If not Ed

Following their less than sparkling out-turn from the UK local elections, there are mumblings from the ever fraternal politicians, in the Labour Party, that maybe leader, Ed Miliband, should be replaced.

The thought never seems to cross their mind, that maybe the message is wrong.

Anyhow, that got me thinking about who could replace Ed.  The job spec. would include phrases like 'must have more personality than a finger puppet', 'must have coherent policies that address the needs of the people and can be easily articulated',  'must not talk about concepts like pre-distributive', 'must not talk in a whiny schoolkid 'miss they're being nasty to me' kind of voice'.

So the candidates.

Ed's brother, David Miliband?  The nearly candidate who was defeated by Ed?  Don't think so.  This is the same man that led everyone to believe he was about to take on the deranged Gordon Brown and then chickened out and instead of bringing along an ultimatum or resignation and challenge,  to the 'Kirkcaldy kook' brought a banana, instead!

Ed Balls?  Hardly!  He, like Ed M himself, is still tied to Gordon's failed economic policies.  Indeed, he still spouts them.  He predicted doom and gloom,  if the very modest cuts initiated by the Conservatives, were enacted.  By all measures, he was spectacularly wrong.  He's an attack dog politician, that tries to hide his innate thuggery behind a very thin smile and only use his bully boy tactics, when forced to but the real Balls is never far from the surface.

Yvette Cooper?  The wife of Ed Balls.  Just the fact that she is married to Ed Balls, should be sufficient reason to discount her.  How could the Labour Party have a leader that makes such a poor choice in spouses?  Okay, so I hear you say, what about Tony Blair?  Well, yes but would Labour repeat the mistake?  Anyway, she loses on the whiny voice front as well.  She is the plain and mousy person that always did her homework on time and only associated with other kindred spirits.  As said though, poor judgement on the spouse front must exclude her.

Chuka Umunna?  The Shadow Business Secretary has certainly done everything to push his credentials.  He always dresses in sharp suits and speaks so moderately but I think that he just isn't up to it and he certainly won't have a big constituency among the leader electors.  There is something about Chuka that always suggests to me that, he is looking to move on to something bigger but mainly something that means he doesn't need or want  to mix with the hoi polloi and, heaven for fend, workers.

Andy Burnham?  I only include him as a joke.  Far too toxic given his association with the Mid Staffs scandal.  In any leadership campaign, he would automatically start with 1,300 less votes as that is the number of NHS patients that died, at that hospital, on his watch.

Harriet Harman?  She is so ludicrously 'right on'  that she just might change her name to Harriet Harperson.  No, she and fellow MP and husband, Jack Dromey, are seen as fools and hypocrites - not unusual qualifications for a politician but Harriet is just too 'nanny state'.

Jim Murphy?  This might be a possibility except that he is so outwardly 'Scottish'  He is from the Glasgow side of Scotland and so doesn't have that Edinburgh condescending approach but I am not sure Labour can risk putting a Scot in charge as the association, by voters, with Brown, might be considered to be taking too much of a chance.  Seems like a decent and grounded person though, and not so metro-elitist as almost all of the others.

So, not really much choice for Labour.  The obvious solution would be to 'cut out the middle-man' and go for Len McCluskey, the leader of the public sector union, Unite.  McCluskey controls the purse strings anyway, so why not let him be the actual mouthpiece for the party he has bought?

Says a lot for the dearth of quality, that these are the only candidates that might replace Ed

Labour's bonking mad!

No this isn't a story about over-sexed socialists (unless you maybe include Rev. Paul Flowers) but please do read on.

Ed Miliband, the figure-head leader of the socialists in the UK, the real leader is union boss, Len McCluskey, has indicated that Labour would try to create two new large banks in the UK, so as to promote 'competition.

Now think about that.  We already have 5 big banks in the UK.  We also have building societies (akin to US savings and loans/credit unions).  Indeed, two of these banks are largely owned by the UK people.  The 'people' own more than 80% of Royal Bank of Scotland.

It is entirely unclear what benefits this extra competition will bring.  We now know that Miliband's words have cost the UK taxpayers more than £ billion from the reduction in share prices seen for RBS and LloydsTSB.

