Socialism, be it Lib Dem or Labour, will never live up to its aspirations because it attracts people who would take personal advantage of it and allows the many, through dearth of mental strength and confidence, to permit the few to take over. Even Stalin might have started out trying to bring the poor into power, but convinced of his own poverty of birth took all power to himself to the exclusion of all others while speaking the mantra of inclusively.
And after thirteen years of Labour in Britain we see inclusivity being preached and exclusivity being practiced in all walks of life. They even gerrymandered the election constituency boundaries to ensure Labour alone would be included in power in spite of having been awarded fewer votes than another party at the ballot box.
Socialism excludes imaginative wealth creators while pandering to them when in need of second hand glory or profits. It excludes people and ideas of difference and initiative while calling all their little bits of social engineering and meddling initiatives.
Socialism is a beautiful dream described by someone who does not know about humanity by not being in among it and part of it. It is written by observers not by partakers, like the theatre critic watching from the stalls the vagaries of courses and lives being lived out beyond his reach.
On the ground it does not work. It actually makes the poor even more poor than they would have been if socialism had never been invented. It prevents the children of the poor from dragging themselves and their own from the mire of underachievement. It conspires to remove and block any avenues to self-betterment that appeal to their core supporters.
Basically it does not work because it eschews profit making and confiscates any proceeds of work and effort thus cutting off its own supply of capital with which to appease the poor. And it can never be seen to have worked because that would allow for the applauding of success, another dirty word in the dictionary of socialism.
So we see socialism peddled at election time in underhand and devious ways as if it would work if only we all agreed to be poor.
We the people are human and we do not assent to be poor, rather we aspire to something better and strive to achieve it from the cradle to the grave.
Tuesday 12 October 2010
The future is dismal
I was taught that having clawed one’s way to the top it is bad form to pull up the ladder – but Blair and mostly Gordon Brown whisked and pulled that ladder as hard as they could with all the forces they could muster, putting in place enormous barriers to having it ever restored.
Moves to increase tuition fees are putting further education out of reach for anyone whose parents are not in work or who do not have job security. And to anyone whose parents do not own property against which to borrow. The likelihood of employment for boys whose parents are economically weak these days is dismal. Even getting a driving license is now a huge cost and as for insuring a car for anyone under 25 to drive – hopelessly expensive. British boys are disenfranchised at birth thanks to 13 years of Labour government.
There has to be new ways of creating avenues to success for young people. There must be bursaries; there must be fiscal advantages to encourage the creation of new ones that must not be limited to students who agreed to separate to enable access to them. Come to think of it, the tax, grant and other income advantages of being a single parent household should be widened to include stable, two parent, family households.
Making this happen is a huge challenge to any government, and getting elected on a promise to do that would be hard. But now we have a stable coalition government with a promise to serve for 5 years and do the dynamic reforms we need.
First sort out the benefits system to allow the unemployed to do short term seasonal work without the present loss of income that brings. IDS is onto that already. Then sort out avenues to betterment for all through the colleges and university funding fiasco. But most of all we need jobs, we need to make employing people easier in Britain today and tariffs on imports from places that do not pay social costs that we have to pay for workers here, such as for the NHS and for holiday and sick pay. Level the playing field so wealth creation is encouraged, profit is no longer a dirty word and job creation follows.
Moves to increase tuition fees are putting further education out of reach for anyone whose parents are not in work or who do not have job security. And to anyone whose parents do not own property against which to borrow. The likelihood of employment for boys whose parents are economically weak these days is dismal. Even getting a driving license is now a huge cost and as for insuring a car for anyone under 25 to drive – hopelessly expensive. British boys are disenfranchised at birth thanks to 13 years of Labour government.
There has to be new ways of creating avenues to success for young people. There must be bursaries; there must be fiscal advantages to encourage the creation of new ones that must not be limited to students who agreed to separate to enable access to them. Come to think of it, the tax, grant and other income advantages of being a single parent household should be widened to include stable, two parent, family households.
Making this happen is a huge challenge to any government, and getting elected on a promise to do that would be hard. But now we have a stable coalition government with a promise to serve for 5 years and do the dynamic reforms we need.
