Conservatives - The way forward - Part Two

The previous post on this issue dealt mostly with economic matters.  Today I want to expand on ways that the UK Conservative party can return to its roots and present a conservative alternative to the leftist policies put forward by the Labour Welfare party and the Liberal Democrats.

Some that read the previous post will no doubt have thought that the spending side changes were lacking in detail but please read on and maybe this will help to fill in the gaps and demonstrate how the Conservatives can take a step, a yard or two 'rightwards' and bring Britain beading into the right direction.

Crime
Let's start here.  I believe that the true conservative way is not about trying to 'understand crime and the causes of crime'.  We can leave that to those on the left who see that all of society's problems can be put down to being the responsibility of 'society' rather than being the responsibility of the individual.  In fact that really is the core of the difference between Conservatives and leftists.  Conservatives believe in the rights and responsibilities of the individual, whereas the left always seeks to subsume the individual into the collectivist state, where no one has responsibility (but just to prove it, they will commission a publicly funded enquiry or review with a pre-conceived outcome, saying that provision by the 'state' is best!). 

For Conservatives, crime should be about law enforcement.  Not about creating more and more laws but about enforcing the ones we have and enforcement, as the word suggests, should mean the strength and power of society coming to bear on those that infringe the laws that society, collectively pass.

For criminals, prison should be a deterrent.  That means the conditions need to be harsh, harder than those that prevail on the outside.  So no access to television or computers or the internet.  No access to drugs.  Regular but random searches  of the prisoner and cell.  Long periods where they are simply locked-up.  

Leftists regularly talk out of both sides of their mouth.  Prison should be about rehabilitation.  The rate of recidivism is high because of society, etc. 

I would posit that as a means of rehabilitation, prison mostly doesn't work.  There will be some that are so traumatised by the event that they never commit another crime but many are career criminals and they 'need' to commit crimes to fund the lifestyle that they (and certain sympathisers) believe that they are entitled to live.

In relation to criminals, Conservatives should put forward policies that put criminals behind bars and, leave them there and make their stay in prison a 'hard' experience.   I don't believe that society can rid itself of criminals in the true sense, all we can (and should) do is to get them off of our streets..

While we are at it, why do prisons need to be so conveniently located?  As part of the necessary prison reforms, build new prisons in more remote and inhospitable places rather than in city centres!  The message needs to be clear.  We don't care for prisoner welfare - prison is to be about punishment - we only care for the victims of crime. Period, as Americans say.

Speaking of Americans, how about a three strikes and you're out rule.  Something like, anyone that is convicted for the third time, for an offence that carries a sentence of greater than 5 years, then that individual, on the sentence for the third offence, has 10 years added to the sentence.  If after release, there is a fourth offence, then  the next conviction would automatically carry a life sentence.

Which neatly brings me to sentencing and particularly life sentences.  Put simply, the current parole system kicks in way too early.   We have had the spectacle of convicted Members of Parliament being released just a few weeks into a six month sentence.  They though, are not alone.  Criminals seem to be eligible for parole once they have completed one third of their sentence and, because of so called 'overcrowding' the impetus is to err on the side of releasing them.  The 'overcrowding' is a myth.  See above!  Prison isn't about being a holiday camp.  Multiple cell occupancy is a must - I wouldn't have any problem in recommending dormitory style accommodation rather than the 'own room' hotel-like comforts that some now enjoy.

A life sentence should be seen as a serious deterrent.  So 'life' should mean a minimum of 20 years served (I wouldn't argue too strongly if someone said it should be 25 years).  Remember, the Conservative way is that criminals should be put away!  We believe that we cannot cure or rehabilitate some people, so the only solution is to take those people out of circulation for a long time.

It will come as no surprise that a Conservative does not allow prisoners the right to vote, while they are prisoners.

Social Matters
I am not in favour of abortion.  I simply think it is wrong.  I think that Britain has allowed itself to be a place where abortions are so readily available  and publicly funded on the most false of pretences.  The 1967 abortion Act (as amended down the years) keeps on talking about the abortion being needed to 'prevent a grave threat to the mother'.

A 'grave' threat.   I seriously doubt that most of the cases where an abortion is carried out, truly represent a 'grave' threat to the mental or physical condition of the mother.  I do accept that for some an unexpected pregnancy could be 'inconvenient'.  It might impinge on the career prospects of the mother or the lifestyle but surely these cannot be said to be 'grave' reasons?

