GE 2015 - Part One

This is turning out to be a funny old General Election!  I will put some of my observations here and maybe some will resonate.

The opinion polls have so far been stubbornly almost static.  What small movement they show for a party's support, tends to be contradicted by the next poll.  No UK-wide party is demonstrating a clear and commanding poll lead.  Labour and the Conservatives are stuck around the 32-34% mark.

In themselves, these results are surprising.  Given the improving health of the economy, especially considering the almost Greece-like basket case that the Conservatives inherited, the Conservatives should be further ahead in the polls.  Partly some of reason for them not being ahead will be a natural left-leaning bias in the media but much of the reason is the short-term memory of the average voter and, let's be frank, their selfishness.

The latter point first.  If the polls are to be believed, then the average person doesn't care that parties like Labour and the Scottish Nationalists or the even more extreme Green Party are happy to impoverish the nation and mortgage the country's future for our children, our grand-children and our great-grandchildren (etc., etc.,)  rather than undertake the structural reforms and yes, cuts in spending, that are a requirement to the improvement of the health of the UK economy.

This 'I don't care about the future of my country or kids, I just want my wide-screen TV, three holidays a year and lots of tax-payer subsidies, even if it does mean increasing borrowings and therefore debt and the deficit' attitude, can only be described as selfishness.  

Let us be very clear.  The UK has not experienced 'austerity'.  Has any pensioner seen their pension cut three or four times (as has happened in Portugal)?  No, of course they haven't.  And perhaps that is why the Conservatives are not enjoying the fruits of the economic position in which the UK sits.  People didn't feel any real pain, weren't turned out en-masse to live on the streets, those streets were not full of begging and ill-clothed children and families hawking their meagre possessions for the price of a tin of beans or a loaf of bread.   People's view of so called 'austerity' is that 'it didn't really affect me personally, too much and with Labour now saying we can spend a little bit more but tax the super-rich in order to pay for it, well that sounds reasonable to me!'  Don't worry, I am not a hair-shirt wearer who gets off on experiencing the pain of real spending cuts or seeing others experience it but I really do want to see Britain overcome it's debt dependency, for the sake of my children, grandchildren, etc., etc..

Fact is that UK government spending, under the Conservatives, has increased, every single year during this parliament.  The Conservatives went into Coalition with the Lib Dems, in 2010/2011 and total spending was £674 Bn, which was £19 Bn higher than the previous year.  In 2013/14 total government spending was £725 Bn.  Not a huge increase I will grant but neither is it a sign of the allegedly 'savage' cuts that Labour and their left-leaning allies in the media, particularly the biased BBC, would have you believe.  I believe though that the actions taken by the Conservatives will have the long term effect of reducing government expenditure.  Remember, from 1999/2000 to 2009/2010, Labour increased spending from £339 Bn to £675 Bn.  Almost doubling government spending and taking it to 47% of GDP.  The Conservatives have now got this heading towards a sub-40% position and, if re-elected will get this into a more sustainable 25-30% range during the course of the next Parliament.  Before you ask, I say sustainable because such a level of spending then allows the government the flexibility or room, if you like, to deal with unforeseen events, should they occur - to increase public spending if absolutely required.

Now to the earlier point.  The anti-Conservative bias of much of the media and particularly the BBC.
The narrative, from the Labour party, in the run-up to the election was that Conservative leader, David Cameron was a 'toff'.  Someone who had attended Eton and Oxford and was wealthy and out of touch with the general public.  Someone who lacks the 'common touch'.  Well no big surprise from Labour, there.  They project Cameron as such since it puts them, in their narrative, firmly on the other side - alongside the 'man in the street' (or has that become the 'person in the street'?).