First sort out the benefits system to allow the unemployed to do short term seasonal work without the present loss of income that brings. IDS is onto that already. Then sort out avenues to betterment for all through the colleges and university funding fiasco. But most of all we need jobs, we need to make employing people easier in Britain today and tariffs on imports from places that do not pay social costs that we have to pay for workers here, such as for the NHS and for holiday and sick pay. Level the playing field so wealth creation is encouraged, profit is no longer a dirty word and job creation follows.
Thursday 30 September 2010
Vandalism costs me.
Yesterday I paid out £80 to the company that employs Glen, the very nice and clever forensic computer fixer who found Trojan worms stuck in my computer by someone who wanted to stop me writing anything at all and to stop me putting anything on this blog. Two hours, that is how long it took an expert to find, examine, record and destroy these nasty little objects.
I still don’t know how they got past my firewall. It is not as if I have no firewalls and defence like the people who were robbed by internet bank account fraud Glen and others like him had investigated and arrested. I have lots of anti-viral software regularly updated and run, and yet someone stopped me writing.
Why me? What did I ever write that might have brought such anti-social behaviour? I’m nice to animals, I help old ladies cross the road, and I do unpaid work for the community as a volunteer. I gave up standing outside shopping centres with charity collection boxes a while back - the charity didn’t get much in the box in my hand. I let someone else do those tasks these days. I am no good at standing up for an hour or two.
So having got the “why me” thing done and dusted how many others are being targeted by such malware and how to stop it happening and costing others that £80? Apart from finding out who did it and having them locked up and barred from access to the internet for life as Glen and his team intend. There must be a safe download somewhere that will block Trojan writer stoppers. Maybe an add on to one of the many firewalls I already have ?
I still don’t know how they got past my firewall. It is not as if I have no firewalls and defence like the people who were robbed by internet bank account fraud Glen and others like him had investigated and arrested. I have lots of anti-viral software regularly updated and run, and yet someone stopped me writing.
Why me? What did I ever write that might have brought such anti-social behaviour? I’m nice to animals, I help old ladies cross the road, and I do unpaid work for the community as a volunteer. I gave up standing outside shopping centres with charity collection boxes a while back - the charity didn’t get much in the box in my hand. I let someone else do those tasks these days. I am no good at standing up for an hour or two.
So having got the “why me” thing done and dusted how many others are being targeted by such malware and how to stop it happening and costing others that £80? Apart from finding out who did it and having them locked up and barred from access to the internet for life as Glen and his team intend. There must be a safe download somewhere that will block Trojan writer stoppers. Maybe an add on to one of the many firewalls I already have ?
Monday 9 August 2010
Local authority payments system upgrading
Local government authorities are often hampered by the need to make payments by cheque but this is done for security and transparency reasons. By the need for a vote on council and multiple signatures it prevents unauthorised payments of taxpayers money. But it is out of date. LGA's need to use credit cards to buy things under guarantee and to use internet banking and there are ways of doing that if the law would allow. They need to have a credit card that can only be used after a vote approving its use with a maximum amount that can be spent on each use, (preferably one that gives cash-back). Statements must be presented for approval and voted on at each and every
meeting.
And they need to be able to do internet banking and do direct debits with council voted approval and several signatures approving each payment on a special form the clerk can present to auditors. This protects council officials and taxpayers to the satisfaction of both while enabling the cost effective use of modern financial structures.
meeting.
And they need to be able to do internet banking and do direct debits with council voted approval and several signatures approving each payment on a special form the clerk can present to auditors. This protects council officials and taxpayers to the satisfaction of both while enabling the cost effective use of modern financial structures.
Wednesday 9 June 2010
Bar codes
I was sent this in an email and found it interesting enough to post on here.
Bar codes
The whole world is afraid of China-made "black hearted goods".
Can you differentiate which one is made in Taiwan or China?
If the first 3 digits of the barcode are 690, 691 Or 692,
the product is MADE IN CHINA.
471 is Made in Taiwan.
This is our right to know, but the government And related departments never educate the Public, therefore we have to RESCUE Ourselves.
Nowadays, Chinese businessmen know that
Consumers do not prefer products "MADE IN CHINA",
so they don't show from which Country it is made.