Needless to say, the rights of the unborn child are never considered.  Around 200,000 babies are aborted each year, in Britain and the media and others are more concerned about some TB-carrying badgers being culled.  Warped priorities doesn't really come close.

So, the rules on abortions need to be more strictly enforced.  The nature of the 'grave' risk needs to be clearly found and 'inconvenience' not be a reason for foetal murder.

Abortion on the NHS to no longer be state-funded.  If someone wants an abortion, then that person should pay for it.  Much as one might say, in relation to crime, 'if you can't do the time, don't do the crime' so in respect of abortion, one has to consider that the plethora of contraceptive options that are available should preclude the requirement for just about any abortions.

Same-Sex Marriage - regular readers will be aware of my views on this.  Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.  Any legislation that says to the contrary, to be repealed.

Education reform is now underway, with the 'free schools' programme.  This needs to be enhanced.  We need to get government, in any form,  out of the class-room.  Taxpayer funding of education, through a voucher system should be the extent of governmental involvement.

Foreign relations

Let's start with the European Union.  Throughout the time of its membership, Britain has been seen as a difficult member  of the EU.  Conservatives look at the free trade aspects and think that this is good but then we worry about the subsidies that are paid to various industries.   Worry turns to grave (proper use of the word) concern  for just about everything else that the EU does. 

I have just been reading 'How we invented freedom' by Daniel Hannan - highly recommended!

In this book Hannan captures the historical 'separatedness' of  Britain.  We are not part of Europe.  Geographically, we are on the fringe but politically, Britain has, for more than a thousand years, had a different approach to political matters and how society manages its affairs.  Our history is one where government is answerable to the people.  Where no person or organisation, is above the law.  Where the rights of the individual are understood and protected.  These are not concepts that are universally held within the EU.  Where something more than lip-service, to these practices, is followed, this is a new concept and its very immaturity poses a risk. 

Therefore, Conservatives need to dis-engage from the European Union, as the number one foreign priority.  Ignore all of the threats about lost trade opportunities etc..  These are empty.  People in other nations buy products or services from Britain because what is offered is of the required quality and at the right price.  If that quality or price were to change, after Britain exits the EU, I would suspect it to only be for the better.

While we are on dis-engagement, the UK should leave the United Nations.  This organisation has outlived its usefulness.  As evidence - the massacre at Srebrenica happened while the people were ostensibly under UN protection, the UN appointed Gadaffi's Libya to the UN Human Rights body! Time to leave and forgo the lectures from the various fools that populate that body.

Scotland 
On September 18, 214, the people of Scotland will vote in a referendum on 'independence'.  'Independence' is written so because it's kind of a strange independence that moves from a union of equals - where Scottish votes have the same weight as English, Welsh or Northern Irish  votes do -   to a place where most policies are set by a foreign wanne-be supra power - the EU

Anyway, if Scotland stays within the Union, all well and good.  However, there should not then be any kind of further devolution of powers to Scotland as some kind of thank you or sop to the Nationalists. 

If the Scots choose to secede from the Union, then we will be sad to see them go but would wish them well.  However, they take with them a proportionate share of liabilities of UK Inc. and we should not offer them any kind of currency union.

BBC
The Conservatives must end the TV tax - aka TV licence.  Nothing more to be said!

Energy
Much as Conservatives are against subsidies, it is clear, that since the long term energy needs of Britain, will require a very large element of nuclear power in the mix, then state subsidy is required to support the economics.

In terms of Shale gas, we need to be realistic.  This does offer an opportunity for exploitation of our natural resources but we need to recognise that this is not a 'silver bullet'.  Recovering this resource will not be easy but it will be a little easier to get the large number of land drilling rigs mobilised and natural gas companies involved, if government views the opportunity as one of national strategic importance and lets companies drill.  As in, bring the full force of the law down on 'nimbys' and eco-activists and push through exploration and then, hopefully development, plans.

In the interim, Conservatives should support the British national interest and cease the closure of coal and gas fired power stations.  This will avert the next big crisis that is looming.

