News update November 10

IAAF and Russia doping
Lord Sebastian Coe is either being excessively polite to the Russian athletics authorities or he is not yet entirely confident that he can persuade the organisation that he now leads, the IAAF, to do the right thing.

The World Anti-Doping Association - WADA - found widespread and state-sponsored support of a programme designed to thwart efforts to root out performance enhancing and other doping, from athletics.  The crystal clear recommendation is that Russia should be banned from international athletic meetings for a period of time.  Such time would include the 2016 Rio de Janiero Olympics.  Consider that there is none of the usual 'bureacratese' about the WADA report - nothing about 'appropriate disciplinary action' or 'measures should be taken'.  WADA are clear - a ban.

Come on Lord Coe!  Send the world of sport a very clear message that doping is unacceptable and will be punished.  This might be harsh on any 'clean' Russian athletes but that's just tough.  Russia needs to suffer for its sins and so that the world of athletics knows, that the IAAF has teeth.

Global Warming
I don't subscribe to the fad of changing a subject title simply because the facts stubbornly refuse to support it!  So I won't be discussing the faddish 'Climate Change'

The BBC and no doubt all of their fellow travellers in the environmental lobby are sounding the alarm bells because the temperature figures for 2015 through to the end of September are 1.02C above the average for the period 1850 to 1900.  They try to slide in a comment about 'confusion' relating to earlier periods but we have seen, time and time again, that the Global Warming scaremongers have consistently fudged and fixed the numbers to suit their pseudo-science.  Always, always remember, these folks have monetary and career based vested interests in pushing the warnings.

The latest data is a joint effort from the UK Meteorological Office and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.  The latter were heavily discredited, and remain so in many people's opinions, by their highly questionable behaviour in the Climate Gate scandal.

The BBC do have the good grace to admit that the so called El Nino weather phenomenon is also a contributory factor in the temperature increase but don't say whether or not this was present during the earlier time period - so we don't know if the data sets are comparing apples with apples!  Nothing new for the Global Warming industry!  

Refugees
Prepare yourself for a shock!

Sitting comfortably?  Okay, I'll begin.

It seems that a leading member of Daesh/ISIS has been discovered among the so called Syrian 'refugees'.  I know, what a shock, almost floored me.  Then I remembered that sensible commentators - you know, those that point out that most of the 'refugees' are in fact young men of military age and these far outnumber the relatively few families - the commentators have consistently predicted that Daesh would use the situation to infiltrate battle-hardened terrorists into Europe.

Don't be surprised at this story, when or more accurately if, you hear about it but do consider how many we don't know about!  It would be naive in the extreme, to suppose that these murderous maniacs have only slipped one killer in among the 'refugees'.  Especially when the extremely foolish Merkel, threw open the German border, to them all.

Incidentally, it seems that the 'refugees' are very fast wearing out their welcome - or in many cases have already worn it out - in Sweden, Austria and Germany. If Twitter chatter is to be believed, these countries are seeing significantly increased instances of rape and child molestation as well has attacks on Christians.  And that is before Daesh get themselves properly situated!  

Yemen
Just thought I would mention it.  It seems to have fallen off of the news agenda in recent months but the few available reports suggest that this Saudi/Iran proxy war is particularly bloody and, as is so often the case, civilians are the largest victim group.

Don't hear too much wailing and gnashing of teeth from Obama's White House though.  One senses that this will run and run.

Israel
You likely won't hear too much about what is going on in Israel either.

Palestinians - remember those people that 'right-on' countries have been rushing to recognise as a state - are entering Israel and then seeking to stab and kill random innocent Israeli civilians.  Old lady on a bus - stab her - in the name of peace!  Group standing at a bus stop - drive a car into them and then jump out and stab them, just to make sure they die - for peace, of course.

You will though, hear the usual Leftist bleating if Israel reacts by sealing off Gaza and the West Bank.  I am kind of surprised that Netanyahu hasn't done this already!

More tomorrow....

French lessons

I have been off 'air' for a while, moving jobs and countries.  While I have been otherwise engaged, the horrific attacks on Charlie Hebdo were perpetrated by Islamists who in turn were hunted down and killed by French police and security forces.  The temptation was to immediately rush onto the airwaves and rant and rave (again) about the evil being perpetrated in the name of Islam, etc..  However, I thought maybe a period of reflection might serve me better.  You judge.

