Frack, baby frack

I have posted here before about Fracking and pointed people to the demolition of the lies and stunts,  performed by Josh Fox in his Gasland movie, in the documentary Fracknation.  Some might say that it is unfair to use facts to demolish fantasy but as a grown-up....

Anyway, today, the UK shows the ignorance of the 'debate' on fracking.

By all reliable accounts, Britain is sitting on top of an energy source which is cleaner than most and could provide a much needed economic boost to areas which are not enjoying the growth seen in other parts of the country.

So here's a challenge to Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne.  If you really are in favour of fracking and in tapping into this subterranean bounty that nature has provided, then do something about it.

That something has to be to recognise the national interest is best served by developing these resources.  That means that planning approvals, for such developments, cannot be allowed to sit with local authorities but must sit with central government.  Local politicians are ever fearful of NIMBYs and such narrow-minded pressure groups.  Take the responsibility away from them.

That doesn't mean giving it to the Department of Environment and Climate Change.  In my view DECC should no longer exist.  This is a department that, when led by former Labour leader, Ed Miliband, pushed through legislation that directly causes 'fuel poverty' in the UK and leads every year, to the deaths of thousands of people, who simply can't afford the 'Green Taxes' imposed by energy companies.

Responsibility for planning applications, by energy exploration companies, should rest with the Treasury.  They are responsible for securing Britain's economic future, after all.

Wrapping up on fracking, the Treasury should also have responsibility for protecting those companies that are providing for Britain's economic future.  These drilling operations, once approved, cannot be disrupted by Green protestors who, in spite of all the real evidence pointing to the positive economic benefits of fracking and the overwhelmingly safe environment in which drilling and development operations are conducted, simply refuse to accept fracking.  These Greens are people that would have us back, literally, in the Dark Ages !

Developing our natural resources for the benefit of the British people, must proceed.

As previously disclosed, I work in the energy industry.         

Labour's defeat

I don't wish to take anything away from the, frankly stunning, victory of David Cameron's Conservatives but the UK GE2015 election results are almost as much about the defeat of Labour as about the Conservatives.

The opinion pollsters will now conduct a post mortem into their abject failure to predict the outcome of the election.  Whatever, they now say, the polls that they published understated support for Conservatives and overstated that for Labour.  I like to think that they got it so wrong because the people that they asked consistently chose to fool the pollsters - otherwise known as lie to them, rather than give them straight, honest answers.   I am no psephologist but I always wonder how polling around a 1,000 people can give any kind of reasonable view or cross-section of the polling intentions of 46 million voters.

Anyway, no doubt the pollsters will enquire and conclude that it was the voters that were wrong and not them.  I can't see many people having much faith in their polls until they have re-built credibility.

So to Labour.

Ed Miliband resigned the leadership of Labour, once it became clear that they had soundly lost the election.  There are some, me included, that think his resignation was about four years too late but......

Now Labour does what it does best.  It will have a leadership election that will solve nothing.  Much as I didn't like Ed Miliband - he just didn't come across as sincere or honest - the biggest problem with Labour was their policies and over-riding that fatal flaw was their absolute unwillingness to accept any responsibility for the financial crisis that the UK faced, at the time of the 2010 General Election.  If I was a Conservative strategist, I would replay to the British public, time and time again, the part of the so called 'Leaders Question Time' where Miliband is asked if Labour overspent and he says no.  The audience reaction of utter disbelief, was surely reflective of the country at large.

Unless and until Labour say sorry for the financial mess, they will always lose on the economy, always.  They spoke, time and again, as did the odious SNP, about cuts and austerity and, did I mention savage cuts?  Yet people understand that while some of these did impact heavily upon some people, overall, these were essential and were handled sensitively.   Labour bang on about the NHS in some sort of proprietorial way but for me, people don't distrust the Conservatives anywhere near as much as Labour think they do or should.  I think that on the NHS, the discussion is moving more towards the Conservative side than Labour understand.  

The reason I mention some of the Labour election platform is that the current candidates for Ed Miliband's position seem destined to repeat the errors of his leadership,

The candidates are

Andy Burnham - I can state categorically that it isn't the whiny voice and his sense of  only he being able to 'really, really' understand and 'really, really' feel the pain of people, that bothers me about the 'emote at the drop of a hat' Burnham.  It his failure to take any responsibility for the 1,300+ unnecessary deaths which occurred in his beloved NHS, at Mid Staffs and elsewhere, when he was in-charge of the NHS.  Read the horror of Mid Staffs here  Simply put, Burnham has displayed very serious character flaws.  That and his allegiance to old-style Labour re-distributionist policies show him to be out of touch with the aspirations of people. Some other posts on the NHS are here  and here

Yvette Cooper - Can sound a little shrill at times but her most serious flaw, aside from being tied to out-dated policies, is that she is the wife of Ed Balls.  I can't speak to what attracted her to Balls nor what keeps her there but surely, at some recent point in their relationship she should have been able to convince Balls that he and Miliband needed to apologise for the financial mess and to take responsibility for it.  If she cannot persuade the man who shares a bed with her, of the massive errors of the party platform, then what faith can anyone have in her ability to negotiate on behalf of the UK or firmly deal with her union paymasters?  Every time I see Yvette Cooper, I think Ed Balls and I immediately think financial mess.  Maybe that's not fair, but that is my reality, and I would suspect that of many others.

Chuka Umana - Should narcissism be a qualifying condition for the leadership?  Every time I see Chuka, I see someone that seems more interested in how he looks and if his tie matches his suit and shirt etc.  Editor in Chief of GQ magazine  - maybe but far too lightweight to lead the Labour Party.  Imagine if you will, horror that it might be, that Labour is in power and Chuka has to face down Len McCluskey  of Unite regarding a series of public sector strikes and also to contend with aggressive moves from Putin's Russia and, at the same time, Daesh attacks in the UK.  Can you see that and see Chuka with any kind of the required knowledge and experience or gravitas?  Umana has been described (by himself?) as the UK's Obama.  Seeing how the former Community Organiser, Obama, has created great divisions within the US and promoted failed policy after failed policy, and destroyed America's standing in the world.  Should Labour elect someone with such aspirations?

The other declared candidates.  
Liz Kendall  I know little about, which maybe is a good thing because she maybe isn't painted into that 'we didn't overspend' corner and without such baggage may be able to provide Labour with a policy platform that focuses on the needs and aspirations of real people rather than a metropolitan elite.
Tristram Hunt - His opposition to Michael Gove's education reforms should automatically disqualify him - again, his adherence to party and union dogma seeks to override the aspirations of people.


Like many people, I find that Labour has nothing to offer me or my children.  Fundamentally, that is their problem.  The leadership is much less relevant.  Miliband's ineptitude with a bacon sandwich didn't help.  His inability to say sorry was a key factor - a clear character flaw. At the end of the day though, it always come down to policy and Labour had nothing to offer today's voters.  Until they get that right, it doesn't matter who they chose as leader!