However, you may now refer to the barcode
- Remember if the first 3 digits are:
690-692 ... Then it is MADE IN CHINA
00 - 09 ... USA & CANADA
30 - 37 ... FRANCE
40 - 44 ... GERMANY
47 .. Taiwan
49 ... JAPAN
50 .... UK
BUY UK MADE by watching for "50" at the beginning of the number.
We need every boost we can get!
Bar codes
The whole world is afraid of China-made "black hearted goods".
Can you differentiate which one is made in Taiwan or China?
If the first 3 digits of the barcode are 690, 691 Or 692,
the product is MADE IN CHINA.
471 is Made in Taiwan.
This is our right to know, but the government And related departments never educate the Public, therefore we have to RESCUE Ourselves.
Nowadays, Chinese businessmen know that
Consumers do not prefer products "MADE IN CHINA",
so they don't show from which Country it is made.
However, you may now refer to the barcode
- Remember if the first 3 digits are:
690-692 ... Then it is MADE IN CHINA
00 - 09 ... USA & CANADA
30 - 37 ... FRANCE
40 - 44 ... GERMANY
47 .. Taiwan
49 ... JAPAN
50 .... UK
BUY UK MADE by watching for "50" at the beginning of the number.
We need every boost we can get!
Friday 4 June 2010
Men’s sheds.
In one generation the world has seen a technological revolution. The average kitchen, where our mothers and grandmothers would have aspired to have a fridge and an electric washing machine, now has scores of computers built into the microwave, the dishwasher, the washing machine, the fridge, the cooker and endless gadgets we all take for granted. We expect supermarket or shopping mall doors it to open for us automatically. The people on the checkout no longer have to figure out the change or stock levels, the computerised system automatically does all that for them. Even the family car now has an onboard computer silently waiting to tell the garage mechanic what happened to it and what it needs. Car factories are now run by robots, which build the cars and deliver them at the Out Door all perfectly shiny and quality tested. Warehouses serving shops now have robots stacking shelves and sorting deliveries ready for a driver to take to the customer or to retail outlets.
All of this was achieved by people working hard in Silicon Valley USA and in the M4 corridor in the UK, and like the builders who put up St Paul’s Cathedral they are mostly now out of work and kicking their heels or playing games on home PCs. Their enterprise and ingenuity made our lives better and safer but they put many people out of work and have now found themselves out of work.
The last decade has shown growth only in government; obviously unsustainable when so many of those who paid for them in taxes are now out of work or in part time or low paid jobs. The service industry is the only one left, trucking, transporting goods made by robots, selling buying and marketing goods. These are mostly jobs for presentable young women, leaving young men and middle aged people scrabbling around looking for any bit of income they can by any means, all now unable to afford to reskill and retrain for a new career. I.T. specialists can be plumbers but that costs £8000 per annum for each certificate upgrade unless you can claim to have done them cheaper abroad. They need to get together and make things happen together instead of sitting around worrying, lost, broke, bored and lonely.
In Australia they have a problem that had a completely different cause but the same outcome and they have come up with the idea of Men’s Sheds. Women tend to organise themselves more readily than men. Men of all ages seem to need a push to do it. Men’s Sheds are what you would expect of a men’s shed – wooden floors, benches, tools, dust, mugs of tea and only what they have made to sit on. Each has an attendance rate of around 50 men a day dropping in to learn of job news, to exchange ideas and to make things. There are woodworking lessons and other trades to be tried and learned in the shed. Marketable qualifications to be aimed for and relationships to be established.
Here we have Working Men’s Clubs often with little more than a bar and a pool table open on set evenings during the week.
These need to evolve!
All of this was achieved by people working hard in Silicon Valley USA and in the M4 corridor in the UK, and like the builders who put up St Paul’s Cathedral they are mostly now out of work and kicking their heels or playing games on home PCs. Their enterprise and ingenuity made our lives better and safer but they put many people out of work and have now found themselves out of work.