Not for the first time, in the last 100 years, French Jews are under attack and being sacrificed at the hands of their fellow-countrymen.  In 2013 French Jews were killed by an Islamist in Toulouse and now we see again, with the attack on the kosher supermarket in Paris, that Jews have been specifically targeted (also at Chalie Hebdo, so it seems).  In the 1940's it was Vichy French that handed over Jews to the Nazis, to suffer at Drancy and extermination camps in the East and today it is the French who again offer-up the Jews - this time to murderous Islamists.  Just as with the Nazis, so with the Islamists, making victims of the Jews won't ultimately save the French!

So we had the big march in Paris, showing solidarity with the victims of Charlie Hebdo.  The BBC, amongst many news organisations made much of this event.  Many words spoken about the right to free speech and expression, as was exemplified by the writers at Charlie Hebdo.  Then, later in the week, Charlie Hebdo released a latest issue of their magazine and lo and behold, it carried a cartoon on the cover that featured Mohammed and was sure to anger Ismalists.   True to form, the fine words spoken by the assembled mass media, just a few days earlier, didn't translate to many of them and their editors having the courage to display the cartoon in question.  I tip my hat though, to Britain's Guardian which did.  I usually hold this newspaper in contempt but here at least they let their actions match their words.  Bravo!

However, before the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo hit the news-stands, we we treated in the immediate aftermath of the attacks and at the Paris march, to speeches from politicians and world 'leaders'.  All spoke of the importance of the right of free speech and how this must be protected.  Then, with the ink not dry on the editorials which commented upon the speeches and the march, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel,  was telling the organizers of the now weekly Pergida marches in Dresden and other German cities, that it would be best if this week's marches were canceled.  I cannot be alone in seeing the complete contradiction in marching for free speech on Sunday and then advising against it, on Monday!  I lack a thesaurus but there has to be a words stronger than rank hypocrisy to describe such actions.

And think of the consequences of this.  Yet further reinforcement of the actions that have gotten us into this mess.  We mustn't offend, we must appease!

The biggest problem facing Europe, and increasingly America, Canada and Australia, is the failure of multi-culturalism.  Let's be very clear, Muslim immigrants in those countries are not assimilating.  No one is saying that they cannot practice their religion but they need to adopt certain of the host country's values.  Tolerance of other faiths, freedom of speech, the host country law being the only law, learning the language, etc..  Absent this, then these immigrants must be considered as a fifth column and a threat to the peace and stability of the host country and they must be expelled, just as you would do with any other threat.

The leftist policy of multi-culturalism has brought us to this and now we have to stand-up and say enough and then we need to do something about it and carry on doing something until multi-culturalism is consigned to the same dustbin of history where one would find Marxism and Communism.  Let's hope though that the victims that suffer during the ridding of multi-culturalism do not number anywhere near the 10's of millions that suffered and died under those other failed ideologies.

I have just re-read the above and wonder who will take-up the cudgels on this?  In Britain the main parties pay lip-service to a need for change.  The Conservatives just maybe might do something.  Labour spouts about the need to do something about immigration but them having been the ones that threw the immigration floodgates, wide open, they won't because of their need for its ethnic, client constituencies.  UKIP says it would but I really can't see them as a realistic electoral success story.

While Barack Hussein Obama is President of the USA, don't expect any push back.  This is the man that says that the Islamic State murderers are not Islamists!   Those people who are killing Yazidis and Christians, in the most barbaric fashion claim to represent Islam.  The people who carried out the attacks in Paris, and those caught-up in yesterday's shoot-outs in Belgium claim to represent Islam.  Yet still Obama shames America by claiming the contrary.  Perhaps he did the right thing by not attending the Paris march.  Though he wouldn't have been alone in sounding hypocritical with his words, his presence would have been an embarrassment.  Never forget, Obama wrote ' when the winds change and turn against Islam, I will stand with the Muslims'  So his loyalties are clearly known!

Conservatives - The way forward - Part Two

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreign relations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BBC waste

Here are some numbers:

Brazil 1
Russia 2
India 3
China 8

OK so you guessed these are the so called BRIC countries.  The ones with the fastest emerging economies.  The ones where the UK really needs to focus its efforts on selling and understanding these markets, so that we can export our way out of the economic crisis.