Consider also, what happened last time Labour were in power.  This champion of greater competition, then forced through the takeover of the HBOS banking group by LloydsTSB, thereby reducing the number of banking chains!

Consider also, the Labour party's closest banking ally - the Cooperative Bank.  This bank had Rev. Paul Flowers appointed as its chairman, under Labour's 'light touch' regulatory regime.  This is the same Rev. Paul Flowers that is accused of hiring rent boys and using illegal drugs, including Ketamine.  The same Rev. Paul Flowers who is accused of abusing his position as a church  minister to allegedly defraud a charity.  Oh yes, and the same Rev. Paul Flowers who took the Co-Op bank to the brink of bankruptcy!  In the last action, he perhaps proved that he was as qualified as other leading bankers, at least!

So Labour, whose record with banks is, shall we say, patchy, wants to interfere and create competition?

Since when has Labour been so keen on competition?  When did they become the champions of consumer choice?  I ask because there seem to be some areas for which Labour is absolutely opposed to promoting competition.  These are not areas where the incumbents are actually performing well.  Indeed, quite the opposite.

These areas?  Well, the NHS and Education, to name just two.

With the NHS, the UK effectively has a monopoly supplier of health care that is controlled by its provider union personnel.  Can you imagine the uproar that would have followed, if a private health supplier had treated patients the way that the 'envy of the world' NHS treated people at Mid Staffs and other scandal-riddled hospitals?  Does anyone think that Andy Burnham, the Labour minister in charge at the time of these scandals, who tried to hide the truth, would remain in the role, if he were in a private company?  Hundreds of people died unnecessarily and in appalling conditions when their very lives were entrusted to this monopoly provider but, according to Labour, that's okay.

Look also at education, where Labour, again repaying the debts to its union paymasters, consistently opposes any and all reform.  Here the Conservatives have pushed ahead with supporting the establishment of independent schools but much still needs to be done and Labour, and its local authority allies and other members of the payroll electorate, will continue to oppose much needed reform.  As with health, Britain's education system is failing as successive governments have failed to address the core issues because they have focused on 'politically correct' solutions and ignored real world problems.

Apparently, Labour want to see more choice on the high street but I seriously wonder how many people still rely on physical branches and how many use online banking?  When was the last time you went into a bank?

Anyway, usual stuff from Miliband and his socialists.  The 'cost of living crisis' is seen to be being solved, as real wages start to exceed prices and so it is time for another soundbite!  Worryingly, Labour still have a chance that they might be in charge of the UK economy, after the next election.  Miliband the banker - be afraid, very afraid.  Remember who ran the economy alongside the disappeared Gordon Brown?


   

2014 Predictions

Well, if journalists can do this, why can't I?

Scotland will vote to remain in the UK and not seek independence, though it will be a closer-run thing than many first predicted.  Indeed, (hedging bets here) it may yet go the other way given the lack-lustre performance of the No campaign and the reluctance of the UK parties to engage and promote the Union.

The UK (read South-East England) will not be flooded by Romanians and Bulgarians.  Total immigration will be less than 20,000

Pope Francis will continue to amaze the world with his humility and engagement.

Vince Cable will manufacture an excuse to leave the Coalition, at the start of the second half of the year.  Then he will successfully challenge Nick Clegg for the leadership of the Liberal Democratic Party and lead his party to its eventual near annihilation at the 2015 General Elections.

President Obama's Democrats will suffer heavy poll reverses in the mid term elections.  This despite some Republicans seeming to spend more time attacking Tea Party activists than their liberal opposition.

Calls for a full investigation of the horrific events that occurred in Benghazi will gather strength but until the new members are sworn-in, most of the action will be on Twitter, where the Justice for the Benghazi 4 movement will gain increasing traction.  So Hillary remains safe for now but the eventual investigations will haunt her 2016 bid and make her wish she had got them out of the way, with a more compliant Congress.

In a move to improve efficiency, France's Socialist government will enact legislation to cut out the middle-man and have all wages paid direct to the State's tresor.  Apart from making it easier to identify those that exist or participate in the 'black' economy (not a racist statement, before any liberals complain), this will also reduce stubbornly high unemployment as more tax-collectors are hired.