How Labour must have chuckled last Sunday.  Cameron was interviewed by the BBC's Andrew Marr, and was asked about an interview he gave to the Countryside Alliance magazine (Countryside Alliance is a lobby group that represents rural interests and was very prominent in galvanising support from those communities, in opposition to the Fox Hunting Bill).  Anyway, Marr declared that Cameron had stated, in the CA interview, that fox-hunting was his favourite sport. Simple fact is that Cameron said nothing of the sort.  When Marr made the comment, Cameron looked non-plussed, as well he might, given that he had never said anything like that.  Just to drive home the point though, Marr then repeated the lie.  Marr has since apologised for his error but only on Twitter and only after being found out.  So, a question for the BBC and Andrew Marr -  did you knowingly lie when you falsely quoted from the CA article?  Or was it that you or your researchers were too lazy to check out the factual nature of statements?  Or was it maybe that putting such a statement, however false,  out there, would resonate with people and bias some of them, especially in urban areas, to be anti-Conservative and to confirm the Labour narrative about Cameron being a 'toff'?  Okay, so that's three questions, but you get my drift.

This is just the most blatant example of the BBC bias but you could also  include the constant interruptions made by Evan Davis in the interviews he has conducted.  Not only are these rude, they show a clear disregard for allowing the Conservatives to put across their message and response in a coherent way.  The Conservative message keeps getting broken-up into smaller 'bites' and the speaker having to try to stay on message and also to consider how and when to respond to the latest accusation.  Very poor!  The sooner the £145 TV tax is repealed, the better!

More to follow on this but my advice to Cameron is ignore the staged events and photo-ops.  Do a 'John Major' and get out on a soapbox in the towns and cities of the UK and talk directly to the people.  Show them that Conservatives passionately believe in the UK and it's people and tell them that Conservatives have a plan for us and our children, grand-children etc..  Don't let Labour and their 'cut from the same cloth' SNP allies, steal the election and our country!

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.

Yes for Scotland, No for England and Europe

Do you think that the Conservatives, or more accurately David Cameron and George Osborne have some kind of death wish?

I ask because I find it incomprehensible to understand the politics and policies of the Conservatives towards the Scottish, the English and the British.

On September 18, 2014, the voters in Scotland, in a high turn-out, voted No to Scottish independence by a margin of 55%:45%.  Not a resounding victory for the No campaign but enough to show a clear position.

The Conservative Party are poorly represented, in terms of MPs elected to the Westminster parliament, by Scotland.  Only one Tory MP being elected in the last three elections.  In the Scottish Parliament, the Conservatives have just over 10% of the seats and most of these coming arising from the proportional representation system, deployed in those elections.

Why therefore should the Conservatives be so concerned with Scotland?  I will come back to this in a moment but for now, think of it in cold electoral terms.  Scotland brings next to no electoral benefits to the Conservatives.  On the contrary, it elects a huge swathe of Labour opposition MPs.  Though this seems likely to change to Scottish Nationalist MPs at upcoming General Election, there is a very strong socialist and redistributive streak that runs through SNP policies, so there isn't that much difference between them.

So why are the Conservatives pushing for the devolution of further powers to Scotland's parliament?

Powers that will maybe allow Scotland to have all of the essential facets of nationhood, such as full tax raising and spending power, without the responsibilities that go with them.  The UK will still be the lender of last resort for Scotland and will be the backstop for its profligate spending plans.

As a brief aside, do you notice how quiet the Scottish Nationalists have become on the subject of oil revenues?  They were loud and proud when oil was north of $100 a barrel but we here nary a peep now that oil is south of $80 a barrel.  Is there any brave economist out there who could run the numbers and see what difference a >20% drop in the oil price would do to the SNP's already fanciful accounting?  I keep wondering if the Scots have learned from Darien, that it is always better to have someone to run to when the economic tides turn against you while the English are being led by fools who will allow such an imbalance of responsibilities.

These powers still will not address the fundamental 'West Lothian question'.  Scottish MPs will continue to be elected to Westminster, where they can vote on tax measures related to England, Northern Ireland and Wales and yet they will not be able to vote on matters relating to Scottish taxation.  If a minority Tory government, with a strong and overall English-seat majority wanted to propose tax reductions for middle and higher earners, such measures could be defeated by a coalition of English Labour MPs and their Scottish counter-parts and the SNP.  So the Scots have freedom but not the English.

In what world does this make any sense for the English or represent any notion of fair play?

I know that Conservatives will say that we are a United Kingdom and this is a legitimate response to widely-held Scottish opinion but when will they stop to ask the English?  The Scottish 'tail' is well and truly 'wagging' the English dog!

