It will come as no surprise to anyone that I didn't attend the Liberal Democrat Conference this year (or any previous year come to that) and by pure serendipity have managed to avoid any of its TV coverage. I have however read reports of their conference in the newspapers and in particular, Nick Clegg's closing speech. It appears that Nick Clegg is proud to have said "No!" to a string of Tory policies. So what are the LibDems proud of saying no to?
1) Boundary Change - proposals to make a level playing field with each constituency have virtually the same number of electors. At present Labour can win a large majority in Parliament with 36% of the general election vote. The Conservative with a 36% vote would fall well short of a majority. How unfair is that - an election with an un-level playing field? The boundary changes would also have reduced the number of MPs from 650 to 600 therefore generating a cost saving to the public purse. The LibDems proudly say NO!
2) Human Rights Act and European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) - scrapping this Act brought in by the Labour Government which has put the rights of criminal illegal immigrants (murderers, rapists etc.) above the rights of the general community. Leaving the jurisdiction of the ECHR where judges from dodgy ex Soviet satellites with poor human rights records can over-rule our British courts and free terrorists to roam our streets. The LibDems proudly say NO!
3) Scaling back green energy plans - we are world leaders at putting taxes on energy use - gas, electric, petrol, air travel. Poor pensioners afraid to put on their heating and living in 'fuel poverty'. Family holidays abroad hit by air taxes running into hundreds of pounds. Enormous subsidies for unproven, intermittent and uneconomical green technologies - just powering your freezers and TV during daylight or when the wind blows - whilst other countries invest in modern gas-power stations which power their manufacturing base with a built-in cost advantage. These green energy plans no longer make economic sense but can we scale them back? The LibDems proudly say NO!
4) Inheritance Tax cuts - business owners and farmers can avoid these taxes but other hard working people who live prudently, save rather than spend, or those that invest wisely, have to sacrifice 40% of any estate over £325k (£650k couples) to the state rather than pass it on to their off-spring. The threshold should at a minimum be raised to £1million This would still tax the rich, lottery winners etc but not the hard working middle classes. The LibDems proudly say NO!
5) Scrapping housing benefits for young people - when I started work I lived at home for awhile and then rent-shared a very cheap flat in Bradford's red light district until I'd saved up enough to buy my first modest house (£1,000 of equity in a £16,500 bungalow). The system now is that young people are showered with benefits and incentives not to work. Housing benefits for young people who could remain with their parents should be scrapped. The LibDems proudly say NO!
6) Bringing back O-levels and a two-tier education system - some children are academically orientated others are vocationally orientated. A whole range of skill sets, a whole range of interests, a whole range of abilities - but all expected to shoehorn into one comprehensive system. A system which is failing our children and needs a radical overhaul. The LibDems proudly say NO!
7) Regional public sector pay - in the private sector you will be paid more in say Windsor than Warrington for doing the same job. The cost of living is very different in different parts of the country and private sector wages reflect this. Public sector pay doesn't and the private sector can't compete with it in some regions. Public sector pay should reflect local conditions and markets which would boost local employment levels. The LibDems proudly say NO!
When it comes to voting - be it district, county, unitary or national - you need to know all these popular policies that the LibDems proudly block with a resounding NO!
There are two types of LibDems - (i) remnants of the Liberal party who believe in free markets, fiscal prudence, sound money and individual responsibility and (ii) those who admire the state and collectivism and want the state to impose social and economic conformity. These latter are hostile to individual liberty. If you vote for either of these type of LibDems you actually vote for a party containing both. I'm quite comfortable with many of the ideals of the former yet the reality is that even the most reasonable of them seem to support the "proudly NO!" items above. And what of those who openly say they feel sick to the pit of their stomach at the idea of welfare benefit caps or immigration caps. Those that just want to spend! spend! spend! and tax!, tax!, tax! Hard-core socialists disguised in social democrat clothing.
If you support the sensible main-stream policies outlined above then play safe - and always vote CONSERVATIVE at the ballot box.
Thursday, 19 September 2013
Monday, 20 May 2013
EYES ROLLING NOT SWIVELLING
Outsiders looking in must be perplexed with the machinations going on within the Conservative Party. The outburst that took me most by surprise was Lord Howe's utterances this weekend about the leader losing control over the party activists. Lord Howe, most famous perhaps for his part in Margaret Thatcher's downfall, told David Cameron to get a grip of his Eurosceptic MPs and to ignore grass-root calls for EU re-negotiations.
It begs a fundamental question - should the leader be directing the grass-root thinking in a top down manner or should the activists be the ones establishing the party direction? However beyond that though, at the heart of the issue is what connection is there between the leader choosen by the party and the party rank and file? And the answer to that at present appears to be - not a lot. There seems to be a complete lack of trust by the general rank and file in David Cameron and his small metropolitan elite circle. The views of the rank and file seem increasingly disconnected with those of the leader.
Does the party therefore need a whole new rank and file or does it need a new leader? With members defecting in droves to UKIP and the extraordinary sight of a full page advert in the Daily Telegraph today from Nigel Farage inviting Tories to switch to his party, it seems that Cameron is jettisoning those members he doesn't want yet not replacing them with anyone else. He seem intent on destroying the bedrock of foot soldiers that do all the hard graft at election time - delivering leaflets, knocking on doors, getting the message out to an increasingly apathetic electorate.
Where does that leave me? Not that I'm important in any way, but it is my blog so I feel at liberty to ask, then answer the question. I've just come out of an County election campaign from which I would have been quite comfortable standing on either the Conservative or UKIP local manifestoes. That's not really surprising given that the UKIP manifesto was written by ex-Conservatives. One manifesto attracted 577 votes, the other 537 votes. The MP Nadine Dorries is suggesting in the 2015 General Election that candidates could perhaps stand on a joint ticket. I'm not suggesting for one moment that someone standing in my County division on a joint ticket would have picked up all 1,114 votes (577+537) but I'm guessing enough to win. Before I heard that UKIP was standing I felt quietly confident that I was in with a good chance, but the moment I heard that UKIP were putting up a candidate in the Division I knew in my heart of hearts that the battle was lost.
I'm not now going to jump ship and join the Farage crew. But I would like to see a change in our party leadership to someone who can work with the UKIP leadership to re-unite the right of centre in UK politics. Someone that the rank and file can feel confident is a true Conservative who represents their views rather than regards them as swivel-eyed loonies. When I see how our present leader runs the party, my eyes roll rather than swivel. Let's get our party back and put out a united message for the 2015 election. The alternative is a Milliband government with Ed Balls holding the (empty) purse strings. Conservative MPs - its over to you!
It begs a fundamental question - should the leader be directing the grass-root thinking in a top down manner or should the activists be the ones establishing the party direction? However beyond that though, at the heart of the issue is what connection is there between the leader choosen by the party and the party rank and file? And the answer to that at present appears to be - not a lot. There seems to be a complete lack of trust by the general rank and file in David Cameron and his small metropolitan elite circle. The views of the rank and file seem increasingly disconnected with those of the leader.
Does the party therefore need a whole new rank and file or does it need a new leader? With members defecting in droves to UKIP and the extraordinary sight of a full page advert in the Daily Telegraph today from Nigel Farage inviting Tories to switch to his party, it seems that Cameron is jettisoning those members he doesn't want yet not replacing them with anyone else. He seem intent on destroying the bedrock of foot soldiers that do all the hard graft at election time - delivering leaflets, knocking on doors, getting the message out to an increasingly apathetic electorate.
Where does that leave me? Not that I'm important in any way, but it is my blog so I feel at liberty to ask, then answer the question. I've just come out of an County election campaign from which I would have been quite comfortable standing on either the Conservative or UKIP local manifestoes. That's not really surprising given that the UKIP manifesto was written by ex-Conservatives. One manifesto attracted 577 votes, the other 537 votes. The MP Nadine Dorries is suggesting in the 2015 General Election that candidates could perhaps stand on a joint ticket. I'm not suggesting for one moment that someone standing in my County division on a joint ticket would have picked up all 1,114 votes (577+537) but I'm guessing enough to win. Before I heard that UKIP was standing I felt quietly confident that I was in with a good chance, but the moment I heard that UKIP were putting up a candidate in the Division I knew in my heart of hearts that the battle was lost.
I'm not now going to jump ship and join the Farage crew. But I would like to see a change in our party leadership to someone who can work with the UKIP leadership to re-unite the right of centre in UK politics. Someone that the rank and file can feel confident is a true Conservative who represents their views rather than regards them as swivel-eyed loonies. When I see how our present leader runs the party, my eyes roll rather than swivel. Let's get our party back and put out a united message for the 2015 election. The alternative is a Milliband government with Ed Balls holding the (empty) purse strings. Conservative MPs - its over to you!
Friday, 3 May 2013
THE RESULT
The day of reckoning - Friday 3rd May, the count day. Gipping Valley Division was one of five divisions due to start counting from 9.00am with a result anticipated by 10.30am.
I arrived at the smart Trinity Park Conference Centre at about 9.15am with the verification of the ballot papers (ie. number of papers = number issued) already underway. At this point the ballot papers are clearly visible as they are counted, pre-sorting, and the first impression was a lot of votes for UKIP.
