The Conservative Agenda

As the Conservative Party prepares to gather for its annual conference, I offer these items, in no particular order, which should be being discussed, if they want to have a chance of re-election and an outright majority after 2015.

Note that there is nothing to stop them actually starting to implement these, now.  Yes, I know that they have coalition partners but perhaps even the Lib Dems would baulk at publicly opposing some of these?

EU Referendum
The Conservative Party needs to come out now and state that it will offer the people of Britain a straight In or Out referendum after the next General Election.  That is, within a stated time after that election and this to be not more than 12 months.

EU Reform
Preceding the EU Referendum, and starting immediately, initiate a process of root and branch review and reform of all EU institutions and laws and directives - all!  Hopefully this will be done with the cooperation of EU partners but if not, it should still be done.  This needs to be undertaken and completed before 2015, so that, going into the General Election and the subsequent EU Referendum, voters will clearly know for what it is they are voting. 

The review should take a profoundly British and Conservative view of EU law and see how this serves our British and Conservative interests and as a minimum must ask these questions concerning all EU legislation.

• Why does this need to be done by the EU and not by the UK government?
• Does this legislation discriminate against Britain and British interests?  
• Does this legislation include any option for a member country to not implement it?
• Does this legislation reflect the paramount status of the UK legislative institutions?  That's Westminster, in case you have forgotten.

The result of the review should be presented to the British voter as - if we stay in, then this will happen (continued control from unelected officials) or if we leave, Britain will be taking care of this or will ditch this piece of legislation or EU body.  For example, if we stay in, our Foreign Affairs will be controlled by the unelected High Commissioner for External Affairs or if we leave, Britain will manage its own Foreign Affairs and sign its own treaties.
  
 
Public Expenditure Cuts
These need to be implemented, accelerated, call it what you will but real cuts need to be made.  Real?  That is cuts that reduce the overall level of spending, year on year for all departments, except Defence.  And yes, that does include the bloated and inefficient NHS.  The Health budget and that of Welfare take a very large slice of the expenditure pie, so these could naturally  produce the largest contribution to cuts. 

Regional Pay
No need for discussions.  Instruct ministers and their departments that forward from the next pay round, all salary settlements will be on a regional basis and reflect local pay and conditions and not negotiated and set at a National level. 
 
Tax  and Business Regulation Reform
I posted recently on tax cuts  ( http://bit.ly/PdhgtG )   but additionally  the Conservatives need to be pushing a pro-business agenda.  Britain needs to have the lowest Corporate Tax rate in the OECD.  Employer NI contributions need to incentivise companies to hire not penalise them if they do.  Same applies to employment legislation.

We do not need talk of a bonfire of red tape, we need that actual bonfire (Guy Fawkes night is just around the corner, only saying!).  A simple rule should be applied - what is the economic impact of any law or directive or legislation or whatever.  It's a bit like how you run a business - can we afford to do this or that?

The Regions and Devolved Assemblies
The interminable delays sought by the Scottish Nationalists must be thwarted.  If they do not come to the table with a date and the single Yes or No question, then Westminster should by-pass them and go to the Scottish people, directly.  Oh, and no concessions on more powers being devolved - None! 

However, and I know this will upset the Unionists, the price should be made clear before any independence vote is taken.  If independence is chosen, Scotland may align itself with Sterling but will have no say in the formulation of economic policy.  A fair distribution of National Debt will be undertaken - fair equals something like that which reflects Scotland's percentage contribution to the UK economy (I know that proportionally, Scotland is probably getting a good deal from such a share out but let's be clear, let's do it and move on).

For the Regions and the devolved assemblies, whatever the outcome of the Scottish independence vote, a commitment that the Conservatives will scrap the Barnett formula and replace it with a new process for the distribution of  government spending.

BBC
This organization needs to become a commercial organization and not one that is funded by a TV tax.  Then they can drop the facade of impartiality and show their 'leftist' colours more openly.

Pilgrims
This only needs David Cameron to tell Francis Maude to stop dithering and end this iniquitous process, immediately.  No discussions just get it ended.  If any local council or other organization refuses to end their Trade Union implants then immediately reduce their funding by 5 times the cost of the 'pilgrim'.  Hey, that could be a great way to cut Public Expenditure!
 
Nuclear Energy
See also the following point.  Initiate and then drive through a programme of dramatically increasing the percentage of Britain's energy needs that is derived from Nuclear power.  Start building nuclear power plants.  So start by enacting legislation suspending Planning laws for same.  Since we will need so many, these can be spread around the country so ultimately they are close enough to be in all of our backyards - that should silence the NIMBYs
  
Green Energy
Shouldn't really need to say this but, if we must have wind farms spoiling the landscape or other fanciful schemes, then let them be self-funding.  End the 'Green taxes'.  Give people back the choice.  Do you want 'green energy' if yes, then it will cost you more.