Then we come to Europe.  Here the Tories are losing ground to UKIP.  Here the Conservatives claim that they are unable to put a referendum before the British people until sometime within 2 1/2 years of the next election.

Think about that.  The Conservatives can push through parliament, in the space of a few months, legislation that fundamentally changes the fabric and constitutional settlement of the  United Kingdom and yet legislation related to the EU must wait.  Consider also, that there is no mandate from the British people, nor even the people of Scotland to push through the proposed changes.  Nothing was mentioned, about giving sweeping or indeed, any extra powers to Scotland, in any of the party manifestos, for the 2010 election.

In their haste, the Conservatives are supported by the Labour Party and the Lib Dems.  Both of these parties are pro-Europe and hope to reap some electoral rewards in Scotland as a result of this unjust settlement (though all opinion poll predictions are that both of these parties will go the way of the Tories in Scotland)

I believe that the British public know that all of the main parties want to stay in the European Union.  That all will campaign on that basis in any eventual referendum.  I also believe that the British people want to have a say in the matter.  It is perhaps a sign of the times that the people of Scotland can get a vote on issues like independence but the English cannot.  That Scotland can get local tax raising powers but the English cannot.  Perhaps it is a realisation that given the real powers that actually rest with the European Union, any such local powers, pale into insignificance.  What does it matter what taxes are raised in Scotland, England or the United Kingdom, if un-elected Eurocrats can simply decide that the UK must pay more funds to feed the EU beast?  And that there is nothing that can be done by the Scots, the English or the British to counter the position (and please do not try to use George Osborne's  decidedly dodgy accounting tricks concerning the £1.7Bn, that was recently demanded).

Only UKIP is offering an immediate referendum on EU membership and yet the likelihood of a UKIP parliamentary majority is very slim.  They can damage Conservatives and Labour but are highly unlikely to be the majority party nor to hold the balance of power.  My sense is that UKIP will damage the Tories on Europe and immigration and will damage Labour on immigration.  Labour's (pro) policy on the EU is not something that they really push, though I think that this will be under deeper scrutiny, in the coming months.

So a system of an united governance, for the United Kingdom, that took more than 300 years to develop, can be fundamentally changed in the space of a few months, without the say-so of the people of all of the United Kingdom and yet an alien system, and make no mistake,  the EU's definition of democracy - deals done behind the scenes by un-elected Eurocrats - is alien to British ideas of democracy, cannot be even discussed let alone changed until after years of wrangling.

Forget all the talk about fighting for Britain in Europe, that comes from the mouths of politicians.  That is at best just a soundbite and at worst an outright lie.  Britons fighting in Europe ended in 1945 and since then our democratic freedoms have continuously been whittled away with a rapid acceleration after 1975.

If David Cameron and George Osborne cared a fig for the United Kingdom or even just the Conservative Party, they would put legislation for an EU Referendum, before Parliament immediately.  This would take the wind out of the sails of UKIP and would force Labour and the Lib Dems to show their true colours.  Most importantly, it would give the people of Britain a voice on an issue of truly fundamental importance.

We don't need any fancy propositions or crazy and undemocratic notions - as for example spouted by Nicola Sturgeon, here - a simple Yes or No to continued membership will suffice.  If the result is a Yes, then the strength of the majority will settle things.  If a very strong Yes, then nothing more to be said, Britain succumbs to the EU Superstate.  If the Yes majority is more narrow - say 10% or less, then Britain seeks a re-negotiation of the terms of membership.  If the majority is for No, then we leave the EU, within 12-18 months.

I am not usually one to give out health tips but if you are hoping for a referendum on the EU, don't hold your breath.  Unless UKIP do really break the mould of British politics and achieve a significant breakthrough in 2015, we will see no change in British/EU relations until after the 2020 election and by then it may be too late.

Very depressing that we have come to this and especially so that it is at the hands of the Conservatives.

Osborne Statement leaked

Below is the transcript of the Autumn Statement that Chancellor George Osborne is to deliver to the House of Commons on December 3, 2014.  Given its content, we can expect that there will be changes made to water down many of these but see what you think.

Mr Speaker, fellow members of the Conservative Party and members of Parliament from other parties.  Today, following this speech, I will place in the House of Commons Library a copy of this statement and supporting documentation.