GE2015 Part Two

I hesitate to write this as I don't want to promote complacency but......

Not exactly scientific but in my recent travels around England and Scotland I have been struck by the almost complete absence of political posters in houses and front gardens.  Pleasingly, the ones I have seen most though, (please keep this from Lynton Crosby and George Osborne) are for Conservatives.

Driving in Scotland - through the Borders and on to Aberdeen - the ratio of Conservative posters, in fields usually, to those of other parties was quite significant.  I suppose that many of the 55% who voted against further independence for Scotland, in last year's referendum, worry about being intimidated by the thuggish Scottish Nationalist supporters and that is undoubtedly a factor but one has to wonder what else is causing this lack of political 'heart on sleeve' wearing.

Anyway, could it be a sign that the pollsters are wrong and the Conservatives might gain more seats, dare I say it, even a majority?  Let us hope so!

The Conservatives should really be in a much stronger position in the opinion polls.

• Unemployment is low, certainly in comparison to our European partners (though still too high for young people).
• Employment is at an all-time high and has, to some extent been re-balanced over the last five years.  A million less Public sector workers less and two million Private sector more.
• The economy is growing quite strongly - please don't tell the Greens - they are anti-growth (except in terms of growing taxes and growing spending)
• The Conservatives have promised a re-negotiation of the terms of membership of the European Union and a referendum on the outcome - realistically, this is something only they can offer.  UKIP cannot and Labour and the Lib Dems, won't.
• Taxes are being cut and millions of low-paid people are being completely lifted out of taxation due to the raising of the tax-free allowances.
• Public spending is back under control and projected to decrease further towards a healthier and more sustainable level.
• The deficit is on a downward trajectory and, if the Conservatives are re-elected, should be essentially eliminated during the next Parliament.
• The Conservatives even managed to pay-off some of the National Debt during the last Parliament - 1914-18 war debt.  Not a lot but a step in the right direction!

So why aren't the Conservatives in a commanding lead?

Labour is represented by people who are still intimately linked to the previous government that left Britain's finances in such a parlous state.  They are led by the seemingly buffoonish Ed Miliband ( check out YouTube - Ed Miliband and bacon sandwich!) however he seems to have escaped any more gaffes, so far, and clearly has a ruthless streak.

The big threat of course is the collapse of Labour in its Scottish heartlands and their replacement by the SNP.  Nicole Sturgeon has fought a good campaign and, if the polls are to be believed, stands a good chance of having the SNP as the 'kingmaker' at Westminster.  (See also here ).  There is a concerted effort, now underway, for people in Scotland, especially those 55% No voters, to vote tactically and switch their votes to the Conservatives or Lib Dems in an effort to keep out the Nationalists. If you see any tweets pushing the voting wheel, please encourage your Scots friends to vote tactically - you know it makes sense!

Again, so why aren't the Conservatives in a commanding lead?

UKIP is taking votes from Conservatives and will undoubtedly win some seats (my prediction is currently in the 8-15 range (with 10 being my best guess) but again, UKIP cannot hope to gain power and so, if you are a potential UKIP voter, do consider voting tactically and where UKIP are clearly splitting the vote such that Labour can come through the middle, then do the right thing and vote Conservative,  It is the only way you have a chance of an EU referendum!  Of course, this also requires Conservatives to act similarly responsible.  The mantra is ABEAN - Anyone but Ed and Nicola!

I do hope that post election, the Conservatives whether in power or not, will take the time to examine the media output from the BBC.  I have spoken previously of the left-wing bias of the BBC, as have many others - many of their commentators and interviewers are clearly left-leaning - but this time they have excelled and been very blatant.  They keep parroting the 'austerity' line pushed by the parties of the left - that is all parties except the Conservatives and maybe UKIP - when the BBC, know, particularly through their foreign correspondents, that what Britain has experienced is only the mildest form of cuts.  Look at youth unemployment in Greece or Spain, ask pensioners in those countries what has happened to their pensions and their living standards and then compare, as any decent news organisation would, against what has occurred in the UK!    Britain has categorically NOT experienced austerity but if we elect a Socialist government on May 7 or one that depends on SNP support, then it is surely only a matter of time, before the bailiffs come calling and Britain finds itself in a Greece-like position.

Debate comment

I managed to watch most of last night's 'Leaders debate' via Sky News.  Hmm!

Is it me or was it basically 6 against one?

We had the leader of the SNP, who isn't even standing for parliament (see here) simply stirring the pot.  She was mainly there to make sure that Red Ed Miliband knows who he will be reporting to, should he enter into any kind of alliance with the SNP.

We had the leader of the Welsh Nationalists who, given a perfect opportunity to attack Labour, over its criminally inept running of the NHS, in Wales, chose not to do so.

We also had the Greens leader, the Australian Natalie Bennett, whose nasal twang failed to hide her extreme left-wing views.  James Delingpole, writing in Watermelons, his brilliantly written expose of the environmentalist movement, called 'greens' Watermelons - green on the outside and red on the inside but Nuttalie Bennett managed to be red all the way through.  Out of politeness, no one mentioned that Brighton town council, the only one run by the Greens, in the UK, now has a worse record on environmental recycling than under the previous regime.

Nigel Farage, from UKIP managed to make every issue link back to immigration and he successfully managed to get across the point that while the UK remains in the European Union, we can do very little to curb immigration from within the EU.

Nick Clegg, until recently, sitting around the Cabinet table with Conservative leader, David Cameron, sought to distance himself from the Tories and make claims of bravery, for the good of the country, etc..

Ed Miliband  pushed his economic idiocy - spend more, borrow more but we won't tax more - and as was to be expected, wrapped himself in the NHS.  As said earlier, he wasn't punished on the shocking state of the NHS in Labour-run Wales and banged on about spending more on the NHS, again and again.  Miliband mentioned the situation where one NHS hospital was treating or assessing people in an emergency tent, erected in a car park.  My own view is that I would rather be examined in a tent in a car park than treated in the Labour run Mid Staffs hospitals where people died unnecessarily because of Labour policy.

David Cameron was located on the edge, both literally and policy-wise.  He was standing on the economic competence of the Conservatives and had a good story to present - tellingly, none of the other parties managed to attack the Tory successes.  Cameron made some good points about all of the other parties wanting to tax, borrow and spend more and, addressing Nick Clegg, his propensity to 'pick and mix' which for Coalition policies he now  professes public support.

The Guardian newspaper, according to the BBC Today programme, (I would never buy the newspaper, I much prefer Andrex) referring to the debates spoke of  UK politics being 'fractured'.  I disagree with the newspaper.  UK politics are not fractured they are split.  We have the Conservatives on one side, providing a right of centre platform and then we have the other six parties, mentioned above, all pushing a platform of more spending - that's what less austerity means - more borrowings and higher taxes.  They all know, even the looniest Green, that taxing the 'rich' will never raise enough tax to pay for all of their welfare policies, and so taxes on the middle classes will have to increase.