The votes are then separated into individual candidate piles and the three piles for Conservative, UKIP and Lib Dem seemed to be fairly evenly matched. My heart was in my mouth - could I possibly squeeze through with a tight win?
The answer regrettably was NO.
When every vote had been collated into candidate batches the final result was:-
Lib Dem 713, Conservatives 577, UKIP 537, Labour & Co-op 301, Green 100. So the County Councillor of twelve years, John Field was returned for another four year term. And the realisation that all my hard work had been in vain - another second place for me in a County election.
At least with 136 votes separating the first and second place I don't feel the need to beat myself up with 'what could I have done extra?' type questions. A few extra votes here and there wouldn't have bridged that shortfall. The un-answered question in my mind though remains - in a straight three way contest of Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour what might the result have been? But that of course is academic - one must play the hand one is dealt.
At local level the phrase VOTE UKIP get LIB DEM rings true just as VOTE UKIP get LABOUR is the likely result at national level. When I think to myself that in that conference centre full of people no one else there, and I repeat no one else there, could be more anti-EU than myself, then it becomes incredibly frustrating.
And when one of our local village stores effectively sponsors one of the candidates then I must continue to remember why I prefer to shop at the One Stop store in the village.
Thanks to those that helped out and supported me from the district office - a very small crew but a much appreciated one. And finally a big thank you to the 576 other people who like me put their X against my name.
I arrived at the smart Trinity Park Conference Centre at about 9.15am with the verification of the ballot papers (ie. number of papers = number issued) already underway. At this point the ballot papers are clearly visible as they are counted, pre-sorting, and the first impression was a lot of votes for UKIP.
The votes are then separated into individual candidate piles and the three piles for Conservative, UKIP and Lib Dem seemed to be fairly evenly matched. My heart was in my mouth - could I possibly squeeze through with a tight win?
The answer regrettably was NO.
When every vote had been collated into candidate batches the final result was:-
Lib Dem 713, Conservatives 577, UKIP 537, Labour & Co-op 301, Green 100. So the County Councillor of twelve years, John Field was returned for another four year term. And the realisation that all my hard work had been in vain - another second place for me in a County election.
At least with 136 votes separating the first and second place I don't feel the need to beat myself up with 'what could I have done extra?' type questions. A few extra votes here and there wouldn't have bridged that shortfall. The un-answered question in my mind though remains - in a straight three way contest of Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour what might the result have been? But that of course is academic - one must play the hand one is dealt.
At local level the phrase VOTE UKIP get LIB DEM rings true just as VOTE UKIP get LABOUR is the likely result at national level. When I think to myself that in that conference centre full of people no one else there, and I repeat no one else there, could be more anti-EU than myself, then it becomes incredibly frustrating.
And when one of our local village stores effectively sponsors one of the candidates then I must continue to remember why I prefer to shop at the One Stop store in the village.
Thanks to those that helped out and supported me from the district office - a very small crew but a much appreciated one. And finally a big thank you to the 576 other people who like me put their X against my name.
Wednesday, 1 May 2013
THE FINAL DAY OF THE CAMPAIGN
It doesn't seem that long ago that I wrote the number 52 on my calendar next to Monday 11th March, then 51 on the 12th etc. etc. The long countdown to the election on 2nd May. The weather was totally different - freezing cold winds, snow showers, hail storms whereas these last few days have been gloriously sunny - but the time has certainly flowed by VERY QUICKLY. Certainly my wife will be glad when its all over, any leaflets remaining put in the recycling and the dining room back to normal.
Since I last posted on here I've produced a second leaflet - a two sided black and white A4. Not the glossy affair that arrived from the Lib Dems (after a little persuasion from my wife we got a copy!) but with, I hope, an effective message. I'm very aware that the "squeezed middle" are the ones most suffering from the austerity aftermath of Labour's years of binge spending. Inflation continues but wages and salaries are in many cases are just not keeping pace. That's why I wholeheartedly support the decision to freeze council tax for four years. It won't be easy to do and there will be some difficult choices to make over that period but it is the right approach. I think most politicians don't really get how unpopular council tax is - unlike income tax and NI it isn't subtly taken from your pay before you see it, but is right there every month on your bank statement, teasingly staying in your account from payday until the 15th then whisked away by 'DD'.
My leaflet also sets out my local connections in an election where two candidates live some distance away - in Stowmarket and Debenham. My only reason for standing is to represent my neighbours and my community - what is their motivation I wonder in parachuting into the Gipping Valley?
There's work still to be done today to reach out to voters who haven't yet received my second leaflet. In a perfect world all those leaflets would have gone out yesterday and today as an "eve of poll" leaflet but the reality, with over 3,000 homes in the Division, is that it is at least a full week job.
I'll post again on Friday when all the ballot papers have been counted. In an election where the Conservatives are expected to lose seats not gain them, I can only grasp on the thinnest strand of hope. But for today and tomorrow at least, there remains hope.
Since I last posted on here I've produced a second leaflet - a two sided black and white A4. Not the glossy affair that arrived from the Lib Dems (after a little persuasion from my wife we got a copy!) but with, I hope, an effective message. I'm very aware that the "squeezed middle" are the ones most suffering from the austerity aftermath of Labour's years of binge spending. Inflation continues but wages and salaries are in many cases are just not keeping pace. That's why I wholeheartedly support the decision to freeze council tax for four years. It won't be easy to do and there will be some difficult choices to make over that period but it is the right approach. I think most politicians don't really get how unpopular council tax is - unlike income tax and NI it isn't subtly taken from your pay before you see it, but is right there every month on your bank statement, teasingly staying in your account from payday until the 15th then whisked away by 'DD'.
My leaflet also sets out my local connections in an election where two candidates live some distance away - in Stowmarket and Debenham. My only reason for standing is to represent my neighbours and my community - what is their motivation I wonder in parachuting into the Gipping Valley?
There's work still to be done today to reach out to voters who haven't yet received my second leaflet. In a perfect world all those leaflets would have gone out yesterday and today as an "eve of poll" leaflet but the reality, with over 3,000 homes in the Division, is that it is at least a full week job.
I'll post again on Friday when all the ballot papers have been counted. In an election where the Conservatives are expected to lose seats not gain them, I can only grasp on the thinnest strand of hope. But for today and tomorrow at least, there remains hope.
Sunday, 21 April 2013
LEAFLETS AND LETTERS
The last two and a half weeks have been busy with the distribution of my election leaflet and then, over the last few days, with the distribution of a personal letter to registered postal voters. That's a lot of hard pavements to pound and a lot of letterboxes for trapped fingers. The organisation of the leaflet distribution was pretty straight-forward as I had established a series of logical delivery rounds from both the 2009 County campaign and then fine-tuned for the 2011 District campaign. The weather was mixed throughout. Our local MP helped for a couple of sessions - the first in Bramford where we had sleet and snow, the second in Barham and Flowton in glorious weather.
Between all this pavement pounding I had to compose my postal vote letter and then by hand, individually fill in the salution and sign them. Fortunately my signature is a swift swiggle which is a result of signing literally many thousands of company cheques over a lifetime's work. Of course the salutions "Dear Mr Voter" needed to written as neatly as possible - a challenge with 900 letters to be done. The most time consuming part however was the envelope stuffing. However all were complete by Thursday afternoon for delivery between Thursday evening and this weekend. Fortunately I had a helper on Friday so the task was halved and I got more delivered on Friday than I initially anticipated.
Here's my dining room table on Thursday afternoon once all the letters had been organised into the logic delivery rounds:-
During delivery it was amazing how many times the postal voter lived at the very end of a cul-de-sac!
It is difficult to estimate how many miles we both walked on Friday with so many drives to walk up and so many of the bungalows having side doors. Inevitably though some letters had to be left over for Saturday and Sunday deliveries and it was a little disheartening to hand some over on Saturday morning only to be told that the voter had already filled in their ballot papers and posted them back. A lesson for another campaign is to get these postal vote letters out earlier. Or post them!
How the time has flown by - now there is less than two weeks to go to election day. I suppose I ought to get a second leaflet out as for some people it is already two weeks since they received my first leaflet. First though I need to give my poor feet a well earned rest - I don't think my legs are ready for that second leaflet distribution yet.
Feedback generally has been quite positive. Some very pleasant people with easy conversations and "Good Luck" wishes. Others who are quite proud never to have voted and the odd rude individual. Probably my favourite conversation was with two more elderly ladies. They were standing on a drive and I introduced myself and offered my leaflet. "I'm not really interested in that sort of thing" was the response. I said "Take a look anyway" and handed over my leaflet, then offered another to the second lady. "Are you interested?" asked the first to the second and "Not really" came the reply. I set off on my way but after a few yards turned round and catching their eye said "You know we are pledging to freeze council tax for four years". "Ohhh! You've got my vote!" came back the instance response. I may need to remind them again on the 2nd May though.
In terms of the competition, I have crossed paths several times with the Liberal Democrat's main helper and bumped once into the UKIP candidate when we were both out in Little Blakenham. Both the UKIP and the Liberal Democrats seem to have achieved a very comprehensive distribution of their leaflets. No sign of either the Greens or Labour out and about on the campaign trail - unless you can tell me differently.
