The Conservative Agenda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Taxing matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



 

  

BBC NHS bias - nothing new

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

Their website says
:

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

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

Let's deconstruct that a little.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Mitchell

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

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

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

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

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

 

From where is Clegg getting all this money?

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

So where does it come from?

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

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


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

Spanish thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clegg, Gay Marriage and 'consultaton'

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister (remember) has made a farcical attempt to retract his painting of anyone opposing so called gay marriage as bigots.  This is the same Nick Clegg that castigated Gordon Brown because GB called an indignant member of the public, a bigot, during the last election campaign. 

I can understand that Clegg thinks it 'right on' to support this policy (or maybe he has been told to support it by the wife?) but why try to follow the example of Lynne Featherstone and further stifle debate, by insulting genuine opponents, who hold dearly felt opinions?

Featherstone, you may remember, launched a 'consultation' process advising that no matter what the outcome of this process, they (the government) would go ahead as planned.  I asked at the time, what was the point of a consultation exercise that would have zero bearing on the issue being consulted upon but answer came there none.  I know, at least she is being honest as it is unlikely that any consultation process actually changes anything but..........

I must be a bigot since I thought we lived in a representative democracy and my view had some value - seems not, if it isn't in 100% agreement with Clegg.

I have written on this proposed legislation before and predicted that the so-called 'we won't force churches to marry homosexuals ' assurance would not stand-up to a ECHR challenge and that is exactly what most commentators are now saying.  Some have suggested that the only way for churches to avoid charges of discrimination would be to not have any weddings no heterosexual and therefore no homosexual.

Sounds like a plan to me!  I can just imagine Cameron and Clegg and Salmond going up against the massed ranks of all those people who consider a church marriage absolutely required.

Come on CofE and the Catholic hierarchy, let's see some leadership!  Make the people see the consequences of this stupid and unnecessary legislation.

Oh and by the way, the economy is still in the toilet.  Let's not worry about that though!

Labour's absence of shame - Updated

The Trades Union Congress conference at Brighton, is the current venue where sales are being made, of what most right-thinking people would consider are very offensive T shirts.

These shirts seek to 'celebrate' the eventual demise of Lady Margaret Thatcher.  They include one with a picture of a gravestone which states "Thatcher: A generation of trade unionists will dance on Thatcher's grave"

Ed Miliband was apparently photographed with somebody that was wearing one of these, just yesterday.  (Apparently because in these days of Photo-Shop, anything can happen).

Notwithstanding the possibility that the photo was faked there has been very little condemnation of the sale of these T shirts - they are still on sale, today - from either the industrial relations dinosaurs at the TUC or their fellow- travelers in the Labour party.

Not really a surprise - the Left always hate and vilify any hero or heroine that doesn't have their hands steeped in the blood of ordinary people - Che Guevara - right on!  Mao, Stalin, you bet, Gerry Adams - invite him to speak and laud the murderer.

This episode speaks volumes about the people that inhabit the Labour party and none of it good.  Small people with small thoughts, from tiny evil minds.  The only time that Labour can think big is in terms of building deficits and mountains of debts and putting their greedy hands into the pockets of ordinary people or of telling lies (I don't care what Hutton said, the Gulf War dossier, was sexed-up!)

Same applies to the TUC and the collective unions that make it up.  Their noses are so deep in the Public Sector trough that they do not accept the need for change and any kind of equity.  They believe that they and their members have an inalienable right to higher pay and better pensions than the poor tax-payer.  Anyone that has ever opposed them, is an enemy.  It is never about what is right for Britain or their industry, it is only about what is right for the union leaders and their twisted political agendas.  I didn't mention union members because, at the end, they are just cannon fodder.  Neil Kinnock, the windbag from Wales and former Labour leader, once spoke of lions led by donkeys, when alluding to far-left infiltration of the Labour Party, I think though he really meant asses!  

If you are a union member, get on the talk shows and social media and roundly condemn the sale of these shirts or else accept the utter contempt in which you will be held by decent people.  If you let the TUC and your union and political party, carry-on like this, it is accepted that you support it (unless you say otherwise).  These folks say that everything they do, they do for you!