The last decade has shown growth only in government; obviously unsustainable when so many of those who paid for them in taxes are now out of work or in part time or low paid jobs. The service industry is the only one left, trucking, transporting goods made by robots, selling buying and marketing goods. These are mostly jobs for presentable young women, leaving young men and middle aged people scrabbling around looking for any bit of income they can by any means, all now unable to afford to reskill and retrain for a new career. I.T. specialists can be plumbers but that costs £8000 per annum for each certificate upgrade unless you can claim to have done them cheaper abroad. They need to get together and make things happen together instead of sitting around worrying, lost, broke, bored and lonely.
In Australia they have a problem that had a completely different cause but the same outcome and they have come up with the idea of Men’s Sheds. Women tend to organise themselves more readily than men. Men of all ages seem to need a push to do it. Men’s Sheds are what you would expect of a men’s shed – wooden floors, benches, tools, dust, mugs of tea and only what they have made to sit on. Each has an attendance rate of around 50 men a day dropping in to learn of job news, to exchange ideas and to make things. There are woodworking lessons and other trades to be tried and learned in the shed. Marketable qualifications to be aimed for and relationships to be established.
Here we have Working Men’s Clubs often with little more than a bar and a pool table open on set evenings during the week.
These need to evolve!
Friday 7 May 2010
Electoral reform was rejected yesterday.
The only party that presented a policy of proportional representation instead of first past the post was the Liberal Democrats and they were hammered at the polls on May 6th. It is very odd the day after the electorate gave their garbled answer that the issue that will allow us to have a stable government is the one that lost its party so much. It is clear this country wants the policies of the Liberal Democrats less than they want those of the others and yet the merchandise Mr Brown, present leader of the Labour Party, is offering in exchange for a coalition with the Liberal Democrats is the already shunned Proportional Representation. Being worst has made Nick Clegg into the “kingmaker”. And the most favoured bargaining chip is one of the least favoured policies, PR.
That is not democracy as we knew it and desire to keep it. And if we do adopt PR we will have to stomach endless least favoured options of the same ilk.
We need to hold another election and to get it done right this time; no more running out of ballot papers, no more locking people who want to vote out of the polling station for lack of a proper management in place. The senior person in the polling station should have known about the need for speed and for extra staff and have been able to get those staff from less busy stations, as happened in most of the country. There should be no more unequal constituency numbers – they should all be the same size constructed on the basis of the last completed electoral roll, not the last census as it is now.
It could be said that the little hopeless parties promoting a single issue be excluded from this one next snap election to make it fairer, faster and more decisive as the nation requires but only for the one emergency election.
That is not democracy as we knew it and desire to keep it. And if we do adopt PR we will have to stomach endless least favoured options of the same ilk.
We need to hold another election and to get it done right this time; no more running out of ballot papers, no more locking people who want to vote out of the polling station for lack of a proper management in place. The senior person in the polling station should have known about the need for speed and for extra staff and have been able to get those staff from less busy stations, as happened in most of the country. There should be no more unequal constituency numbers – they should all be the same size constructed on the basis of the last completed electoral roll, not the last census as it is now.
It could be said that the little hopeless parties promoting a single issue be excluded from this one next snap election to make it fairer, faster and more decisive as the nation requires but only for the one emergency election.
Monday 3 May 2010
Frequent deaths of socialism and its causes
Socialism, be it Lib Dem or Labour, will never live up to its aspirations because it attracts people who would take personal advantage of it and allows the many, through dearth of mental strength and confidence, to permit the few to take over. Even Stalin might have started out trying to bring the poor into power, but convinced of his own poverty of birth took all power to himself to the exclusion of all others while speaking the mantra of inclusively.
And after thirteen years of Labour in Britain we see inclusivity being preached and exclusivity being practiced in all walks of life. They even gerrymandered the election constituency boundaries to ensure Labour alone would be included in power in spite of having been awarded fewer votes than another party at the ballot box.
Socialism excludes imaginative wealth creators while pandering to them when in need of second hand glory or profits. It excludes people and ideas of difference and initiative while calling all their little bits of social engineering and meddling initiatives.
Socialism is a beautiful dream described by someone who does not know about humanity by not being in among it and part of it. It is written by observers not by partakers, like the theatre critic watching from the stalls the vagaries of courses and lives being lived out beyond his reach.