Charity
Two things.
Firstly, make all charitable giving tax deductible to the extent of 120%.  So if I donate £100 to a registered charity, I can deduct £120 from my pre-tax income.
Next, ban charities from public advocacy and lobbying.  Require that for them to retain the status of a 'registered charity' a minimum of 75% of all funds raised must be spent directly on the stated beneficiaries of the charity.  So overheads - cost of raising funds and employing charity workers - cannot exceed 25% of funds raised.  I don't like interfering but, one step further, no employee of a charity to be paid more than 3 times the national average wage - currently around £75,000.

Red Tape
Conservatives should be in the business of small government.  Small government isn't concerned with whether I work 40, 48 or 60 hours a week - Small government says that this is an issue for my employer and I.  Small government isn't concerned with whether I sell bananas (straight or slightly curved) in lbs or kgs - that is between my customers and I.

So along with a bonfire of quangos, a bonfire of regulations.  All regulations at the national and local level would be reviewed within a two year timeline.  The review would look at each regulation and consider the full costs of the regulation and the expected financial benefits of same.     Any national regulation, where the financial benefits do not exceed the costs by 25%, scrap the regulation.  Any where the benefits exceed by greater than 25%, have them reviewed and approved by Parliament.  For local regulations the benefit requirement for retention raised to being greater than 50% of costs.

Any regulation retained, to be reviewed every 3 years to see if it still meets the same cost/benefit thresholds.

All new regulations to have the test first applied, but the benefit threshold to be 30% and 60% respectively.

Conservatives - The way forward

In recent posts, I have bemoaned the current policies followed by the current Conservative leadership.   Saying frankly, that these policies are not conservative at all.  It's easy to snipe from the sidelines and just be critical without offering an alternative so, I won't do that.  Here is my brand of conservatism.

Taxes
Unsurprisingly, I am for low taxes.  I was tempted to say no taxes but that probably isn't realistic.  Also since I believe that taxes are too high and that taxes start too early, I am in favour of radically altering the tax free allowance.  The Conservatives should commit to raising the point at which a person pays tax, to £20,000, within the course of the next parliament.   At a stroke, if I can use that phrase, this would take many low paid people out of the tax net completely.  This would also sweeten the pot for those moving from welfare dependency into paid employment (see below). 

National Insurance Contributions (NIC) are a tax by another name.  It is time to end the farce of the separation and just roll this into Income Tax.  Since this would then be part of general taxation, the low paid (see above) would again benefit.

Tax thresholds are too low.  The rate at which the higher band comes in, £31,865 is simply to early  This catches far too many people in the higher rate bracket.  Raise this immediately, to £35,000, which would mean £1,200 in the pockets of the 'squeezed middle' each year and then to £40,000 over the life of the next parliament, letting people keep another £2,000 of their money (based on the current 40% rate).

Having said that, I want to reduce the benefit of this tax cut (maybe I could be an MP, with such bare-faced cheek!).  I want to reduce the value by reducing the higher rate from 40% to 35%, immediately.  Then to 30% over the course of the next parliament.

Oh, and these reduced rates would include the effect of adding in NIC to Income Tax!  So the top rate of tax, inclusive of NIC, would soon be 30%

Higher rate tax - abolish it completely.  It is just for political posturing.

Inheritance Tax - abolish it completely - why should something that has already been taxed, be taxed again?

Capital Gains Tax - a flat rate 15% on gains and no tax free allowances. 

Corporation tax - drop this to 15% over the course of the next parliament.  However, change the rules on allowances for Inter-company payments, which serve to dramatically reduce a company's taxable income and sends money to overseas tax havens.  Limit such deductions to 10% of turnover.  We might lose a Starbucks or similar companies but I think that a company like Amazon or Apple will still want to remain with UK operations!

Fuel Taxes - Tell the 'greenies' to walk-off somewhere.  If I can use a four letter word!  Same to those urban dwellers that have good good established mass transport infrastructures.  Then cut duties by 10% immediately rising to 20% over the life of the next parliament.

Please read the above again.  Why would the average voter not be attracted by such a policy platform?  The overwhelming beneficiaries are the lower paid and the so called 'squeezed middle'  - they would get to keep more of their money.

You are probably not yet convinced because you are thinking , 'yes that's all well and good but how do we pay for it?'

We look to Hollywood for our inspiration.  Hollywood, or Elstree, if you want to be small-minded and nationalistic, are not usually happy places for conservatives.  These are hot-beds of liberal luvvies who, having made a pile of money by acting, then feel obligated to foist there warped viewpoints of a subsidized world where 'make-believe' is real, upon us all.  But I digress!