Policing Reform
How can it make any sense to have so many different police authorities throughout the country?  So many different purchasing organizations, HR groups, Finance groups etc..  End this grossly inefficient farce and merge these organizations into a national force, answerable to the Home Secretary

Quangos
Set a date by which time all will be automatically abolished.  First though make sure that all initiate processes that ensure that any redundancy payments paid out, match government levels and cannot exceed the Income Tax, tax free deductible levels.  Then, these organizations can put the case for being re-constituted, laying out a business case for what they do and why they are needed and, why they are needed in a particular format (maybe some might chose to merge or otherwise amalgamate).

Fundamentally though, all must be directly answerable to a minister.


So what else?
Well, the above is a busy programme, so parliamentary recesses will need to be much shorter - say something like the 4-5 weeks vacation that most people get?  Then given the absence of pandering to special interest groups (who will NEVER vote Conservative anyway) the legislative agenda might be achievable!

Taxing matters

If you can accept that Nick Clegg's so called 'wealth tax' is a contribution to the debate, then you will note that tax is starting to feature more and more in the current political and media discussions.

Clegg and, earlier Cable, have prattled on about a 'mansion tax' or a 'wealth tax'  If I understand the latter this will be some kind of tax on assets.  If it is, then as Anthony Hinton pointed out, in the London Evening Standard, this then acts as a bringing forward of Inheritance Tax and, for those elderly people, who are asset rich but cash poor, would present a very difficult situation.  The 'mansion tax' would seem to present the same issues.  So trying to spend tomorrow's money, today.  You might even call it, borrowing from the future!

I have tried to find out 'who pays, what' as regards Income Tax.  That is, what percentage of the working population pay what percentage of the total taxes?  We hear that something like the top 10% of earners currently contribute more than 50% of the total tax take.  Is contribute the right word when it is compulsory?
I digress.

Do these Lib Dem 'rocket scientists' and their socialist colleagues in the Labour Party, have an absolute number in mind for the top tax rate - for their so called 'fair tax'?  That is, have they modeled their tax and tax 'plans', to see just how much revenue would actually be raised?

I sense (and stand ready to be proved wrong) that the only way that further tax will be effective, is if the higher rate is spread wider - so more and more of the masses in the 'middle classes' are brought deeper into the fold - I just don't think that the 'rich' can be  taxed sufficient to feed the beast that is government spending.

 I come at the tax question from a different angle.  I believe that the most effective way to stimulate the economy would be to cut taxes.  If there are any ITEM members out there, maybe they could model this?

Raise the tax threshold to £15,000, abolish the 45% rate, reduce the 20% rate to 15% and the 40% rate to 35% and reduce fuel tax by 5% and eliminate the green levies being applied on fuel provision.  Give an NI holiday to employers who take on new employees and hold it for three years.

Of course this will cost money - that is the great maw that is government will initially  receive lower direct income - and so to overcome the gap, the choice is either real cuts in government expenditure or more QE.  The proper and courageous solution is for cuts to be made but given the Lib Dems baleful influence on government policy we can expect 'bleeding hearts and stumps' to be used to persuade politicians to avoid the work for which we employ them and the decisions that we expect them to make.

If there are leftists out there who can prove that tax cuts will not stimulate the economy and/or that further government spending will, then do so, otherwise, join the campaign to get tax cuts implemented as a priority.

If there are any Conservative MPs that understand the founding principles of their party, then perhaps they can push their party to act like Conservatives!



 

  

BBC NHS bias - nothing new

The BBC is splashing big on an NHS scare story today.  BBC Breakfast show was trawling for viewer comments and managed to get some along the lines of 'why is it so difficult to get a doctor's appointment'.

Their website says
:

Fresh fears are being raised in England that cuts will have to be made to the front line of the NHS if it is to cope.

The government has promised to protect the health service, but research by the King's Fund, based on interviews with 45 NHS finance chiefs, raises doubts.
The think tank said 19 expected care to get worse over the next few years and that 2013 could mark the turning point.
Meanwhile, a BBC survey of 1,005 people suggested 60% believed services would have to be cut.
The majority of the 45 NHS directors of finance who took part in the think tank's study said they were currently managing to make savings without harming care.

Let's deconstruct that a little.

The King's Fund asked finance chiefs within the NHS.  This suggests that they asked people with a vested interest in showing a need for more funding, and in showing an inability to do their job - manage the finances available to them.  Hardly surprising that they want more money from the taxpayer!

19 of these finance chiefs expected care to get worse over the next few years.  That is, finance chiefs are now qualified, according to the King's Fund,  to comment on the future level of care that patients can receive.  I think I might have been a tad more convinced if a physician had stated that!

