eco-Con that has been perpetrated upon them and in their anger and shame, not forgive the political and media fools who have foisted this fatally flawed  ideology upon them.

Do you reckon that could occupy them for a few weeks?

I have other ideas.  I didn't even mention the overly complex UK Tax Code, yet!

Airport strikes, Maude and Pilgrims

How do you think Francis Maude is feeling, today?

Not unreasonably, he finally decided to start a 'consultation process' looking to end the abuse of taxpayers, by public 'service' unions.   I refer of course to the so called 'pilgrims'.  Full Time union officials who are ostensibly employed in the Public Sector and paid by the taxpayer  and who, instead of doing the job for which they are employed, then work exclusively on union business.

Instead of just immediately ending this abuse, he wants to 'consult'.

The payback for his 'softly, softly Mr Nice Guy' approach is that the most militant of the public 'service' unions has decided to call a strike among its members in the Border Control agency, right on the eve of the London Olympics.

See what happens when you trade-in a spine for reasonability?  The un-reconstructed class-warriors that run, dictator-like, public 'service' unions sense the lack of back-bone and push on with their aims of causing the maximum disruption to their paymasters - the tax-payer - under the guise of 'concern about service levels'.

Yet again, another example of government rhetoric that isn't matched by real action. 

Consider.  We are going to be tough on Welfare claimants!  We will impose a cap on Welfare benefits!  Then think about the level of 'toughness'.  Such claimants will eventually have their benefits capped at £26,000.  That is, higher than the national average wage, before tax. 

Rhetoric and fine words or intentions shouldn't be a substitute for running the country and doing the right thing!

Liberal Democrats and Democracy

The depths of hypocrisy within politics never ceases to amaze me.  At my age I should be past surprises but ....  then there's the Lib Dems.

This is the most pro of pro-Europe and EU parties.  To the art of 'bending over backwards and kow-towing' , they have brought such artistry as to make the Cirque Du Soleil seem like amateurs or at best bungling novices.

And yet, their chosen 'line in the sand' , their Yellow (?) line seems to be drawn not on the long overdue reform of the EU and all of its un and anti-democratic institutions but instead on the so called reform of the House of Lords.

Ask yourself or your family or friends - Of these two which body is most in need of 'reform'  the European project or the House of Lords.

Given that the House of Lords is composed of British members who only vote measures affecting Britain and the British, I am more comfortable leaving them as they are.  Democratically elected, no.  Appointed - yes.  Hereditary - yes.  The appearance of democracy is not there at the first glance but for all that, they do represent strands of British society.

Contrast that with any of the European organisations - European Parliament?  A toothless, talking shop that can't even decide on a permanent home.  European Commission - not just undemocratic but now increasingly anti-democratic whose blind devotion to the 'project' is enslaving many Europeans, particularly in Spain, Italy and Greece to severe hardship simply so that they can push the belief that the Euro and the whole project of European integration is needed to avert the wars that have historically ravaged Europe and it's people.   

Consider also the President of Europe - Herman van Rompuy - think back to when you were given the chance to vote for this non-entity.  OK, stop racking your brains, you weren't asked.  His appointment (because that is how things are done in Euro-lalaLand) is the typical product of the power process.  Couldn't be a German - think about  the headlines! - Couldn't be a Brit - seen as on the edge and not always fully committed to the 'project' (though this fails to appreciate how quickly Brits 'go native') .  Couldn't be French - they basically run (or is that mis-run) the administration anyway plus, they're French!  Couldn't be Italian - come on, it just couldn't.  So we then trawl around the small countries and end up with Herman!

So think about the forgoing and ask yourself why is this not the burning issue for the Lib Dems.  The one that causes them to nail their colours to the mast and tell the Conservatives 'either we have root and branch reform of the EU or we bring down the coalition'.

My view?   The Lib Dems are anti-British (look at the' out of proportion' support they get from the BBC) and are quite happy for the Euro shambles to continue because like the unattractive people at a party, they think that at the 'Euro party' they will get picked up and someone will admire them, whereas, at a 'UK party', they are seen for what they are.  In the UK people just leave the party rather than go home with an ugly Lib Dem.  Hopefully you get my drift!?

So as they face political oblivion, the Lib Dems, instead of trying to address issues that affect the people of Britain (those by the way, who currently still have the power to elect MPs), proceed to prattle on about democracy and the democratic deficit while all the time being the most ardent supporters of the most undemocratic of all the institutions.

It would be as laughable as Labour's claim to economic competency and probity or the supposed savagery of the austerity measures, if it wasn't so sad.