This General Election presents the UK with a stark choice - continue taking the Conservative economic medicine which has done much to restore the health of the UK economy or go for any one of the others which will spend , borrow and tax more and will continue to impoverish our children and grandchildren.

There is almost only one choice - vote Conservative or perhaps vote UKIP where they have a chance against Labour.

UK elections

I know that the UK General Election will not occur until May 2015 but things are starting to heat-up, so let's take a look at the current state of play.

The 'elephant in the room' many would suggest is UKIP (but see below).  I am not so sure.  I can see that UKIP will damage both major parties but perhaps the Conservatives a little more.  Can they though make a breakthrough?  In by-elections, as former MP Louise Mensch has pointed out, they have done well, where the UKIP candidate is a defector.  They won in Clacton and seem to be ahead in Rochester and Strood.  However, will they fare as well when they come-up against a sitting MP with a reasonable majority?  Especially if that MP is Conservative and an overt Euro-sceptic? My sense is that faced with such a choice, people will look beyond UKIP's headline 'out of Europe' and 'no immigration' policies and consider that there isn't much policy meat there.  And, what there is, has a distinctly socialist taste to it.

I accept that there is disillusionment with the main parties but I think that on the day, people will stand in the voting booth, see the Conservative or Labour incumbent and either vote for them or for their opposite number, if the opposite number has a chance of winning.  That is, in Conservative or Labour  seats, where the other of the two main parties were second, the voter will consider switching between those two.  Where there existed a large majority, at the last election, for either party, then they will consider moving their vote to UKIP.  So it is the 'protest vote' in such cases that is movable and not the core.

No doubt UKIP enthusiasts will say I am wrong and that Nigel Farage is 'breaking the mould' of British politics but I just don't see that happening.  The British are very conservative, when it comes down to it.  Those of you with a long memory will recall the same being said about the Social Democratic Party and the so called  'gang of four'  - much was written and said by the political pundits but come the day, people didn't fall in behind their SDP candidates and eventually the party merged or was subsumed, depending on your viewpoint, into the Liberal Party to form the Liberal Democrats.

So UKIP?  Good local MPs like Douglas Carswell will likely hold onto their seat.  Maybe Farage will be elected and maybe also a few others.  One problem that they have though, is that their most well known personalities are elected members of the European Parliament and so if they stand in the UK General Election, then they will be open to accusations around their having their noses firmly stuck into the EU trough or, if they resign and stand, as causing unnecessary expense for the British taxpayer, etc..

The Lib Dems?  Not sure that they are entirely in terminal decline but a post election merger with Labour wouldn't be too outrageous.  Many, some would say most, Lib Dem policies are very socialist.  Indeed, in some areas, the Lib Dems seem to outdo the Labour party in their interventionist, nannying kind of way.  The Lib Dems will suffer badly (and rightly in my view) at the next election and will lose significant numbers of seats, perhaps even, being wiped-out in Scotland.

So to the Conservatives.  They are very trusted on economic matters but there is a strong sense that on the very important issue of the EU, David Cameron cannot entirely be trusted (this indeed is a big part of the reason for the rise of UKIP).  On crime, the Conservatives have a good story to tell.  Similarly so on Welfare, where people see the 'welfare cap' as a good thing, (though still too generous) and other welfare reforms as long overdue, and on Education, where there is a quiet revolution underway - Trojan horse school scandals, notwithstanding.  On defence matters people are  trying to square the idea of defence cuts with an increasing need for military engagements around the globe.  The partnering approach to this is being accepted (grudgingly).  On the environment, there is not much 'clear green water' between any of the parties.  All slavishly follow the highly flawed IPCC reports and the fatuous EU Carbon Emission Targets, though I sense that there is a growing sense of scepticism within Conservative ranks - not least because of the economic costs involved.  You can expect that scepticism to soar if there are power outages during the coming UK winter.

All said and done, I believe that the Conservatives will be the largest party at Westminster after the next General Election.  Though they will likely be short of an overall majority and with a much diminished Lib Dem party, have difficulty in forming a coalition.  Given the passing of the Lib Dems favoured legislation on fixed term parliaments, this will present the UK with a period of political instability!

Which just leaves us with the Labour Party.  Prior to the Scottish Independence Referendum, Labour probably thought that the Conservatives were their main opponents.  Keep banging-on about tax cuts for the rich and so on and Labour would sweep to power.  The way of the UK system certainly favours them.  Notionally, they require just over 35% of the votes to be in Number 10.  However, that is much less certain now.  The SNP, who, in my view, are the real 'elephant in the room' are expected to make very significant gains at the expense of Labour.    To many Scottish voters, they are faced with a choice between a socialist Labour party that represents the whole of the UK and a socialist SNP that puts Scotland's interests, first.  Why would a Scottish socialist vote for Labour?

And that is before you take account of the turmoil in which Labour finds itself, in Scotland.  The Scottish Labour leader, Johann Lamont, has resigned and in the process lambasted Ed Miliband and the London-based Labour elite.  While Ms Lamont has lost a Christmas fraternal greetings card from Ed, she has done Scottish Labour (and the people of Scotland) a great service, with her exposure of Miliband's inadequacies.

It is not only in Scotland that Labour is coming apart.  On the economy, their solution of 'what we need is more debt and more borrowing' doesn't resonate.  People know that this is how we got into the mess in the first place.  And they don't forget who was in charge at that time!  On Europe, the charge is that 'Labour don't trust the people' and not agreeing to a referendum, indeed opposing the Conservative backbencher attempts to enshrine one in law, just reinforce the view that Labour are pro-EU.  On immigration, a very hot topic for voters and a vote winner for UKIP, Labour are seen as the architects of the current situation.  The Conservatives don't get off scot-free but immigration is a stick of rock with Labour written all the way through it!

Thinking about that - the  two big UKIP issues - immigration and the EU, see them diametrically opposed to Labour.  So if these are key issues for the electorate, one would expect to see Labour suffering more than the Conservatives.  The latter certainly lean more UKIP's way on these issues.

Back to Ed Miliband.  What a sorry excuse for a party leader.  One who owes his fratricidal elevation to union block votes and who is now in a continual sniping war with the very same union bosses who 'annoited' him and whose unions bankroll his party.

The silent support for Miliband, from his front-bench colleagues is deafening in its absence.  The buffoonish Ed Balls thinks he should be party leader, while ignoring his exceedingly close proximity to the Treasury, when Labour were in power and ruining the economy.  The Labour deputy leader, Harriet Harman, is fixated on pushing a 'feminazi' agenda by wearing slogan shirts in parliament.  When she is not seeing evil intent in every utterance by or action of, a male she must sit, in her quiet moments and ponder how foolish she and her husband, fellow MP Jack Dromey, were to push a Paedophile Information Exchange agenda, when they were on the executive of the National Council for Civil Liberties.  It is a sign of great concern that she would think how foolish they were rather than how wrong.  This alone should be enough to consign her (and him) to the rubbish bin of political history.