Hollywood is familiar with adaptations, so we, Conservatives, take a leaf from their book.

'Honey I shrunk the government!'   Okay, so it isn't very catchy and does need some work but let's keep this as a working title for now.

Civil Service Pay
Studies regularly show that this is around 8% higher than for those in the private sector.  This is 'justified' on the grounds that people in the civil service are more highly 'qualified' than those in the private sector.  Okay, so leave aside, for the moment, any thoughts about, if they are so much smarter, how come we are in this mess?'  That won't be productive.

Instead, an across the board cut of 8% for all.  Further, for those earning more than three times the national average wage of £25,000, a cut of 15%, across the board.  These cuts to apply at both the national and local levels of government.  No doubt this will cause some of these high-flying and (earning) civil servants to seek positions elsewhere but that can only be to the betterment of the real economy as those super-brains get re-deployed into the productive business arena - so win-win!

Limit sick-day absences to the private sector average.  Currently, public sector 'sickies' are more than 60% higher than in the private sector.  So, taking civil servants out of the public sector and into the private sector could also see reductions in NHS needs as these ex-civil servants move to the healthier private sector environment - win-win again!  

Departmental Cuts
Only one sacred cow - Defence.  The current level maintained but we rein back on overseas entanglements. 

All other departments, cut by 5% a year, for each year of the next parliament.  That is 5% from their 2013 budget out-turn.  Government must become smaller.

Over and above these reductions, abolish the Department for Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Culture, Music and Sports.  Similarly, do away with the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office.  Also abolish the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister!

International Aid
Reduce the budget by 50%, immediately.  Require that the remainder is only spent on British produced goods.

Then onto local government.  What do people really want from their local councils?  I would suggest refuse collections (weekly, if you please) and roads that don't have potholes every 100 yards!  Social services - not really - it's not as if they do a good job at it anyway!  Libraries?  How many people actually visit them nowadays?  We live in an digital age, when people want a book, they get it on a Kindle.  When they need reference information, they data-mine the internet.  Schools?  Let schools continue down the road to Free School status and get the bureaucratic meddlers out of the way.  LGBT drop-in centres?  Do I need to say anything?  Tourism promotion?  Business services?  No, no, no!

So then, dramatic reductions in local council expenditure and personnel levels.    

Police
I would propose a simple solution.  Set 2013 Budgets as the base-line.  Then say that if they can have a workforce that is 70% front line and 30% back-room administration staff, then their budgets are maintained.  For each 5% deviation from this ratio, they lose or gain 5% of their budget.  For the avoidance of doubt, front-line means the total time spent by police service employees outside of the station relative to the total time available (time spent outside divided by headcount times working hours)  People want to see a visible  police service not something that they just pay for!

Transport
Immediately scrap the HS2 programme.  Other than some self-interested civil servants, no one seems to want this and the already high costs are only going one way.  So abandon it.  If there really is a demand to shave 15 minutes off of a train journey then some private enterprise will see the opportunity and then invest their money into it.

Welfare
Unsurprisingly, I see this as a significant contributor to spending reductions.  We need to get welfare back to being a safety net and not a lifestyle choice! 

The welfare cap to be reduced to £15,000, with immediate effect.  It cannot ever be right that it pays more to be on welfare than it does to be in work.  Within this welfare cap, housing benefit to not exceed £5,000.  It is not the business of government to subsidize private landlords!   

Statutory sick pay to be abolished. 



We are probably not there yet, in terms of balancing the budget and matching cuts in taxation with reductions in spending, so..........

Quangos
I have said here before, what is needed is a real bonfire of the quangos.  Start from the basis that all are abolished.  Every single one, 'at a stroke'.  Then only absorb those activities back into the appropriate departments, if they are absolutely necessary.  Oh, and by the way, the funding reduced by the abolition of these quangos does not count towards the departmental cuts mentioned earlier.

Balanced Budget and Debt
The budget must be balanced.  So income as a minimum, matches (or exceeds if possible,) expenditure.  This to be a statutory obligation - written into law!  However, before the budget is balanced, we need to tackle the national debt. 

So, we treat this like a mortgage.  We say that the current debt is to be paid-off over 25 years!  So, when the budget is being calculated we include, on the expenditure side, something around £50 billion to cover debt reduction.  Can't be done?  Then the departmental cuts need to be deeper.  We cannot burden future generations with the level of national debt, that the UK now carries - £1.3 TRILLION and rising.  Over the years, use the debt-interest reduction windfall to pay more off of the debt.