Between all this pavement pounding I had to compose my postal vote letter and then by hand, individually fill in the salution and sign them. Fortunately my signature is a swift swiggle which is a result of signing literally many thousands of company cheques over a lifetime's work. Of course the salutions "Dear Mr Voter" needed to written as neatly as possible - a challenge with 900 letters to be done. The most time consuming part however was the envelope stuffing. However all were complete by Thursday afternoon for delivery between Thursday evening and this weekend. Fortunately I had a helper on Friday so the task was halved and I got more delivered on Friday than I initially anticipated.
Here's my dining room table on Thursday afternoon once all the letters had been organised into the logic delivery rounds:-
During delivery it was amazing how many times the postal voter lived at the very end of a cul-de-sac!
It is difficult to estimate how many miles we both walked on Friday with so many drives to walk up and so many of the bungalows having side doors. Inevitably though some letters had to be left over for Saturday and Sunday deliveries and it was a little disheartening to hand some over on Saturday morning only to be told that the voter had already filled in their ballot papers and posted them back. A lesson for another campaign is to get these postal vote letters out earlier. Or post them!
How the time has flown by - now there is less than two weeks to go to election day. I suppose I ought to get a second leaflet out as for some people it is already two weeks since they received my first leaflet. First though I need to give my poor feet a well earned rest - I don't think my legs are ready for that second leaflet distribution yet.
Feedback generally has been quite positive. Some very pleasant people with easy conversations and "Good Luck" wishes. Others who are quite proud never to have voted and the odd rude individual. Probably my favourite conversation was with two more elderly ladies. They were standing on a drive and I introduced myself and offered my leaflet. "I'm not really interested in that sort of thing" was the response. I said "Take a look anyway" and handed over my leaflet, then offered another to the second lady. "Are you interested?" asked the first to the second and "Not really" came the reply. I set off on my way but after a few yards turned round and catching their eye said "You know we are pledging to freeze council tax for four years". "Ohhh! You've got my vote!" came back the instance response. I may need to remind them again on the 2nd May though.
In terms of the competition, I have crossed paths several times with the Liberal Democrat's main helper and bumped once into the UKIP candidate when we were both out in Little Blakenham. Both the UKIP and the Liberal Democrats seem to have achieved a very comprehensive distribution of their leaflets. No sign of either the Greens or Labour out and about on the campaign trail - unless you can tell me differently.
Saturday, 30 March 2013
"EXTREMELY TOUGH?"
I wasn't intending to write a post today, so soon after yesterday's Campaign Start posting but I've just read an article on the East Anglian website that has compelled me to blog about it. Before I became a member of our District Council I was aware of the general concept of housing benefit and that some poorer households got help with their rent and that social housing rents were subsidised. However I rather naively assumed that everyone paid council tax. After all, there are 8 bands with the top band paying three times the amount of the lower band - a rather blunt and very progressive tax. I'm guessing that most people assumed likewise as I like to think of myself as well read but without then knowing the in and out minutae of the housing benefit system.
That changed last year when the council members were briefed about the housing benefit and council tax changes. We were advised that central government were reducing the payments by 10% but that pensioners would be protected so that the 10% savings would have to met by working age claimants. In practice this has been significantly diluted by forcing second home owners to pay 100% council tax on their second properties (even if just used occasionally) and charging landlords a full council tax on unfurnished properties if their void periods between lettings exceeded a few weeks. The general consensus across all political parties of the council felt that these two changes were reasonable.
That still left some working age benefit claimants having to pay more (or rather some) council tax. In Mid Suffolk's case, going from zero to 5% and in Babergh's case from zero to 8.5%. It appears from the East Anglian article that some Essex families are going from zero to 20%. I must confess that I would have been happier to see the payments change to something other than a token contribition as these small amounts will be difficult to collect - 5% is the equivalent of four cigarettes a week or a lottery ticket and a small chocolate bar a week.
In the website/newspaper article you will see a Director of the New Policy Institute (whoever they are) saying "We are turning into a society where we are extremely tough on those at the bottom of the income pile". Extremely tough!!!! Expecting people to pay 5% towards their council services is extremely tough? Council services are the bedrock of a civilised society - education, waste collection, highways, care of the elderly etc. - not some extravagent luxuries. Someone paying just 5% of Band A towards these vital services is paying 1/30th of someone owning an average Band D property.
Anywhere else other than with these 'hidden' (ie. non-apparent) subsidies and I think the average person would be speaking out vocally about this enormous level of discount. For example - going in to the petrol station and waiting in the queue to pay and they hear the cashier say to the person in front of them "That will be 5p a litre please for your diesel". Or with a trolley full of shopping (say £60 to keep the maths simple) in the local supermarket and the person in front has an identical trolley full but is charged just £2. There would be a loud chorus of "Why are they getting petrol at 5p a litre?" or "How come they're getting their trolley full for only £2?" And if those people then went on to buy a full price packet of cigarettes or a lottery ticket with their savings then imagine the outcry!
Of course the person from that policy institute would be a voice in the background advising us that 5p a litre or £2 a trolley full is still extremely tough on these people at the bottom of the income pile. The ultimate irony is that even their 5p's and £2s may be being paid by you and I anyway through the tax and benefit system.
And that's why I chose as the first priority on my County election leaflet "To speak up for the 'squeezed middle'" All those people who are working hard, pay a lot into the system, get little back out and who are now finding day-to-day budgeting to be extremely tough despite making all the best efforts themselves.
That changed last year when the council members were briefed about the housing benefit and council tax changes. We were advised that central government were reducing the payments by 10% but that pensioners would be protected so that the 10% savings would have to met by working age claimants. In practice this has been significantly diluted by forcing second home owners to pay 100% council tax on their second properties (even if just used occasionally) and charging landlords a full council tax on unfurnished properties if their void periods between lettings exceeded a few weeks. The general consensus across all political parties of the council felt that these two changes were reasonable.
That still left some working age benefit claimants having to pay more (or rather some) council tax. In Mid Suffolk's case, going from zero to 5% and in Babergh's case from zero to 8.5%. It appears from the East Anglian article that some Essex families are going from zero to 20%. I must confess that I would have been happier to see the payments change to something other than a token contribition as these small amounts will be difficult to collect - 5% is the equivalent of four cigarettes a week or a lottery ticket and a small chocolate bar a week.
In the website/newspaper article you will see a Director of the New Policy Institute (whoever they are) saying "We are turning into a society where we are extremely tough on those at the bottom of the income pile". Extremely tough!!!! Expecting people to pay 5% towards their council services is extremely tough? Council services are the bedrock of a civilised society - education, waste collection, highways, care of the elderly etc. - not some extravagent luxuries. Someone paying just 5% of Band A towards these vital services is paying 1/30th of someone owning an average Band D property.
Anywhere else other than with these 'hidden' (ie. non-apparent) subsidies and I think the average person would be speaking out vocally about this enormous level of discount. For example - going in to the petrol station and waiting in the queue to pay and they hear the cashier say to the person in front of them "That will be 5p a litre please for your diesel". Or with a trolley full of shopping (say £60 to keep the maths simple) in the local supermarket and the person in front has an identical trolley full but is charged just £2. There would be a loud chorus of "Why are they getting petrol at 5p a litre?" or "How come they're getting their trolley full for only £2?" And if those people then went on to buy a full price packet of cigarettes or a lottery ticket with their savings then imagine the outcry!
Of course the person from that policy institute would be a voice in the background advising us that 5p a litre or £2 a trolley full is still extremely tough on these people at the bottom of the income pile. The ultimate irony is that even their 5p's and £2s may be being paid by you and I anyway through the tax and benefit system.
And that's why I chose as the first priority on my County election leaflet "To speak up for the 'squeezed middle'" All those people who are working hard, pay a lot into the system, get little back out and who are now finding day-to-day budgeting to be extremely tough despite making all the best efforts themselves.
Friday, 29 March 2013
A NEW CAMPAIGN STARTS
Back in May 2012 I sat in front of the CS&NI Conservative Association's local government committee, a panel of nine prominent local party members, after I had put myself forward for selection as the Conservative candidate for the Gipping Valley Division in the 2013 County elections. Afterwards I felt confident I had acquitted myself well to their questioning but I was still pleased to later receive their letter advising that I was through to the next stage. Two candidates had put themselves forward for the division and therefore the next stage would be a ballot of party members in the division. We both had to write an A4 length paper "Why I would like to be the County Councillor for the Gipping Valley Division" and these were then circulated, along with the ballot papers. The ballot papers were opened on 29th June (co-incidentally, my birthday) and I was relieved to hear that I was selected.
One of the questions I had been asked at the selection interview was "If you were not selected for your own division, would you be prepared to stand elsewhere?" I had answered that quite honestly by stating that I was putting myself forward to represent my neighbours and my locality and that I would much rather do that than stand elsewhere in a 'Safe Conservative seat'.
That all seems a long time ago but now the campaign is about to get underway. A couple of weeks ago I submitted my nomination form signed by ten local residents and on 22nd March a letter arrived from Electoral Services advising me that my completed form "is a valid nomination". And meanwhile I had written the wording for my first leaflet and then collected those from the printer yesterday lunchtime.
