Labour's mess calls for early Brexit

 I feel quite conflicted about the omnishambles that is the British Labour Party.  Not sure if I like this, or not.

On the one hand, the mess in which they find themselves augurs well for the Conservative party.  It would seem that the Labourites are in danger of splitting between the Jeremy Corbyn and his allies in the ‘entryist’ Momentum movement, and the remainder of the party, including the overwhelming majority of the party in Parliament. 

As said, a split or further internecine fighting distracts them from performing the role of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition (though I suppose that Corbyn and the those MPs that do sit in the depleted Shadow Cabinet, do take the extra money that comes with the role).  This itself isn’t good – democracy needs an opposition that can actually oppose and challenge and we all lose out, when we don’t have one. So the ‘brothers’ fighting gives the Conservatives an easy ride to implement policies.  For me, and of course I believe the country, I think it is good that we can get Conservative policies implemented but would prefer that such policies are tested – in the parliamentary sense.

I suppose I can live with that risk, if I had to.  I sense that there is a kind of opposition within the Conservative Party, anyway and maybe they will do the job that Labour are too internally focused to do.

On the other hand, and this really worries me, what happens if new PM, Theresa May, drags her feet on Brexit?  Apart from angering ‘Leavers’ in parliament, this will surely harden opinion in the country, against any Remainers. 

For all those that go on about a second referendum and such, the assumption I believe is that having seen the result, many people who voted Leave will suddenly change and vote Remain.  I know it is moot – we are not having another referendum – but my sense is that Remainers will look at how so many people and organizations are ‘rowing back’ from the Project Fear threats, that they will feel that they were lied to and only voted Remain because of the fear generated and now they see the emptiness of those threats and would vote Leave, if they were given a second chance.

So supposing the PM does drag her feet or has a Brexit outcome that basically puts the country in the same position as it was before the referendum – not being in control of our destiny, having to accept free movement, and so on.  Then the ‘Leavers’ in Parliament might force an election and Theresa May would have to go to the country with a divided Conservative Party and a platform that doesn’t command acceptance with the party’s supporters, in the country.  We would no doubt see Conservative losses, perhaps enough to leave them lacking a parliamentary majority and then we could expect to see UKIP making significant gains in North of England seats, at the expense of a broken Labour Party . 

The upshot? No party with an overall majority and Parliament as divided as the referendum result suggests.  This is not, I would suggest, in our national interest.  One of the things that the Remainers didn’t lie about is that international markets and companies, require stability.  The ‘markets’ know that certainty is elusive but they do look for a platform of one sort or another, around which they can develop their investment strategies.   A divided parliament, as could arise, would be very destabilizing. And, bear in mind, this instability could endure for an extended period of time.  Can you really see Conservative Theresa May sitting down to discuss a coalition with UKIP or with the anti-Corbyn wing of the Labour Party?  Or UKIP sitting down with the Corbynistas or the Anti-Corbyn wing. 

Before Nicola and her stooges jump up and say what about the SNP.  Well at best, you represent less than 10% of the total number of MPs – so hardly meaningful.

I believe that the solution to head-off this catastrophic situation is for Theresa May to fire the starting gun on Brexit, in the very near future – no later than Janury 31, 2017 – she could even commit to the date, as early as the coming days. 

Yes I know that we then have to reach a deal within two years but it’s two years, for heavens sake.  Not two weeks or two months but two years!  And, critically, the duration could be extended, if required (and if approved by all 28 nations) and at the outset we know that in a worst case situation we could utilise World Trade Organization, trade terms if need be. These WTO terms don’t include free movement of people, which takes a lot of the wind out of the sails of the Brexiteer’s opposition.  All those who voted Leave would have their fears of betrayal, assuaged and the internal Conservative opposition would be ‘de-fanged’. 

This would do nothing to resolve Labour’s mess.  I am fast coming to the conclusion that only a split will give those who believe in democratic socialism (the majority of Labour voters) a home, going forward.  The effect of entryism in the Labour Party means that for so very many Labour Party supporters and voters, the only way forward is to breakaway and leave the social justice warriors and Corbynistas to their fate in the political netherworld rather than them dragging the party into the political oblivion that their adherence to the ‘purity of socialism’ will certainly cause.

So over to Theresa!  Save the party, save the country, save the pound and save the economy.