So while these Labour heavy-hitters are so otherwise engaged, Ed continues to flounder.  Some people say that politics is about policies and, they are largely right but don't discount the personality factor.   Nick Clegg came out of the 2010 Election debates so much better than Gordon Brown and David Cameron because of his 'niceness'.  Brown was seen as arrogant and less competent than he himself believed, and Cameron's message was delivered in a manner that was perhaps uncaring.

The 2015 General Election debates will see a personally confident Cameron versus a bumbling Miliband.  Miliband's speaking, the nasal and whiny delivery just grates on one.  Whatever message he is trying to put across gets lost in a general annoyance with the delivery!  Farage will do okay, in his matey, ' I might drink in the saloon bar but I am in touch with the views of those in the public bar' approach but I doubt he will have the breadth of subject grasp that will survive scrutiny.  Clegg?  He will be caught between a rock and a hard place - trying to defend the Lib Dems time at the top table and to differentiate.  (Incidentally, a much better analogy that rock and a hard place is 'being between the dog and the tree'!)

The issues?  The economy, immigration, EU and welfare.  Funded tax cuts rather than debt-funded ones will appeal.   I don't think the NHS will loom as large as in previous elections.  Labour will bang on about it but are very susceptible on the fiasco of Labour-run NHS in Wales and the truly shocking incidents at Mid Staffs hospitals and elsewhere.

So a hung parliament in 2015 and a further election later that year or early in 2016, once Labour have a new leader.  Oh and not forgetting a much improved Westminster presence for the SNP.

File this one away and come back and see how accurate I am!!



 

What is Scotland worth?

I ask this question because it seems to me that the Scottish Nationalist argument all boils down to money.  'It's Scotland's oil' they scream and then prattle on about how Scotland's economy will flourish after they gain independence. 

On the revenue side, Scotland will gain complete access to oil revenues however, all indications on the cost side indicate that Scotland will be close to, or in deficit due to current and future expenditure plans.  Scotland is sitting on a demographic time-bomb relative to an aging pension-requiring population.   For argument's sake, let's say the economic picture is neutral - maybe positive in the short to medium term and moving to negative in the longer term as oil and gas production declines and welfare costs continue to climb.

If you listen to some SNP supporters, you will be told that Scotland was 'sold' to the English for £400,000 (£40 million in today's money).  That amount is the debt that Scotland's then ruling elite faced, because of their failed Darien Scheme, back at the turn of the 18th century.  The argument is that this debt forced Scotland to go 'cap in hand' to the English and union was the price that England demanded. 

So is that what Scotland is 'worth'?  I would strongly say no. 

However, I measure Scotland's worth not in monetary terms but in what the Scottish people, in union with those of England Wales and Ireland, have achieved, together, over the years. 

Created the largest empire that the world has ever seen and brought democracy and legal systems that continue to be used for the benefit of great swathes of mankind.  Topically, consider India just now holding parliamentary elections using the British-inspired democratic model.  We Brits did that! Together!  Contrast that with other countries where power is obtained by the gun and maintained by the gun and by fear! 

Some, including myself, have harped on about government spending and have used that as a measure of Scotland's 'worth'.  The argument is that Scotland receives a higher per capita share of government spending than does England and so relies on English money/largess.  Factually that is so but that doesn't mean that Scotland is somehow 'worth' less than other parts of the United Kingdom!  Statistics show that in 2009, Scotland had a Gross Value Added/per capita result of £19,744.  This compared with £20,442 for England.  However, The North East of England results shows £15,621 but no one suggests that the 'geordies' are somehow not British or should have independence or are 'worth' any less than any other Briton!  Given some of the well-documented social deprivation in the North East and above average levels of unemployment, the per capita spend there is likely higher than in other parts of England and indeed, maybe also Scotland but there is no clamour for Free Newcastle - Free Newcastle Brown Ale, maybe- but no shouts for an independent GeordieLand.

What has prompted my questions on the 'worth' of Scotland is that there seems to be far too few non-Scots and UK MPs speaking on the issue of the independence referendum.  I said here ( http://bit.ly/1kaSHzb) that the United Kingdom seems to have no Plan B if the Scots do vote for independence, but equally I am saddened by the lack of passion coming from Westminster politicians.  They should be making speeches extolling the virtues of the Union and daily banging on about the risks that an independent Scotland face:

Risks like uncertainty over its currency - can't be the pound, might have to be the Euro.

Risks like the very clear steer from the EU, that a newly independent Scotland would have to apply for membership of the EU - membership that would require border controls with England (because Scotland would not have the Schengen opt-outs that the UK enjoys). 

Risks like Scotland having to adopt the Euro as its currency - risks that, if the Scottish Nationalists are right about the strength of an independent Scotland's economy, then that means Scotland contributing to the bail-out of the next Euro-crisis victim (there will be more!).

David Cameron is currently in Scotland and making speeches in favour of a No vote but when I hear him speak, I don't hear any passion.  The deafening silence from Labour's Ed Miliband and the Lib Dems, Nick Clegg is especially concerning, given that Scotland provides a large number of UK parliamentary MPs for those parties.

So my message today, is to all those concerned for the Union, SPEAK UP!  Get on social media and show your pride in being British , whether you are Scottish, English, Welsh or Irish.  Tell the world how Great is Britain and what we, as a united nation have contributed to the world. For example, how a Scot, Sir Alexander Fleming, discovered penicillin, while working in England.  How the Brits brought democracy to the world!  The Greeks only 'invented' the word!


 

Farage vs Clegg - EU Debate

The title is a little mis-leading as it should more properly say Farage vs the Elite.

On Wednesday evening, Nigel Farage, leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) participated in a debate with Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrat party.  They debated issues around the UK's membership of the European Union (EU).  Farage wants the UK to exit and Clegg wants the UK to remain a member albeit he 'understands' the need for reform.

The politicians that were present or commenting on TV, provided differing views of the outcome of the debate.

The Conservatives (coalition partners with the Lib Dems but the only one of the three major parties to offer the prospect of a referendum) scored the debate as a 'score draw' - both sides landed some good punches but  overall a draw.

The Lib Dems, unsurprisingly, saw a 'hands down' win for Clegg.

Labour decided to pursue their soundbite campaign about the 'cost of living crisis'.  That they couldn't offer much in the way of an opinion is not entirely surprising since the recent ramblings of their leader, Ed Miliband, on the subject, would keep a gaggle of Vienna psycho-analysts occupied for years trying to decipher the meaning.  The Miliband babbling in answer to 'Will Labour hold a referendum' amount to ' Umm, err, Umm, maybe, only if, yes, no' etc.

UKIP, again unsurprisingly, saw it as a victory for their man and also for their party.  Seeing their man at the 'top table' with the grown-ups.

Although I was in a time-zone four hours in advance of the UK, I watched the debate.  I scored this as a victory for Farage.  I wouldn't disagree with the YouGov poll which scored Farage at 57% and Clegg at around 39%.