Oh!  By the way, their unquestioned support of the EU is in spite of the fact that this organisation has been unable to produce a set of audited accounts for more than 15 years. 



 

Pilgrims - Action at last

More than two years into a so called austerity programme, the Conservative-led coalition is finally getting around to looking at the scandal of 'pilgrims'.

These are union officials, almost always full-time, employed within and paid by the public sector.  However, they work full-time on union activities.  So the already over-burdened tax-payer has to then fund an additional worker to cover for the work that isn't being done by the 'pilgrim' and for which the 'pilgrim' is also being paid by the tax-payer.

Think about this for a moment.

These union leaders pay lip service to probity and the need for transparency and berate the business world for a perceived 'too-cosy relationship with the government' and 'having their hand in the public purse'.  All the while, they are having their officials paid for, not by their members but by the general taxpayer.

Consider this further, we, taxpayers are paying people to sit in offices that we provide so that they can scheme and plot ways to disrupt the services that we pay them, and their colleagues, to provide.

Read that again and see if there is any kind of rational sense in that.

So - the 'action'?

Francis Maude has launched a 'consultation exercise' to address the estimated £36 million cost of this.

Other estimates, by the Sunday Telegraph, put the amount in excess of £100 million when all forms of such 'pilgrims' activity were considered - that is, in all forms of the public sector, NHS, Education, local government, etc.

Frankly, what is to consult about.  If any consultation was needed it should be with the taxpayer.  Something along the lines of, should we continue to close libraries and hospitals and lay-off front-line public servants or should we take the money from that which we waste on 'pilgrims' and use it to pay for those services or (very radical) should we use this to start to reduce the burden of taxation on you the taxpayer!

I know what I want!

Mr Maude - don't consult, LEAD, less jaw-jaw and more action today.  Do you really think that the likes of the Marxist  Mark Serwotka, from the Civili Servants union is EVER going to be persuaded?  Do you?  Take the Nike approach - Just Do It!

Money raising idea for the Treasury and The Justice Ministry

Thinking about how relatively easy it has been to raise £250K in the Julian Assange bail money situation, prompts me to wonder.  The over-burdened British taxpayer hasn't had to stump up this just those foolish enough to believe in Assange's integrity.

Since it is always those on the left that manage to get their right-on friends to finance their bail and write indignant letters to The Guardian couldn't we have a different way of financing the Ministry of Justice?

How about we arrest leading 'lefties' and then allow them to be bailed and then drop them off outside the Ecuadorean embassy, when they are released?  I have nothing against Ecuador or it's people but since you have Jules it would be 'cruel and inhumane' to not give him some playmates.

So, who to arrest?

I thought about Gordon Brown - crimes against the British people - tons of gold sold for a song - economic mis-management on an epic scale - that funny glottal thing he does when he speaks (must be a crime against the English language - but then I thought who would put up his bail?  No, I couldn't think of anyone, either.

But we could look at:

• Ed Balls - criminal lack of apology for his part in the economic mess - criminal lack of economic sense or a coherent policy, other than 'look if we keep digging we will all have a nice big hole'!
• Ed Miliband - same as Ed Balls but with the added crimes of near fratricide and also that weirdly adenoidal speech (what is it with Labour and speaking strangely?)
• Harriet Harman - criminally culpable for being Harriet Harman and for assaulting the rights of all women by assuming that need her interference and that of her government of nanny-staters to promote women's rights rather than letting women claim their elevation in any organisation is theirs by right and merit rather than because of some 'tokenism'.
• Will Self and Owen Jones - So right-on and up themselves that their own self-importance and certitude would ensure that The Guardianistas would be frothing at the mouth as they sign their surety cheques.
• Polly - don't even need to say the surname but the crimes are numerous and all involve self-righteous stupidity at the core - mind you, if there was the opportunity for a counter to bail, putting up money to keep her in solitary and us from her rants, that might raise more money.
• Lord Leveson and that Jay fellow - All of those leftie QCs would put up the bail since they can see he will be a godsend for their 'profession' .
• George Galloway - Surely his freedom would be worth something amongst the radicals that form his core support.
• David Dimbleby - criminally bad taste in ties on QT plus constant interruption of his limited range of guests and thinking that people tune it to listen to his opinion.
• Alex Salmond - deceiving the Scottish people for personal aggrandisement - an especially high bail to be set so as to see if we can prise some money from all those mouthy expat Scots who speak of independence but chose not to live in Scotland -  a kind of hypocrite tax..
• Nick Griffin - bail to be set astronomically high - we wouldn't want him to get out.  Crime - too many to mention but maybe 'just for balance would do?