Then we get the BBC survey.  A meaningless statistic which asks a small sample of people a loaded question.  Did the BBC ask 'Do you think that there is waste in the NHS?'  Did they ask' Do you think doctors and consultants and 'managers' are overpaid and that the majority of NHS pensions are padded at the expense of yourself, the taxpayer?'

No they wouldn't, because it doesn't serve their own vested, leftist interest

The King's Fund said these sentiments were supported by the latest performance statistics which showed the NHS was performing well.
Waiting times in A&E and for non-emergency operations, such as knee and hip replacements, had fallen slightly and were well within target, while hospital infections rates continued to drop.

But health minister Lord Howe maintained the NHS was "on track" to achieve its savings target.
He said £5.8bn was saved last year, while performance remained good.
"Waiting times have been kept low, infections have been reduced, there are more doctors, more diagnostic tests and more planned operations," he added.

So savings appear to have been made, and the level of service (maybe that could be called care?) remained good!  While that cannot continue indefinitely, an annual budget of £104 Billion, should afford scope for further savings.

The BBC poll, carried out by ComRes, asked members of the public in England a series of questions about the NHS.
Some 61% agreed that they expected the NHS would have to stop providing some treatments and services in the future due to rising costs and increasing demands.
Nearly three-quarters also said they did not trust the government with the health service.
Over half of respondents said it did not matter whether private firms provided care as long as it was free of charge - the government's reforms have come under heavy criticism amid a perception they would lead to greater private sector involvement.

This must really upset the BBC and it's leftist allies.  More than 50% of people don't care who gives them health care, just that it is free at the point of delivery.  Can this mean that the scales are dropping from the eyes of the people?  Are people now starting to understand that this bloated bureaucracy needs reform?  Maybe some of the respondents have seen, first hand, what healthcare is like and how it can be efficiently funded, in other countries?

But 2013 was seen as the year when it could start to unravel by many of the finance directors.

Why?  Yes the Public Sector pay freeze ends but what is to say another one can't be imposed?  Or that the pay settlement can't be held to a low percentage?  What about reduced NHS pension contributions?  What about these same Finance Chiefs getting around the table with their PFI providers and squeezing them?  Same applies to other service and material suppliers, such as pharmaceutical companies.  That's what happens in the private sector.  When times are tough, you talk to you suppliers and get them to share some of the pain.  You make them see it is in their interest.

Andrew Mitchell

I posted earlier, that I thought Andrew Mitchell should go.  Either voluntarily or be sacked.  What he is alleged to have said was plain wrong even if all of the words were not spoken!

Writing on Twitter, Iain Martin (@IainMartin1) poses the interesting question of why Andrew Mitchell, was stopped from taking his bike through the Downing Street car-gates, in the first place? 

The newspapers are quoting from the police 'log' of the events as if it had been inscribed by Moses himself which, given past experience (was it only last week we heard about Hillsborough?) suggests an over-reliance on a source that was previously found to be 'dodgy' from time to time.

I would also question, why in this 'Levenson' era, the papers seem to still have such a cosy relationship with the Metropolitan Police?  Especially, The Sun.  The Sun surely has an axe to grind against the Conservatives and I guess we are seeing some of that coming into play.

All that said, Mitchell should go.  This sorry tale is distracting and allowing the Lib Dems to make all the running, on the political front with their crazy 'squeeze the rich' policies and letting Labour to push ahead on sniping about Mitchell (though they themselves, seem to have forgotten  foul-mouthed SPADs and a deranged and phone-throwing PM)

 

From where is Clegg getting all this money?

Nick Clegg, the Deputy PM has promised a further £100 Million for childcare.  While I am sure that thousands of unmarried mothers will appreciate his largesse, as this will allow them more time to spend with their 'baby-fathers' - either past or future -  I do have to ask from where is Nick getting all of this money?  I just don't believe that the YouTube royalties from his 'I'm Sorry' video will be sufficient.  Neither surely, could be his wife's salary. 

So where does it come from?

Surely, he can't be planning to spend taxpayers money?  We are living in hard times, or so we are constantly told.  It seems that this money is coming from 'government underspending'.  That's right.  They have taken more money from taxpayers than they needed to and, rather than give it back, will fritter it away on providing 100,000 nursery places for 2 year-olds.  Will this allow these mothers to go out and find work?  What do you think?  Hint - we are told by the Labour Party that there are 'no jobs out there' - so why provide extra nursery spaces?  Surely, it couldn't be that he wants to allow these mostly unmarried mothers to have the time to get pregnant and become a greater burden on the taxpayer?  That would be too perverse, even for a Lib Dem!

In truth, I don't really expect Nick Clegg and the socialist Lib Dems to understand the concept of ownership - the money I earn is mine and not the government's - but surely, at the heart of the Conservative-led Coalition, there are some people who still understand the basic principles of Conservative belief?  Someone?  What about in the Conservative Party?