Clegg accused UKIP of pursuing 'scare tactics' (for shame, Nigel!) over an election pamphlet that suggested that 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians were about to take-up their rights and flock to Britain.  Since the combined total populations of these countries is less than 29 million,  score one point to Nick.  Farage's response was to highlight the fact (which wasn't then contested) that 485 million people in the EU do have the unfettered legal right to come to and settle in, the UK.   The subtext was (unspoken of course, because UK politicians have not yet come around to being open about immigration) that the UK welfare system and free healthcare offered economic migrants a strong incentive to take-up the opportunity offered by the 'open border' currently presented.

Having accused Farage of 'scare tactics', Clegg then introduced some of his own.

Some 3 million UK jobs were on the line if the UK exited the EU.  Major companies would shut down their UK operations if we left.  The rationale appeared to be that our European trading partners wouldn't buy UK manufactures once we left.

Let's deconstruct that for a moment.

This seems to suggest that European consumers and businesses purchase UK goods and services as some kind of sympathetic action - they are 'helping out' the UK by buying things from us, that they don't really need and at prices that they wouldn't normally pay.  Really?  Call me Euro-sceptic but I think that the goods and services we provide to our European  trading partners are wanted by them because they meet our partners need's in terms of quality, delivery and price.  And that is exactly how it should be!

I guess that the further inference is that, in a fit of pique, our trading partners, who are mostly non-governmental organizations, would collectively decide to boycott UK goods and services, to teach the UK a lesson.  Really?

These would be the same organizations that collectively export something like 50% more to the UK than the UK exports to the rest of the EU.  So they would jeopardize their very large export market to aid the Euro-project?  Really?

Oh, and those big business, like Siemens and Hitachi and Nissan - they manufacture in the UK mostly because, within the EU, the UK probably has the least restrictive labour laws.  Why would you set-up a business in France, for example.  In that country, a company doesn't so much employ a worker, as adopts them!  Again, call me Europ-sceptic but I believe that these multi-national companies set-up manufacturing plants and business where it suits them to do so.

Again, Clegg was in scare-monger territory around the need to negotiate so many new trade treaties.  And that the UK would be doing so, form a position of weakness.  While I do recognize that Britain no longer has an empire (honestly, I do!) I also know that we have become a very significant trading nation.  We are ranked as the 6th largest economy in the world and so I reckon we might know a thing or two about how to sign treaties.  We are also a member of the World Trade Organization and the Commonwealth, so don't think that we would start from a ground zero position!

Overall, I think that the risk to the UK economy from exiting the EU is way overblown.  Disruption, maybe a little, but that would come from any re-alignment, indeed, that has happened every time the EU has admitted a new member!

Farage strayed into confused territory when he talked about Human Rights legislation, since this is mostly governed by the European Court of Human Rights, a non-EU body.  Clegg responded with praise for the Euro Arrest warrant and the resulting capture and extradition of a 7/7 bomber.  The inference was that without the EU, Italy would not have arrested and extradited the then suspect.  Really?  Farage's response was to bring in the farce surrounding Britain's 12 year long efforts to rid ourselves of this dangerous man.  Again though, ECHR rather than EU.

Farage struck a very resonant chord when talking about Britain being governed by the British rather than unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.  Even managing to pull in a reference to Magna Carta to illustrate that the British are not exactly novices in the field of representative government (We, the people, to some folks!).

In conclusion,
Clegg didn't persuade me that the UK's continued membership of the EU was, on balance, of benefit to the UK.  Farge's charge that the UK was contributing £55 million, to the EU, every single day resonates, especially when 'austerity' (otherwise known as living within your means) cuts are occurring in the UK!

Some might benevolently view Clegg's performance as 'courageous' in that he stood up and was counted.  Call me jaundiced but I saw his performance as something like his job interview for a senior, unelected but very well paying, tax-free role, in the EU elite, when he leaves the UK political stage.    

All said and done, to those UK voters, I suggest you vote UKIP in the May 2014 Euro elections and vote Conservative in the May 2015 General Election.  The former will send shivers down the weak spine of the establishment politicians and may promote a more muscular demeanor on EU issues and the latter is the only realistic way that UK electors can have a hope of a referendum on a possible UK exit from the EU.

Labour's bonking mad!

No this isn't a story about over-sexed socialists (unless you maybe include Rev. Paul Flowers) but please do read on.

Ed Miliband, the figure-head leader of the socialists in the UK, the real leader is union boss, Len McCluskey, has indicated that Labour would try to create two new large banks in the UK, so as to promote 'competition.

Now think about that.  We already have 5 big banks in the UK.  We also have building societies (akin to US savings and loans/credit unions).  Indeed, two of these banks are largely owned by the UK people.  The 'people' own more than 80% of Royal Bank of Scotland.

It is entirely unclear what benefits this extra competition will bring.  We now know that Miliband's words have cost the UK taxpayers more than £ billion from the reduction in share prices seen for RBS and LloydsTSB.

Consider also, what happened last time Labour were in power.  This champion of greater competition, then forced through the takeover of the HBOS banking group by LloydsTSB, thereby reducing the number of banking chains!

Consider also, the Labour party's closest banking ally - the Cooperative Bank.  This bank had Rev. Paul Flowers appointed as its chairman, under Labour's 'light touch' regulatory regime.  This is the same Rev. Paul Flowers that is accused of hiring rent boys and using illegal drugs, including Ketamine.  The same Rev. Paul Flowers who is accused of abusing his position as a church  minister to allegedly defraud a charity.  Oh yes, and the same Rev. Paul Flowers who took the Co-Op bank to the brink of bankruptcy!  In the last action, he perhaps proved that he was as qualified as other leading bankers, at least!

So Labour, whose record with banks is, shall we say, patchy, wants to interfere and create competition?

Since when has Labour been so keen on competition?  When did they become the champions of consumer choice?  I ask because there seem to be some areas for which Labour is absolutely opposed to promoting competition.  These are not areas where the incumbents are actually performing well.  Indeed, quite the opposite.

These areas?  Well, the NHS and Education, to name just two.

With the NHS, the UK effectively has a monopoly supplier of health care that is controlled by its provider union personnel.  Can you imagine the uproar that would have followed, if a private health supplier had treated patients the way that the 'envy of the world' NHS treated people at Mid Staffs and other scandal-riddled hospitals?  Does anyone think that Andy Burnham, the Labour minister in charge at the time of these scandals, who tried to hide the truth, would remain in the role, if he were in a private company?  Hundreds of people died unnecessarily and in appalling conditions when their very lives were entrusted to this monopoly provider but, according to Labour, that's okay.

Look also at education, where Labour, again repaying the debts to its union paymasters, consistently opposes any and all reform.  Here the Conservatives have pushed ahead with supporting the establishment of independent schools but much still needs to be done and Labour, and its local authority allies and other members of the payroll electorate, will continue to oppose much needed reform.  As with health, Britain's education system is failing as successive governments have failed to address the core issues because they have focused on 'politically correct' solutions and ignored real world problems.