The supporting documentation includes a statement from the independent Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) which comments on my statement.  As the House will know, the OBR was established by this government to act as an independent reviewer of the economic situation within the United Kingdom and of the government's responses to that situation.  Essentially, to ensure that there is independent scrutiny of government budgetary plans so that we avoid the multiple counting of expenditure and unfunded promises, which could not subsequently be kept, that were so prevalent under the previous government.  Also to comment on taxation and policies that would drag Britain further into debt.  The House will recall that Britain's spiraling debt increases were occurring even before the 2008 global economic crisis.

Before I get too far into this statement, I must declare an interest.

It is customary, in such circumstances that the Rt. Hon. Leader of the Opposition, will respond to this statement.  I declare therefore that though I have made a financial contribution to the 'Save Ed' campaign, I do not expect to receive any favours in return for such largesse.  My donation was in excess of the 2p that the Leader of the Opposition recently allegedly gave to a beggar in Manchester, but I consider my £1 money well spent, if it keeps him and the other Ed sitting opposite and continuing to peddle their Micawberish lines about 'needing to borrow ever more because something will turn-up to sort it out'.

I have news for them.  Something did turn up to sort it out.  It is the Conservative Party.

Before I digress too much a final comment regarding the party opposite.  A friend recently reminded me of the line from the film, Love Story and turned it around to make it relevant to Labour and their economic incompetence.  Labour means never having to say sorry, is how it goes!

So Honourable Members, when you read the statement and hear the comments from those opposite, remember that, Labour means never having to say sorry for how they left this country in 2010.  Labour means never having to say sorry for the deficit that they left the country, for the debt mountain that would grow bigger because of the financial black holes and unfunded spending that they left behind.  In fact the only time that Labour have said sorry, is when they left a note at the Treasury saying ' Sorry, there's no money left!'

Before I get to the statement, just a word about our Coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.   Some members of that party have indicated that they do not support this statement and will vote against any measures arising from it.  My Right Honourable friend the Prime Minister has suggested that any such dissenting members, who hold ministerial office should consider their position and that is what they are now doing.

Thank you for your patience and now to the statement.

The UK economy is well on the way to recovery.  Indeed it is leading the way, in terms of all economic indicators, among the G7.  As with any patient that has had a serious illness, a relapse is possible, though given that the fundamental underlying economic health issues have been identified and the remedies are known, we can expect a full recovery, over time, so long as we stick to the medicine that has brought us back from the brink.

Sticking with this medical theme, the UK economy was obese and suffering as a consequence.  In 2010, the Body Mass Index, or BMI was very unhealthy.  We were funding a financial/calorific intake that was far in excess of our needs and of what was good for us.  We were getting fatter on other people's money.

For the health of the patient, that had to stop!

Over the last 4 1/2 years, we have initiated policies which have begun the slimming down process.  Our economic BMI is still too high but now when we get on the scales we can see improvement and as a nation we know we cannot treat this like some kind of yo-yo diet where we now  backslide and start getting into debt again.  We need to stay the course.

Staying the course is  vital for any healthy diet.  However, a diet needn't be all doom and gloom, not all abstinence and restraint.  Sometime we also need the carrot of a little self-indulgence.

This statement looks to keeping Britain on that healthy diet.  We will slim down the State but will indulge our people along the way.

Firstly, the slimming regime.

In the Budget planned for April 2015, this government will propose removing the so called ring-fence from Education and Health spending.  At a time when all other sectors of the economy are learning that they need to slim down and lose weight, we cannot, as a nation have two vital services that are allowed to gorge while others are on reduced rations.  that is not the British way, that is not the Conservative way.

All government departments, will need to reduce year on year expenditure by 5% in the fiscal year 2015/2016 and a further 5% in each of the succeeding 4 years.

The NHS has been protected from the expenditure reductions that have been required at other government departments but it simply isn't fair that this continues.  I know that the party opposite will scream about the NHS not being safe in Tory hands and so on but the reality is that we are all in this together, we cannot slim-down the body and ignore any large part of that body, we must look at this as a whole.

