EU and Elephants

Don't worry, this isn't about circuses or zoos.  Though, before I move on, and given just as something that 'tickled' me. I came across a lovely Polish saying, on Twitter.  Not my circus, not my monkeys - so not my problem.

Anyway, back to the European Union and Elephants.  Or rather, the Brexit vote and Immigration.

There. I said it.  I used the immigration word.  Naughty me!

Immigration though is a key, maybe the key factor affecting Britain's relationship with the EU.   Ronald Reagan is famously quoted as saying 'a nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation'. Within the European Union, that is the position in which the UK finds itself.

I have posted on this blog before about all of the fallacious and specious economic arguments put forward by those that want Britain to remain in the EU.  Simply put, they are wrong, they are based on unfounded fears that the EU will, as a result of a vote to Brexit, punish its largest single export market. Isn't going to happen, so let's move on.  

We can also discount the somewhat deranged comments from David Cameron, who seeks to suggest that a vote for Brexit could lead to World War 3.  Suppose for just a second that this was true.  Why then would he risk such a situation by holding a referendum that might produce a Brexit vote?   Oh I know he only offered the vote to scupper UKIP but still, if he actually believes what he said, then it is madness to continue with a vote.  Truth is, just as Cameron said earlier, as recently as February 2016, the UK can survive outside of the EU.

So let's look at immigration.

The numbers of people that are immigrating to the UK, from within the EU seem to be incredibly difficult to obtain.  Then when they are published they don't add up - more on that in a moment.  

According to the most recent numbers of immigrants, in the year to September 2015, the numbers were

55,000 from the EU 2 - Bulgaria and Romania, up from just 5,000 in 2007.

69,000 from the EU 8 - Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. This is up from 53,000 in 2004.

130,000 from the rest of the EU countries , up from 53,000 in 1991.

These total to 257,000 when rounding is taken account of.

One issue with these numbers, is that the number of new National Insurance (Social Security) numbers that were issued in the same period was 630,000.  The UK government has so far failed to explain who received the 'missing' National Insurance numbers.

We need to consider, why these people are coming to the UK.  I doubt it is the weather.

The strong suspicion is that people are coming to the UK because of the strength of the UK economy and the economic benefits that are available.  Add to this the disparity in the UK minimum wage and that prevailing in the 'sending' countries as well as 'in work benefits' and we have a cocktail mix that guarantees the attractiveness of the UK as an immigration destination and, most importantly, one that will continue.  

But I am getting ahead of myself.

Based on recent data, from 2015, the minimum monthly wage in the UK is Euro €1,378.

In countries that are suffering IMF/EU and World Bank restrictions, countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal, the rates are €684, €757 and €589 respectively.

In Bulgaria and Romania the rates are €194 and €235 respectively.

In the so called EU 8, Czech Republic €335,, Estonia €390, Hungary €345, Latvia €360, Lithuania ¢325, Poland €410, Slovakia €380 and Slovenia €791

The minimum wage in the UK acts as a magnet for economic migrants from EU countries.  For some of these people, they can come to the UK, take-up a low-paid job and be far, far better-off than they would be in their home country.

Then add to this 'in work benefits'.  These are things like Working Tax Credits.  This is an invention of the fiscally incontinent former Chancellor, Gordon Brown.  These effectively subsidise companies by providing workers with taxpayer-funded handouts which supplement the low wage they are receiving.   For those migrants from low minimum wage countries, this just makes the UK look like a better and better choice.   Add in child benefit - another taxpayer-funded handout and a migrant would be crazy to go anywhere else.

Note I am clear, in my mind and media comment supports this, that migrants do not typically come to the UK to be 'benefits scroungers' who will 'sponge' off of the welfare state.  Rather they come to the UK to work.  Many of them end-up doing the work that work-shy, benefit dependent simply won't do.
David Cameron's much vaunted 'victory' at the EU summit, on the UK having the ability to apply some kind of 'emergency brake' on benefits to EU immigrants is essentially worthless.  These people do not come here for the benefits, they come here for jobs.