 Feel free to suggest others but if this is taken up as an economy measure, I expect a share of the proceeds.
  
One worry though, who would the BBC get to run Britain down, if not the above? 

BBC Bias - Use this complaint

The Commentator Blog reminds us that the 'glorious' BBC (a 'national institution' of which we can be justly proud?) failed to show any honour to the memory of victims of terrorist violence on the anniversary of the July 7, 2005 London bombings.

If you share my disgust at this disrespect, please complain to the BBC.   bbc.co.uk/complaints

I am a little shocked by the lack of coverage of the anniversary of the bombing atrocities that were carried out against the people of London on July 7, 2005.  Only a little shocked because frankly it what we have come to expect of the BBC and it's skewed editorial policy. 

Pro anything that is anti British (so play-up stories inspired by the terrorist IRA,  about Blood Sunday) but don't say anything about Muslim terrorists killing and maiming innocents on the streets of London.  Don't initiate any in-depth studies of the criminal terrorist gangs that run Northern Ireland or the fundamentalist gangs that have taken over Islamic student societies in our universities.  Instead, make a big splash about so called rampant neo-fascism  at Euros 2012 and don't worry if the scare-mongering doesn't materialize into fact.

I used to think that it was a left-wing bias that inspired much of the BBC reporting but the closer I examine it, I see that it is actually anti-British and anti all that Britain stands for.  That is why so much air-time is given to people like the Scottish Nationalists and so little to others like UKIP.  So much time to any story that shows the Christian religions in a bad light and so little to any that show all of the good work that these people do.

If the BBC had to operate in a competitive market and fund itself, rather than depend on a TV tax on the people of Britain, you would be out of business in no time.  You don't even have quality TV to boast about, now.

RBS, LIBOR and the Public Interest

Think about the LIBOR issue for a moment.

I believe we all know or strongly suspect that Barclays were not alone.  That there is a strong likelihood that other major banks, such as RBS and Lloyds were also manipulating their LIBOR data submissions.

So let's posit that these two were.

Would it be in the public interest to issue fines against them?   Given the level of taxpayer ownership, the bulk of any fines would be tantamount to the taxpayer transferring money from one trouser pocket to another!  Of course on the way though, some or much would be lost due to fees from our noble (?) legal brethren!

Indeed, to go further, since publishing such fines and censure then leads to share price falls, is there maybe a case for doing nothing, in the public interest,  at the Corporate level?  Of course seeing share price activity in recent days, maybe the negative implications have already been 'priced in'?

I don't suggest that the authorities let the individuals concerned, get away with any criminal activity, quite the contrary, I would like to see them imprisoned - not fined, imprisoned - though with the Serious Fraud Office (mis) handling the case, the likelihood has to be low!


Any thoughts on this?


Incidentally, listening to Bob Diamond's light toasting in front of the Treasury Select Committee, the other day (simply appalling service on BBC TV World News, with constant 'talking head' interruptions to give us statements of the obvious!),two things came to the fore, for me.

One, Barclays seemed to be always on the high side and it was suggested that they were advised/told or somehow or other encouraged to lower their rates.

Secondly, the method of deciding LIBOR seems to be to take the submissions from the 17 banks,  and then eliminate the 3-4 lowest and 3-4 highest and then find the rate amongst the middle.

So in both cases the actions of Barclays (and it's traders) , while possibly criminal (mis-representation and conspiracy etc)  has either had no effect or any effect was to reduce the potential cost of borrowing for anyone.  Have I got that right?

 Oh! and still no resignations from Labour or apologies for their complicity in this issue.  This all happened on their watch - loose or invisible regulatory institutions, nods and winks approach to economic (mis) management and Gordon - no more boom and bust - Brown telling us all how he saved the world's financial system! 

Diamond leads - Labour to follow - get serious!

So now that Bob Diamond has taken the hint and had the decency to fall on his (probably well compensated) sword, what can we expect from the politicians?

Principally, I mean the likes of Ed Balls and Ed Miliband and of course, the man himself, Gordon - no more boom and bust - Brown. 

It is probably way too much to expect that they would have the decency to resign - remember, these are the same guys who have yet to apologise for massively over-spending and leaving the UK economy in such a parlous state.

Mind you though, maybe it is best that they don't go.  Maybe it is best that they (or at least the 2 Eds) are around to try and explain that they are neither the 'Senior Whitehall sources' nor the initiators of those people that gave a 'nod and a wink' to Barclays. 

At some point, these economic 'giants' (that's a code word which translates, outside of Labour Headquarters, to economic idiots or incompetents) need to be called to account, along with their almost equally culpable cabinet colleagues.