My colleague the Minister for Health will be advising NHS Trusts on the planned spending budgets  for coming years in a short time.  This advice will include instructions that they should immediately undertake wholesale re-negotiations of all PFI contracts.  And, let us state here and now, we expect these PFI providers to fund the largest part of the reduction in NHS spending.  We will advise NHS Trusts that they will be allowed to go into receivership, bankruptcy, fold or call it what you will but we, the British taxpayer and the Conservative government, will not allow the people to be ripped-off by paying exorbitant fees to private finance organisations.

To be clear on this.  We know that most of these overly generous PFI contracts were signed under previous Labour governments and were considered a 'neat trick' to keep the public finances looking good.  This though isn't about political point scoring.  This party wants to see a healthy NHS not one that is having its very life-blood sucked out by onerous PFI contracts.

To those financiers listening to this, my advice is clear.  Get in touch with your NHS Trust partners and renegotiate the terms of your agreements as a priority.  This issue of overly generous contracts is now on the table and we know we can expect the full support of the 'banker bashing' brigade on the opposite benches, so it isn't going away.

Details on departmental budgets will be placed in the House of Commons Library following their announcement by the respective Ministers but the foregoing outlines the overall direction of where we are heading.

Turning now to taxation.

It will come as no surprise that this party is committed to reducing the tax burden on ordinary people.  The party opposite will bleat about tax cuts for the privileged few and so on, and they may, in their comments,  be yet joined by others.  The reality though, and they absolutely know this, is that government spending isn't funded by the privileged few, by the top earners.  If these people were taxed at 100% it still wouldn't be enough to fund spending.  And that is before we contemplate the huge increases in public spending that will be required to fund the extravagant promises made by the party opposite!  Why they would want to throw away the gains we, as a country, have made in the last 4 1/2 years is simply criminal.  We haven't come through a period of austerity, just so that we can go out on a Labour Party inspired binge!

At the recent Conservative Party conference, we proposed certain measures would be enacted if we were entrusted with power, by the British people, after the May 2015 General Election.  We now believe that we can accelerate some of these proposals.

The April 2015 Budget statement will include proposals to raise the income tax threshold to £12,500 with effect from April 2015 and increase by £500 increments each succeeding fiscal year until it reaches £15,000.  This will lift millions of people out of paying tax, altogether.


The April 2015 Budget statement will include proposals to raise the income tax threshold for the 40% rate from the current level of £41,865 to £45,000 from April 2015 and then by £1,000 increments each succeeding fiscal year until it reaches £50,000.  This will cut the tax bill for millions of so called 'middle earners' .  These people have contributed to putting the UK economy on the road to recovery and it is only right that they should get to keep more of the money that they earn and to be able to spend it as they like, not so that its spending is dictated by some bureaucrat in Westminster or the local town hall.

The April 2015 Budget statement will include proposals to completely lift the burden of so called 'green taxes' from our people and our businesses.  These taxes have crept stealth-like into the fabric of our country and sap the economy.  They force Old-Age Pensioners to sit in unheated homes because they cannot afford to pay high gas or electricity bills which are high because of these taxes that were brought in by the last Labour governments.  These killing taxes must go.

Linked to this, effective midnight, the fuel duty will be reduced by 10p a litre.  I have listened to representatives of the transport industry and of those from rural communities and know that this is the right change to make, to aid our people.

Honourable friends colleagues and Members, these are the headline changes that this Government will be putting before the House.  The full statement, including the comments of the OBR and the current position of the economy will now be placed in the House of Commons Library.

I commend this statement to the House.

Immigration - the real issue

Immigration and the UK's strained relationship with the European Union is a very hot topic at the moment.

It seems to me that UKIP and their supporters are being at best disingenuous and at worst lying.

The talk is all about EU immigration - people from the EU, particularly from Eastern Europe, flooding the UK.  This then is where the argument starts to fall apart.  These immigrants are flooding the UK and taking low paid jobs and so depriving local people of employment opportunities.  These same immigrants are flooding the UK and sponging off of Welfare because the UK authorities are too soft.

Leaving aside the inherent contradiction in these two statements, let's dissect that for a moment.