Here are some more numbers:

USA & Canada 26
of which Washington, 14
Europe 22
of which Paris, 6 and Rome, Moscow  and Madrid 2 each

Latin America 10

Asia Pacific 32

So the US, Canada and Europe gets a combined 48 - these, to remind you are the old economies.

The numbers?  They are the BBC correspondents assigned to those countries.

14 correspondents in Washington and 5 in Paris - I know the relationship is special and the entente is cordiale but really?

Only 1 in Brazil?  Only 1 to report on what is happening in a country of almost 200 million people with a booming economy?  Only 1 to help us Britons gain a better understanding of the culture of this country?

India and China fare no better - populations of 1.3 and 1.4 billion respectively and booming and complex economies and the BBC can hardly be bothered to turn up.

If David Cameron, William Hague and Vince Cable are serious about promoting trade and getting GB out there, then they really need to speak to the Culture Secretary, Maria Miller, and tell her to get the BBC to be more focused on where the UK needs to be rather than on the cosy and highly remunerative posts in the old world.

And Mr Hague, I would be very surprised if the distribution of Foreign Office overseas staff didn't closely correlate to that of the BBC.

Why the title?  Think about those 5 correspondents in Paris or the 14 in Washington - does anyone think they are free?  That they do not have BBC paid for accommodation, high and tax protected salaries and frankly a good lifestyle?  It's waste because we are not getting value for the money we pay in TV Tax.  

Those of us that suspect the BBC is pro-EU will look at those 5 in Paris and the other correspondents in Europe and will understand why, for the BBC, they really can't see outside of this continent.  They will look at the number for Washington and see why the BBC was so pro-Obama - what better way of exporting the failed social policies of Europe?

Don't expect this to appear on the Saville-denying BBC but other media might follow-up, unless of course they too, have a cosy, easy posting focus rather than one that is forward-looking.

BBC rotten at its core

I have written here before about the liberal and left-wing bias of the BBC.  This applies to its news coverage particularly but also is reflected in it's drama and comedy and light entertainment progamming as well as that which might be described as 'documentary'.

However, that bias was frankly clear to any keen observer and I was in danger of stating 'the bloody obvious', especially to anyone with 'right' leaning political tendencies.

I don't think that any of us could have really been prepared for what is now unfolding at the BBC, relative to the Jimmy Saville cover-up.

For the uninitiated, Saville was a  (then) much admired entertainer and charity funds raiser who transitioned from being a radio DJ into an 'all around good guy' on the BBC.  All the time though, it seems, he was allegedly  sexually abusing under-age girls.  Oftentimes on BBC premises.  Sometimes in the company of other abusers. 

The revelations show that many at the BBC were aware of his sick (and let's not forget illegal) activities but chose to do or say nothing about them.

Following Saville's death, a female reporter, Liz MacKean, put together a TV programme that would expose the  activities of Saville and include first-hand accounts from his victims. 

The BBC chose not to air the segment.  Charitably you might say, because it was going to conflict with two celebrity puff pieces that the BBC was running on Saville and the BBC couldn't really laud him in these and expose him, in the other.  That is the most charitable one could be.  That the BBC didn't want to appear hypocritical!  Heaven forfend!

The less charitable view is that this reflects the view of the liberal intelligentsia and those at the top of the BBC, that the normal rules of society don't apply to them.  This 'elite' (mostly male-dominated) think that balance, fairness and above all else common decency and adherence to the law, shouldn't apply at their 'lofty' levels.  They see themselves as the shapers of opinion - leaders not followers - and well, if the 'public' haven't yet caught-up, 'don't worry, they will, if we, long enough and exclusively, feed them this line'.

So who do I mean, when I say 'liberal intelligentsia'?   The journalists, the editors, the presenters, the governors on the BBC trust - all of these at the BBC.  Look then at media outlets like The Guardian and The Observer which push every 'right-on' cause, simply because, yes simply because, it is 'right-on'.  The same can be said of our 'arts establishment' - those that push cows in formaldehyde or piles of bricks and say it's 'art' and, what's more, the tax payer should fund it!