Reluctant Britons

Recently, the media in the UK have been pursuing stories about UK passport holders that leave the UK and then go to Syria to join the so called Islamic State.  Hereafter I will refer to this group of murderous thugs and terrorists as Daesh, since they are not a 'State' and hopefully will never be so.

So, back to these Britons.  There seems to have been a steady stream of young men who become so 'radicalised' at their mosque that they decide to take-up arms not in defence of their fellow-Muslims but against them.  Well I guess that at the end of the day, that is their choice to make.  From my perspective, I would then expect the UK government to revoke the passports of these individuals, as soon as the names become known - I would think that our NATO ally, Turkey, should be able to provide the names and numbers of British people traveling into Syria from Turkey - and then if legally possible, refuse re-entry to the United Kingdom, to these people or, if that is not legally possible, to imprison these people for their support of a declared enemy of the UK. If the UK can pursue journalists with a 700 year old law, I am sure that there must be laws that have been passed, which make the actions of these individuals illegal.

We are now seeing though, that it isn't just 'radicalised' young men that are going to join Daesh.  Recently there was a case where a family group was stopped in Turkey and returned to the UK.  This group included 4 children.  Late last week, we heard that the group have been released without any charges being brought against them.  Presumably that is because they didn't manage to actually get into Syria?

However, how on earth are these parents allowed to keep their children?  Surely there are laws that touch on reckless endangerment that  reflect on the actions of these parents?  They apparently wanted to take their children into a war zone!  We hear countless stories about the plight of Syrian refugees that are fleeing Daesh and yet the UK authorities do not punish these people for apparently trying to take their children, the opposite way?  Now there is a story of Asif Malik an apparent member of the banned Al Muhajiroun, taking his British partner and their 4 young children (eldest aged just 7 years old) to Syria.

I ask these questions because back in 2012, many people were shocked to hear of the story of a couple in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, who, though they had already been foster-parents for a number of years, had children taken away from them, because these people were supporters of the entirely legitimate United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).  This of course is the same Rotherham council  that allowed child abuse, on an almost industrial scale, to occur.  The council and the police ignored repeated claims from abused children that they were being sexually groomed and trafficked by gangs of men of Pakistan origin, in Rotherham.  Maybe they were too focused on targeting UKIP followers who were exercising their democratic rights, rather than addressing the evil within their midst?  Obviously, it was much more politically correct to deal with these UKIP people than to take on the politically powerful (certainly in South Yorkshire) Pakistani immigrant population.

How can it be that people who presumably care about children, have them taken away, while parents who take their children towards a war-zone are allowed to retain them?  WE have become used to there seeming to be one law for them and another for us but usually the 'them' is the political elite in London.  Are we now seeing that radicalised Pakistanis have been accepted into that 'club'?  That they are above the laws that are applied to normal people?

I can sort of understand why the Labour-run Rotherham council would act the way they did - as with many Labour-run councils, it is all about being politically correct rather than doing the right thing but how can those running for parliament be allowed to get away without being questioned and challenged about these things?  It's kind of a rhetorical question.  After all, Labour and their Health spokesman, the ever-emoting Andy Burnham, have managed to convince people that they are the party of the NHS, even after scandals like that at Mid-Staffordshire hospitals.

So I challenge UKIP and Conservatives and Lib Dem would-be MPs and their supporters to ask these questions and keep asking them.  Ask these questions of their Labour opponents and ask them of Theresa May, the (Conservative) Home Secretary.  These children are clearly in danger, while they remain with their parents, they should be taken into care.

Westminster's deficits

Dear reader, please don't be too worried and immediately look elsewhere - this posting won't feature too heavily on the monetary deficit or debt that is affecting the UK.

Rather this is about the other two deficits that are plaguing the UK.

When the so called 'expenses' scandal broke, many people expected the politicians that had their noses so deep into the public purse and were claiming expenses that, if not criminally wrong were at least ethically so, would be severely punished at the ballot box.  Some of them were but maybe not enough.  Some went to prison but again, not enough.

In two recent by-elections - Heywood and Clacton - much has been made of the the results.  In Heywood, Labour clung onto a supposedly safe seat with a much reduced majority of 617 votes, from a concerted challenge by UKIP.   The UKIP leaders crow that if just 20% of the Tory vote had come their way, instead of being 'split' (in their view) then they would have had a remarkable night.

These same UKIP leaders also shout about the victory of their candidate, Douglas Carswell, in Claction, where he actually increased the majority with which he previously won, when he did so as a Conservative candidate at the 2010 General Election.