Greece and Italy decide to not follow the French example - rumours that this is because some many of those countries' politicians operate within the 'black' (still not racist) economy will not actually be proven but nevertheless will abound.

The UK's Labour Party will formally change it's name to the Labour,Welfare and Minority Interests Party and will officially abandon any pretence of representing actual workers.

Ed Balls, in a move designed to avoid being sacked by Ed Miliband, will challenge him for the party leadership role.  In a close-run race, Len McCluskey, leader of the UNITE union,  will emerge as the winner, even though not a participant!

UK Prime Minister, David Cameron will react to Labour's attacks about the Cost of Living 'crisis' by abolishing the so called Green Taxes.  This will anger his Lib Dem partners but Cameron will tell Clegg it is the price to pay for support of Clegg's candidacy for a EU Commissioner role.

Cameron will also face internal opposition from those who accuse him of being a TINO (Tory in name only) and such opposition will increase following the Euro elections at which all parties will do badly, except UKIP, who score spectacularly well.  Indeed, it is only the Euro-sceptic MEPs, like Daniel Hannan, that retain their seats on the Euro-Gravy-Train.

The European Commission and Parliament will continue to enact directives that strengthen, on paper,  the undemocratic nature of their rule and which ignore the voices of the European people, expressed through the ballot boxes. 

 Youth unemployment in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy will continue at high levels that will haunt those countries for years to come.  Ireland too will continue to export its problem by large-scale youth emigration and the country will pay its price for EU inspired de-population with large-scale issues around unfunded pension liabilities - as in most countries, pension payments require a working and contributing mass of young people, to be viable!

Moves will continue to seek the impeachment of President Obama but while the mood in America will be marginally in favour, Congress will continue to not represent the will of the people and so Obama will continue in office but will find Congress much less compliant, especially as high-profile cases showing the effects of Obamacare's failures hit the headlines with increasing frequency, as even Obama's media supporters bow to pressure to stop hiding the truth.

China will continue to expand its economy but will be less involved in buying US Treasury bills and funding America's deficit and debt mountains.

Brazil will host the football World Cup but organizational problems will mar the occasion.

Russia will use a very heavy hand to confront their domestic terrorists and will ignore the 'human rights' whining from the West.

Then there are the predictions that are border-line wishes.......

Arsenal confound the doubters and not only win the English Premier League title but also complete a remarkable treble by gaining  victories in the FA Cup and the European Champions League.

David Cameron uses one of the many recesses that the UK parliament enjoys and reads-up on what it means to be a Conservative and then, in an amazing transformation decides to start to implement such policies.  Consequent upon this, Cameron corners Nick Clegg and explains to him the outcome of opposing the changed approach and advises that the Tories will rule in a minority government rather than continue to pander to the idiotic and damaging policies of the Lib Dems.

Notwithstanding the earlier prediction, moves to impeach Obama become a central policy plank and receive wide-spread and united Republican support.  Worried Democrats, pick-up on the public mood and  transfer their allegiance to the camp pushing for the ouster of the would-be Emperor of the Free World.

Difficult to know whether any desires relating to the US Supreme Court, supporting the US Constitution and the American people count as predictions or wishes.  Will they strike down the 'Executive Orders' that are being repeatedly issued by America's ruler, in contravention of the US Constitution or will they continue to pursue a 'leftist' and un-American agenda?

As a choice, this would be a profound wish - that the scales fall from the eyes of politicians around the world and the eco-nonsense ends as soon as possible.  Not only this though, but in an unprecedented attack of common sense, the world's politicians immediately repeal all of the restrictive eco-laws that have so negatively impacted the world.  If, in the process, Al Gore and the climate science lobby were convicted of gross fraud, then that would be an added bonus! 

I could go on.  I have probably thought this before but this time I will say in print, I sense that 2014 will herald some significant changes for America, the UK and Europe.  

 

Unequal Britain

For those of the 'left' persuasion, you may want cease reading.  Strictly speaking this isn't about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.  Nor is it entirely about those people who work for a living being better of than those on welfare.  I will leave such class war clap-trap to the Labour Party, or Welfare Party as it is more properly called.  This is the party, who this week revealed their real leader.  Many suspected that the unions controlled the party and this was confirmed when the shenanigans carried out by the odious Tom Watson MP and Labour's paymasters, (and these are the same ones that elected  Red Ed Miliband over his brother, David, as party 'leader') in Scotland were revealed.  The real leader of the Labour/Welfare party is Len McCluskey, the leader of the mostly public sector Unite union.