The problem for the UK though is more about available resources.

The NHS is straining under its current load.  In reality, it cannot cope, today.  On any reasonable metric, the NHS is failing.  It isn't even a question of money - the NHS gets flooded with taxpayer money.  The problem is human and infrastructure resources.  Not enough doctors, nurses and hospitals. The requirement for these resources cannot keep up with ever increasing demand.  The existing population is living longer and that is a challenge so you can imagine what kind of a burden an extra 257,000 people  places on the system.

The problems facing the NHS are replicated in schooling and housing.  It has been estimated that more than 50% of all new homes that are being built (and there's nowhere near enough of them, for 'locals') will be needed for immigrants.  It has been estimated that a new house would need to be built, every 6 minutes, just to keep pace with the housing of EU migrants.  That's 240 a day, every day.
.
Classroom sizes in certain areas are approaching 3rd World levels.  Oh and not all of the children , or their parents, speak English, which places a further burden on an already over-loaded system.

So immigration on this scale is simply not sustainable.  London is said to have an immigrant population of greater than 50% and there are parts elsewhere in the UK, where the indigenous population are feeling swamped.

Oh, and on top of the 257,000 people from the EU, there was a further 273,000 immigrants from outside the EU.

And then, just around the corner is Turkey.  Germany, suffering under Merkel's madness has agreed to 'energise' the ascension of Turkey, with its 79 million population, into the EU.  Consider that Turkey has a monthly minimum wage of €425.  How many of them might want to upscale their earning capacity and move to the UK?  Turkey being a predominantly Muslim nation then layers religious and cultural differences on top of the immigration problem.

The only realistic solution for the UK is for the country to take control of its borders and to restrict the number of people that can come to the UK.  In reality this would mean very dramatically reduce the number coming in.  It would mean ending working tax credits for immigrants and child benefit, unless the child accompanied the immigrant - many currently don't but stay in their home country.

Saying the above, it is therefore crystal clear that the UK must vote leave - Brexit - on June 23rd.  Not doing so, will simply lead to further and ever increasing deterioration in public services as well as a sense of alienation and non-belonging for the native population.

So, consider, then do your duty and vote Brexit.

Today's news

A departure for me as I will offer brief(ish) comments on current stories in the news rather than my normal lengthier piece.

David Cameron and the EU
It seems like Cameron has decided to get a little serious with his negotiations for Britain's continued membership of the European Union.  He is apparently going to tell our EU partners that if he can't get what he wants, for Britain, then he will campaign for Britain's exit, the so called Brexit.

Before you jump up an exclaim 'about time!' consider that Cameron isn't really asking for much.  And his partners will hold firm on their core desire for 'ever closer union' and pull Britain further and further into their orbit.  This is what the Euro-elite want.  Not the people of Europe, or more accurately the European Union (note to the BBC Europe and the European Union are not same thing) but for those folks, democracy is an over-rated luxury.

If Cameron really wants to demonstrate that he means business, here is a tip.   Have the UK Civil Service start a process of planning for Brexit.  I can't think of a better way of showing that you mean business, than showing you are prepared for all outcomes.  Have Civil Servants start negotiations with the UK's key trading partners - those outside the EU.  Start with China and India and then other Commonwealth countries.  The upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, in Malta, would be the perfect launchpad!  Develop and publish the replacement for the Common Agriculture Policy.  Same for the Fisheries policy.  Start to withdraw from cooperation on the ludicrous European Union Foreign Service.

Does anyone think that this won't concentrate the minds of the EU bureaucrats and the so-called political masters.

Obama and Keystone
So Obama decided to pay back his big financial sponsor - Warren Buffet.  This was entirely predictable.  Buffet's Burlington Northern Santa Fe railway is booking an alleged $2 billion a year in profits from transporting oil, at $30 a barrel from Canada to the southern US versus the $10 a barrel that it would cost to send it down via the Keystone XL pipeline.

The US Presidential race

As a non-US voter, can I say - enough already.