Look a little closer though and these results seem less spectacular and actually quite worrying.

In Clacton, the winner, Douglas Carswell was a very active local MP for the Conservative party.  His wider activism around European issues, also assured him of media air-time as a prominent Euro-sceptic Tory.  His defection to UKIP was not a complete surprise and neither was his decision to stand down and force a by-election.  That decision speaks to an integrity that is all too lacking among so many of the Westminster elite.

It is a bit rich though for Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP, to claim that the election of that party's first MP was about a tide of anti-establishment voting which was ready to sweep away the 'out of touch 'Westminster' parties.  The electoral turn-out in Claction was just over 51%.  So when you consider Farage's comments it seems that people were so disgusted with the Westminster elite that barely half of them could be bothered to vote.  The Clacton turn-out at the General Election was 64% so whatever the message was it can't be said to be a ringing endorsement of Farage's policies.

Again,at Heywood we see a much diminished turn-out - down from 57.5% at the General Election to 36.2% in the by election.  So barely one in three voters could be bothered to vote.  Some might say that this apathetic response is the voting equivalent of the old 'a pox on all your houses' epithet.  Labour talk about how the voters of Heywood voted against a 'viciously cruel and austerity driven Tory government' but don't mention the far from ringing mandate that their candidate gained.  UKIP talk about breaking the mould etc., but the reality is that they too couldn't engage with or mobilise the voters.

For the Tories, Heywood does support their contention that a vote for UKIP gets Ed Miliband into Downing Street and power.  The message from Clacton was always going to be hard for the Conservatives - Carswell was a very good and involved local MP and his integrity shone through.  It will be interesting to see how he works alongside Farage in the coming weeks and months.

Clearly Carswell has depth and his views on Europe and the uncontrolled immigration that the EU and the Labour Party unleashed on the UK, resonate with voters and are aligned with Farage.  However, can the same be said for the social and economic policies put forward by UKIP?  I may be wrong but I always thought that Carswell was 'sound' on the economy and understood the critical need for deficit and debt reduction and smaller government - that isn't entirely in accord with UKIP's policies.  Details on these policies are scant but suggest that UKIP follow a much more interventionist, some might say socialist, approach towards the economy - certainly if their 'spend whatever you like' pledge to the NHS is anything to go by.  

I come back though to the turn-out.  In both cases significantly below the General Election levels.

We all know that the European Project has a major democratic deficit.  In the UK, barely 34.7% of those eligible bothered to vote in the 2014 MEP elections.  The UK wasn't alone in recording such poor rates of participation.  As you can see in the below table, barely 13% in Slovakia bothered to vote!

Member States	1979	1984	1989	1994	1999	2004	2009	2014
Belgium	91.36	92.09	90.73	90.66	91.05	90.81	90.39	90
Denmark	47.82	52.38	46.17	52.92	50.46	47.89	59.54	56.4
Germany	65.73	56.76	62.28	60.02	45.19	43	43.27	47.9
Ireland	63.61	47.56	68.28	43.98	50.21	58.58	58.64	51.6
France	60.71	56.72	48.8	52.71	46.76	42.76	40.63	43.5
Italy	85.65	82.47	81.07	73.6	69.76	71.72	65.05	60
Luxembourg	88.91	88.79	87.39	88.55	87.27	91.35	90.76	90
Netherlands	58.12	50.88	47.48	35.69	30.02	39.26	36.75	37
United Kingdom	32.35	32.57	36.37	36.43	24	38.52	34.7	34.19
Greece		80.59	80.03	73.18	70.25	63.22	52.61	58.2
Spain			54.71	59.14	63.05	45.14	44.87	45.90
Portugal			51.1	35.54	39.93	38.6	36.77	34.50
Sweden					38.84	37.85	45.53	48.8
Austria					49.4	42.43	45.97	45.7
Finland					30.14	39.43	38.6	40.9
Czech Republic						28.3	28.2	19.5
Estonia						26.83	43.9	36.44
Cyprus						72.5	59.4	43.97
Lithuania						48.38	20.98	44.91
Latvia						41.34	53.7	30.04
Hungary						38.5	36.31	28.92
Malta						82.39	78.79	74.81
Poland						20.87	24.53	22.7
Slovenia						28.35	28.37	20.96
Slovakia						16.97	19.64	13
Bulgaria							38.99	35.50
Romania							27.67	32.16
Croatia								25.06
Average EU turnout	61.99	58.98	58.41	56.67	49.51	45.47	43	43.09

Now though we see  that just prior to a General Election, voter apathy for the UK parliament remains. The political parties are said to be out of touch - and that includes UKIP!  The same source of the previous table (http://www.ukpolitical.info) also provides the below table on turn-out in UK General Elections, since 1945  We all need to hope that the increases seen in 2010 are built upon and we get back to the turn-out levels seen in the late 1970s through to the 1990s.