I know it is a lot to ask but given the statement on one of the T shirts  "Thatcher: A generation of trade unionists will dance on Thatcher's grave", I don't suppose that Mrs T could do the country, that she served so magnificently, one more favour and be buried at sea?  She did a great job of taking down the unions before, it would be somewhat fitting if her final act was to take down some more!

Here's a tip for Francis Maude and all other government ministers.  Cease all direct talks with union leaders until such time as they publicly dis-associate themselves from these T shirts and the sentiments contained therein.  All talks.  You cannot build any kind of consensus with animals that think and operate like that.

UPDATE 18.35
Seems that the company producing and selling these very offensive T shirts is funded by public money!  Unbelievable but don't expect any action from the Coalition.  Shaming!  Olympics and Paralympics and Murray and McIlroy lift us up and the gutter Left drag us down.

More QE? An alternative

I keep wondering about quantitative easing.  What is the point? Can somebody tell me, in simple terms what it is supposed to achieve? Please?

 If it is to put money into the economy, as some kind of stimulus, then why not just give direct to people (I posted on this here, before). 

If it is to bolster the over-stretched banking sector then surely that reduces the value of the currency for those cash-surplus countries (e.g. China) and gives them cause to ponder investing in one that is effectively being devalued with every QE episode? 

And just who is fooled by this?  The large investors?  I don't think so!   The stock markets?  Surely there is enough liquidity in those, already.  Large corporations?  They seem to be awash with cash but can't or won't invest because of the lack of  direction from the political sphere.

Corporates know that hard times have to come,  they know that there is a political and economic shift to the BRICs and THAT is why they are sitting on cash in the 'West'.  Why would Walmart, Tesco or Carrefour open new stores in their home territories when the expectation is that the locals will be facing straitened times?  Same holds for other businesses and industries.

In my view, if you want to stimulate 'western' economies, governments need to reduce the tax take - leave money in people's pockets so that they can spend - and significantly reduce government spending.  Does anyone really believe that small businesses will take-on staff with all of the attendant regulatory burden?  Clearly, it just isn't worth it. (Incidentally, it was interesting watching the EUcrats try to 'square the circle' the other day.  These people have continuously promoted shorter working hours/weeks and the same folks are telling Greece they should work longer!!).

So unless there is any sound logic to QE, end it and stop putting off the inevitable.

 

Assisted murder - leave well enough alone

The newly promoted junior minister at the Department of Health, Conservative Anna Soubry, has caused a stir by seeking to re-open the debate about so-called assisted suicides.  Her Lib Dem colleague, Norman Lamb,  has jumped into the fray by supporting her.

Let's be very clear.  We are talking about murder.  However you frame the discussion, what this comes down to is the intentional taking of the life of another.  The only times that civilized society countenances this is during war or as capital punishment.  Both of which small l liberals always oppose!

Once again, we see the political agenda being hi-jacked by single issue, very minority subjects and government time and focus being wasted. 

Does anyone think that the biggest issue facing the NHS is the so called 'right to die'?  Or maybe these minister's main priority should be finding ways to reduce the PFI spending in the NHS and ways to CUT the inexorably increasing expenditure and the tearing-out of whole layers of management.  Why are these people straying into controversial areas or morality instead of just doing their job?

What is up with David Cameron?  I can understand that he can exert no control over his Lib Dem 'partners' but surely he can tell the Conservative ministers to stick to their brief and concentrate on getting us out of this Labour-induced mess?  We replace one bunch of people with another and neither have the spine to do what EVERYONE knows is needed. 

The re-shuffle and indeed, the whole conduct of this administration, smacks of a continual re-arrangement of the deck-chairs on the Titanic, rather than the implementation of Conservative policies or the taking of the hard decisions that need to be made.

The reforms to education are welcome but too slow-paced.  Health will now suffer as Hunt tries to understand his brief (the welcome he received from the health unions is VERY worrying).  IDS needs to be bolder and faster on Welfare reform - the working people, in the country do and will support radical reform - don't wait!


Time and again we see drift - let's talk about homosexual marriage or right to die etc., let's not treat the electorate like adults and discuss the very necessary and long overdue economic reforms (otherwise known as cuts and regulatory reductions)

Cameron, get a grip before it's too late!