Politicians and union leaders are not exempt either.  They too look down on 'Joe Public' as just someone to be abused and 'fiscally raped' at every opportunity.

So, what to do?

How about starting with the sacking of the board of governors of the BBC Trust?  Don't let a token resign in a fit of suddenly being overcome with rightful shame - sack the lot - all of them.  Don't replace them with those that are media or politically qualified - that's just fishing in the same polluted pool. 

Move on for a cull of anyone event remotely tainted with the Saville affair.  Yes, that might not be fair but since when has fairness ever meant anything to the BBC?

Then end the BBC TV tax - AKA the TV License Fee - Maybe, just maybe, when the organization is subject to the colder winds of commercialism then the BBC just might be less concerned about constantly sniping at and ridiculing those that pursue the profit motive and favouring those parasites whose only goal in life is to look down on 'Joe Public' and the great unwashed.

Don't for one minute, expect resignations - Peter Rippon, the Newsnight editor responsible for 'spiking' the story, hasn't resigned, he has just stepped back, while the 'investigations' plod on - no, resigning requires a sense of moral duty, of knowing what's right and wrong.  The BBC, as with so many public institutions, don't hire people with that!

If I think back over resignations from senior public roles, the only one that comes to mind, where true integrity was displayed, was that of Lord Carrington.  He was Minister of Defence at the time of the Falklands invasion.  He resigned, not because it was his fault but because he felt his department was at fault and so the honourable thing to do was to quit.

Oh, and don't worry about or believe all of the rubbish about a 'great British institution' - that is just part of the myth - the BBC is just a media company - it has no higher role nor is it independent, save in that it is independent of the people that fund it! 

To those who chunter on about great British institutions, such as the BBC and the 'blessed' NHS and the 'mother of all parliaments' take a look at this sorry and shaming tale.  Still proud of the BBC?  Think back to the MP expenses saga, think of Stafford Hospital and Bristol - Still think these are wonderful?

I am ranting because I am angry!  The 'powers that be' will do nothing, as usual.  A few tokens will be sacrificed and then the gravy train will rumble on but my spleen is a little easier now!

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!

Opponents of Welfare Cap and Arsenal

Great to see former Archbishop of Canterbury speaking out and attacking those bishops that oppose the proposed cap on welfare benefits.

Writing in the Daily Mail, as quoted by the biased BBC, he said:

The bishops cannot lay claim to the moral high-ground.  Considering that the system they are defending can mean some families are be able to claim a total £50,000 a year in welfare benefits, the bishops must have known that popular opinion was against them, including that of many hard-working, hard-pressed churchgoers.


The sheer scale of our public debt - which hit £1 trillion yesterday - is the greatest moral scandal facing Britain today. If we can't get the deficit under control and begin paying back this debt, we will be mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren.


Lord Carey praised the efforts of Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith - whom he called a "committed Christian" - to overhaul a benefits system which, at its worst, "rewards fecklessness and irresponsibility".
He argued the cost of benefits was "increasingly stoking social division" among the "squeezed middle, who feel resentment at the 'handouts' given to the long-term unemployed".
And he said the welfare system, originally designed to tackle "want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness", had become an "industry of gargantuan proportions which is fuelling those very vices and impoverishing us all"

We have heard nothing further from the revolting Lib Dems nor from the flip-flopping Labour Party.  From the former I sense their comments and votes can be put down to posturing and from the latter, since they both support and oppose the cap, what else could we expect?

For Your Information - Lord George Carey is a lifelong Arsenal supporter, which is presumably why his great  intelligence leads him to come to the right conclusion regarding the welfare cap.  Now we just need him to see what he can do to get us a defence, in the transfer window!

Private sector pay

We are just entering the period when financial institutions declare their 2011 corporate earnings and in many cases the 'bonus pool' that will be shared among their employees.

Following the bail-out of RBS, Lloyds and HBOS, the retail and investment banks now fall into two camps.  Part state-owned (see earlier) and those others institutions such as HSBC, Barclays JP Morgan, CitiCorp and Goldman Sachs, which received zero bail-out funding from the UK government  - we will call these latter type - private institutions.

We can expect lots of the usual froth from commentators about 'excessive' bank bonuses and how the 'government ought to do something about it'.

So what can the government do?

