Food banks

What is it with the UK's Labour Party and their socialist fellow-travelers that they so dislike food banks?

Food banks are organisations that receive gifts of food from members of the public and from retail organisations and then distribute this food to members of society that need it.

Okay they are usually locally focused and they don't have the normal top-heavy management structures, so beloved of other charities.  And yes they don't go in for a lot of lobbying against government policies and being hypocritical about pushing Green and so called Global Warming issues, while jetting around the world or driving to far-off conferences and 'get-togethers' in in energy consuming vehicles, while pushing a transport free future for the rest of us!  They don't have celebrities 'effing and blinding' and emoting on TV asking for the public to give money.

As said earlier, they rely on contributions from members of the public and supermarkets and such.  Obviously, I encourage all readers to put a tin or a packet or two into the collection trolleys at their local store or supermarket but I for one won't be giving you a hard time because you want to help you neighbors.  The old saw about 'charity begins at home' continues to strike a chord with people, who give, freely and without any instruction from their political masters!

Except, except the Labour Party and the SNP (and probably also the Greens and Plaid Cymru)  don't like food banks.  Is it because the Welfare State isn't involved in this example of welfare?  Is it because these food banks are run by volunteers and some are organised by religions?

I suspect that Labour and their ilk don't like food banks because they cannot act as a 'middleman'.  People that have, give to people that don't have and there is no one from the government involved.  No one from local government is regulating this.  No Health and Safety 'jobsworth' is interfering.

I am sure that Labour and the other socialists would say food banks are a symptom of poverty in society but that is just plain wrong.  People will, from time to time, experience hardship and under government welfare regulations won't be eligible for taxpayer provided assistance.  What then is Labour's solution?  To not have food banks?  No, I am confident, it is that 'Government' should step in and provide.  That Labour's failed welfare policies, which made living on welfare, a career choice, are surely so discredited, as to not need to re-hash the argument, must be a given.  Certainly the tax-paying members of society have been clear in their support of the welfare reforms that have taken so many off of the welfare rolls.  Tax payers, as opposed to Labour and other socialists, know that as a country, the UK simply cannot afford the unfettered access to welfare, that is so beloved of Labour.

 Food banks are just about people interacting with other people in a positive fashion.  This is how things used to be before 'government' got so big that it came to believe that 'it' needed to be involved in everything.

Food banks though are true charity.  When you hear socialists quoting (or usually mis-quoting) Jesus Christ, they talk about his alleged re-distributive leanings but what He is really talking about is giving your 'surplus' to others.  Jesus Christ didn't say you have to give to Save the Children for them to pass on your gift, less a deduction for overheads of course, to someone else.  He didn't say you had to pass a gift to Oxfam so that they could use it to lobby on behalf of Palestinian Hamas or whomever.  I believe that Jesus Christ would look highly favorably upon food banks.  He would see their founders and voluntary workers and those that give food to them, as His true followers and as people that understand and 'get' His message.

So, don't knock food banks - they are a wonderful institution - and do give generously, especially as we enter this holiest of weeks for Christians.

Spending priorities for the UK

Recently I posted a blog here which purported to be a leaked version  of George Osborne's upcoming Autumn Statement.  This was a spoof but some people took it more seriously.  Perhaps that's because it is the sort of thing that Osborne should be saying?

The United Kingdom now has a national debt in excess of £1.4 Trillion.  I am not even sure I know how many zeros that represents but I do know it's a lot.

Britain is now paying more than £55Bn a year in interest on its debt.  That's more than we spend on defence!

I was thinking about this and watching a news clip that was showing Bono and Sir Bob Geldorf talking about aid for Africa and so on and Bono commented that Britain was one of the few countries that actually lived-up to its international aid commitments.  I was proud, for a moment, then the news moved on.

I have been thinking about that moment, for a while and no longer feel proud.  I feel ashamed.  Ashamed that Britain is impoverishing its own people and future generations to provide aid to other nations.

That's right, Britain is borrowing money so that it can give the borrowed money to other countries to feed their hungry and homeless, while the hungry and homeless in Britain continue to be hungry and homeless.  The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.

Any spending by government on aid has to start from the premise that charity begins at home.  In what parallel universe can it make an iota of sense that Britain borrows money to give to others?

Probably in the same parallel universe where it makes some kind of sense to be involved in the 2014 version of the arms race.  Instead of building dreadnoughts, the race is about NHS funding.  The Conservatives are trying to out-Labour, Labour on the NHS by ring-fencing spending.  They absolutely know that the NHS is a black hole that could, almost as soon as tomorrow, swallow the whole UK GDP and still need more money.  They know that the second biggest problem with the NHS is actually PFI.  The NHS, under the last Labour government, borrowed massively to build new hospitals and offices for their army of managers and executives.  Now they are spending money that should be spent on front-line health-care provision, funding this spending splurge.

Again, the UK government is borrowing money and impoverishing our people and our children and our  children's children, to fund this.

The deficit isn't coming down and neither is debt.

It is bad enough that politicians don't have the courage to do the right thing - to tell the people of Britain, what the people already know - that we are 'broke', 'skint' 'borasic' call it what you will - and we must cut back spending in order to survive and that these cuts will have to be severe.

We cannot afford a high welfare bill, while also funding local spending, so 'welfare' has to be 'earned'.

We cannot simply borrow to fund overseas aid  - our first priority must be charity spending in the UK or rather not spending what we don't have.

We cannot police the world - we cannot afford it.  If certain nations want us to fight or bomb  ISIS and other terror organisations then those nations must fully fund such actions.  Same goes for the fight against Ebola.  In the extreme we are an island and have a natural barrier to the spread of foreign sourced contagious diseases, so why must Britain be at the forefront of spending its money - money which it has to borrow - to put troops and resources into Africa?

We cannot afford the European Union.  The funding of this  un-elected and highly inefficient bureaucracy is simply unacceptable.  Remember these are the same people, who, when the individual countries of Europe were implementing various levels of domestic austerity, these Eurocrats put forward a budget calling for them to have increased funding from member states.  That act, displaying such a dis-connection from the real world should be enough to cause Britain to distance itself from such madness.  Instead, Britain must borrow money to fund such lunacy.

We borrow, borrow, borrow.

We borrow to fund International Aid, to fund military adventures overseas, to fund a European monster that needs constant feeding, to fund international banks and lending institutions that suck funds from the NHS before a drug is bought or a nurse or doctor is paid and to fund an over-generous welfare system (that treats those who have never paid a penny into the 'system' the same as or better than those that have).

The spending priorities for the UK desperately need to change.

So here is a challenge for politicians.  Stand-up and be counted.  Stand-up and justify why the UK must continue to borrow money to send to countries that can afford their own space programme and yet has its own people depending on the charity of others through food banks.  I have nothing against food banks, by the way, I think they are an excellent way for us to show that we care for our fellow citizens and I see these as a great benefit in terms of the voluntary nature of the wealth redistribution and also of the spirit of compassion and humanity to our fellow countrymen.  I struggle though to understand why my children and grandchildren must suffer so that others can drive around in 4x4s doing 'good' in faraway places!

Any politicians out there, ready to take-up the challenge?  Self health tip - I am not holding my breath!

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.