Conservatives cannot just be about deficit reduction, we must be about debt reduction as well.  That is how we serve all the people of the whole UK.

   

  
  

Conservative campaigning

Like some others reading this, I received an e-mail yesterday, from the Conservative Party.  They wanted me to take part in a quick survey seeking my views about what was important to me and my family and what was important to the country on a range of subjects.

I responded in what I think is a conservative way and am not shy to share them with others.

The issues facing me and my family - the level of taxes, government deficit and debt and opportunities for the next generation.  I could only choose three!

Those issues (don't you just hate that word - issues?  Sounds so Tony Benn and 1960/70s socialism ) that are most important to the country tax levels, deficit and debt and the EU.

Who would I prefer as Prime Minister?  The choice is Ed Miliband or David Cameron - so no real choice, then. 

Then, I submitted the survey and received a thank you and an appeal for a donation.

The latter made me think of why I don't donate to the Conservative Party and then to wonder why I was asked these questions.

Firstly, the poll results are rarely published - and I think that there is a reason for that.  I believe that those people that bother to respond - the 'saddos' like myself - will do so along the lines I have answered.  That is, following and supporting 'traditional' Conservative values. 

One of the choices offered was 'the environment and  climate change.'  Do I care about these?  Of course I do but do I put these above the needs of my family or my country?  No!  Do I agree that the British people should be impoverished  on some less than half-baked policy that says Canute-like,  that Britain can single-handedly reduce so called green-house gas emissions in any meaningful way?  No!  Especially when we seek to do so while importing ever higher levels of mass produced Chinese goods that are made in an increasingly carbon-energy based environment!   

PS Note how it is now called 'climate change' and no longer 'man-made global warming'!  Initially I thought that this was a good sign - that science was returning to a fact-based approach to climate and, recognizing that there has been no appreciable actual warming, in recent years and that they had been hood-winked by a bunch of watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside - read James Delingpole's book of the same name - highly entertaining and informative!) but no, the charlatans that eschew scientific practice and doctor test results and data to fit a pre-conceived premise still hold sway.  'They' have just realized that even 'they' can't get away with fooling all of the people, all of the time.  So don't change the fundamental lie, just change some of the words!

Anyway, green rage rant over.

So, I suspect that the actual purpose of the survey was to rekindle my conservative views and then seek to get me to make a donation to the Conservative Party, on the basis that this party supports the views that I have just endorsed.

That might work, if, for one minute, I actually believed that the Conservative Party did support  and share my views on low taxes or deficit and debt reduction.  But they don't.  As evidence, I offer the last 4 years.  Neither taxes nor the deficit are appreciably reduced from the levels left by the outgoing Labour party, in 2010.  Directionally, Britain is still left-leaning.

The leftist approach to politics is to push the socialist agenda, ever leftwards.  They do this by taking a great stride in that direction.  If there is concerted opposition to the extent of the leftward thrust, then they move back a little but the net position is that the policy/country has moved to the left - they step a yard to the left and retreat six inches, if you like. 

The UK Conservatives, since before the downfall of Margaret Thatcher, have been afraid to do likewise in a right-ward direction.  Since they are effectively 'professional' politicians, and the same applies, maybe even more so, to the other parties, there whole raison d'etre is about getting elected and re-elected.  So the question isn't that personal taxes are too high, the argument rages around the top rate, which actually doesn't affect too many people (and of, course doesn't raise that much income!).  The whole premise of the discussion is not about the iniquity of taxes (or theft/confiscation by the state, to give it its right name) and how they should be minimized but rather about a small and inconsequential sub-sub-part of taxation.  One, incidentally on which you might see some Conservatives wavering, on the grounds that someone earning £1M  a year can better afford to suffer higher taxes for the common good!

The Conservatives need to offer a radical platform based on traditional Conservative values.  This would require stepping a yard or two to the right - moving the ground on which the arguments are held, to the right. 