Health Tip:  Please don't hold your breath waiting for any of the Labour leaders to own up and say they got it wrong.  The only things they learnt, from 13 years in power was how to spend other peoples money (taxpayer's, our children's and lender's) and how to dissemble.



 

Assange Bail - when is it due?

Since Julian Assange seems to have skipped bail, does anyone know when the right-on friends of Freedom, Justice and the Hacking Way, who put up his bail, will have to hand-over the 'readies' to the court?

What happens to this money?  Is it used to finance the original court case (in which case expect the lawyers to push-up their bills) or does it go to the Ministry of Justice to defray its costs?

If it is kind of just 'lying around' maybe I could suggest a use?

Why not use the money to fund an investigation of 'black holes' in Belgravia?  Julian Assange seems to have been sucked into one at the embassy of Ecuador but there could well be others. 

We could check out the embassy of the European Union (there must be one, surely?) and see what they have done with Britain's 'firm and resolute policy on further integration'  It seems to have gone missing.  

It is only £240K but I am sure we can find a sensible use for it, once the fools are parted from it.

Any suggestions?  Answers in a green felt tip pen on the back of a postage stamp please, to DC at 10 Downing Street.  Or just post a comment.

Cameron and the EU - more dithering

Didn't the Brown years teach the Conservatives anything?  Don't they understand that dithering isn't seen as 'weighing the possibilities'.  It is seen as not knowing which way to jump.

Today's newspapers report that Cameron is 'prepared to consider an EU referendum' - that sounds like dithering to me.  It is probably intended as a sop to the more than 100 Conservative MPs that are pushing for a pledge to hold an In/Out referendum in the next Parliament

I don't understand though why the Conservatives don't grasp the nettle.  This is the issue that will differentiate their 'brand' from their competitors.

I think that most people understand that the UK economy will continue to be buffeted by external forces and so not much can be done to achieve any meaningful growth.  Of course making real cuts in public expenditure and in income taxes would be a great start but the left-leaning media (does 90 degrees to the left count as leaning??) will not allow that to happen.  They and their overpaid unionist fellow travelers along with the Labour Party will strive to derail and ridicule any attempt to bring sanity back to the public finances - look for 'bleeding stumps' and 'wheelchair victims' of cuts to continue to be paraded on your TV screens.  Don't bother looking for those hard working 'ordinary' people who work, pay their taxes, obey the laws and see others doing nothing and having a better life-style (work-shy long term unemployed) or committing criminality and getting away with it (bankers).

Real public sector cuts could also be a differentiating factor but I sense that absent concrete examples - something like, 'we will reduce the cap on welfare benefits to £15,000 (or £10,000, maybe)  and we will introduce regional welfare payments and we will introduce regional pay bargaining for all public sector workers' - people just won't accept it.  I believe that the 'people' see the sense and justice of this but we lack politicians with the spine to do what is necessary - that is, to roll back the state and to make work pay!

Europe then, that can differentiate the Conservatives and galvanise their supporters and the 'waverers'.  The Lib Dems are wedded to the EU.  Clegg has to stay with the EU, which is where his next job will be, after all.  Labour?  The federalist EU and its 'nanny-state' approach to all matters of life, fits squarely and neatly into the Labour philosophy.  The EU thinks it knows best how to control our lives - if you don't believe me, ask the Greeks! - and the British Civil Service just lap up and speedily implement all of the regulations that spew out of Brussels and Strasbourg.

So, Cameron, Go For It!

What to go for? 

How about a pledge, made now, that the next Conservative administration will:

• Renegotiate the powers of Brussels and repatriate all those that do not explicitly relate to the Single  Market (or the Common Market as it was once called and for which most Britons think they signed-up)
• If the renegotiation is successful, the result to be put to a referendum with the question, accept or reject.
• If negotiations are unsuccessful, a referendum held with a simple In or Out question.
• The above to be conducted within the first 6 months of the Conservatives being elected and this Pledge to be an immutable part of any Coalition agreement.

I know that there will be questions as to what constitutes 'Single Market powers' versus all of the other rubbish foisted upon us by Brussels (and, let's not forget our own past political leaders) but surely we have the wit to figure that out? 

• Working Time directive - that goes
• EU Army and Foreign Office - they go
• EU Commission - undemocratic so bye bye
• Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy - need you ask? 
• EU foreign aid - that goes too!  if the people of the UK want to provide aid, they can decide to whom and how much

 As I wrote here in mid May, timing and deciding on a referendum is critical and if the Conservatives are not careful, they could well find themselves, outflanked by an opportunistic Labour Party.