Well in the case of the part state-owned RBS, Lloyds and HBOS, they can use the shareholdings, that they hold on behalf of the UK people, to limit the amounts of payouts.  These could be limited to those that are required to meet contractual obligations - some people have bonuses built into their contracts of employment and if they meet certain targets, then legally, these must be paid - and they can then limit other payouts to zero or to certain pay grades etc., however, they and the other shareholders see fit.

In the case of the private institutions, it is really none of the business of government to interfere in how the shareholders (otherwise known as owners) spend the income of their company.

If the government wants to affect such private sector bonus payouts, it could do so through the tax system (as I have proposed, on an earlier blog) but it cannot and should not dictate to private companies on the remuneration that they give to any of their workers.

If the government wants to set the tone around pay restraint, then maybe they should concentrate on the areas which are within its span of control................

So, set a cap on the pay of anyone employed by a public organisation.  So local authority executives, civil servants, military chiefs, ministers, BBC executives, etc.  My suggestion would be around  £100,000 per year.  Many private sector companies have re-organisations and require personnel to re-apply for their role, so do the same with all of the above - get them to re-apply for their job but at a reduced rate of maximum £100,000.  Oh, and let's make the maximum include taxpayer contributions to pension funds.

That might start to sound a little more like 'we are all in this together' in action!

Labour, Cuts and the Unions

Labour is apparently in conflict with its trade union backers because it has now 'apparently' come out in support of public expenditure cuts and 'endorses' public sector pay restraint and goes further and suggests that public sector workers might take pay cuts to prevent job losses.

Labour now 'apparently' supports public expenditure cuts.  However, in certain of its confused and conflicting statements it still maintains that the cuts being implemented, against Labour's opposition, by the Coalition, are too deep and too fast.  That sounds like trying to be both pro and anti cuts.

Interviewed on the biased BBC, by Nick Robinson, Ed Miliband was asked

QUESTION: "Some people think this is curious because it gives you an excuse to say: 'Well we oppose this cut', only to say a few weeks later, 'actually we back it, we've got to live with it'."
ANSWER: "No, it's not about backing the cuts that are being made. We don't want these cuts to be being made. It's not in the interests, for example, of safety on our streets to be having the speed of cuts we're seeing in policing. Or in the interests of the economy to have the overall pace of cuts - that's why we say too far and too fast.

Make your own mind up as to whether Labour back or oppose the cuts and then let Ed know what he should say!


Labour 'endorse' pay restraint.  Well maybe the leader and Shadow Chancellor now do

Ed Miliband recently said:

It's a hard choice, but when you are faced with the choice between protecting jobs or saying the money should go into pay rises I think it's right to protect jobs," he said.

"In the end there's no easy choices in government... I think is absolutely right that we say we've got to prioritise employment."

Several Labour MPs have reportedly criticised the move, among them Austin Mitchell, who supposedly called it 'barmy' and accused Mr Miliband of "weakness".

Mr Miliband said Mr Mitchell was "wrong", adding: "We are absolutely determined that Labour shows we would be fiscally credible in government."

I can't help think that this is a smokescreen and the following backs up my thoughts.

Labour suggests that public sector workers might take pay cuts to save jobs.

I believe this is a cynical attempt to encourage the public sector to hunker down and weather out the economic storm that we are facing.  This is in the mistaken belief that doing so will be temporary and will be lifted when (if,?) Labour returns to power.  The Labour leadership (and their union counterparts) know full well that the country simply cannot afford and will not be able to afford the public sector to ever get anywhere near as big as it was under Labour. 

I am sorry to all those 'diversity officers' out there, and  all the other low-value adding but oh so right on and nice to have positions which get in the way of people living their lives and taking responsibility for their own lives, but you need to find a new career - the country cannot afford to employ your services and pay from the public purse.   


Call me cynical but I can't help but feel that the bluster from the unions is manufactured.  Leaked letters?  Public letters to The Guardian.  I smell an orchestrated campaign.  Goes something like this:

• Labour needs to build economic credibility with the Public.
• Labour to public back cuts because Public endorse and see necessity for cuts.
• Labour to endorse pay restraint in public sector because the Public think that the public sector should share the pain and have been cossetted by Labour.
• Labour endorse 'negotiated' deals that see public sector pay cuts to 'protect' jobs.
• Unions to express outrage, publicly, with letters to the press and privately, with letters that get leaked.
• Cue the two Eds standing firm and saying we have to be responsible and economically credible and then saying things which undermine their earlier stance (the latter is unintended but neither Ed really want to upset their union backers)

Breast Implants - again - The GMC role

Please don't think I am fixated on breasts.  Its the implants I am talking about.  And I am not fixated on those, either!