Consider Britain in 1979.  The country was very close to collapse and to the anarchy that would have followed a left-wing victory in the election.  However, Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives were elected and set about re-taking power from the union-bosses that had brought the country to the brink.  These Conservatives didn't do so in some kind of cosy and conciliatory way.  They large-stepped to the right and said this is they way the problem with unions will be addressed.  How effective was this?  Well along with the failed Miner's strike of 1984/5 the whole landscape changed.  Unions in Britain are now largely confined to the remaining state bastions - the civil service, local government and the NHS and barely present in private industry.  It is also interesting to note that having loosened the grip of the leftist unions, there has since been no mandate to undo the reforms that  the first Thatcher government brought in, nor the enhancements that they enacted, subsequently.
So in this field, at least, the leftward direction of the union agenda was halted and then moved to the right and has remained there. 

The same needs to happen in other areas but I don't get the sense that the current crop of Conservatives are the ones to do it.  It is almost that we need to experience some of the economic convulsions that have affected Greece and Italy before we can expect to see a mainstream party offering Conservative solutions.

It is quite depressing that we  might need to see riots on the streets and very high unemployment and real and deep austerity being imposed (from outside!), before we can get a Conservative view put forward - one that says, we are going to take not one but two or more steps to the right and restore the UK.  We will take back sovereignty from the EU, we will scrap green taxes that are asinine and dis-proportionately punish poorer people, we will create a wealth-generating economy that allows the individual to keep a far higher portion of what they earn and so on.   You can read more here  http://bit.ly/1lFufJL and here http://bit.ly/MCuYMt


Donate to the Conservative Party?  I think not.  To them I am just a 'swivel-eyed loony'.  They will get my vote but only because the alternatives are even more ghastly but they won't get my money!


By the way.  Read the bit about Margaret Thatcher and what the Conservatives did, again.  

These Conservatives didn't do so in some kind of cosy and conciliatory way.  They large-stepped to the right and said this is they way the problem with unions will be addressed.

See how much better it is when an 'issue' is honestly called what it is? 
 

Scotland's currency

Once again, I return to the subject of what currency Scotland will use, if the Scottish people vote Yes in the upcoming referendum.

It is no good expecting an answer from Scottish Nationalist politicians.  Here is a link to a BBC interview with Nicola Sturgeon, the deputy First Minister of Scotland.  Watch and listen to how many times she is asked if there is a Plan B.  http://bbc.in/1lQIVm9

The reason that a Plan B is needed is because all of the leading UK-wide parties have stated their opposition to an independent Scotland entering into a currency union with the rump UK.  Nationalist politicians insist that this is just 'bluster and bullying' from Westminster and so they have no need for a plan to face this potential situation.  However, surely prudence suggests that it would be an idea to have some kind of policy ready just in case it isn't, don't you think?  I realise that the honesty of politicians is usually suspect!  Their keeping of promises is not one of their strongest points.  However, surely the SNP must put something in front of the Scottish people that says 'we do not believe that the rest of the UK will not allow us to enter into a currency union but if that is the case, then this is what we will do......'

Too much to ask?

Of course, this all pre-supposes that an independent Scotland will have the authority to make such a decision, anyway.

The SNP have made a big play of their belief that an independent Scotland will be able to remain or automatically become a member of the European Union.  Let's suppose that this is valid (though the Scottish government refuses to publish the legal advice it has received (presumably received on behalf of the Scottish people?)).  Why would the European Union allow any new member the choice of what currency they can follow?  Does anyone seriously believe that the EU wouldn't simply say, like they do to aspiring members, you must adopt the Euro as your currency?  Why wouldn't they?

I would suggest that no matter what the rump UK says, the EU will demand that Scotland adopt the Euro. The relentless advance of the Euro-project requires this.

I suspect that the EU, while making this an absolute condition, will not set themselves as the 'lender of last resort' for Scotland.  That seems to be what the SNP wants to get from a currency union - the remaining parts of the UK providing a financial guarantee for Scotland's debt.

As the referendum date draws nearer, we can rightly expect to see more and more questions being asked of the Nationalists and answers not being forthcoming, just bluster and bullying.

I am in favour of the Union and opposed to Scotland gaining 'independence' but have become reconciled to the need for a referendum.  However, the post referendum period also needs to be addressed.  If the answer is Yes, then apportion debt and assets between the two countries and separate.  If the answer in No, then no further concessions or granting of additional powers to the devolved government  are to be given.  Also, the independence question needs to be put away for at least 25 years  - enough already!

Honesty on taxes

I know, it sounds like an oxymoron but read on.