These East Europeans take jobs that UK people don't take.  That is probably true to a considerable extent.  Certainly all the figures suggest that these East Europeans are very predominantly in work.  In many cases they are in work which is below what their educational qualifications would suggest as being appropriate but they are in work.  Being in work, they are only eligible for those Welfare benefits that are on offer to all low paid employees - UK citizens and non-UK citizens.  These benefits like Working Tax credits and Child Benefit are a symptom of Labour's Gordon Brown's constant meddling in the UK tax system.  Labour's Brown was/is 'old school' socialism.  The sort that taxes everyone very highly and then the kindly State apparatus gives back to those that can work their way around the claims system.  In this Socialist Utopia, you work for the State and then the State decides how much pocket money you shall have, to live on!

But back to immigrants.  So these EU immigrants do jobs that the local population feel are somehow 'beneath' them.  These though are jobs that society needs to have done.  Office cleaning? Fruit or vegetable picking or packing?  Clearing tables? The need is there and so is the supply of local labour however, the tax and the welfare systems combine to make it not worthwhile for the 'locals' to take these jobs.  The income level achieved on Welfare benefits is such that actually taking a low paid job can cost a claimant a net loss in income.  They and their families can be worse-off by being in work.  This is because of income taxes that disproportionately hit low wage people and 'pound for pound' cuts in benefits based on income coming in.

The changes made by the Coalition, on an admittedly Lib Dem fundamental policy, are addressing the tax side of the equation.  The raising of the threshold at which people start to pay tax, benefits millions of people but particularly the low paid.  The Conservative pledge to build on this policy is very encouraging and worthy of support.

The Coalition policies on Welfare reform, this time Conservative inspired, are also starting to untangle the convoluted benefits system and make it clearer for people and, more importantly, to change the philosophy such that 'work' pays.  That this has been done at a time when the nation has been undertaking a policy of austerity (although lack-lustre in my view) is a credit to the Conservatives and reflects a weeding out of the highly dubious claimant numbers that had grown up over recent years.  A very high percentage of  people that were claiming 'incapacity' benefit decided to drop their claims when they were told that they would need to be medically examined.

Recent reports point to a very positive net contribution to the UK economy from EU immigration.  I know that these people have 'an axe to grind' and so the figures might be a little overblown but no one is questioning  that the position is a net positive and this is after considering the costs associated with this EU immigration - higher NHS, schools and local council services use, etc..

I think though that the use by UKIP of EU immigration is a cloak.  The real target is actually non-EU immigration.  It isn't the pale-faced Poles or Czechs that bother them, so much as the black-faced Africans and Indians and Pakistanis and increasingly, displaced people from the Middle East.  Read the sub-text to the UKIP election campaign for the Police and Crime Commission position in South Yorkshire.  The Labour Party were, rightly, condemned for their negligence, bordering on encouragement of the abuse of up to 1,400 young girls in Rotherham but UKIP didn't fail to point out that the perpetrators were overwhelmingly (exclusively?) Asian men - usually Pakistanis.

All of the TV stories show black faces or swarthy types milling about in Calais and trying to steal away onto trucks.  That is the immigration to which UKIP refers.  It isn't the Bulgarian that flies Ryanair into Stanstead and travels on to London and takes a job cleaning toilets, for minimum wage!

I know I invite vitriol by saying it but how does UKIP's concerns about immigration differ from that of the odious BNP or National Front?

The issue with immigration is that people do want to come to the UK.  Some will come because the Welfare programmes are too easily accessible.  Others will come because the UK economy is growing and there are jobs available which are not being taking by locals.

To significantly reduce the 'Welfare' arrivals, the UK government needs to severely restrict the opportunity to claim benefits - something like, you cannot claim benefits until you have been paying into the system for  for two years.  Oh, and apply that to locals as well - wouldn't want to be discriminatory!

To reduce the numbers of those that come to the UK for work?  Kind of a dilemma.  A strong economy should be a welcomed event, however, in terms of incentivising local's off of Welfare and into work, government needs to continue to get out of the business of subsidising low-paying employers.  Do this by increasing the tax thresholds, indeed accelerate this and combine it with squeezing Welfare benefits out of the tax system (and in the process, simplifying that overly complex beast).

UKIP is cleverly conflating British disenchantment with the EU, with a frankly racist immigration policy.  Don't be fooled!  You wouldn't vote for BNP or the National Front, would you?