Where is the illustrious General Medical Council or the army of ambulance-chasing lawyers, in all of this?

Surely the plastic surgeons who fitted (installed?) these implants have a duty of care to their patients?  Following on from this, if they abdicate this responsibility then wouldn't that put them in breach of medical ethics?  (Or for plastic surgeons, is ethics a place you path thru on the way to thuffolk? -sorry, couldn't resist)

Why isn't the GMC, jumping up and threatening all of these surgeons with disciplinary hearings which could lead to a loss of license to practice?  And doing so as a matter of urgency?

After all, the GMC are always quick to get in front of the media when someone in Government suggests that a GP or a precious consultant should maybe be paid a little less  or work a little more (weekends, maybe?).  GPs earn more than £60,000 a year with  very many earning more than £100,000 a year.  Who knows what these plastic surgeons are earning.

Maybe this is an area where the government should impose regulation.  Patently, self-regulation isn't working!

Where too, are all those ambulance chasers?  Do they maybe share a 'lodge' with their professional colleagues and don't want to upset them?  Why are they not advertising on daytime TV?

Maybe it is all because the biased-BBC and ITV seem to have decided that the clearing up of this problem is the responsibility of the taxpayer funded NHS?

All I see on the TV slots about this, is a government spokesperson and then a private plastic surgery patient.  The latter are NEVER challenged on why I should put my hand in my pocket because their vanity operation has the potential to go wrong.  Why should funding be diverted from the care of the elderly or cancer patients (the list goes on) to remove and then replace (because the latter is also demanded) something that these individuals undertook themselves, for their own selfish benefit?

Corporate responsibility in the shape of some (not all) of the plastic surgeons,  seems to have fled the scene. 

Where is the personal responsibility in this?

If I buy anything, from a private supplier, let's say a car, the contract is between me and the company.  The UK government isn't in the picture (and really that's the way I want it).  If the brakes are faulty or the gearbox doesn't function I go back to the car dealer or maybe the manufacturer.  I don't go to HM Government or the Ministry of Transport!

What have we come to?

Cameron pledge on EU

Per the biased BBC and in an incredibly rude interview, on Radio 4's Today programme David Cameron  

has promised to do "everything possible" to stop other EU states discussing the single market without the UK.

He said it would be "wrong" for states which signed up to a new eurozone pact to use EU institutions to discuss issues affecting other member states.
But he said the legal position was unclear and there were "difficulties" with the European Court of Justice.

Does  this mean that the UK is not a member of the Single Market, anymore?  Can we stop being a net contributor to the EU budget?

How can this even be being discussed and why isn't the biased BBC asking EU representatives how they could justify excluding the UK?

The biased BBC use the term 'Pressed' in their report of the interview.  The interviewer, Evan Davis, didn't so much 'press' as badger the UK Prime Minister.  He would not let Cameron answer the questions that he was being peppered with and only shut up when Cameron stopped trying to answer and shut-up.

Then Cameron said 'Finished?' and, while Davis was obviously perplexed (courtesy seems to throw the biased BBC!), then proceeded to answer the questions and specifically why what he did in Brussels (using the UK veto) was in the interests of the UK and, going back to the opening of this post, re-iterated that the UK wants to remain in the EU and stressed that our number one reason for the UK's membership was the Single Market because we are a trading nation.

I suspect that Cameron reflects the desire of most Britons - we are happy to remain in the EU but want it to be an organisation focused on the Single Market rather than anything 'closer'.   Of course, if some of the members of the EU want to move towards closer union then that is up to them.  We wouldn't stand in their way (it's none of our business!) but neither should we pay anything towards it.

If you get a chance to hear the interview, please do so.  If I were in Cameron's shoes, I would refuse to be interviewed by the biased BBC again. Or at least until the Today programme has been purged of its liberal lefties!