Now begins the task of sorting all these into a series of delivery rounds and then getting them through all the letterboxes of the Gipping Valley Division.
So let battle commence! Last time in the County election [2009] I received 739 votes which was just 59% of the votes the winning candidate achieved. So it is a very big ask - a 'seismic swing' needed. And what I don't know yet is which other parties will be putting forward candidates. As well as my Lib Dem opponent, will Suffolk Together and Labour field candidates again and will UKIP enter the equation for the first time? That will have to wait until 9th April when the 'Statement Of Persons Nominated' is published.
All I know now is that I'm going to have a very very busy April!
One of the questions I had been asked at the selection interview was "If you were not selected for your own division, would you be prepared to stand elsewhere?" I had answered that quite honestly by stating that I was putting myself forward to represent my neighbours and my locality and that I would much rather do that than stand elsewhere in a 'Safe Conservative seat'.
That all seems a long time ago but now the campaign is about to get underway. A couple of weeks ago I submitted my nomination form signed by ten local residents and on 22nd March a letter arrived from Electoral Services advising me that my completed form "is a valid nomination". And meanwhile I had written the wording for my first leaflet and then collected those from the printer yesterday lunchtime.
Now begins the task of sorting all these into a series of delivery rounds and then getting them through all the letterboxes of the Gipping Valley Division.
So let battle commence! Last time in the County election [2009] I received 739 votes which was just 59% of the votes the winning candidate achieved. So it is a very big ask - a 'seismic swing' needed. And what I don't know yet is which other parties will be putting forward candidates. As well as my Lib Dem opponent, will Suffolk Together and Labour field candidates again and will UKIP enter the equation for the first time? That will have to wait until 9th April when the 'Statement Of Persons Nominated' is published.
All I know now is that I'm going to have a very very busy April!
Sunday, 17 March 2013
EU RAIDS SAVINGS AND FREE PRESS UNDER ATTACK
When it comes to the European Union then almost anything it does has an April 1st feel about it. However reading the news today that the Cypriot bail-out involves the EU skimming up to 10% from ordinary savers' bank accounts still has an unreal feel about it.
Cyprus is the fifth Euro nation to need a bail-out. Unlike the previous four however, the EU is proposing to do this by raiding the savings accounts at Cypriot banks and confiscating up to 10%. They are calling it a tax. But it is not a tax on the income - a percentage tax on the interest earned. It is not a tax on a capital gain. It is taking a piece of savers' capital - savings that have been put aside from taxed income. So they are calling it a tax but it is not a tax. It is simply the confiscation of savers' capital - from ordinary people like you and me. If you have modest savings in a bank account can you be sure in the future that the EU won't be coming after a slice of your capital? With its democratic deficit anything is possible with the EU.
Of course the Left don't like capital. The LibDems and Labour's love affair with a mansion tax is no different. It would be levied without any reference to how much income an individual might have. Not content with taking tax from income they now want to skim capital. Why you might ask? Its not just the desire to spend more in the public sector but it is also that most base of human instincts - the envy of others - those with savings, those with bigger houses.
The Left even call a reduction in benefit payments to those living in subsidised housing larger than they need a tax - a "bedroom tax". The next time YOU pay your mortgage or rent perhaps you may spare a moment or two to share the outrage of the Left that others getting free housing will receive 14% less in their housing benefit payment if they have a spare bedroom. Or perhaps like me, you don't like the idea of the government borrowing money that our children will have to pay back in order to keep some people in free housing bigger than they need.
One other bit of news......
This Monday Labour and LibDems are voting together in an attempt to end our free press. Not just those disgraceful hacking tabloids but also newspapers like the Daily Telegraph who broke the MP expenses scandal. And not just newspapers but also websites that include news-related material. So this blog and thousands of others could be brought under central politician control. Centuries of tradition of publishing freedom (at least for newspapers, obviously not this blog!) are under threat from the Left.
So in the future they could stop the reporting on such things as the NHS killing thousands by the neglect of nurses apparently "too posh to wash" and too qualified to lower themselves to provide the basic care to sick and elderly patients. Media controlled by politicians would make politicians' lives easier but would keep the public in the dark.
If you, like me, value the individual ahead of the state then you too will shun all this crazy left-wing ideology when you're at the ballot box.
UPDATE : Horse trading and compromise appear to have been the order of the day on Monday prior to the vote on press control in Parliament. All sides claim to have won!
Here's a fascinating article on the folly of the EU raid on Cypriot bank accounts http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1363613568.php
Cyprus is the fifth Euro nation to need a bail-out. Unlike the previous four however, the EU is proposing to do this by raiding the savings accounts at Cypriot banks and confiscating up to 10%. They are calling it a tax. But it is not a tax on the income - a percentage tax on the interest earned. It is not a tax on a capital gain. It is taking a piece of savers' capital - savings that have been put aside from taxed income. So they are calling it a tax but it is not a tax. It is simply the confiscation of savers' capital - from ordinary people like you and me. If you have modest savings in a bank account can you be sure in the future that the EU won't be coming after a slice of your capital? With its democratic deficit anything is possible with the EU.
Of course the Left don't like capital. The LibDems and Labour's love affair with a mansion tax is no different. It would be levied without any reference to how much income an individual might have. Not content with taking tax from income they now want to skim capital. Why you might ask? Its not just the desire to spend more in the public sector but it is also that most base of human instincts - the envy of others - those with savings, those with bigger houses.
The Left even call a reduction in benefit payments to those living in subsidised housing larger than they need a tax - a "bedroom tax". The next time YOU pay your mortgage or rent perhaps you may spare a moment or two to share the outrage of the Left that others getting free housing will receive 14% less in their housing benefit payment if they have a spare bedroom. Or perhaps like me, you don't like the idea of the government borrowing money that our children will have to pay back in order to keep some people in free housing bigger than they need.
One other bit of news......
This Monday Labour and LibDems are voting together in an attempt to end our free press. Not just those disgraceful hacking tabloids but also newspapers like the Daily Telegraph who broke the MP expenses scandal. And not just newspapers but also websites that include news-related material. So this blog and thousands of others could be brought under central politician control. Centuries of tradition of publishing freedom (at least for newspapers, obviously not this blog!) are under threat from the Left.
So in the future they could stop the reporting on such things as the NHS killing thousands by the neglect of nurses apparently "too posh to wash" and too qualified to lower themselves to provide the basic care to sick and elderly patients. Media controlled by politicians would make politicians' lives easier but would keep the public in the dark.
If you, like me, value the individual ahead of the state then you too will shun all this crazy left-wing ideology when you're at the ballot box.
UPDATE : Horse trading and compromise appear to have been the order of the day on Monday prior to the vote on press control in Parliament. All sides claim to have won!
Here's a fascinating article on the folly of the EU raid on Cypriot bank accounts http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1363613568.php
Wednesday, 23 January 2013
AN HISTORIC DAY
Today is indeed an historic day. After years of patient waiting the people of the UK have finally been promised a simple In/Out referendum on the EU once an extensive re-negotiation of our relationship and obligations has taken place.
There is one catch to this great news. We will need a Conservative majority at the next General Election in 2015 if we are to achieve this goal. Only the Conservatives promise first this re-negotiation and then the resulting arrangements to be put before the people of the UK for them to have their say. Voting UKIP will only let Labour into power. And Labour's position is perfectly clear, as set out by Milliband in Parliament this lunchtime:-
He simply cannot contemplate the idea of letting the people themselves have any say on this fundamental issue. Big Brother knows best!
And the LibDems? They seem fundamentally opposed to any re-negotiation with the EU. They seem perfectly happy for us to march into an ever closer political union - with each star on the EU flag representing a subjugated region of the undemocratic, totalitarian EU empire ruled by unelected Brussels bureaucrats, officials and an European Parliament in which we have little influence or any power.
My personal preference would be to have had the referendum in this Parliament and I would have campaigned for an OUT vote. To free ourselves as soon as possible from that monster - let them get on with their political union and all the concepts that their officials support (the latest frightening idea being to only allow journalists that support 'European Values' to register and work on newspapers). We could use the vast amount of money we send to the EU to improve services, cut taxes or pay down the deficit. However virtually every senior Conservative that I admire (Carswell, Hannan, Redwood, Fox, even Hague, to quickly name just five) accept that the arrangements set out by David Cameron in his speech today are the most realistic and workable in the situation. Frankly they are better placed to understand both the politics and the logistics - I'm just a humble District Councillor.
However humble, I am still proud to say that here's a photo of me taken the day after the Where's My Referendum lobby of Parliament in March 2008. I brought the placard home with me, first on the tube and then on the overground railway back to Ipswich. Its quite a conspicuous placard to carry on public transport! I can however hold my head up and I will be able to tell any future grandchildren that I did my little part to secure their freedom just as previous generations of Britons did their bit against German Imperial expansion or Nazi aggression during the last century.
Friday, 18 January 2013
POLITICS IS SIMPLE
My sister has just sent me an article from a local newspaper ("Valley News"). The article has been forwarded from person to person (going viral is the computer lingo) using the subject matter heading "So very true".