I don't live in the USA but have shopped in Texas on many occasions.  I used to think that it was annoying, that the price I saw quoted wasn't actually the price I paid.  The price was before the 8.5% Sales Tax.

I have come though, to think of this as a great idea.  This is purely and simply, honesty.  You know how much the vendor wants and then how much the government is taking.

Don't you think that people would sit-up and be more aware of the effect of taxes if these were separately declared? 

Doesn't it make for a more honest approach to pricing?

Imagine driving into a petrol station and seeing the price as £0.38p per litre or going into a store and seeing something priced 16% less than at present?  Okay, so when you get to the cash register, you are back in the real world and will be paying £1.50 for a litre of fuel but I can't help thinking that when people see just how much tax they are paying then perhaps people will push for less taxes, even if this means less spending.  Right now, because the taxes on goods or services are hidden, they kind of slide by people.  Would people be so blindly supportive of so called green taxes, if they knew just how much they were really costing them?

You could even take this a stage further and have some kind of display board outside each national or locally taxpayer-funded facility, showing how much tax is being used to support the place.  Either year to date or forecast for the year.  Taxes and spending need to become personal  and meaningful.  £200 Billion here or £50 Billion there, doesn't get through to people.  Telling them that 75% of the price of fuel is actually taxes levied by the government catches their attention, so does letting them know that the local Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender centre is funded with £50,000 of tax payer money or the local village hall with £1,500!

An idea for implementation that should be favoured by all right-thinking people that want to see a smaller government.

Conservative Soul

Sorry music lovers, this isn't a piece about some long lost strain that emanated from a rich enclave in America's South.  This is about the missing soul of conservatism.

Frit is the word used by the late and former UK Prime Minister, Lady Margaret Thatcher to describe someone who is frightened.  That term seems very apposite to describe modern day conservatives in both the UK and the US.  

I have posted here before concerning the lack of focus amongst America's conservatives -  http://bit.ly/1kiLq2r - so, today, I want to concentrate on UK conservatives but I think that there will still be resonance for US ones, as well, so stay tuned!

The UK will shortly be 'celebrating' four years of a Conservative 'led' coalition.  I use the term led because nominally, that is supposed to be the case.  The Conservative Party have the highest number of MPs in the House of Commons and considerably outnumber their Liberal Democrat partners, and yet one regularly comes away with the notion that it is the Lib Dems that are the senior partner.  It isn't just about better press management, by them.  Look at the policies of the Conservatives and see if you can find those that can be called truly Conservative.   Ok, how about just one? 

Europe is always touted by the media, led by the in-thrall BBC, to be a very divisive and electorally damaging issue for the Tories.  We are regularly 'told' that voters don't like to see a divided party and that the factional fighting within the Conservative party will make them unelectable.  And yet, these same voters are also, in large numbers,  said to be skeptical of the whole Euro project.  These same voters want to see a changed relationship between the UK and the European Union.  This is what is 'promised' by David Cameron along with a post the next  General Election, referendum.  I sense though that people just don't trust the Conservative leadership to deliver.  Cameron states that he wants to remain in Europe and will campaign on that basis, in any referendum, which kind of preempts his view of the choice that will be put before the British people -

 "Well we went and had these discussions with the EU and they agreed that, going forward we, the great British people, can have our MPs, sitting in the 'mother of all parliaments' decide on whether or not we retain British Summer Time (or insert some other meaningless non-concession).  Of course, negotiation is about compromise, and so we had to concede that in future, Britain's economic policies will be first approved by our colleagues in the EU, before we put them to the House of Commons, so that we know that they are aligned with those of the other EU states.  Yes we also had to cede control over foreign affairs to the EU but, with my former colleague, Nick Clegg, now the EU High Commissioner, we know we have a friend who will look after British interests and don't forget, while we had to give up the Pound Sterling, as an independent currency, we did manage to get the name of the Euro changed to the Pound"  

 Back to reality:
Why then aren't the Conservatives using their historical opposition to statist/corporatist institutions like the European Union and pushing this as a policy to the electorate?  Providing a real choice on Europe, for a change.  I know some will say, that this is what the UK Independence Party does but I really can't see them making the breakthrough in significant numbers to radically change the political make-up of Parliament. So it has to be the Conservatives that do this.  But first they need to regain their 'soul'.