Year	UK	England	Wales	Scotland	N.Ireland
2010	65.1	65.5	64.7	63.8	57.6
2005	61.4	61.3	62.6	60.8	62.9
2001	59.4	59.2	61.6	58.2	68
1997	71.4	71.4	73.5	71.3	67.1
1992	77.7	78	79.7	75.5	69.8
1987	75.3	75.4	78.9	75.1	67
1983	72.7	72.5	76.1	72.7	72.9
1979	76	75.9	79.4	76.8	67.7
1974 Oct	72.8	72.6	76.6	74.8	67.7
1974 Feb	78.8	79	80	79	69.9
1970	72	71.4	77.4	74.1	76.6
1966	75.8	75.9	79	76	66.1
1964	77.1	77	80.1	77.6	71.7
1959	78.7	78.9	82.6	78.1	65.9
1955	76.8	76.9	79.6	75.1	74.1
1951	82.6	82.7	84.4	81.2	79.9
1950	83.9	84.4	84.8	80.9	77.4
1945	72.8	73.4	75.7	69	67.4

Perhaps there is a message for David Cameron in the above table?  Maybe it is, that when Margaret Thatcher pursued unpopular but many believe absolutely necessary policies, she brought many voters out to vote.  Indeed, they voted for her and her successor, John Major, in significant numbers and brought large parliamentary success for the Conservatives.  Yes they also voted against her and her policies but the majority voted for the Conservative party.

Strange that!  Give people the hard choice or the soft irresponsible one that Labour pushed and the people chose the tough one on four separate occasions and in large numbers.  Who would have thought it?

While Cameron and his pollsters are thinking about the upcoming General Election, they should also maybe think about these things.

People, other than self-interested public sector union members, haven't taken to the streets in protest about austerity.  I believe that this demonstrates that 'the people' understand the need to rein in public spending.  The need for a welfare cap seems to now be universally accepted.  People can see that those in the public sector have had it too easy and have been cossetted from the realities of life  that 'they' have had to face - redundancy, under-performing and uncertain pensions, real wage cuts and belt-tightening - at home and at work.

'The people' will vote for a party that addresses the first deficit - that of integrity.  A party that does what is right for the UK.  The Conservatives deserve credit for having the courage to push forward with reforms but they have been too timid.  I accept that much of that lack of backbone was because of the compromises that were forced upon them by their coalition partners - the fast-fading Liberal Democrats - but when they come before the electorate again, they must stress their economic competence and emphasize the incompetence and economic mal-administration of the Labour Party.  The electorate know who got us into this mess!

'The people' will also vote for a party that addresses the second deficit - that of democracy.  Again, a party that does what is right for the UK.  One that allows the people of the UK a say on the UK's continued participation in the European Union and one that addresses the democracy needs within the UK.  The so-called 'West Lothian' question has never gone away but the recent Scottish Referendum has brought a much greater focus onto this and to the democratic deficit that is suffered by the English.  I don't advocate an 'English parliament' but English MPs for 'English' votes seems entirely reasonable.

Cameron and Co. need to openly push the message about how they can and will address these two deficits and in the process the other deficit and debt reduction and they now need to do so, unfettered by their Coalition partners.  So it is time to ditch the Lib Dems.  It shan't be too difficult to find an excuse and it allows for a decent period of time - for both parties - to put some clear water between themselves and allow their policy differences to be evident.

I will come back later on what those Conservative policies, should look like.

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.

America's problem

More accurately, the problem with conservatives in America.

As a Brit looking in from the outside, it seems to me that America is on a dangerous path and the fault really lies with American conservatives.

I don't blame President Obama and his socialist fellow travelers - Pelosi, Clinton, Biden, Reid, Blasio, etc. - they are only following the agenda that all socialists follow.  Their programme is running according to schedule and form.  Students of post-WWII European history will see the familiar pattern of subversion from within.  Take over educational/teacher training colleges, promote public service (sic) unionization, push minority issues even against the overwhelming wishes of the majority, promote policies that facilitate the breakdown of 'traditional' families and values, make previously abnormal behaviour the new norm and over-favour such, over-arching this, push the 'state' into every nook and cranny of daily life with either some kind of welfare or regulation or law.