Labour's dilemma - Welfare and Energy

Readers of previous blogs will have gathered that I am not particularly fond of the UK Labour Party.  Indeed, I have mentally re-christened them the Welfare Party.

However, I feel compelled to offer them advice on where they are going wrong and what they might do to turn things around.  Of course, this blog being open to all, it is just possible that the Conservatives will consider and then implement these.

Welfare - Labour is seen as the Welfare party - the party that values providing excessive welfare to a minority of people more than valuing the efforts of people who actually work for a living.  They opposed the Welfare Cap, even though it still provided an over-generous level.  They have opposed the idea, even the mention, of benefits that are regionally set.  They have constantly placed themselves on the side of the claimant rather than the taxpayer.

Labour's own private polling shows that support for welfare reform is a major vote winner and yet  the left-wing cabal that controls the party, sticks to it's failed and unpopular policies.

So, my advice to the two Eds is  be bold - 'out-Tory' the Conservatives - set the welfare cap below the UK national average wage - let's say at 80% - so £20,000 - show that you have heard the people and understand that it is important to recognize that in order to get people into work, they need an incentive.  Similarly, grasp the nettle of regional benefits.  If people are on benefits and genuinely in need of help, why should those living in a low cost areas get the same level of benefits as those in London, say?  Of course, this still requires the national 'cap' of £20,000!

Energy is much more problematic.  Ed Miliband's conference pledge to freeze energy prices is unraveling.  People see it as a cheap and essentially meaningless offer.  That this harks back to Labour's soviet-style obsession with control, doesn't help either.  Nowadays it isn't just people that have long memories, so do social media sites and blogs.  People dredge-up and post all those comments made by  Miliband when he was part of Gordon Brown's disastrous administration, when he insisted that energy prices had to rise for a decade.  When he initiated so called green taxes that do far more to push-up energy costs for families and businesses, than do the profits of energy companies.

So,

• Abandon the green taxes - wins votes across the country from grateful voters who see this as a real and sustainable cost of living reduction.
• Remove VAT from energy bills - see above
• End the subsidies for wind farms  - as well as taking money from 'rich' landowners (core labour policy) also garners rural votes from people who oppose the despoilation of the countryside.

Of course the Conservatives just might beat you to the punch on these - after all, they finally did on the EU Referendum (though Labour still have time to jump on this popular bandwagon) but you still have time!


  

Paying for the NHS

There is currently a proposal doing the rounds.  It seems to have the support of a majority of General Practioners (GPs) but has got the 'left' into a normal, for them, froth.

The proposal? 

If you fail to turn-up for an appointment with your GP, then you must pay a fee.  The amounts suggested seem modest at £5-10 but that is still too much for the 'bleating heart liberals and lefties'.

Think about it though, you only pay if you fail to turn-up for your appointment.  That is, the appointment that is taking up time that is therefore no longer available to others. 

Once again Labour finds itself on the wrong side of the argument.  The Labour/Welfare party is only about being stuck in a 1940s time-warp where they are chained to the 'no fees and free at point of delivery' ideal and cannot therefore think beyond that time.

Surely this isn't about any kind of 'thin edge of the privatisation of the NHS' thing!  This is about making sure that those the really need the services of a doctor, have a better chance of getting them.  This is about making those, that take for granted and abuse the NHS, pay for that abuse.  Wouldn't we expect to see less missed appointments?  That is the point of this proposal.  It isn't about raising money, it is about improving services. What kind of organisation never looks at ways to better the customer (patient) experience?  If the NHS doesn't move with the times, time will increasingly pass it by.

My suggestion is that NHS Trusts move to implement this change, on a local basis and those GPs that don't want to, don't have to.  That way, just like in a science experiment, we will have 'with and without' data and we can see the results.  I would go further and apply this process to hospital appointments as well as those with GPs.

I have no problem paying if I fail to turn-up for an appointment, do you? 

Oh, and please don't bleat about 'the poor' being unable to afford the fee.  The cure for that is not more welfare (sorry Labour!).  The answer is, don't miss your appointment!