And as I read it my thoughts became "Politics isn't complicated, it's actually very simple"
First, here's what the article said:-
IMPORTANCE OF TAX RETURN ACCURACY
HMRC has returned the tax return to a man in Evesham after he apparently answered one of the questions incorrectly. In response to the question "Do you have anyone dependent on you?"the man wrote: "2.1million illegal immigrants, 1.1million crackheads, 4.4million unemployable Jeremy Kyle scroungers, 900,000 criminals in 85 prisons, plus 650 idiots in Parliament and the whole of the European Commission". HMRC responded that the response he gave was unacceptable. The man's response to HMRC was: "Who did I miss out?".
So how do I conclude from that article that politics is simple. Well because politics fundamental boils down to this......
The sympathy with those on the Left in politics is with all the people mentioned in the article.
The sympathy with those on the Right in politics is with the person completing that tax return.
Just think on that simple but profound analysis the next time you're asked to cast your vote. Who is your sympathy with?
(To be strictly accurate I would dispute the "650 idiots in Parliament" - there are a few sound people there but unfortunately a minority)
And as I read it my thoughts became "Politics isn't complicated, it's actually very simple"
First, here's what the article said:-
IMPORTANCE OF TAX RETURN ACCURACY
HMRC has returned the tax return to a man in Evesham after he apparently answered one of the questions incorrectly. In response to the question "Do you have anyone dependent on you?"the man wrote: "2.1million illegal immigrants, 1.1million crackheads, 4.4million unemployable Jeremy Kyle scroungers, 900,000 criminals in 85 prisons, plus 650 idiots in Parliament and the whole of the European Commission". HMRC responded that the response he gave was unacceptable. The man's response to HMRC was: "Who did I miss out?".
So how do I conclude from that article that politics is simple. Well because politics fundamental boils down to this......
The sympathy with those on the Left in politics is with all the people mentioned in the article.
The sympathy with those on the Right in politics is with the person completing that tax return.
Just think on that simple but profound analysis the next time you're asked to cast your vote. Who is your sympathy with?
(To be strictly accurate I would dispute the "650 idiots in Parliament" - there are a few sound people there but unfortunately a minority)
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
THE STATES AND THE KINGDOM - UNITED?
I feel a sense of depression today off the back of the American election result. What struck me forcefully during the course of a previous US election result, the one where George Bush squeezed through based on a few hundred Florida votes out of the many million cast nationwide, came back equally strongly yesterday. And the thing that struck me? Just how equally divided the population were between two very different ideologies. It seems remarkable to me, given two alternatives, that the results should come out so close - and in terms of the public vote, as opposed to the electoral college numbers, they were close, 49% plays 48%.
One would normally think that between two choices in anything that one of those two choices would stand out as superior and thus be chosen by a substantial majority. Yet the United States divided right down the middle, as near as damn it 50/50, when given the choice of Republican Romney and Democrat Obama.
Let's not kid ourselves that there isn't a vast gap between the competing ideologies. When I was younger I always understood in American politics that the Republicans were right-wing and the Democrats were central-left but that there were no significant socialists in the USA. Obama has certainly moved the Democrats to the left with his European model of big government, high spending, high taxation and nationalised healthcare. Class warfare, "soak the rich" and an ever intrusive government seem so far adrift of the "American Dream" of hard work, self-reliance, sound money and small government which made the USA such a great and successful nation. Yet the country collectively hasn't moved it's vision - just half the nation. One half has gone down that route but the other half still voted for the short-term pain required to create a sound economic environment that would create long-term growth and lasting prosperity. Truly the states of America are no longer "United" and the ideological differences between some of these "united" states are truly profound.
That brings me be back to our United Kingdom. At the last election England voted for a Conservative government. Scotland wanted nothing to do with that and the vast majority of their votes went either to a British socialist party or an even more left-wing Scottish socialist party. Again a nation which calls itself "United" in name is in fact truly divided.
Logically the time must come when amicable divorces are needed in both countries. In 'America' some states could join together to go down the European EU model - with job destroying regulation, high taxes, disincentives to work and economic stagnation whilst other states could stay with their "American Dream" and prosperity. In the UK a small part of the population will actually have a referendum in 2014 to choose whether Scotland goes alone in a Scottish Socialist Utopia. The tragedy is that the English have no say in that referendum - one party in a potential divorce that is disinfranchised from the decision that could be a major factor in the future prosperity of the English. The 2014 referendum should ask the views of the entire UK. And sorry Mr Cameron, I know which way I would vote!
One would normally think that between two choices in anything that one of those two choices would stand out as superior and thus be chosen by a substantial majority. Yet the United States divided right down the middle, as near as damn it 50/50, when given the choice of Republican Romney and Democrat Obama.
Let's not kid ourselves that there isn't a vast gap between the competing ideologies. When I was younger I always understood in American politics that the Republicans were right-wing and the Democrats were central-left but that there were no significant socialists in the USA. Obama has certainly moved the Democrats to the left with his European model of big government, high spending, high taxation and nationalised healthcare. Class warfare, "soak the rich" and an ever intrusive government seem so far adrift of the "American Dream" of hard work, self-reliance, sound money and small government which made the USA such a great and successful nation. Yet the country collectively hasn't moved it's vision - just half the nation. One half has gone down that route but the other half still voted for the short-term pain required to create a sound economic environment that would create long-term growth and lasting prosperity. Truly the states of America are no longer "United" and the ideological differences between some of these "united" states are truly profound.
That brings me be back to our United Kingdom. At the last election England voted for a Conservative government. Scotland wanted nothing to do with that and the vast majority of their votes went either to a British socialist party or an even more left-wing Scottish socialist party. Again a nation which calls itself "United" in name is in fact truly divided.
Logically the time must come when amicable divorces are needed in both countries. In 'America' some states could join together to go down the European EU model - with job destroying regulation, high taxes, disincentives to work and economic stagnation whilst other states could stay with their "American Dream" and prosperity. In the UK a small part of the population will actually have a referendum in 2014 to choose whether Scotland goes alone in a Scottish Socialist Utopia. The tragedy is that the English have no say in that referendum - one party in a potential divorce that is disinfranchised from the decision that could be a major factor in the future prosperity of the English. The 2014 referendum should ask the views of the entire UK. And sorry Mr Cameron, I know which way I would vote!
Sunday, 14 October 2012
DEBT AND DEFICITS
There is a great deal of confusion spoken and published in the media in respect of the national debt and deficit. Apparently only about 10% of the population clearly understand the difference between debt and deficit although the matter is at the very heart of understanding our present financial situation.
There is a fundamental difference between cutting debt and cutting the deficit and I do wonder whether some professional commentators as well as some politicians purposefully add to the confusion. I will try in the next few paragraphs to set out clearly the difference between debt and deficit and hopefully by doing this it will become clear why understanding the difference is important.
Let's start with deficit. All governments have income and expenditure. The income will come from the various taxestheyt raise and collect - income tax, VAT, stamp duty, national insurance etc. The expenditure is the outgoings on benefits and welfare, schools and hospitals, defence etc. If a government's annual incomings and outgoings are equal then they are in balance, whereas if the incomings are greater than the outgoings then they are in surplus, or, if outgoings are greater than incomings then they are said to be in deficit.
Most countries plan to run their affairs at a modest deficit, so unlike an individual household who might sensibly try not to spend more than they receive as income, governments start with the intention to spend more than bring in. This deficit has be financed by borrowing. Governments borrow by issuing government bonds and pay interest on these loans. If deficits continue year after year, these borrowings grow. The interest that is paid out on these bonds is another outgoing and in the case of governments who borrow a lot, these interest payments can be a significant level and have to keep being paid, year after year.
In the paragraph above, I used the phrase "a modest deficit" and this is generally around 2% to 3%. So if income is £100 and expenditure is £103 that deficit of £3 is 3/100 or 3%. As there is always the opportunity to increase tax rates slightly these modest deficits don't seem particularly scary and hence governments can find lenders who are willing to lend to them. Deficits can be reduced by increasing income (raising taxes) or decreasing outgoings (cutting spending), or a combination of the two.
So why all the fuss about deficits and debt? Well in recent times governments of most developed countries (US, UK, and many in western Europe) have increased their annual deficits so they are now far from modest. Deficits rates (percentages) have grown to be 10% or more.
The deficits are financed by borrowing. Just like for an individual, a government who borrows is getting into debt. Debt is defined as the size (amount) outstanding. If a government runs it finances in deficit then the amount it is borrowing - its debt - continues to grow.
So what about all these "savage cuts" that the unions and Labour (and disgracefully the BBC and left-wing newspapers) talk about on a virtually daily basis? Aren't these just efforts to reduce our debt levels? The answer sadly is NO! All the "savage cuts" made to date by the Coalition Government (aka the Evil Tories aided by the LibDems) are merely well-meaning attempts to reduce the deficit. Attempts to reduce our levels of expenditure but only to the extent that the deficit of outgoings less income narrows but is still run at a deficit. And by any rational or objective analysis all the cuts to date have been modest. In fact the government (apparently at the insistence of the LibDems) increased welfare and benefit payments last April by 5.2% so increasing this major expenditure when incomes (and hence income taxes) hardly changed year-on-year. So as a nation we have had to borrow more to increase our benefit payments. Total lunacy!