Let's start with the Democrats - surely this can only be seen as a fight between Clinton and Saunders?  I appreciate that this is a most unpalatable choice but let's get real.  Without Biden, there is no one else.  Unless of course, some of the RINOs show their true colours, and change parties?  Jeb, Marco?
So will the other Democrat candidates please leave the stage.  Then we can have 'looney-Left tunes' Saunders slug it out with the not so much Teflon coated as media-untouchable Hillary.   Then we just might see the Dems and their media supporters having to choose between the spend like crazy Saunders and the make no hostages to the future Clinton.  Things might get interesting!

Now the Republicans.

'Elephant in the room time' - make that elephants.  Jeb, Marco, Kasich and the others, except for Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Ben Carson, need to leave the field.  George Dubya needs to take his brother to one side and say 'save your money and give it up'!

The GOP needs to focus on the real candidates.
Carson may have been wounded by the latest revelations concerning West Point, or he may brush past that.  To me it sounds like the media trying to make a story out of next to nothing - so Carson bragged a little, haven't we all?

Trump will I think, start to fade.  He has done the GOP a great service by daring to say things that some others, like the ones who should now bow out, have steered away from.   While he is a populist, I think that he has to have something more substantial in his policy pocket than just being anti-immigration.  Plus he has had past cosy relationships with the Dems.

That just leaves Ted Cruz.  Most say that he is by far the best qualified, intellectually but perhaps more importantly, he has displayed a rare consistency in his following truly Republican policies.  Some say that this tars him with a Tea Party brush but he would be the most formidable opponent against Hillary.  Who knows, if he chose Trump as his running mate, then he might get some of that Donald magic!

Refugees 
Too late for me to say too much, tonight, I will come back on this tomorrow.  I sense that this issue will still be in the news!

Have a good night!

Professional politicians?

I sometimes wonder if it is an ‘age thing’.  Am I turning into a ‘grumpy old man’?  I will let others be the judge of that.

I certainly am becoming less tolerant of the foolish behaviour of those that have been elected as our leaders.  I will give four recent examples of what I view as poor leadership. 

The most egregious is that of President Obama.  I can’t figure out if it is by design or by default that Obama has managed to throw away America’s pre-eminence on the world stage but that is exactly what has happened on his watch.   

In the South China Sea, China is establishing itself as a regional superpower and flexing its swiftly growing naval muscles.  Where America’s navy used to have command and unfettered freedom to roam and support ‘Pax Americana’ the Chinese have been ignoring the claims (rights?) of South China Sea nations such as Vietnam and the Philippines.  They are simply moving into territory claimed by these nations and annexing them and expanding other small islands so as to extend their territorial claims.  All the while, the Obama administration downplays the actions of the Chinese, when it can be bothered to even recognise such actions, and refuses to meaningfully confront them.  It can be no consolation that by expelling the Americans, as the Philippines did in the post-Marcos era, they maybe brought some of this upon themselves because that misses the two fundamental points.  China sees that it has a manifest destiny to be a much bigger global player and, as a first step must have complete control of its own back-yard.  That they have also sent ships up into waters off of Alaska, even while Obama was visiting that state, maybe says something about how big they consider, their backyard to be!  Also, the lack of a robust response from the Obama administration will cause Pacific rim nations to read the writing on the will and start to drift from the American sphere of influence to that of China’s.

In the Middle East too, America has lost any initiative it had.  The unwillingness to confront Daesh and the blind support of any anti-Assad organisation has meant that America has effectively armed both its immediate and eventual enemies.  At the same time, America has failed to support the only local group – the Kurdish Peshmerga – who are taking the fight to Daesh.  Obama, having effectively lost Egypt, is now in danger of losing Iraq.  The inaction of Obama – and don’t be fooled with any talk about the coalition bombing missions, these have been nothing but a half-hearted sop to the home audience – has led to the emergence of Iran as a bigger player, that now, just about has to be at the table making decisions. 