Apparently, Labour want to see more choice on the high street but I seriously wonder how many people still rely on physical branches and how many use online banking?  When was the last time you went into a bank?

Anyway, usual stuff from Miliband and his socialists.  The 'cost of living crisis' is seen to be being solved, as real wages start to exceed prices and so it is time for another soundbite!  Worryingly, Labour still have a chance that they might be in charge of the UK economy, after the next election.  Miliband the banker - be afraid, very afraid.  Remember who ran the economy alongside the disappeared Gordon Brown?


   

2014 Predictions

Well, if journalists can do this, why can't I?

Scotland will vote to remain in the UK and not seek independence, though it will be a closer-run thing than many first predicted.  Indeed, (hedging bets here) it may yet go the other way given the lack-lustre performance of the No campaign and the reluctance of the UK parties to engage and promote the Union.

The UK (read South-East England) will not be flooded by Romanians and Bulgarians.  Total immigration will be less than 20,000

Pope Francis will continue to amaze the world with his humility and engagement.

Vince Cable will manufacture an excuse to leave the Coalition, at the start of the second half of the year.  Then he will successfully challenge Nick Clegg for the leadership of the Liberal Democratic Party and lead his party to its eventual near annihilation at the 2015 General Elections.

President Obama's Democrats will suffer heavy poll reverses in the mid term elections.  This despite some Republicans seeming to spend more time attacking Tea Party activists than their liberal opposition.

Calls for a full investigation of the horrific events that occurred in Benghazi will gather strength but until the new members are sworn-in, most of the action will be on Twitter, where the Justice for the Benghazi 4 movement will gain increasing traction.  So Hillary remains safe for now but the eventual investigations will haunt her 2016 bid and make her wish she had got them out of the way, with a more compliant Congress.

In a move to improve efficiency, France's Socialist government will enact legislation to cut out the middle-man and have all wages paid direct to the State's tresor.  Apart from making it easier to identify those that exist or participate in the 'black' economy (not a racist statement, before any liberals complain), this will also reduce stubbornly high unemployment as more tax-collectors are hired.

Greece and Italy decide to not follow the French example - rumours that this is because some many of those countries' politicians operate within the 'black' (still not racist) economy will not actually be proven but nevertheless will abound.

The UK's Labour Party will formally change it's name to the Labour,Welfare and Minority Interests Party and will officially abandon any pretence of representing actual workers.

Ed Balls, in a move designed to avoid being sacked by Ed Miliband, will challenge him for the party leadership role.  In a close-run race, Len McCluskey, leader of the UNITE union,  will emerge as the winner, even though not a participant!

UK Prime Minister, David Cameron will react to Labour's attacks about the Cost of Living 'crisis' by abolishing the so called Green Taxes.  This will anger his Lib Dem partners but Cameron will tell Clegg it is the price to pay for support of Clegg's candidacy for a EU Commissioner role.

Cameron will also face internal opposition from those who accuse him of being a TINO (Tory in name only) and such opposition will increase following the Euro elections at which all parties will do badly, except UKIP, who score spectacularly well.  Indeed, it is only the Euro-sceptic MEPs, like Daniel Hannan, that retain their seats on the Euro-Gravy-Train.

The European Commission and Parliament will continue to enact directives that strengthen, on paper,  the undemocratic nature of their rule and which ignore the voices of the European people, expressed through the ballot boxes. 

 Youth unemployment in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy will continue at high levels that will haunt those countries for years to come.  Ireland too will continue to export its problem by large-scale youth emigration and the country will pay its price for EU inspired de-population with large-scale issues around unfunded pension liabilities - as in most countries, pension payments require a working and contributing mass of young people, to be viable!

Moves will continue to seek the impeachment of President Obama but while the mood in America will be marginally in favour, Congress will continue to not represent the will of the people and so Obama will continue in office but will find Congress much less compliant, especially as high-profile cases showing the effects of Obamacare's failures hit the headlines with increasing frequency, as even Obama's media supporters bow to pressure to stop hiding the truth.

China will continue to expand its economy but will be less involved in buying US Treasury bills and funding America's deficit and debt mountains.

Brazil will host the football World Cup but organizational problems will mar the occasion.

Russia will use a very heavy hand to confront their domestic terrorists and will ignore the 'human rights' whining from the West.

Then there are the predictions that are border-line wishes.......

Arsenal confound the doubters and not only win the English Premier League title but also complete a remarkable treble by gaining  victories in the FA Cup and the European Champions League.

David Cameron uses one of the many recesses that the UK parliament enjoys and reads-up on what it means to be a Conservative and then, in an amazing transformation decides to start to implement such policies.  Consequent upon this, Cameron corners Nick Clegg and explains to him the outcome of opposing the changed approach and advises that the Tories will rule in a minority government rather than continue to pander to the idiotic and damaging policies of the Lib Dems.

Notwithstanding the earlier prediction, moves to impeach Obama become a central policy plank and receive wide-spread and united Republican support.  Worried Democrats, pick-up on the public mood and  transfer their allegiance to the camp pushing for the ouster of the would-be Emperor of the Free World.

Difficult to know whether any desires relating to the US Supreme Court, supporting the US Constitution and the American people count as predictions or wishes.  Will they strike down the 'Executive Orders' that are being repeatedly issued by America's ruler, in contravention of the US Constitution or will they continue to pursue a 'leftist' and un-American agenda?

As a choice, this would be a profound wish - that the scales fall from the eyes of politicians around the world and the eco-nonsense ends as soon as possible.  Not only this though, but in an unprecedented attack of common sense, the world's politicians immediately repeal all of the restrictive eco-laws that have so negatively impacted the world.  If, in the process, Al Gore and the climate science lobby were convicted of gross fraud, then that would be an added bonus! 

I could go on.  I have probably thought this before but this time I will say in print, I sense that 2014 will herald some significant changes for America, the UK and Europe.  

 

Labour's dilemma - Welfare and Energy

Readers of previous blogs will have gathered that I am not particularly fond of the UK Labour Party.  Indeed, I have mentally re-christened them the Welfare Party.

However, I feel compelled to offer them advice on where they are going wrong and what they might do to turn things around.  Of course, this blog being open to all, it is just possible that the Conservatives will consider and then implement these.

Welfare - Labour is seen as the Welfare party - the party that values providing excessive welfare to a minority of people more than valuing the efforts of people who actually work for a living.  They opposed the Welfare Cap, even though it still provided an over-generous level.  They have opposed the idea, even the mention, of benefits that are regionally set.  They have constantly placed themselves on the side of the claimant rather than the taxpayer.

Labour's own private polling shows that support for welfare reform is a major vote winner and yet  the left-wing cabal that controls the party, sticks to it's failed and unpopular policies.

So, my advice to the two Eds is  be bold - 'out-Tory' the Conservatives - set the welfare cap below the UK national average wage - let's say at 80% - so £20,000 - show that you have heard the people and understand that it is important to recognize that in order to get people into work, they need an incentive.  Similarly, grasp the nettle of regional benefits.  If people are on benefits and genuinely in need of help, why should those living in a low cost areas get the same level of benefits as those in London, say?  Of course, this still requires the national 'cap' of £20,000!