As things stand, our annual deficit which is presently running well in excess of £100billion a year will only reduce to £95billion a year by 2016. Each year we will continue to run high annual deficits which will continue to add, year after year, to our borrowings - pushing up our high levels of debt to a yet greater and greater level. By 2016 we will owe as a country over £1.5trillion. This is several times more than our debt in 1997 when Labour took over running the country for the following 13 years. And running it in such a reckless fashion so that by 2010 a note was left in the Treasury to the incoming Conservative/LibDem coalition saying "sorry there is no money left". Even then, they couldn't tell the whole truth - what they did in fact leave was an enormous debt level and a welfare and benefits system out of control thus creating further large annual deficits going forward.
Hopefully you are still with me. Its easy just to close your eyes, cover your ears, start humming and hope this awful problem will just go away. If you've got this far then next time you hear a union leader or Labour politician (or their BBC mouthpiece) talk about the cuts as something done by a nasty "evil" government you will realise that these cuts are a neccessary and vital part of getting our out-of-control national finances back, if not into some semblance of balance, at least some first steps towards that goal.
We are leaving our children and grand-children a truly appalling level of debt. Collectively we should all feel ashamed although only that relatively small percentage of the population who voted for, and continue to support Labour are the truly guilty. Because of their actions our children will have to continue servicing the debt (paying the interest) with high taxes and thus a lower standard of living (reduced house ownership and pension provision) than ourselves.
Glossary:
Deficit - excess of expenditure over income (ie. an annual measure)
Debt - amount of borrowings outstanding (ie. at any one point in time)
Reducing the deficit - reducing the gap between expenditure outgoings and income BUT still running at a deficit and therefore still increasing the level of debt
Eliminating the deficit - bringing annual expenditure levels back into line with annual incomings but still the level of debt doesn't decrease.
Reducing debt levels - can only be done by running the nation's finances in annual surplus which frankly is politically impossible given the size of the public sector.
There is a fundamental difference between cutting debt and cutting the deficit and I do wonder whether some professional commentators as well as some politicians purposefully add to the confusion. I will try in the next few paragraphs to set out clearly the difference between debt and deficit and hopefully by doing this it will become clear why understanding the difference is important.
Let's start with deficit. All governments have income and expenditure. The income will come from the various taxestheyt raise and collect - income tax, VAT, stamp duty, national insurance etc. The expenditure is the outgoings on benefits and welfare, schools and hospitals, defence etc. If a government's annual incomings and outgoings are equal then they are in balance, whereas if the incomings are greater than the outgoings then they are in surplus, or, if outgoings are greater than incomings then they are said to be in deficit.
Most countries plan to run their affairs at a modest deficit, so unlike an individual household who might sensibly try not to spend more than they receive as income, governments start with the intention to spend more than bring in. This deficit has be financed by borrowing. Governments borrow by issuing government bonds and pay interest on these loans. If deficits continue year after year, these borrowings grow. The interest that is paid out on these bonds is another outgoing and in the case of governments who borrow a lot, these interest payments can be a significant level and have to keep being paid, year after year.
In the paragraph above, I used the phrase "a modest deficit" and this is generally around 2% to 3%. So if income is £100 and expenditure is £103 that deficit of £3 is 3/100 or 3%. As there is always the opportunity to increase tax rates slightly these modest deficits don't seem particularly scary and hence governments can find lenders who are willing to lend to them. Deficits can be reduced by increasing income (raising taxes) or decreasing outgoings (cutting spending), or a combination of the two.
So why all the fuss about deficits and debt? Well in recent times governments of most developed countries (US, UK, and many in western Europe) have increased their annual deficits so they are now far from modest. Deficits rates (percentages) have grown to be 10% or more.
The deficits are financed by borrowing. Just like for an individual, a government who borrows is getting into debt. Debt is defined as the size (amount) outstanding. If a government runs it finances in deficit then the amount it is borrowing - its debt - continues to grow.
So what about all these "savage cuts" that the unions and Labour (and disgracefully the BBC and left-wing newspapers) talk about on a virtually daily basis? Aren't these just efforts to reduce our debt levels? The answer sadly is NO! All the "savage cuts" made to date by the Coalition Government (aka the Evil Tories aided by the LibDems) are merely well-meaning attempts to reduce the deficit. Attempts to reduce our levels of expenditure but only to the extent that the deficit of outgoings less income narrows but is still run at a deficit. And by any rational or objective analysis all the cuts to date have been modest. In fact the government (apparently at the insistence of the LibDems) increased welfare and benefit payments last April by 5.2% so increasing this major expenditure when incomes (and hence income taxes) hardly changed year-on-year. So as a nation we have had to borrow more to increase our benefit payments. Total lunacy!
As things stand, our annual deficit which is presently running well in excess of £100billion a year will only reduce to £95billion a year by 2016. Each year we will continue to run high annual deficits which will continue to add, year after year, to our borrowings - pushing up our high levels of debt to a yet greater and greater level. By 2016 we will owe as a country over £1.5trillion. This is several times more than our debt in 1997 when Labour took over running the country for the following 13 years. And running it in such a reckless fashion so that by 2010 a note was left in the Treasury to the incoming Conservative/LibDem coalition saying "sorry there is no money left". Even then, they couldn't tell the whole truth - what they did in fact leave was an enormous debt level and a welfare and benefits system out of control thus creating further large annual deficits going forward.
Hopefully you are still with me. Its easy just to close your eyes, cover your ears, start humming and hope this awful problem will just go away. If you've got this far then next time you hear a union leader or Labour politician (or their BBC mouthpiece) talk about the cuts as something done by a nasty "evil" government you will realise that these cuts are a neccessary and vital part of getting our out-of-control national finances back, if not into some semblance of balance, at least some first steps towards that goal.
We are leaving our children and grand-children a truly appalling level of debt. Collectively we should all feel ashamed although only that relatively small percentage of the population who voted for, and continue to support Labour are the truly guilty. Because of their actions our children will have to continue servicing the debt (paying the interest) with high taxes and thus a lower standard of living (reduced house ownership and pension provision) than ourselves.
Glossary:
Deficit - excess of expenditure over income (ie. an annual measure)
Debt - amount of borrowings outstanding (ie. at any one point in time)
Reducing the deficit - reducing the gap between expenditure outgoings and income BUT still running at a deficit and therefore still increasing the level of debt
Eliminating the deficit - bringing annual expenditure levels back into line with annual incomings but still the level of debt doesn't decrease.
Reducing debt levels - can only be done by running the nation's finances in annual surplus which frankly is politically impossible given the size of the public sector.
Sunday, 2 September 2012
HOW MUCH DO THE LIBDEMS WANT FROM YOU?
There's quite a lot of talk from the LibDems about a wealth tax over these last few weeks. That would need people to sit down each year and work out the value of all their assets to which a percentage tax would then be applied to the total. Not easy for the taxman to audit - will he come round to check if money is being kept under the mattress? So a few days after raising that stupidity there appears to have been a shift in emphasis. In today's newspaper the direction seems to have changed to 'just' a new property tax. To quote directly from the paper "Some Lib Dems are pushing for the annual charge to be levied at as much as 1.5 per cent of the property's value".
That's an easy tax for anyone to work out - just get an estate agent to value the house then multiply the result by 1.5%. "A house worth £200,000? - that'll be £3,000 in tax please!" Maybe they'll let you pay it in monthly installments at £250 to make it easy for you. Well easy if you have a spare £250 a month to add to your existing tax bill (income tax, national insurance, VAT, petrol duties, road fund licence, the charge to watch the BBC etc. etc.).
How many of you out there are cheering on the Lib Dems for suggesting this new tax? I mean be fair, don't we need more tax revenues because the only alternative would be to reduce our public spending? It's not like we are overspending is it?
£12billion a year in overseas aid is £1billion a month - surely you wouldn't want to cut the amount we send to India and Pakistan (their arms race doesn't come cheap) or to various African dictators (have you seen the price of top of the range Mercedes these days)?
Public sector guaranteed benefit pension plans get more expensive each year - rather than put money aside for your own pension isn't it fairer instead to pay that money over in tax to fund the public sector pension deficit and ensure at least they can live in relative luxury when they retire?
And don't forget that the EU needs billions from the UK. Remember only the UK and Germany are net contributors so the other 25 'nations' need your money. It easier for several of them than bothering to collect all their own taxes.
Actually, I forgot to ask you if you own your house? The tax will only hit you if you do. If you are in a social or council owned property you don't need to worry. As well as having subsidised rent you won't have to pay a penny of this property tax. In this case its an easy calculation how much the Lib Dems want from you. Its a big FAT ZERO. A vote for them will cost you nothing directly.
But if you do own your home - even if you've just struggled to buy it with a small deposit or if you are in negative equity and in fear of repossession - the calculation is easy.... the Lib Dems would want 1.5% of the house value from you this year (and next year, and next year......).
Here's a ready reckoner for you:-
£100,000 = £1,500 a year in new tax.
£150,000 = £2,250 a year in new tax
£200,000 = £3,000 a year in new tax
£250,000 = £3,750 a year in new tax
£300,000 = £4,500 a year in new tax
£400,000 = £6,000 a year in new tax.
