Public Sector strikes

If you are of a socialist persuasion, please look away now.  This will likely seem hurtful.

In fact if you are of a Conservative ministerial persuasion, also look away, as you probably won't like this, either!

I have posted here before about public sector strikes  http://bit.ly/1jj5yCz and here about the tube strikes http://bit.ly/1oMwA4o but essentially the problem comes down to two things.

Firstly, 'pilgrims'.  I have written before, here http://bit.ly/XHPGin  and here http://bit.ly/1qQ7e7y about these.  For those that don't know, a 'pilgrim' is a union official that essentially works full time on union business while employed (and paid)  by a public sector organisation.  This costs the taxpayer, twice.  First to pay for the union organiser and second to pay someone else to do the job that he/she was actually hired to do!  The cost to the taxpayer is estimated to run into the 100's of £millions level.  That is money that could be used to reduce taxes for working people - people like those that struggled to get to work yesterday, because of the public sector strikes.  Money that could repair potholes, or provide adequate care for the UK's elderly - but please, after Mid Staffs, not in the caring or their version of the word, NHS - or money that could reduce the debt burden that the country has.

Just as importantly, if action is taken on pilgrims, then the public sector workplace might actually become a place of work!  Somewhere where the class warriors of the union movement have to actually do some work rather than sit around agitating for change and salary increases.

So, Angus Maude, George Osborne and David Cameron - Action Please!  This shouldn't require an act of parliament - there was none passed to get these parasites into place.  What is needed is clear guidelines sent to all ministers and Permanent Secretaries that this practise must cease forthwith and, no later than August 31, all such posts to have been abolished.

Yes the unions will howl.  So will their paid lobbyists - Labour MPs - but here's something for Angus, George and David to consider, my money is on you never being able to get their votes, anyway!  So be like Nike.  Just do it!

Re-reading the above, I realise I have just wasted 15 minutes of my life!  Maybe I have the makings of a pilgrim or union official myself!  Why wasted?  Because Conservative politicians simply won't tackle this issue.  Just like they won't tackle the high salaries paid in the public sector nor the cosseted pension schemes that public sector workers enjoy.   

Face it, we have Conservative politicians - certainly the leadership - that do not follow Conservative policies or pay only the flimsiest of lip-service to same.  In the USA, people have a term for those Republicans that act in a similar fashion.  They call them RINOs - Republicans in Name Only.  What can we call such British Conservatives?  Polite answers only, please!

Opinion polls regularly show that the people of Britain 'get it'!  They understand that, as a country, we have been living beyond our means, for years.  They know that change will be painful.  They know too, that taxing the 'rich', ever higher amounts won't be sufficient, in the long run.  The cause of the government debt problem isn't on the revenue side.  It is on the spending side.  Deep cuts need to be made in welfare, health and local government spending.  Let me repeat that - deep cuts.  And these cuts MUST be on personnel levels.  These cuts need to be made to the bureaucracy not to the front line - so in health, tear out layers (plural) of management not nurses or doctors, -  in education, remove all of those local officials, yes all, provide direct funding to the school governing body at an agreed figure - let's call it £5,000 per pupil per year and then let the headmasters/mistresses and the school governors decide how to utilise those funds - in local government abolish planning departments, abolish community outreach departments in fact abolish and abolish.  Just leave local government with a few basic tasks - repairing local roads, administering social housing (until this can all be sold-off), collecting household waste and, no that's it.  Just those basic tasks.  These wouldn't require a bloated and over-paid bureaucracy.

This isn't about bashing the unions.  Seeing them with a significant reduction in membership (they mostly represent public sector employee) would be a happy by-product.  Seeing them having to use their own funds to pay for these pilgrims is a scandal that must be righted, immediately.