Reshuffle result - much whining about not a lot

So the reshuffle has kept the media occupied, this week.  Trying to find stories about what was, in reality, largely  a missed opportunity and they settle on whether Cameron was drinking wine when he sacked one minister or whether a wine bottle was present.  All we need now is a denial - 'I did not have relations with that Shiraz (or un-wooded Chardonnay, if you prefer)' - for the farce to be complete.

Truth is, not much has changed.

Laws coming in is seen by many as a good thing myself included, though there's a part of me that wonders if two years in the wilderness is long enough for someone that defrauded the taxpayer.

Patterson is somewhat unknown to me but all reports say he is 'sound' (or a raging Right-winger, to the Guardianist fraternity!).  Putting him in Environment might (only might) see some sense start to trickle into 'green' policies.

The rest?
Lansley was uncalled for - the Health reforms are in law and under way and who knows them better?  Unlikely to be Hunt.  There is something about him that I just can't take - and it's not just the 'goofy' face he pulled when going into No 10!  Maybe it's his clumsy handling of relations with News International and his choice of advisers.

Clarke, why keep him around?  He is of the past (EU views and very liberal on justice).  His so called 'maverick politician' mask only ever really extended to wearing brown Hush Puppies.  His insistence, when Major's Chancellor, on financial rectitude, gifted a golden legacy to the 1997 incoming Labour administration (which, naturally, Brown managed to squander).  He should be gone and not in a position to swan-around taking expenses from the public purse (£120K a year, I saw somewhere!!)

Shapps?  We follow each other on Twitter and he certainly uses popular social media and was very promoting of his housing brief and so this probably suggests a good candidate for party chairman.  Conservative online activity needs a kick up the rear.

Cable - I hope it isn't just the LBJ thing about having him in the tent peeing outwards rather than outside peeing in.  He did sound a little more conciliatory on TV the other day saying he and Osborne are 'in synch' on economic policy.  I think though that this would surprise many people to find that Cable considers his brief is equal to that of the Chancellor's!!

Cameron - Actions, not words, are needed

David Cameron is quoted in a UK paper as saying that the government cannot 'dither' over the economy.

Exactly right!

Will these though just be fine words or will he now have the courage to do the right things?  Will he instruct the Chancellor and the spending ministries to implement significant cuts in spending or will he listen to the foolish and economically illiterate comments from his coalition partners and others concerning tax rises?

Significant cuts?

• Take an axe to welfare spending, 50% less is a good starting point - the Tories don't have the votes of the Guardian or the BBC anyway, so what's to lose? 
• Same for Overseas Aid
• Ditto EU spending and support - the French always try to look down their gallic nose's at us ( our own fault for being the country that repeatedly beat them or rescued them, I suppose) and the Germans want to get domination of Europe, where two wars didn't succeed.
• Cut spending for Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland - They too don't like Tories and Salmond and his ilk use English largesse to 'cock a snook' at Westminster and England and the UK.  If Salmond wants to give free university places to Scots and other EU countries (but not the English) and free prescriptions, then let the Scots pay!
• Pull troops out of Afghanistan - Now!
• Major cuts at the Civil Service-end of the Ministry of Defence - not at the front-line end.
• Local Government - plenty of scope for major cuts.
• Merge police forces.
• Same for NHS - let the various trusts free to manage and let them default on PFI contracts.  These 'sweetheart' deals, mainly signed under the previous Labour 'administration' are bleeding the NHS of  funds for front-line caring.
• Remove the 'climate change' clap-trap from Government - completely - take it out of policies and ministries and so on.  It is totally unnecessary and costs us all, far, far too much.

Be bold across all departments - if the carpets aren't red with the bleeding hearts of liberals, you haven't cut enough.

Cut so far, that you can then spend money on required infrastructure developments that are needed.  Heathrow third runway,  fibre-optic links for all communities, housing. 

In all of this, ignore the false siren calls of those saying raise taxes, the bold move would be to reduce taxes 5p off of the basic rate, raise the threshold to 15K, good steps in the right direction.

If challenged by the opposition (Labour and Lib Dems) you could call it Plan BB - as in Bold and Beautiful?