Urgent Note to David Cameron - Andrew Mitchell - he should go and go today.  His comments were crass and stupid but more importantly, the story is distracting government from the business of government - namely fixing the economy!  I must declare an interest though, I can't forgive Mitchell for being the International Development Minister and giving my tax money to overseas while cutting spending in the UK.  Unforgivable!  That isn't hypocrisy.  I don't want the government to take my money and waste it overseas and I don't want them to waste it here in the UK, either

Spanish thoughts

Just as Spain seems about to embark on seeking a bailout of, some say 480 billion Euros (but don't call it a bailout as the Prime Minister doesn't like that word and said he wouldn't ask for one!), I thought to share some observations from my recent trip, to the country.

Employment
The unemployment statistics talk of a rate of 25% unemployment but I don't think that British readers will fully appreciate what this means because in Spain, it is the Spanish that work.  The waiters in restaurants and hotels are Spanish, the street sweepers are Spanish as are all of the hotel and shop workers.  These jobs are not filled by grateful East Europeans, as in Britain but by locals.  Perhaps it is the far less generous Spanish welfare system that obliges the Spaniards to take jobs that are 'beneath' their unemployed UK counter-parts?  Or maybe it is just that the Spaniards understand the dignity gained by working rather than just taking State hand-outs?

What I see as worrying though, for Spain, is that this means there is no 'slack' in the system that can be used to swap migrant labour for locals.

Construction
I have been traveling in the Alicante/Granada/Malaga triangle and apart from one or two road building projects (and I mean one or two) there seems to be next to no activity on the many unfinished construction sites that one sees.  What activity there is, is essentially 'hand to mouth' where a property is finished simply so that funds can be obtained to keep things just ticking over.

Given that construction has been such a large employer in the past, it is easier to understand the unemployment numbers, when you see so many dormant building sites and idle crane gantries.

Talking of construction - what roads there are in Spain!  Great carriageways that allow you to be transported distances at speed and in comfort.  And what nice looking and modern, public buildings!  I am supposing that the ten years of access to very cheap Euro money was used to finance these but have to wonder if that has been money well spent?  We all hear of stories of un-visited 'cultural and arts centres' and airports where no planes land but I don't understand why nobody is called to account for this.

Loss of spirit
Not quite sure how to say this but on this trip (I have had the pleasure of visiting Spain on a number of occasions, before), I have noticed that the Spanish seem more subdued or resigned.  Maybe it is because it is not the 'high season' for tourists or because we went off of the beaten tourist trail but that Spanish zest for life just didn't seem to be there.  If you have visited Spain before you may know what I am getting at.  That boisterousness and vitality seems to have been sucked out of the people - something that won't show up on any Euro-based study or statistic or ever be used to bolster the (failing) Euro project but a great shame, nevertheless.  

I promise not to bore you with vacation snaps but this has been a mixed trip.  Good from a personal perspective but worrying to see how a Franco-German obsession with a fatally-flawed and doomed project can bring once proud sovereign nations to their knees and just plain suck the life out of the place!  What a shame!

Finally
One thing Spain might want to think about - the Siesta.  Maybe it is time to end this?  I know about this but it is still frustrating to have stores closed when you want to look around and maybe buy something.  I know that there is more to life than retail but.................

Clegg, Gay Marriage and 'consultaton'

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister (remember) has made a farcical attempt to retract his painting of anyone opposing so called gay marriage as bigots.  This is the same Nick Clegg that castigated Gordon Brown because GB called an indignant member of the public, a bigot, during the last election campaign. 

I can understand that Clegg thinks it 'right on' to support this policy (or maybe he has been told to support it by the wife?) but why try to follow the example of Lynne Featherstone and further stifle debate, by insulting genuine opponents, who hold dearly felt opinions?

Featherstone, you may remember, launched a 'consultation' process advising that no matter what the outcome of this process, they (the government) would go ahead as planned.  I asked at the time, what was the point of a consultation exercise that would have zero bearing on the issue being consulted upon but answer came there none.  I know, at least she is being honest as it is unlikely that any consultation process actually changes anything but..........

I must be a bigot since I thought we lived in a representative democracy and my view had some value - seems not, if it isn't in 100% agreement with Clegg.

I have written on this proposed legislation before and predicted that the so-called 'we won't force churches to marry homosexuals ' assurance would not stand-up to a ECHR challenge and that is exactly what most commentators are now saying.  Some have suggested that the only way for churches to avoid charges of discrimination would be to not have any weddings no heterosexual and therefore no homosexual.

Sounds like a plan to me!  I can just imagine Cameron and Clegg and Salmond going up against the massed ranks of all those people who consider a church marriage absolutely required.

Come on CofE and the Catholic hierarchy, let's see some leadership!  Make the people see the consequences of this stupid and unnecessary legislation.

Oh and by the way, the economy is still in the toilet.  Let's not worry about that though!