High Treason in the UK and the ECHR

It occurs to me that when the two Islamists attacked and murdered Drummer Lee Rigby, they actually committed treason.  They, by their own words, killed him because he was a serving soldier from the British Army.  And they committed this murder within the realm of HM Queen Elizabeth.  Surely that qualifies this as the crime of treason?

I thought, until just recently, that treason was one of the few crimes left, to which capital punishment could be applied.  However, it seems that a combination of acts passed by the last Labour government, including signing-up to the 13th protocol of the much-despised European Convention on Human Rights in 2004, means that the death penalty cannot be used as either a deterrent or as a fitting reward for these jihadists.  Yet another 'green light' for terrorists from Labour.

Much has been already written about how the ECHR and its application by British judges flies in the face of common sense and decency.  Much also has been said and many hands have been wrung by Conservative politicians about the need for reform of the ECHR.  It seems to me that it is a fundamental obligation, maybe even the fundamental obligation, of government to protect its people.  How do we square that with a government that seems powerless (or is maybe unwilling) to repeal legislation that puts the British people at daily risk?  How many innocent British people need to die before appropriate action is taken?

We have had Tony Blair 'apologizing', in 2006, for the UK's role in slavery and have seen other 'political apologies' made by various politicians but not one of them has ever apologized for signing-up the UK, to the alien ECHR or for keeping us as signatories.  

To say that the ruling elite is out of touch doesn't even come close. 

On the ECHR, the elite do not understand that the feeling of national impotence is not acceptable.  Westminster can no longer make laws with any expectation that they will have any force - every legal-aid financed lawyer (and that is almost all of them) salivates at the prospect of challenging laws passed by their own democratically elected representatives.  (Is that maybe a bit treasonous, on their part?)

On the EU, Labour at least recognizes the potency of feeling among the people and their demand for a referendum but Labour leader Ed Miliband has advised his followers (do we call them milipedes?) to abstain from the vote on the EU Referendum Private Members bill that is going through parliament.   The Conservatives are at least pushing this bill but, to David Cameron's shame, this isn't being put through as a Conservative government's measure - mustn't upset his Lib Dem 'allies' (though they seem to have no such sensitivity).

On immigration, all three main parties tread warily.  The liberal media and the so called equality industry (tax payer funded) jump on anyone that suggests perhaps we have got immigration wrong.  I am not against immigration but I do believe that pandering to immigrants and not requiring them to integrate into the existing indigenous population has been clearly wrong and I think that significant numbers of people believe the same.  Without I hope, sounding hypocritical though, Britain has reached a point where we cannot sustain increased immigration given our current economic model.  Rather than 'allowing' cheap labour in from other countries, shouldn't we be getting the workshy in our midst, off of welfare and into these jobs?  I say 'allowing' because in some cases, we are not authorized to stop people from the EU coming here.

On Welfare, Labour is so out of touch, it is not even funny.  The only people that they can count on are the direct beneficiaries of their 'Labour is the Welfare Party' policy.  The Conservatives spout on about austerity and the need for fiscal prudence but the minor cuts that they have made have been ineffective in reducing the overall debt burden of the country or its rate of increase.  I really can't fathom why the Conservatives don't go ahead and commit to deep cuts in public spending that the biased BBC, the Guardian and other 'lefties' accuse them of.  I think that the 'people' get it.  They understand that under Labour the UK overspent on a massive scale.  Those of them that are in work (in the private sector) understand that budgets have to be balanced and met and that when either the company's that they work for or they themselves overspend, a period of belt-tightening must follow.

On the environment, most people recognize that the punitive green taxes that are being imposed upon people, driving many old people into 'fuel poverty', are simply unnecessary gesture politics.  These policies will come home to roost when the lights start to go out in the coming years.  The despoiling of the physical environment, with useless wind turbines continues, and power stations are being closed at an unhealthy rate and not being replaced - 'brown-outs' loom.  Instead of addressing this with the urgency that people need, the elite are struggling to come to terms with the reality that the so called science behind all of this green scam has been repeatedly found to be false and falsified.  By the way, have you noticed how now that global warming' isn't actually occurring and people, even blinkered scientists can see this, these green fascists now call it 'climate change'.  We used to call that 'the weather' and just accept that it was changeable!