So, why blame the American Right?  Well frankly because of the lack of focus.

Look at the recent shenanigans around the US budget.  The deal that was worked out - a bi-partisan solution, we are told - sees an infinitesimally  small reduction in overall spending but some of this falls on military veterans.  To my mind this breaks a covenant that the US has had with its service personnel - you go and fight for us and we will take care of you.  So we have Republican presidential hopeful (surely not still?) Rep. Paul Ryan, assisted by Republican Speaker John Boehner, pushing a bill that punishes military retirees.  Think back 30 years or so and consider if any sordid backroom deal, whose members included Republicans, would have had this as part of the package. 

Frankly speaking, the Democrats really don't need to push their agenda too aggressively, when their supposed opponents do such a good job on their behalf.  And why do Ryan, Boehner et al do the Democrats job for them?  Because they do not serve America, in spite of their oaths.  They serve themselves.  It is all about re-election and accumulating personal power and wealth.

WARNING TO REPUBLICANS - In any Bi-Partisan agreement you and your supporters (and your country) are being fooled.  Bi-Partisanship is part of the process by which the socialists incrementally achieve their goals.  They use this to move the discussion in their desired direction and keep on doing so.  When you meet someone 'half-way' on something, then they are closer to their goal and you further from yours!

Think about the recent government shutdown - who won that?  The Democrats did.  Obama didn't give an inch and the Republicans folded.  In saying Republicans I refer to the elected Republicans.  I don't believe that Republicans in the country supported Boehner's capitulation nor do they support Ryan's shabby 'deal'.

So back to focus.

What are the 'hot' issues for Republicans, just now?  Phil Robertson, of Duck Dynasty fame, is certainly up there and the homosexual lobby have taken a knock back on this one but they and their bigoted types, will be back!  Hillary Clinton's abdication of responsibility for the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi, is there as well.  Obamacare, with its almost daily new failures, is the gift that keeps on giving (consider that more people lost insurance coverage on 1/1/14 than managed to get the more expensive Obamacare cover and you will see what I mean).

What doesn't seem to be hot?  How about, the economy?  As in jobs, as in money in people's pockets.  How is this not the issue that unites the American 'right' and provides the single focus on which the 'right' can campaign?  $ Billions have been pumped into the economy but unemployment remains high.  Those 'shovel ready' projects weren't as 'shovel ready' as people were led to believe.

In my darker, conspiracy-theory moments, I keep wondering if the Obama administration isn't quite pleased that they have these different mini 'scandals' going on as the opposition is spread thin and their inept handling of these issues and the economy is masked because the 'fire' from Republicans is not concentrated.

So, to borrow the phrase from Bill Clinton, 'it's the economy, stupid!'  Republicans shouldn't allow themselves to get side-tracked by these other issues - yes, I do know they are important but if Republicans don't get the numbers elected to Congress then all of the commentary and tweeting and rallies will not change things, one bit.

At the same time, Republicans need to hold candidates to account and select and elect real Republicans.  

Real Republicans?  So no RINOs (Republicans in name only).    From my perspective, those of the Tea Party persuasion most closely fit the bill.  Candidates that understand that you cannot treat with leftist Democrats.  That understand that the political spectrum must be shifted significantly to the right, just  in order to recover the advances that have been made by the socialists in recent years.

I am afraid that I include the G.W Bush era in the left-sliding times.  Former President Bush was 'right' on foreign issues but was not focused enough on US domestic issues and so allowed the leftist slide, that started under his father and accelerated under Clinton, to continue. 

So my message for American conservatives is focus on a single issue that affects all Americans - the economy - don't follow the path taken by the UK Conservatives where pandering to minority groups, in an effort to appear more 'reasonable' has led them to promote same-sex marriage and continue to allow the 'state' to grow and to be dictated to by unelected European Commissioners (or commissars, is perhaps more accurate).

Remember, once the true 'right' have power, then you can pursue the impeachment of Obama and the imprisonment of Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder and the repeal of the hated Obamacare, until then the single most important task on which to focus, is getting the right people, selected and then elected.

Votes and Leveson

Another week and more messages from the public for the main party leaders.