Or even easier - whenever there is an election play safe and avoid the Lib Dems!
That's an easy tax for anyone to work out - just get an estate agent to value the house then multiply the result by 1.5%. "A house worth £200,000? - that'll be £3,000 in tax please!" Maybe they'll let you pay it in monthly installments at £250 to make it easy for you. Well easy if you have a spare £250 a month to add to your existing tax bill (income tax, national insurance, VAT, petrol duties, road fund licence, the charge to watch the BBC etc. etc.).
How many of you out there are cheering on the Lib Dems for suggesting this new tax? I mean be fair, don't we need more tax revenues because the only alternative would be to reduce our public spending? It's not like we are overspending is it?
£12billion a year in overseas aid is £1billion a month - surely you wouldn't want to cut the amount we send to India and Pakistan (their arms race doesn't come cheap) or to various African dictators (have you seen the price of top of the range Mercedes these days)?
Public sector guaranteed benefit pension plans get more expensive each year - rather than put money aside for your own pension isn't it fairer instead to pay that money over in tax to fund the public sector pension deficit and ensure at least they can live in relative luxury when they retire?
And don't forget that the EU needs billions from the UK. Remember only the UK and Germany are net contributors so the other 25 'nations' need your money. It easier for several of them than bothering to collect all their own taxes.
Actually, I forgot to ask you if you own your house? The tax will only hit you if you do. If you are in a social or council owned property you don't need to worry. As well as having subsidised rent you won't have to pay a penny of this property tax. In this case its an easy calculation how much the Lib Dems want from you. Its a big FAT ZERO. A vote for them will cost you nothing directly.
But if you do own your home - even if you've just struggled to buy it with a small deposit or if you are in negative equity and in fear of repossession - the calculation is easy.... the Lib Dems would want 1.5% of the house value from you this year (and next year, and next year......).
Here's a ready reckoner for you:-
£100,000 = £1,500 a year in new tax.
£150,000 = £2,250 a year in new tax
£200,000 = £3,000 a year in new tax
£250,000 = £3,750 a year in new tax
£300,000 = £4,500 a year in new tax
£400,000 = £6,000 a year in new tax.
Or even easier - whenever there is an election play safe and avoid the Lib Dems!
Monday, 6 August 2012
NAUSEATINGLY IMMATURE
The immaturity of Nick Clegg and his party is very apparent in their tit-for-tat response to the failure of their constitutional vandalism of the House of Lords. The Coalition Agreement included a clear trade-off between the Conservatives and the Libdems. They would get a referendum on the Alternative Voting system and the Conservatives would have a chance to create a level field voting system. At present the system is heavily biased towards the Labour Party. When Tony Blair got 36% of the national votes that gave him a majority in parliament of 20 seats - whereas when David Cameron won 36% of the national votes he fell significantly short of a working majority. Where is the famous British sense of fair play in such a system? The boundary changes proposed within the Coalition Agreement would have righted that wrong.
So does Clegg now believe that Labour should have a built in advantage when it comes to national elections? Doesn't he desire a level playing field when it comes to deciding which party wins? He has previously been on record as saying that the system is unfair and should be changed but now in a childlike fit of pique he has changed his mind. How petty! How nauseatingly immature!
Sunday, 22 January 2012
LOOSE MONEY
I can't believe how free and easy some people are with public money. Today both the newspapers and the TV news are full of LibDem former leader, Lord Ashdown, talking about voting against the proposed benefit cap of £26,000pa. For a person prepared to work and support themselves and their family, they need to bring in about £35,000 a year before tax to have the same standard of living as a family at the proposed benefit cap. Half the population don't make that sort of money. What incentive to work is there for some one of only modest earning capacity when they can rake in £26,000 just sitting on their sofas watching their mates on the Jeremy Kyle show? But even that cap is too low for Lord Ashdown. Labour were obviously happy for families to get £50,000 or even significantly higher in overall benefits. Indeed they set up the system to disguise the total by creating a plethora of individual benefits and an ever increasing army of public sector employees to administer all the handouts.
Give Nick Clegg his due - he's woken up and smelt the coffee. He realises the present benefit system is both unfit for purpose and financially ruinous for the country. But how many of his rank and file are behind him and how many are cheering on Lord Ashdown? How many commuters travelling into London long to live in places like Kensington and Chelsea but instead have to buy homes outside London then endure an hour or more each way to get to work. Meanwhile the combined taxes of several of these hardworking families are needed to pay the housing benefit to let one family, making no contribution to the public purse, live in Central London.
UPDATE: On the above theme, Iain Duncan Smith is quoted in Monday's London Evening Stardard saying "The purpose of this is not to punish people but it is to give fairness to people who are paying tax, who are commuting large distances because they can only afford to live in the houses that they have chosen". (Click on the word "saying" above for a link to the article, which also includes "some households have been living on benefits of more than £100,000 a year in affluent areas of London" [New Labour, New Excesses?]).
Give Nick Clegg his due - he's woken up and smelt the coffee. He realises the present benefit system is both unfit for purpose and financially ruinous for the country. But how many of his rank and file are behind him and how many are cheering on Lord Ashdown? How many commuters travelling into London long to live in places like Kensington and Chelsea but instead have to buy homes outside London then endure an hour or more each way to get to work. Meanwhile the combined taxes of several of these hardworking families are needed to pay the housing benefit to let one family, making no contribution to the public purse, live in Central London.
UPDATE: On the above theme, Iain Duncan Smith is quoted in Monday's London Evening Stardard saying "The purpose of this is not to punish people but it is to give fairness to people who are paying tax, who are commuting large distances because they can only afford to live in the houses that they have chosen". (Click on the word "saying" above for a link to the article, which also includes "some households have been living on benefits of more than £100,000 a year in affluent areas of London" [New Labour, New Excesses?]).
Sunday, 1 January 2012
A HAPPY NEW YEAR
The first day of 2012 and my best wishes for "A Happy New Year" to anyone reading this posting. Although individually there may be happy 2012's it is looking very bleak collectively. After the Merkozy Junta just managed to keep kicking the can down the road in 2011 I suspect events will come to a head in 2012. Apparently the UK Treasury is doing some worse case scenario planning based on the premise that some countries after defaulting and with the euro collapsing will have to physically close their borders as well as put a halt to all money flows across their borders. UK holiday makers could find themselves marooned abroad with ATMs not working and will need to be repatriated.
This whole situation of over-indebted countries facing collapse can perhaps be best explained by the following:-
Despite it being a self-evident truth it seems that politicians of the Left and so many voters continue to fail to grasp it.
This whole situation of over-indebted countries facing collapse can perhaps be best explained by the following:-
Despite it being a self-evident truth it seems that politicians of the Left and so many voters continue to fail to grasp it.
Wednesday, 14 December 2011
BORROWING AT 2.2% INTEREST RATES - A RECORD LOW!
In the news this morning is the fact that the Government today sold £3billion of new 10 year debt at a 2.2% interest rate. A record low rate of interest! What an amazing vote of confidence by international investors in the UK and this government just days after we are supposedly "isolated" and "a pygmy nation". Contrast to Italy and Spain who paying 6%+ on their new borrowings. If we still had a Labour government and had not implimented an austerity programme then our borrow costs would be like Italy and Spain. That £3billion of debt alone would have cost us more than £100million a year in extra interest - more than £1billion over the 10 years!
Can you imagine the sort of income tax and VAT rates needed to fund Labour's spending policies and to pay the resulting penal rates of interest on our borrowings? Both coalition partners can be proud of the economic policies they have put in place since the last General Election that have brought us back from the Labour road to ruin.
Can you imagine the sort of income tax and VAT rates needed to fund Labour's spending policies and to pay the resulting penal rates of interest on our borrowings? Both coalition partners can be proud of the economic policies they have put in place since the last General Election that have brought us back from the Labour road to ruin.
Sunday, 11 December 2011
A NIGHTMARISH, TOTALITARIAN, FEDERAL STATE
Although I've supported the Conservatives since my school days, I never was a true fan of David Cameron. When all party members were given the choice between Cameron and David Davies I firmly put my cross in favour of the latter. However since last Friday morning I've had to totally revise my opinion of our Prime Minister. For the first time in forty years we have a Prime Minister who has stood up for Britain's interests and used the veto rather than give in as usual with concession after concession as the continent moves ever closer to a single federal entity with a serious democratic deficit.
I really never believed that he would have the strength of character to say "No!" when alone and totally outnumbered. That takes real guts! Well done Mr Cameron! The 9th December 2011 may go down as an pivotal date in our nation's history.
Of course no sane organisation would ever hold its important meetings during the early hours of the morning. The fact that the EU chooses to do its business that way merely sums up what a completely ludicrious creation it is. Can you think of any other organisation that would choose to start proceedings with an evening meal and then effectively lock its participants in a room through the night until a decision is reached. Totally barmy!
With hindsight it is easy for some commentators to say that the veto outcome was obvious. The French established a set of conditions designed to push our PM into a corner. One of their key goals is to marginise Britain within Europe. Cameron was naive in thinking that he could negotiate an agreement - but that is the mistake that all previous British PMs have made. The EU doesn't do negotiations that in any way align with Britain's national interest - the EU just dictates and demands agreement on its own terms. Perhaps a weasily worded and worthless tit-bit is offered as a fig leaf but never anything of real consequence. Thank goodness that Cameron was wily and astute enough to see the truth.