This though, is about having the courage to do what Britain so desperately needs - a strong government doing what is right for today's and tomorrow's Britons.  Not sure that the Conservatives have the stomach for it so it will probably need to wait for the inevitable financial crunch to happen.  Then we can blame outside forces and the 'gnomes of Zurich' and the Euro and all the rest - anyone but our spineless politicians and the rest of the elite, not forgetting of course, the biggest culprits - ourselves for letting this happen!.


 

MPs pay

Regular readers will know that I couldn't let this topic pass, without commenting.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) has recommended that members of the UK parliament should receive salary increases equaling 11%.  At the same time, there would be cuts in allowances and changes to pension rights which, say IPSA, would make the overall impact a net zero cost.

I am quite okay with those proposed changes to allowances.  In my view they are already too high, so this little bit of pruning won't go amiss.  They are also largely tax-exempt - even in the socialist paradise that is today's Britain, some are more equal than others.

Similarly, the pension changes are merely 'tinkering' which bring the golden pensions that MPs currently enjoy, just the tiniest bit closer to those which other public sector workers have.  Note the comparison - public sector workers!  Not the poor benighted souls in the private sector.  They continue to have pensions that are far inferior to those of the cosseted civil servants, which they nevertheless, fund!

Maybe you disagree that MPs enjoy good benefits?  After all, why would so many of them be forced to 'fiddle' and cheat on their expenses if they were so generous?  I say fiddle and cheat because I have decided to mince my words and refrain from calling the activities lying and stealing, though that is what the courts in a few 'show trials' seem to have decided.

Consider this though, how many businesses could fund an 11% increase in base pay by cutting back on other benefits, without those 'benefits' already being way too high in the first place?

Ed Miliband, from the socialist Labour Welfare Party, remains true to form.  Being of the socialist frame of mind he cannot resist a free ride.  So when the 'this is outrageous' bandwagon rolls along he has to jump on it.  He has written to the UK Prime Minister requesting that all party leaders meet with IPSA and get the recommendation reversed.  My admiration for his ability to posture, while on a rolling bandwagon, is tempered by the biliousness his opportunistic hypocrisy, generates.

Let's think about this.  Miliband already knows that the UK PM, David Cameron opposes the increase - though I suppose there is no point in jumping on a bandwagon and not letting the whole world know by publishing a letter - but Miliband also knows that IPSA are trying to  establish a process for determining suitable levels of pay for MPs and that implementing such a process is always likely to result in one-off anomalies.  Don't get me wrong, I do not support the increase but neither do I support the hypocrisy that pretends that developing a systematic and transparent approach to the issue is somehow wrong.  I have posted here before on why I think MP pay should be lower and linked to a multiple of the UK National Average wage - one sure way to get MPs focused on improving the 'lot' of all the people.

Here is my suggestion.  The IPSA proposals would not take effect until 2015.  Let's assume that this means, after the May 2015 General Election.   Why don't we have all candidates for election in 2015, publicly declare in their election material,  whether they would accept the increase or if they would refuse it.  If the increase has to be awarded, for practical purposes, then they would commit to donating the increase towards the reduction in the National Debt.  Since they are so adept at increasing this National Debt, their contribution would be a welcome step, for once, in the right direction.

This would avoid a pointless fight between party leaders and IPSA and would give voters a chance to see if their candidate is really with them and recognizes what 'we're all in this together' really means.





 

What kind of cuts are acceptable?

When you look at the newspaper headlines (by the way, that is still allowed, under the Royal Charter!), you may wonder what kind of a country the United Kingdom has become.

The Labour party and their left-wing media allies, led by the Guardian and the BBC, are railing against what they see as swingeing 'cuts' in welfare payments and so called tax cuts for the rich.  Let's consider these.