For David Cameron, the recurring theme is UKIP.  The easiest solution (and yes this really is easy) is for Cameron to state,  unequivocally, unambiguously or any other way that clearly demonstrates that, within 90 days of the next election, a Conservative led government would hold a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the EU.  A simple In or Out poll.

For Ed Miliband the message may, at first sight be a good one - three resounding victories out of three - but consider.  These are stronghold seats for Labour and yet in these so called times of austerity with an allegedly 'Tory toffs' led government, the Labour voters could barely be bothered to vote and register their 'disgust' at the government's policies.  Voter turnout at Rotherham was just under 34%  and Midllesborough and Croydon, just 26%.  So hardly a ringing endorsement of Miliband's leadership or policies.  If Labour can't get them off of their couches now, when can they?

So take the messages a stage further and consider the results of the Leveson enquiry.  While you do so, consider that if this judge has his way, there will come  time, in the no too distant future, when blogs like this and comments on Twitter, will also be subject to control (or as he puts it regulation).

Labour have instinctively jumped in and demanded that Leveson's recommendations be implemented in full.  Those who accuse them of rank hypocrisy, given their earlier very close ties to the media, miss the point.  Labour is all about winning and like all 'left' parties down the years, see control of the free press as an ideal way to make sure that the right' message is the only one that people get.  Also, a free press is a danger to all politicians and those that rule us because it can ,and sometimes does,  shine a light into the dark areas where these people steal from us.  I cannot believe, for one minute, that the MPs expenses scandal would have been exposed under Leveson.

I think that the Conservatives have almost got it right, in taking a more considered view and opposing a statutory regulator approach.

My own view has hardened around there not being any need for more legislation.  Remember what sparked this?  Phone hacking.  Particularly when it was alleged that the phone of murdered schoolgirl, Milly Dowler, was hacked.

Leave aside, for a moment the morality of such a thing and just know that this was a violation of the law.  How would a press regulator be any more able to enforce the law than the lack of enforcement that already existed?  That surely is the fundamental question.  We don't need more laws, especially one that puts power over the press in the hands of politicians, we do need enforcement of the laws we have.

Rightly or wrongly, I would suggest that most people put the victims of hacking into two categories.  The first is what I would call 'true victims'.  The Dowler family for example.  The hacking that is said to have occurred was a gross violation of decency and should be punished to the full extent of the law.  The second category are what I would call 'celebrities'  People in the public eye and those who want to remain in the public eye.  These people use the print media to promote themselves and their personal agendas but then don't like it when their own craving for public adulation leads them into areas which they then wouldn't like to see publicized.

I have much sympathy for the people like the Dowlers.  The intrusion that they endured was and is, unspeakable.

I have no sympathy for the celebrities that seek to control what it is they show and don't show.  Now they are rushing forward to jump on the 'shackle the free press' bandwagon and so to push their ' we know best because we are famous' routine.  What makes a book writer more qualified to be widely quoted as supporting restrictive laws than other members of the public?  Has the UK really come to the state that we will be lectured on morality by people that get caught in flagrante paying for  and having oral sex performed by a prostitute or those who think that the drug laws don't apply to them?

And what of the BBC?  They have pushed and pushed the Leveson story.  Think though, under Leveson, does anyone think that we would now be talking about Jimmy Saville and his odious crimes?  

Leveson should not be implemented, just pulped.  The laws that we have should be enforced.

Corby messages

So Labour duly reclaimed the parliamentary seat of Corby?  Big surprise?  I don't really think so as the former Conservative MP, Louise Mensch, had a rather slim majority, anyway.  Also this was a lowish turn-out of around 45% and so maybe the Conservative supporters just stayed at home?

Nevertheless, this result does pose questions and provides lessons for David Cameron and the Tory leadership.

The minority-coalition partner, Liberal Democrats, were badly beaten into fourth place.  How badly should not be under-stated.  This party that seeks, from a very minority position, to dictate (successfully in most eyes, so far it must be said) the tone and direction of UK Government policy and yet could garner less than 1,800 votes!  A lesson for David Cameron?  Maybe there is no need to be so super-nice to these folks?  Maybe you should press on with boundary reform? And deeper welfare reductions.

The big winner of this by-election, was the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).  UKIP came a very respectable 3rd getting almost 15% of the votes and three times that of the Liberal Democrats!  UKIP's main policy objective is the exit of the UK from the European Union.  In national opinion polls, UKIPis now regularly polling in third position.  A lesson and and opportunity for David Cameron and the Tories.