Energy is much more problematic.  Ed Miliband's conference pledge to freeze energy prices is unraveling.  People see it as a cheap and essentially meaningless offer.  That this harks back to Labour's soviet-style obsession with control, doesn't help either.  Nowadays it isn't just people that have long memories, so do social media sites and blogs.  People dredge-up and post all those comments made by  Miliband when he was part of Gordon Brown's disastrous administration, when he insisted that energy prices had to rise for a decade.  When he initiated so called green taxes that do far more to push-up energy costs for families and businesses, than do the profits of energy companies.

So,

• Abandon the green taxes - wins votes across the country from grateful voters who see this as a real and sustainable cost of living reduction.
• Remove VAT from energy bills - see above
• End the subsidies for wind farms  - as well as taking money from 'rich' landowners (core labour policy) also garners rural votes from people who oppose the despoilation of the countryside.

Of course the Conservatives just might beat you to the punch on these - after all, they finally did on the EU Referendum (though Labour still have time to jump on this popular bandwagon) but you still have time!


  

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. 

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? 

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.



 

Questions on the Livingstone silence

I am wondering what we should deduce from the relatively deafening silence from politicians and media about Ken Livingstone and his treatment of income, taxes and NIC.

I can understand that perhaps they would not have the 'front' to be so hypocritical in publicly slamming such schemes (or do they call them wheezes?) but could it be that these 'pillars of society' and champions of transparency adopt similar tactics?

I don't see Conservatives and Lib Dems making political hay at the embarrassment of a tax avoiding political opponent.

Equally, I don't hear or read  Labour saying or writing anything.  They must be shamed at money being denied to the blessed NHS by such activities but not a peep from the Right or the Left.

The BBC and indeed the print media seem reluctant to pursue the stench of hypocrisy and are leaving all the running to the 'twitteratti'.


Truly we live in strange times

With Ken 'left' of Ed Miliband, what do you think would be being said by Ken, if the roles were reversed.  What would Ken be saying of a Conservative or Lib Dem in a similar position?

My view? 

This isn't a time for genteel politeness.  This is the time for Ken Livingstone's political career to be justifiably killed off in order to put us all out of his misery!

Red Ed's Class War but not on RMT bonus

Speaking at Prime Minister's Question Time, Labour leader Ed Miliband said:

I think we've now heard it all. Because he says that the class war against the bankers is going to be led by him and his cabinet of millionaires. I don't think it's going to wash.

'Class War' doesn't that have a real retro ring to it?  

So, the taste of blood from the dis-honourable hounding of Stephen Hester and the de-knighting (or is it mistering?) of Fred Goodwin has emboldened Red Ed to show his true Marxist colours.

While this would have pleased his deceased Marxist father, this will surely be a cause for great concern to all but the most extreme left wing of his party.  Many die-hard Labourites might talk of 'class war' and want to re-instate Clause 4 but the realists within, know that the UK electorate and particularly that of England have no stomach or affinity for 'red in tooth and claw Socialism'.

These die-hard  Labourites would include Bob Crow, leader of the RMT union.  This union, which represents workers on the London Underground railway, has rejected an additional bonus award of £500, for drivers, which is on top of an earlier bonus award of £1,200 for working during the Summer Olympics, because those on leave or off work wouldn't get it. 

Yes, that's right!   They get a bonus of £1,200 for doing their job.  Not extra, just their job.  Then the Tube drivers are offered an additional £500 for doing their job.  However, the union rejects this because those that aren't doing their job because they are off work or sick, won't be getting a 'just doing your job' bonus! 

That's the unreal world to which 13 years of Labour maladministration has brought us!

Say what you like about those greedy bankers, they don't get a bonus for just turning up at work, they have to actually meet some targets as well!

I posited earlier that this declaration of 'class war' will cause concern for Labour politicians but dear reader, have no expectation that they will actually stand-up and denounce Red Ed.  This, after all, is the party that still can't apologise for turning a blessed economic inheritance in 1997 into the economic disaster that we saw in 2010 and with which the Coalition government are now grappling and through which we are all suffering.  They will prattle on about the global economic crisis, which I seem to recall that Gordon ' I abolished boom and bust' Brown claimed to have single-handedly defeated, but the roots of Labour's economic mismanagement were fed by their addiction to ever higher State spending.  The UK economy was in trouble and overspending long before the economic house of cards started to collapse.

How do you think that Red Ed's declaration of Class War will sit with brother David?

Writing in the leftist New Statesman magazine David opines:

The weaknesses of the “big society” should not blind us to the policy and political dead end of the “Big State”. The public won’t vote for the prescription that central government is the cure for all ills for the good reason that it isn’t.

 The more charitable observers suggest that this is David helpfully suggesting that Labour should get its head out of a particular orifice and the past, and re-think its obsession with 'Nannyism'. 

Ed though, has other thoughts.  His direction is back to those heady days of Spend, Spend, Spend and Tax, Tax, Tax, to the time when policies could be launched off the cuff at a nice tete a tete lunch with a journalist ally and then consultants engaged to flesh out the details etc. and never mind about the cost!  To those days when The Guardian would make a Sunday supplement thump on the doormat, in the middle of the week, when it contained all of those pages of public sector job ads.

Ed needs to be careful though.  In my view, the electorate have come to see through the policy of spending money that we haven't got.  Not all the way, but they are looking at it and saying - it doesn't add up.  Also, there are only so many bankers on which he can feast, who after that, will satisfy his bloodlust?

Have a nice day and try not to worry, I don't think Ed will last 'til 2015 and the next election!
 

Phoney Outrage at RBS bonus

Hypocrisy knows no depths at the (still yet to apologise) Labour Party.

It was Gordon (I have ended Boom and Bust) Brown and Alistair Darling who brought in Stephen Hester to be the CEO of RBS, in succession to the Labour-honoured but then disgraced, Sir Fred Goodwin.

It was these two who agreed and signed off on the compensation package for Hester.

Now we have cheap point scoring by Ed Miliband and his jolly band of overpaid media supporters saying it is a 'disgrace' and the government should intervene, etc..  I won't go into Labour's complete lack of success whenever it 'intervenes' as that would take toooo long. 

However, it is interesting to see only politicos, and most (all??) of those never having held down a real job, criticising the payout.  I guess their lack of understanding of contractual matters is to be expected - they seem to be pathologically unable to keep their election promises, after all.


My advice to Stephen Hester - tell the board that 'no, I want my full contractual entitlement, £1.6 million or thereabouts,  I want it in cash, oh and given the unprofessional way that you and the major shareholder handle bank affairs and most particularly my confidential compensation issues, I consider that I have been constructively dismissed - see you at the tribunal, where I will seek full compensation!'

Then Vince and George can figure out how they will get any banker of stature to take on the poisoned chalice that is RBS CEO and while they ponder, watch the share price of RBS spiral downwards and with it the taxpayer's 'investment'.