More importantly, this has ceded to Russia, the opportunity to go in and bolster its long-time client state of Syria and to be portrayed as doing more forcefully and effectively what they Americans have been so far reluctant to do.  Like Bill Clinton, before him, Obama wants to (very reluctantly) fight an enemy, solely from the air, though Obama is even more squeamish about ‘boots on the ground’ or indeed any kind of meaningful involvement.  If news reports are to be believed, the Obama administration has spent $500 million training a handful – maybe as few as twenty – of Syrians to fight Daesh and/or Assad (their mission wasn’t really clear).  Of these only one or two remain in the programme and the caches of weapons and materiel that the Obama administration supplied, is now in the hands of rebels!  Shades of America’s actions in Soviet occupied Afghanistan, methinks.  Wasn’t Einstein who said that the definition of madness was doing the same thing, time after time and expecting a different outcome?

A further unfortunate outcome of Obama’s timid Syria policy, is that Russia’s muscular approach in Syria, is allowing their not-so-covert invasion of Ukraine to slide off of the news pages.   Pause for a moment and think back to the last time you heard a news story about Ukraine.  The invasion is still going on but the news media circus has moved on.   Remember too, that during this invasion, a passenger airline has been shot down from the sky by a Russian supplied ground to air missile.  The official report on the air crash came out and caused a minor stir and has now been filed away.  283 people died and still Russia gets to sit at the top table with civilised people!  Another gift from Obama!  In the recent talks on Syria, John Kerry praised the efforts of Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister.  Instead he should and so should the rest of the world, pound and pound the Russians until the murderers of those 283 people are brought to justice. 

Rather than focus on the short-comings of Obama and his inept administration, it wouldn’t do to ignore Chancellor Angela Merkel.  As I have said, in earlier posts, Merkel’s statement of an open invitation to ‘refugees’, was just like those teenagers that post on Twitter or Facebook ‘party at my house, tonight’ and then are shocked to discover that the whole world, or at least a significant part of the local area’s youth turns up and crashes the party.  Now Merkel is rueing the day she stupidly opened her mouth.  Germany, by the end of the year, may have taken in between one and one and a half million ‘refugees’ .  It is clear, from social media, that those ‘refugees’ already in country have worn out their welcome.  There are regular demonstrations against the ‘refugees’ and against Merkel’s policy – even though she is, belatedly, closing the door.  We hear and see  that these ‘refugees’ who, contrary to the images that are mostly portrayed in the media, are very predominantly young males.  We also hear that an epidemic of rape and sexual assaults is breaking out, in Germany and the satellite countries.  Also, a number of diseases such as scabies and STDs. 

Then there is David Cameron.  He was elected, with a parliamentary majority, in the May General Election.  This came as something of a surprise, to many (most?).  Maybe even to Cameron, himself?  Now Cameron is desperately trying to hold a renegotiation of the terms of Britain’s membership of the European Union without actually negotiating anything.  The result will be then put to a referendum before the end of 2017.  Cameron is in a difficult position (of his own making) because having been elected, as Conservative leader, in 2005, on a Euro-sceptic ticket, and needing to keep many of his own MPs on board as well as trying to see-off the anti-EU UKIP, he now has to negotiate something which he really doesn’t want and then run the risk of the British people rejecting his efforts and then his government needing to negotiate Britain’s exit from the EU. 

In case you are not clear on what it is that Cameron – and by extension, the UK – want as part of the renegotiation, you are not alone.  Most people in Britain have an idea of what the country wants, however, this hasn’t been expressed, other than through media polls and such, to our EU partners.  One appreciates that negotiations need to be conducted with a certain degree of secrecy but I get the impression that Cameron doesn’t even know what to put forward as Britain’s negotiating position.  Must be very frustrating for our EU partners.    

A sure sign of the way the political wind is blowing – or at least how Cameron and the political elite, want it to blow – is that there seems to be no contingency plan for how Britain might actually manage to extricate from the European Union, should the people of Britain, so decide.  To me, announcing that such planning was being undertaken, would serve as a very strong signal to the UK’s EU partners, that Britain means business but this negotiating tool isn’t even being mentioned. 