As I have posted here before, I believe that whichever of  the major party - Tory or Labour - that has the courage to clearly announce a policy of re-negotiation of the relationship between the UK and EU, a policy that does not rule out a possible exit, will greatly benefit in electoral terms. 

In spite of Labour's sudden conversion to an anti-EU stance on the EU budget issue, we know that they are fully on-board with the statist and protectionist policies of the EU as well as their federalist politics and direction. 

After all, in Europe, Federalism means 'do as I tell you. I am an EU politician and therefore I know best!  Okay so I wasn't democratically elected but I still know best and you need to know your place!!  You, are a taxpayer and provide funds for my lavish lifestyle, I don't need your opinion, just your money!'

So there is a great opportunity for the Conservatives to, at a stroke, gain political popularity and seize the political initiative.  I doubt though that they will grasp it.  I sense that come the next general election, of the four main parties, Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems will all offer a common platform of 'negotiation rather than confrontation' with the EU and so will keep the UK saddled with this enterprise-stifling and dangerously undemocratic organization.

The biggest danger for the Conservatives is, what if UKIP just doesn't 'fade away?   What if they continue to poll third, nationally?  What if they start to put together a policy platform that holds-up all of the Socialist policies that the EU has fostered and brought countries like Greece, Spain and Ireland to their knees and the edge of anarchy, and show that this is the direction where the UK could head?  Then they would be stealing the economic policy of the Tories, as well.

Not good times for the Conservative leadership. 

The dangers of a Boris win

The outcome of the London Mayoral election poses dangers for both the Conservatives and Labour.

If Boris wins (which we should all hope and work for), then the Conservative-led coalition government will likely see this as a 'truer' reflection of public opinion on the government's performance, will take heart and will continue along the path, which sees them being led along by their Liberal-Democrat partners, ditching 'Conservative' policies along the way.  That this pathway is already strewn with botched and ill-thought out initiatives, won't deter them as they will believe that at the bottom of things, the 'people' really understand and approve of their direction - "otherwise, Boris wouldn't have been elected!"

They (the Conservatives) would be wrong.  The 'people' have taken it into their heads, ably facilitated by the BBC and an angry and hostile media, that the Conservatives are 'out of touch'.  It's not about knowing the price of a pint of milk or a loaf.  It's about competence and relevance.  The Conservatives are seen to present policies which enjoy, at best half-hearted support, from their own party and MPs, and which push the Lib Dem agenda while doing very little to help 'the people', only to see these 'policies' dissolve into farce before the ink on the press release is barely dry.

Drink-ups in breweries and managing a whelk stall, come to mind.

Ask yourself - How important is reform of the House of Lords or Gay Marriage or even the Leveson Enquiry to 'the people'?

I would suggest that most people are concerned with employment and the economy and security.

• Will their job remain?  
• Will their children get a job when they leave school or university, in the Summer?  
• When will they start to see pay rises that don't get immediately eaten up by higher taxes and prices?  
• When will energy costs come down?
• When will UK security be given a higher priority than European Court decisions?
• When will suspected terrorists, simply be deported?
• When will the benefits system reward work and penalize idleness? 
• Why are we closing public libraries in the UK while at the same time sending money overseas to open libraries (etc.) in other countries?
• Why are we supporting EU bail-outs while making cuts at home?

For Labour, a Boris win would likely present Ed Miliband with a leadership challenge but with Ed Balls or his wife, Yvette Cooper, as the leading contenders, Labour wouldn't see much of a change in its mis-guided and fundamentally flawed economic 'policy'.  Labour's lack of humility and unwillingness to admit they were wrong, coupled with a 'borrow, spend, borrow more, spend more' policy is seen by people for the economic idiocy that it is.

For Labour a win for Ken Livingstone would present a polarizing challenge as his divisive views are (thankfully) not widely shared within the Labour party and his radical polemics and utterances would cause the Labour parliamentary leadership, constant heartburn and embarrassment, as that leadership seeks to present itself as 'moderate'.  That's to say nothing of the impact, that his likely to be unfulfilled promises will have, on a dis-illusioned electorate.

For the Conservatives, a Ken win represents an opportunity (see above) but with their propensity for making 'government by gaffe' a way of life, having someone as media-savvy as Ken, just down the river cannot help.  Indeed if Ken wins and if he stays on message, he would be a painful thorn in the side of the Conservatives.