Labour has christened the removal of taxpayer housing subsidy for spare rooms in social housing as a 'bedroom tax'.  How, even in their twisted 'Orwellian' use of the English language, a removal of a subsidy somehow gets converted to a tax on something, is beyond most people's understanding.  But let's examine further.  The change will see those people that are in receipt of housing benefit, have a deduction made if that benefit covers a property that is in excess of what the family actually need.  So if you have a couple in a three bedroom apartment or house, there will be a reduction in the amount of money, paid by the state because this couple have either one or two spare rooms, depending on other circumstances.  What is wrong with that?  Why should welfare recipients enjoy benefits that are not available to the ordinary taxpayer?  Why should Johnny or Jane Taxpayer subsidize a playroom for someone on welfare, while their own child (ren) must use the living room as their playroom?

Benefits are now capped (albeit at a very generous level) and will only be increased by 1% instead of  CPI - No sane person can reasonably support paying housing benefit of £1,000+ a week - welfare recipients living in housing that they would otherwise have no reasonable expectation of residing in.  No sane person can support welfare payments that are greater than the average national wage.  How could such a system ever hope to wean people off of welfare dependency and make work pay?

 Labour and its socialist allies are juxtaposing these 'cuts' alongside the reduction in the top rate of tax from 50% to 45% as in 'millions suffer while millionaires get a tax cut' type of headlines.  Remember it was Labour that introduced the special 50% rate as a 'temporary' measure.  Their words not mine.  Now the Conservative-led coalition has timidly reduced the rate to 45%, Labour complain.  They don't complain that the temporary measure hasn't been abolished - no, they complain that the temporary measure, that they introduced, isn't being made permanent!

Labour's biggest problem with the welfare 'cuts' though, isn't about the size of the reductions.  Truth is that these are barely scratching the surface.  No the Labour Party's problem is that these 'cuts' are actually popular!  The average working person looks at these and sees that finally, someone is thinking of them and making them appear less like fools, for working for a living.  Couple that with the accelerated introduction which raises the tax-free threshold and takes more and more people out of tax altogether and you can see that Labour is in danger of losing its client state constituency.  That is the big problem for Labour.  How do you get people worked-up about a reduction in the top rate of tax when their own tax bill is falling?  How do you get them angry about people on welfare being faced with the realities of life that the average worker faces every single day?


 

On Being a Conservative

What does it mean to be a Conservative in today's UK?  Does the Conservative Party represent those views?

It seems to me that the Conservative Party is becoming ever more divorced from its principles and supporters as it seems to see being in power as its raison d'etre rather than delivering traditional Conservative policies and rolling back the frontiers of the state.

Taxes
As we run up to the budget, all the talk is about the 50% tax rate or a mansion tax.  Tax cuts?  No thanks we will just give with one hand and take with the other.  When exactly did it become Conservative policy that taxes are to be levied as a right by government and then spent how government sees fit?

Pensions
Part of the budget discussions point to removing tax relief on higher level pension contributions.  So, we tax people highly and then if the individual can afford to put money away for their retirement (probably because the individual  sees that the current model is unsustainable) we penalize them. 

The nettle of means-testing benefits isn't being grasped.  It used to be the case that 'means test' was a shaming phrase.  That was in the days when taxpayer-funded and government-donated support was low, as was welfare dependency. Now Conservatives can introduce the means testing of benefits and avoid the usual opprobrium.  Winter Fuel allowance and Free Bus passes - means test them.  People contributed to their pensions via NI Contributions.  Fair enough!  These additional benefits should be to relieve hardship not bolster income.  But don't expect the Conservative leadership to introduce means-testing.

Defence
We find ourselves embroiled in Afghanistan supporting a corrupt regime that doesn't seem to show any gratitude for us being there (though they are happy to take our aid!) and on a mission that was essentially completed almost ten years ago.  The mission, lest we forget was to get rid of the Taliban government (Done) and chase Al Qaeda from Afghanistan (Done). So why are we there spending money on the defence of that country while endangering our Service personnel and having inadequate funds for the defence of our own people?

