Assisted murder - leave well enough alone

The newly promoted junior minister at the Department of Health, Conservative Anna Soubry, has caused a stir by seeking to re-open the debate about so-called assisted suicides.  Her Lib Dem colleague, Norman Lamb,  has jumped into the fray by supporting her.

Let's be very clear.  We are talking about murder.  However you frame the discussion, what this comes down to is the intentional taking of the life of another.  The only times that civilized society countenances this is during war or as capital punishment.  Both of which small l liberals always oppose!

Once again, we see the political agenda being hi-jacked by single issue, very minority subjects and government time and focus being wasted. 

Does anyone think that the biggest issue facing the NHS is the so called 'right to die'?  Or maybe these minister's main priority should be finding ways to reduce the PFI spending in the NHS and ways to CUT the inexorably increasing expenditure and the tearing-out of whole layers of management.  Why are these people straying into controversial areas or morality instead of just doing their job?

What is up with David Cameron?  I can understand that he can exert no control over his Lib Dem 'partners' but surely he can tell the Conservative ministers to stick to their brief and concentrate on getting us out of this Labour-induced mess?  We replace one bunch of people with another and neither have the spine to do what EVERYONE knows is needed. 

The re-shuffle and indeed, the whole conduct of this administration, smacks of a continual re-arrangement of the deck-chairs on the Titanic, rather than the implementation of Conservative policies or the taking of the hard decisions that need to be made.

The reforms to education are welcome but too slow-paced.  Health will now suffer as Hunt tries to understand his brief (the welcome he received from the health unions is VERY worrying).  IDS needs to be bolder and faster on Welfare reform - the working people, in the country do and will support radical reform - don't wait!


Time and again we see drift - let's talk about homosexual marriage or right to die etc., let's not treat the electorate like adults and discuss the very necessary and long overdue economic reforms (otherwise known as cuts and regulatory reductions)

Cameron, get a grip before it's too late!

Cameron - Actions, not words, are needed

David Cameron is quoted in a UK paper as saying that the government cannot 'dither' over the economy.

Exactly right!

Will these though just be fine words or will he now have the courage to do the right things?  Will he instruct the Chancellor and the spending ministries to implement significant cuts in spending or will he listen to the foolish and economically illiterate comments from his coalition partners and others concerning tax rises?

Significant cuts?

• Take an axe to welfare spending, 50% less is a good starting point - the Tories don't have the votes of the Guardian or the BBC anyway, so what's to lose? 
• Same for Overseas Aid
• Ditto EU spending and support - the French always try to look down their gallic nose's at us ( our own fault for being the country that repeatedly beat them or rescued them, I suppose) and the Germans want to get domination of Europe, where two wars didn't succeed.
• Cut spending for Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland - They too don't like Tories and Salmond and his ilk use English largesse to 'cock a snook' at Westminster and England and the UK.  If Salmond wants to give free university places to Scots and other EU countries (but not the English) and free prescriptions, then let the Scots pay!
• Pull troops out of Afghanistan - Now!
• Major cuts at the Civil Service-end of the Ministry of Defence - not at the front-line end.
• Local Government - plenty of scope for major cuts.
• Merge police forces.
• Same for NHS - let the various trusts free to manage and let them default on PFI contracts.  These 'sweetheart' deals, mainly signed under the previous Labour 'administration' are bleeding the NHS of  funds for front-line caring.
• Remove the 'climate change' clap-trap from Government - completely - take it out of policies and ministries and so on.  It is totally unnecessary and costs us all, far, far too much.

Be bold across all departments - if the carpets aren't red with the bleeding hearts of liberals, you haven't cut enough.

Cut so far, that you can then spend money on required infrastructure developments that are needed.  Heathrow third runway,  fibre-optic links for all communities, housing. 

In all of this, ignore the false siren calls of those saying raise taxes, the bold move would be to reduce taxes 5p off of the basic rate, raise the threshold to 15K, good steps in the right direction.

If challenged by the opposition (Labour and Lib Dems) you could call it Plan BB - as in Bold and Beautiful?


 

Labour, Cuts and the Unions

Labour is apparently in conflict with its trade union backers because it has now 'apparently' come out in support of public expenditure cuts and 'endorses' public sector pay restraint and goes further and suggests that public sector workers might take pay cuts to prevent job losses.

Labour now 'apparently' supports public expenditure cuts.  However, in certain of its confused and conflicting statements it still maintains that the cuts being implemented, against Labour's opposition, by the Coalition, are too deep and too fast.  That sounds like trying to be both pro and anti cuts.

Interviewed on the biased BBC, by Nick Robinson, Ed Miliband was asked

QUESTION: "Some people think this is curious because it gives you an excuse to say: 'Well we oppose this cut', only to say a few weeks later, 'actually we back it, we've got to live with it'."
ANSWER: "No, it's not about backing the cuts that are being made. We don't want these cuts to be being made. It's not in the interests, for example, of safety on our streets to be having the speed of cuts we're seeing in policing. Or in the interests of the economy to have the overall pace of cuts - that's why we say too far and too fast.

Make your own mind up as to whether Labour back or oppose the cuts and then let Ed know what he should say!


Labour 'endorse' pay restraint.  Well maybe the leader and Shadow Chancellor now do

Ed Miliband recently said:

It's a hard choice, but when you are faced with the choice between protecting jobs or saying the money should go into pay rises I think it's right to protect jobs," he said.

"In the end there's no easy choices in government... I think is absolutely right that we say we've got to prioritise employment."

Several Labour MPs have reportedly criticised the move, among them Austin Mitchell, who supposedly called it 'barmy' and accused Mr Miliband of "weakness".

Mr Miliband said Mr Mitchell was "wrong", adding: "We are absolutely determined that Labour shows we would be fiscally credible in government."

I can't help think that this is a smokescreen and the following backs up my thoughts.

Labour suggests that public sector workers might take pay cuts to save jobs.

I believe this is a cynical attempt to encourage the public sector to hunker down and weather out the economic storm that we are facing.  This is in the mistaken belief that doing so will be temporary and will be lifted when (if,?) Labour returns to power.  The Labour leadership (and their union counterparts) know full well that the country simply cannot afford and will not be able to afford the public sector to ever get anywhere near as big as it was under Labour. 

I am sorry to all those 'diversity officers' out there, and  all the other low-value adding but oh so right on and nice to have positions which get in the way of people living their lives and taking responsibility for their own lives, but you need to find a new career - the country cannot afford to employ your services and pay from the public purse.   


Call me cynical but I can't help but feel that the bluster from the unions is manufactured.  Leaked letters?  Public letters to The Guardian.  I smell an orchestrated campaign.  Goes something like this:

• Labour needs to build economic credibility with the Public.
• Labour to public back cuts because Public endorse and see necessity for cuts.
• Labour to endorse pay restraint in public sector because the Public think that the public sector should share the pain and have been cossetted by Labour.
• Labour endorse 'negotiated' deals that see public sector pay cuts to 'protect' jobs.
• Unions to express outrage, publicly, with letters to the press and privately, with letters that get leaked.
• Cue the two Eds standing firm and saying we have to be responsible and economically credible and then saying things which undermine their earlier stance (the latter is unintended but neither Ed really want to upset their union backers)