The name of the Conservative Party in the UK is more properly, The Conservative and Unionist Party.  The Unionist tends to be forgotten by some because of its past associations with Ulster Unionists and their seeming intransigence (imagine! They wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom!!).  However, the party's roots are in maintenance of the whole United Kingdom and yet...
Consider the referendum that will occur in Scotland this year.  Where are the weekly or daily speeches by the Prime Minister and other leading Tories, extolling the virtues of a United Kingdom over a split one?  Where are the monthly ones?  Any speeches?  All we get are minor passing references buried in other keynote addresses.  If the Scottish electorate were some girl that the Unionists were trying to woo, then our apparent indifference will drive her into the arms of the Scottish Nationalist cad, who roguishly offers to take her away from an over-bearing parent and into the bright sunny uplands.  Where is the robust defence of what the 'union' means?  Where are the vigorous attacks on the economic lunacy that is presented as Scotland's future?  The attacks on the ever-encroaching state presence on Scotland's landscape?

If I were a Scot, I would look at the indifference shown by the Conservative and Unionist Party and think that since the Tories 'cannot be bothered with putting up any kind of fight for Scotland, then I cannot  be bothered with them or with the Union.  Maybe Salmond has a point!'

It is though on economics that the Conservative soul is found to be most absent.  

Consider.  At the tail end of the 1980s, communism was in its death throes (thanks in large part to Thatcher and Reagan's policy of confronting communism and showing to all, its inherent flaws).  Its slowly, slowly sister ideology, socialism, was also tainted by its association.  Even now people can look back at communism and see it for the human and economic failure that it was.  Nazism (which incidentally was based on socialism, though socialists and labourites get offended when you point this out), led to the slaughter of many millions of innocents but think on how many millions  Stalin and Mao and  Pol Pot and their communist fellow travelers massacred.

And yet, instead of seeing the adoption of capitalist and small government principles and the retreat of socialism, we have seen that governments of every hue, continued with the creeping implementation of socialism.

The UK's Conservatives have been complicit in this when out of office and we continue to see this with the current government.  The idea of moving the needle on public spending by a meaningfully noticeable amount seems alien to the current Tories.  True conservative values require that the state steps back, that the starting premise is why should the government be involved in doing this at all and why can it not be left to the private sector?  Instead there is no 'rolling back the frontiers of the state' but mere tinkering at the edges.  Does anybody think that Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan would consider the current crop of UK Tories and American Republicans as 'conservative'?  Or would they see them as faintly pink quasi-socialists?  I believe the latter, you will take your own view.

These 'socialist-lite' Tories follow such defeatist policies even when in opposition, such as supporting the UK Labour parties bail-out of over-extended banks.  They wrap-up such an anti-capitalist policy in words that could be lifted straight from the Communist Manifesto and then blindly follow Labour through the division lobbies and support such dangerous and costly legislation.  Again, they allow the Bank of England to devalue currency by simply printing more of it, via Quantitative Easing  and then rationalize the whole thing by saying that there is no alternative and that they are making cuts to public spending.  Even when they know that the cuts that are being made are, despite all of the grandstanding and soundbites from the Labour Party and its mouthpiece, the BBC, tiny, and represent barely a scratch on the surface of the bloated beast that is state spending.

So, if you are a conservative, what can you do?

In the USA, the Tea Party represents a more conservative option.  They are touted as a divisive 'faction' within the Republican Party but I sense that they are actually a far greater influence than the 'old' Republican establishment yet understand.

For UK Conservatives?  I couldn't recommend UKIP, though their policy on the EU - offering a straight In/Out referendum is sound.  Their other policies, seem quite limited and seem to have patches of socialism running through them.  In fact, I would go further on the UKIP EU policy and say that this is the right one.  I don't think that the EU can be reformed, I do not believe there is the political will to do so.  For evidence refer to Francois Hollande's comments last week.  Still though, for me, UKIP is a one-trick pony. 

I think what is needed is a UK Tea Party - or a Tea Party done in the UK style.  That is, Conservative Associations adopting candidates that understand what being a conservative means.  That understand the need for a complete re-alignment of the social contract between government and the governed, with power and responsibility moving from the former to the latter. 

Of course this will take time but when you see people like Tim Yeo being de-selected by his constituency association, one lives in hope.

Please pass this post on to any Conservative Party members that you know and tell them that the future of conservatism lies in their hands.  All of us need to get active and breathe new life into the soul of conservatism and to use every opportunity to roll back the frontiers of the state and state control.