Europe
In opposition, many were led to believe we would see a more robust defence of the UK's interests in Europe.  Action would be taken on the European Court for Human Rights.  Bold words have been found to come from a 'paper tiger'.  The UK continues to appear (and indeed act) powerless in front of the EU machine.  Only by the grace of Labour keeping us out of the Euro, are we not now being controlled by technocrats appointed by Germany.

Local Authorities
The Conservatives do not run all - Those they do, should immediately cease all funding of so called 'pilgrims' - Union employees that are paid for by the local tax payers to do union work instead of the work for which they were employed.   The same applies to all of those 'pilgrims' in the central government sector.  The cost runs into tens of millions of pounds.  How can this be allowed, by Conservatives?

Marriage
I have written earlier, on this blog, about changing the status of marriage, so that it includes the civil union between  homosexuals.  However, in spite of promises made, prior to the 2010 election, to recognize marriage in the tax code, nothing has happened.  So the party that promotes itself as being for the family continues to penalize married couples over cohabiting couples.  This in spite of all evidence confirming that children raised within a 'normal' married family achieve better at school, commit less crime etc., etc..

Union
The Conservatives are the party of the UNion.  Yet they are allowing the Scottish Nationalist Party to make all the running as regards the question of Scottish Independence.  This when they both know that a referendum for such independence is one that can only be legal if it is sanctioned and carried out under the auspices of the UK government.  The defence of the Union is feeble and the lies and half-truths and economic claptrap that emanates from Holyrood is left unchallenged.  One supposed upshot of Scottish independence is said to be that  Labour will lose a very significant part of it's Westminster presence.  That is something to be wished for but only if the Conservatives then follow Conservative policies.

Energy and The Environment
The Conservatives have continued with the economic and environmental madness espoused by Labour and also their Lib-Dem Coalition partners and the European Green fanatics.  They continue with a policy to meet a threat - Global Warming - which real science - as opposed to the fakers and falsifying scientists - know is simply untrue.  More and more we are hearing of scientists exposing the lies (they don't do half-truths!) put out by the Climate Change fanatics.  However, the Conservatives continue with these flawed 'green' policies.  They enforce Wind power on communities, subsidize it to the hilt (from rampantly increasing energy bills) and totally ignore the fact that it is inefficient (at absolute very best  each turbine can generate a maximum of 30% of its stated capacity!) and above all else, has to be backed-up with other generating capacity (the wind doesn't blow all the time!)


Welfare Reform
At the first sign of opposition, from the Socialist Workers Party, this Conservative led Coalition, caves in and changes the rules on what was, in reality, never as draconian a policy as it was said to be (the SWP are not known for letting facts get in the way of an anti-capitalist rant).  The so called Welfare Cap is still way, way too high.  How can it incentivize people to get a job when the job they can get is paying less than the cap?  East Europeans will take these lower paying jobs because in their own country, they have no cap and no real safety net - so no work = no life of relative luxury on the dole!

Summary
The only area where this supposedly Conservative-led Coalition is following Conservative policies is in Education.   Here they are freeing schools from the bindings of out-dated and Left-wing controlled PC lobbies.

Elsewhere, I see a Conservative Government whose sole question, since 2010 seems to be 'How can we get re-elected in 2015?  All policies and actions lead to that goal.  The Conservatives have to be about more than just that!!

And, Conservatives don't really have a choice. 

• If you are an employee of the state you can vote Labour, in the sure and certain knowledge that they will use someone else's money to fund your existence.  
• Same for those on welfare.  

But Conservatives? 

Conservative businessmen? -  Continuing to drown in 'Red Tape' and ever higher tax demands.  Conservative private sector employees?- Higher taxes, energy bills, less service and an ever bleaker economic future (whether or not we come under the boot of the German led Europeans)

Please don't suggest UKIP - they are a one-trick pony.  The BNP likewise and their policies are strongly socialist once you get beyond their abhorrent views on immigration.

Someone please tell me that at some point, the Conservative Party will start to act in a manner, and follow policies, that make their supporters grateful that they voted for them.   I don't want to have to wait until 2016!