Where does that leave the UK if the other 26 move ever closer to fiscal union and a single federated European state? Someone has described it as being left on the dock as the Titanic set sail. Others use the analogy of being locked outside a burning building. With the EU now accounting for less than 15% of world GDP we can start to lift our eyes to the wider horizon and the 85% of world GDP beyond. Its a shameful disgrace how we turned our backs since the 1970s on our kith and kin in the Commonwealth. The Queen always knew who our true friends were even if politicians couldn't, or wouldn't see it. Plus China, Brazil - well the list could go on and on - are the future for commerce and trade. True, they are further away than our European neighbours but economically they are the future. Germany may be an economic powerhouse and increasingly the dominant master of the EU but a lot of its perceived 'strength' has been built from the inbalances between itself and other EU states arising from the single currency. In the long term these inbalances are unsustainable - witness how it has left Greece, Italy, Portugal etc.
So the EU (excluding the UK) moves on to a Fiscal Union - a federal single state dominated by France and Germany and controlled out of Brussels. All the other 'nations' will have to get their annual budgets first scrutinised and approved by a non-elected group of commisionaires in Brussels before putting it in front of their own parliaments. Nations (strictly speaking, better now called regions) with less autonomy than Suffolk County Council or even our local Mid Suffolk District Council! Regional leaders that won't toe the line will be replaced as we have already seen in Greece and Italy. That is the nightmarish, totalitarian result that has arisen from the EU attempts to preserve its single currency ideology - a soviet union of Western Europe.
Thank goodness we in the UK are on the sidelines. The whole global economy will suffer when the Euro project ultimately collapses - we can't be immune to that - but with our own sovereignty, own currency and own democracy we can mitigate many of the effects from that fallout. Or, when the democratic deficit in the new EU State finally leads to a civil war within it, again thank goodness we are on the sidelines. The protests seen so far in Athens and Rome are a mere prelude to what's to come in the bleak EU future.
I really never believed that he would have the strength of character to say "No!" when alone and totally outnumbered. That takes real guts! Well done Mr Cameron! The 9th December 2011 may go down as an pivotal date in our nation's history.
Of course no sane organisation would ever hold its important meetings during the early hours of the morning. The fact that the EU chooses to do its business that way merely sums up what a completely ludicrious creation it is. Can you think of any other organisation that would choose to start proceedings with an evening meal and then effectively lock its participants in a room through the night until a decision is reached. Totally barmy!
With hindsight it is easy for some commentators to say that the veto outcome was obvious. The French established a set of conditions designed to push our PM into a corner. One of their key goals is to marginise Britain within Europe. Cameron was naive in thinking that he could negotiate an agreement - but that is the mistake that all previous British PMs have made. The EU doesn't do negotiations that in any way align with Britain's national interest - the EU just dictates and demands agreement on its own terms. Perhaps a weasily worded and worthless tit-bit is offered as a fig leaf but never anything of real consequence. Thank goodness that Cameron was wily and astute enough to see the truth.
Where does that leave the UK if the other 26 move ever closer to fiscal union and a single federated European state? Someone has described it as being left on the dock as the Titanic set sail. Others use the analogy of being locked outside a burning building. With the EU now accounting for less than 15% of world GDP we can start to lift our eyes to the wider horizon and the 85% of world GDP beyond. Its a shameful disgrace how we turned our backs since the 1970s on our kith and kin in the Commonwealth. The Queen always knew who our true friends were even if politicians couldn't, or wouldn't see it. Plus China, Brazil - well the list could go on and on - are the future for commerce and trade. True, they are further away than our European neighbours but economically they are the future. Germany may be an economic powerhouse and increasingly the dominant master of the EU but a lot of its perceived 'strength' has been built from the inbalances between itself and other EU states arising from the single currency. In the long term these inbalances are unsustainable - witness how it has left Greece, Italy, Portugal etc.
So the EU (excluding the UK) moves on to a Fiscal Union - a federal single state dominated by France and Germany and controlled out of Brussels. All the other 'nations' will have to get their annual budgets first scrutinised and approved by a non-elected group of commisionaires in Brussels before putting it in front of their own parliaments. Nations (strictly speaking, better now called regions) with less autonomy than Suffolk County Council or even our local Mid Suffolk District Council! Regional leaders that won't toe the line will be replaced as we have already seen in Greece and Italy. That is the nightmarish, totalitarian result that has arisen from the EU attempts to preserve its single currency ideology - a soviet union of Western Europe.
Thank goodness we in the UK are on the sidelines. The whole global economy will suffer when the Euro project ultimately collapses - we can't be immune to that - but with our own sovereignty, own currency and own democracy we can mitigate many of the effects from that fallout. Or, when the democratic deficit in the new EU State finally leads to a civil war within it, again thank goodness we are on the sidelines. The protests seen so far in Athens and Rome are a mere prelude to what's to come in the bleak EU future.
Friday, 28 October 2011
SO YOU THINK THE EU IS DEMOCRATIC? WATCH THIS VIDEO!
Since writing the headline and posting the video on Saturday there has been a dramatic development. The Greek Prime Minister has called for a referendum of the Greek people to approve or otherwise the bailout conditions. So a little bit of democracy finally comes to a little bit of the EU.
However the Greek PM is getting serious grief from the other eurozone leaders for putting the matter to the people. It is a fact that the delay until the referendum result is known will create a great deal of uncertainty and events in the market may well overtake the referendum. And it does seem that he has sprung this referendum without telling the other leaders about it first. However, given the choice - either year, after year, after year of austerity and mass unemployment or the really short sharp pain of a default, leaving the euro with the massive devaluation of a new greek currency but the chance to rise again like Argentina (8% growth for a number of years post the default and devaluation) - the odds must be on the greek people choosing the latter.
Where will that leave the people of Ireland and Portugal who retain 100% of their debt burden, the yoke of the euro and years of austerity? That's the trillion euro question.
Update 3/11/2011 Referendum called off. Less than 24 hours after the Greek PM was called by his masters to meet them at the G20 Cannes, he has called off the referendum. The people again denied their say in EU matters. The Franco-German axis crushes Greek democracy.
Monday, 24 October 2011
WHIPPING BOYS (AND GIRLS)
As someone who believes strongly in the freedom of the individual one of the very first questions I asked my party before standing as a district councillor was "Do you have '3 line whips' at council meetings like they do at Westminster?". I found it very comforting to be told that councillors could vote according to their conscience although as a matter of good manners they should inform the leader if they are going to vote against a group recommendation. At the very first group meeting after the election this was reiterated. How very civilised and what a contrast to the situation at Westminster where the backbencher EU debate arising from the e-petition is being subject to a 3-line whip by all the major parties.
David Cameron has tried to defuse the situation with his own backbenchers by suggesting that treaty changes arising from the failed euro project could lead to some renegotiation and the return of some of Brussels powers back to Westminster. Well that would be a first in forty years! But Cameron's hands are tied being part of a coalition. To quote today's London Evening Standard website:-
"...he [Cameron] was immediately plunged into a furious public row with his Liberal Democrat coalition partners who do not support the repatriation of powers from Brussels."
The LibDems continue to be enraptured by the EU despite the euro project leading to rioting on the streets in southern Europe, frighteningly high levels of unemployment, stagnation, inflation and Berlin dictating economic policy to other 'sovereign' countries. Two things the EU certainly isn't - liberal and democratic!
Meanwhile, if you are still unclear of where I stand in regards to holding a EU referendum perhaps this photograph will clear things up!
I attended a Referendum demonstration at Westminster several years ago. I was handed this placard. I actually brought it home with me, as a sounvenir, on first the Tube and then the overground line to Ipswich. I felt rather self-conscious but proud.
At some stage in this country's future I truly believe they will erect statues to the freedom fighters against this evil EU Empire.
POSTSCRIPT : 111 heroes. 101 from across all three UK main parties, 9 from Ulster and 1 watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside). No one representing Suffolk though.
David Cameron has tried to defuse the situation with his own backbenchers by suggesting that treaty changes arising from the failed euro project could lead to some renegotiation and the return of some of Brussels powers back to Westminster. Well that would be a first in forty years! But Cameron's hands are tied being part of a coalition. To quote today's London Evening Standard website:-
"...he [Cameron] was immediately plunged into a furious public row with his Liberal Democrat coalition partners who do not support the repatriation of powers from Brussels."
The LibDems continue to be enraptured by the EU despite the euro project leading to rioting on the streets in southern Europe, frighteningly high levels of unemployment, stagnation, inflation and Berlin dictating economic policy to other 'sovereign' countries. Two things the EU certainly isn't - liberal and democratic!
Meanwhile, if you are still unclear of where I stand in regards to holding a EU referendum perhaps this photograph will clear things up!
At some stage in this country's future I truly believe they will erect statues to the freedom fighters against this evil EU Empire.
POSTSCRIPT : 111 heroes. 101 from across all three UK main parties, 9 from Ulster and 1 watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside). No one representing Suffolk though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