But I digress.

The inequality of which I speak is that between the public and private sector.  Average hourly wages in the public sector are more than 24% higher than those in the private sector.  Simply put, this is scandalous!  Even its apologists admit that the best that they can reduce the discrepancy to, is just over 8%, when they eliminate factors such as public sector workers having more education and experience than their private sector counterparts.

Those reading this who live outside of London really need to think about those numbers.  Average wages in London are around 50% higher in the private sector and around 25% higher in the public sector, than the UK average. 

So what this means is that in those other regions of England and Wales, the public sector crowds out the private sector.  That is, the public sector pays better than the private sector.  The data (all from 2011) shows that outside of London the average hourly wages for the public sector is around £17/hour.  In London it climbs to over £22/hour, presumably due to the so called 'London Weighting' allowance.   In all regions outside of London, all, these averages far exceed the local private sector average wage.  In Wales and the North East, the average private sector hourly wage is around £13/hour.  So the public sector is offering wages that are 30% higher than the private sector.  Think about that and ask yourself why would anyone want to work in the private sector and much more importantly, why should a servant - because that is what the public sector are supposed to be - servants of the people - earn more than the person that pays his/her wage??

And of course we then move to the subject of pensions.  You will recall all of those demonstrations shown on TV, particularly by the biased BBC - the same BBC that uses license/TV Tax money to such great effect for it's own and recently ex-employees - where people were complaining about their public sector pensions being decimated and how unfair it all was, etc..   A great study by the independent Institute of Fiscal Studies, found that even after these reforms come into play

"Public sector workers will continue to accrue pensions that are dramatically more generous than those accrued, on average, by private sector employees, few of whom have access to a defined benefit pension."

 Which brings us back to the 'cuts' that the Labour/Welfare Party and it's union masters, (I was going to say paymasters but we now see that the union grip on Labour/Welfare is more than just money-centred), always rant on about - though recently in a confused and conflicted way - we will oppose 'cuts' but we will keep them if we regain power (or the latter gets changed depending on who is speaking!)

In all the talk about cuts and how the public sector is being 'killed off' and how these workers are suffering etc., consider this.  These public sector workers have achieved pay increases above the so-called 'freeze' that was imposed by the incoming Conservative 'led' coalition government.  Employment in the public sector fell by 6.4% between April 2010 and April 2012 and yet the public pay bill rose by 2%, which translates to a 9% increase, per head, over two years. 

I must be lying, I can (almost) hear you cry.  What about all those statements from the government saying we 'are all in this together' and the 'public sector must share in the pain'?  Surely they can't have been lies?  Especially when you hear confirmation from Labour/Welfare and the unions on how 'ordinary public servants are suffering at the hands of a heartless, typically Tory regime', etc..

Well it seems that yes, they are all lying - kind of.  There was a freeze but as fans of Yes, Minister will know, the Sir Humphrey's can always get around such trivialities.  It seems that a lot of public servants in  Whitehall and the NHS, etc., continued to receive 'annual increments' simply because, by staying employed they are 'building up experience'.  So they didn't get a salary increase but their pay went up!

Unequal Britain isn't about the so called rich and the so called poor.  It is about the continuing differences between those that work in the public sector and those that they supposedly work for.   Between a protected and cosseted minority and those that pay for them.  And the tragedy?  There doesn't seem to be any political party that actually represents the poor schmuck who pays for this.  Taxation, in all its various and iniquitous forms, continues to be far too high in the UK and no political party is advocating slashing taxes and getting big government off of the backs of the working people.  Not one!  None are saying that the 'master' should be paid more than the servant.

Democracy 21st Century style! 

Still, I suppose it could be worse.  I am not a fan of the Muslim Brotherhood but in Egypt,  Morsi was democratically elected.  Wonder what his greater crime was?  The one that tipped the army?  Maybe threatening some of their perks? 

Enjoy the weekend and thanks for reading!