Perhaps all of these examples reflect what happens when we have professional politicians as opposed to those that have experience of the real world.  Obama, Merkel and Cameron between them, have never really had a ‘proper’ job.  Never run a business or worried about how to make this week’s payroll.  Never had to go through the same daily grind, that so many of the voters must endure, etc..

I started this post by wondering if this was an age thing.  I conclude though that it is them, not me.  I think I am reasonably sane and normal, it is just this political elite that is acting crazy! 

What do you think?

GE2015 Part Four - Don't delay

Wow!, I mean Wow!

The Conservatives are on course to achieve an overall, though slim, majority.

Hats off to David Cameron, George Osborne, Lynton Crosby and all of the candidates and hard-working constituency workers.

As was predicted in the opinion polls (something that they did get right!), the Scottish National Party scooped-up almost all of the seats in Scotland, gaining 56 of 59.

The Lib Dems, until recently the Conservative's partners in Coalition,  have been severely reduced - they will likely end with 8 seats down from their 54 seats won in 2010.

Labour were all but wiped-out in their Scottish strong-hold and now have just one seat, there and have been hit by the Conseravtives and indeed, UKIP, in the North of England..

There have been some notable casualties along the way.  Obviously those Scottish Labour MPs that were Shadow Cabinet members but also Ed Balls the Shadow Chancellor.  Balls was a member of former Labour leader Gordon Brown's inner circle and intimately involved with Labour's profligacy and.  Throughout the 5 years of the Coalition and this campaign he, and Labour leader Ed Miliband, have steadfastly refused to either apologise for ruining Britain's economy nor for admitting that they overspent.

Also gone is Danny Alexander who spitefully leaked a welfare position paper and suggested it was a policy that the Lib Dems stopped.   The ever awkward Vince Cable has also gone and the promoter of foolish Green policies, Ed Davey has also left the House!

It is looking like Miliband and the Lib Dems leader, Nick Clegg, will resign.  Nigel Farage, of UKIP has already said he will resign as leader, if not elected, and that outcome is looking likely. Natalie Bennett of the Green Party was not elected and so other than the Ulster parties, David Cameron looks to be on course to be the only Westminster leader that survives this election.  Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader, didn't contest a Westminster seat.

Now it is time to get back to work.

I know that there is a manifesto that lists out the policy programme but let's cut to the chase and start the ball rolling with the following:

• Implement the Smith Commission proposals and give Full Fiscal Authority to Scotland.  In doing so, the much discredited Barnett Formula falls away and the money saved, can be used in England and Wales.

• Implement the Boundary Changes that were put forward, by the independent Boundary Commission, a couple of years ago.

• Deliver on the promise of a referendum on membership of the European Union by enshrining this in law - to the effect that it must occur on a date before the end of 2017

• Set out a timetable for the re-negotiation of the terms of Britain's membership of the European Union.

• Introduce legislation, that means that on devolved matters, MPs from non-English constituencies, cannot vote at Westminster.

• Vote into law the Budget, that was presented, just before the last Parliament was dissolved.  Consider adding to that to include the changes on inheritance tax, with immediate effect.

These actions need to be put into place now.  With such a slim majority, there is every need to get these underway and while the opposition are focused on internal struggles, recrimination and power-plays, what better opportunity?

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.

Europe In or Out - Tory puzzle

In politics, timing, like luck, is very important.

I can't help thinking that Labour are about to pip the Tories to the post and announce that they will hold a referendum on membership of the EU, if they assume office after the next election.  They will probably say that they will campaign for continued membership etc. but, they will steal the thunder of the Conservatives and how many UKIP folks and votes will move across?

There is still time for the Conservatives to make a pledge but will they?  Or will, the Lib Dem tail continue to wag the Tory dog?

Just exactly what kind of hold do you think that the Lib Dems have, over the Tories?  All recent polls suggest that the Lib Dems are facing political oblivion, so does anyone believe they will rush to bring down the Coalition?  Come on, even though their 'policies' are stupid, doesn't mean that they are turkeys that would vote for an early Christmas.

I have asked before and will do so again - just what is it, that the Conservatives now stand for?  Could it be that the lack of a spine means that they can't stand for anything?