As you would expect with politicians, hypocrisy is leaking from Labour and finding a home with Lib Dem Jeremy Browne.  He talks of

"There's a question of honour. Even if there's a contractual opportunity for him to have a bonus it doesn't mean he has to accept it."

And exactly what is teh question of honour?

Mr Browne said Mr Hester was paid more in three days than a soldier serving in Afghanistan received in a year.
"He should reflect on that. He is effectively a public servant in a bank which is almost completely owned by us the taxpayers," he said.
"He needs to think like a public servant who has a duty to his country, not just his own wealth." 

Are we also going to see all Premier League footballers having their compensation packages attacked, as well?  What about newsreaders, the Director General of the biased BBC? union leaders like Brendan Barber and Bob Crowe? GPs and Council Leaderss?  Maybe fatous MPs and junior ministers?
 
AS for Boris - well he has an election coming up.  I think he will come to regret his short term opportunistic sound bite.  As an aside, I really can't understand what he is doing in Davos though.  Same applies to Ed M.

Ed Balls, Labour and the S word

Sorry really does seem to be the hardest word for Labour!

Ed Balls is now saying that Labour supports a pay freeze for Public Sector workers and won't seek to reverse expenditure cuts.

On Public Sector pay he said:

It is now inevitable that public sector pay restraint will have to continue through this parliament. Labour cannot duck that reality and won't. There is no way we should be arguing for higher pay when the choice is between higher pay and bringing unemployment down.
I know there will be some people in the trade union movement and the Labour party who will think of course Labour has got to oppose that pay restraint in 2014 and 2015. That is something we cannot do, should not do and will not do.

And on the expenditures cuts he said:

My starting point is, I am afraid, we are going to have keep all these cuts. There is a big squeeze happening on budgets across the piece. The squeeze on defence spending, for instance, is £15bn by 2015. We are going to have to start from that being the baseline. At this stage, we can make no commitments to reverse any of that, on spending or on tax. So I am being absolutely clear about that.

There was some additional waffle and some luke-warm support for the other Ed but nowhere does he say Labour was again wrong on the economic issues - nowhere.  I have scoured the leftist blogs (its okay I was wearing disposable gloves so I don't think anything rubbed-off) - but nowhere do I see the S word.

As I said earlier, Labour can apologise for the 1848 Irish potato famine, they can apologise for the UK's role in the slave trade but economic failure, failure to adequately regulate the banking sector  - nothing to say sorry for, according to their leftist vision. 

Ed Balls was at the very heart of the incompetency that was Labour's economic 'policy'.  Not on the periphery, he was an economics advisor to Gordon Brown (sorry for using such bad language) and  then he became a government minster, all the while, being one of Gordon's inner cabal. 

Labour supporters must be in a whirl - how can the cuts be wrong one minute (per the 2 Eds) and suddenly ok the next.  Same for the pay freeze.  Flip-Flopping in Westminster used to be confined to MPs and their second homes but now Ed Balls has brought this into a core area of Labour policy.

Can I expect them to support my campaign to get Grantham to properly recognize Margaret Thatcher?

Miliband re-launch sensation

Bet the title caught you by surprise.  Miliband and sensation in the same sentence.  The so-called re-launch might just as easily have passed you by, what with Tesco knocking 30p off of a dozen eggs and still giving Club Points!!  (Just kidding!)

Seriously though.

I would have expected any statement from Ed to have started:

"We are sorry."

"Let me say that again.  We are VERY sorry."

"We got it spectacularly wrong on Public Spending.  We were way too arrogant and conceited when we said we have abolished 'boom and bust' - I was there and I know how we strutted around!"

"We were wrong (boy that is a difficult phrase, to say!) to focus on unaffordable spending and not impose adequate regulation on the banking sector"

"Equally, myself and my other Ed have been wrong to keep on banging on about not making cuts and spending our way out of the recession."

"As a fair-minded member of the media or public, you know I couldn't just get elected and then ditch all these sacred cows, overnight.  Didn't you?  You must have expected me to show some deference to the union chaps that were kind enough to elect me."

"So now I am going to follow David's lead (Cameron that is, not my brother) and try to get people focused on 'responsible capitalism' (got a nice ring to it, don't you think?).  Of course there will be times I will over-step the mark and damage a business or two, but who will really notice? We can always blame that on the policies of the last government (Note to self - should I really say that?) "

"Some are saying that by now my poll ratings should be turning upwards.  Well to them I say, we are three years into this downturn, if the economy can't turn up, why do you expect me to?  I know some would say that with such a gloomy picture, Labour should look to be in a better position but how can I help it if The Guardian can't increase it's readership?!  After all we did for them, with thousands of pages of jobs and stuff - ungrateful, if you ask me!  Same for all those public sector workers - we gave them everything - okay much of it on other people's money but still..... "

Just why does Labour have a problem saying sorry for its mistakes?  It said sorry for Slavery, for the Irish Famine but can't find it in themselves to say sorry for their failings.

We have all heard the expression 'a labour of love'.  Now we know that Labour is the same as Love - it means you never have to say sorry!

Gus O'Donnell interview

The UK Cabinet Secretary (a Civil Service post) retires on December 31, 2011 and has given an interview.

In this, he highlights the three key issues facing the UK;  The EU, The Economy and the Union.

The EU - If you believe some, the UK is isolated and so can expect to have little influence.  Reality though, is we are still a member and as such need to continue to push for reform of EU institutions in spite of what some petty Euro MPs think of us.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100124965/time-for-britain-to-make-the-great-escape/

Click on the above and Open!

The Economy -  Everyone (except Ed 'I think we should borrow more' Balls and Ed ' does my voice sound funny and whiny to you' Miliband) agrees that 2012 is going to be a hard year, and 2013 doesn't look great either!  However, stopping the austerity measures isn't really an option.  Indeed many say the cuts should be deeper and more immediate.

Also, the fate of the economy is inextricably linked to the actions (or rather, non-actions) taken by the EuroZone members.  At some  point, fairly soon, I expect (not wish for) that the financial markets will lose patience and will attack one of the Eurozone members.  I would not be surprised if they took a tilt at France.  The exposure to sovereign debt for French and German banks is worryingly high.

The Union - I have posted before.  Have a referendum in Scotland and one in England and go with the wishes of the people.  No more delay.  I see that Alex Salmond and the Welsh leader, Jones have requested a meeting with Cameron to discuss his handling and us of the Veto at Brussels.  They both full well know that Foreign Policy is a 'reserved' policy and falls outside the ambit of the devolved administrations.  Their comments are posturing such as only petty people can manage.  Time Cameron slapped them down and sent them scurrying back to their Celtic palaces.

I have just re-read the paragraph on The Economy.  Why is it that in the case of Labour, two Eds are not better than none?

Incidentally, Gus O'Donnell is retiring aged 59.  Presumably on a sizable pension linked to his final salary of around  £235K and index-linked for life!