On the ground it does not work. It actually makes the poor even more poor than they would have been if socialism had never been invented. It prevents the children of the poor from dragging themselves and their own from the mire of underachievement. It conspires to remove and block any avenues to self-betterment that appeal to their core supporters.
Basically it does not work because it eschews profit making and confiscates any proceeds of work and effort thus cutting off its own supply of capital with which to appease the poor. And it can never be seen to have worked because that would allow for the applauding of success, another dirty word in the dictionary of socialism.
So we see socialism peddled at election time in underhand and devious ways as if it would work if only we all agreed to be poor.
We the people are human and we do not assent to be poor, rather we aspire to something better and strive to achieve it from the cradle to the grave.
And after thirteen years of Labour in Britain we see inclusivity being preached and exclusivity being practiced in all walks of life. They even gerrymandered the election constituency boundaries to ensure Labour alone would be included in power in spite of having been awarded fewer votes than another party at the ballot box.
Socialism excludes imaginative wealth creators while pandering to them when in need of second hand glory or profits. It excludes people and ideas of difference and initiative while calling all their little bits of social engineering and meddling initiatives.
Socialism is a beautiful dream described by someone who does not know about humanity by not being in among it and part of it. It is written by observers not by partakers, like the theatre critic watching from the stalls the vagaries of courses and lives being lived out beyond his reach.
On the ground it does not work. It actually makes the poor even more poor than they would have been if socialism had never been invented. It prevents the children of the poor from dragging themselves and their own from the mire of underachievement. It conspires to remove and block any avenues to self-betterment that appeal to their core supporters.
Basically it does not work because it eschews profit making and confiscates any proceeds of work and effort thus cutting off its own supply of capital with which to appease the poor. And it can never be seen to have worked because that would allow for the applauding of success, another dirty word in the dictionary of socialism.
So we see socialism peddled at election time in underhand and devious ways as if it would work if only we all agreed to be poor.
We the people are human and we do not assent to be poor, rather we aspire to something better and strive to achieve it from the cradle to the grave.
Tuesday 20 April 2010
The politics of fear
Election time again and Labour resorts to the politics of fear. I predicted weeks ago that when Brown saw his ratings plummet he would find or create some disaster that would make him appear statesmanlike. It could be said that FMD was deliberately released by the govt to do the same and I really though it would be terrorist activity not a volcano.
The volcano is looking more like an omen, not an opportunity for statesmanlike activity, and anyway, aircraft carriers are too big for Calais Harbour and the sea-lanes to it too narrow.
The closed airspace policy seems to have failed. Brown blew it big time, having promised to sort it all out nothing has happened that would not have been done anyway.
So what next? At least we know it won’t be tanks at Heathrow!
The volcano is looking more like an omen, not an opportunity for statesmanlike activity, and anyway, aircraft carriers are too big for Calais Harbour and the sea-lanes to it too narrow.
The closed airspace policy seems to have failed. Brown blew it big time, having promised to sort it all out nothing has happened that would not have been done anyway.
So what next? At least we know it won’t be tanks at Heathrow!
Thursday 15 April 2010
VAT on new homes is an economically illiterate proposal
Say you chose not to have a second hand home but to buy a brand new house priced at £100,000. Plus VAT at 17.5% the amount you need to part with is then £117.500. On a 100% mortgage you would owe £117,500 but own equity with a value of £100,000 and are immediately in negative equity.
100% mortgages are no longer on offer so you would be paying a deposit of between 10 and 20%. At 10%, that is £10,000, you need to borrow £107,500 against a property worth £100,000 and no bank would allow that. With a 20% deposit, that is £20,000, you need to borrow £97,500 and on selling that house would have only £2,500 to offer as a deposit, to cover legal fees, and tax charges.
So if VAT were to be charged on new houses as proposed by the Lib Dem manifesto nobody could buy a brand new home and no bank could lend on one. When you buy a house you add all costs onto the amount you need to borrow.
They say on Page 81, (that a Lib Dem government would) “Protect greenfield land and our built heritage by reducing the cost of repairs. We will equalise VAT on new build on an overall revenue-neutral basis. This will also reduce the costs or repairs to historic buildings.”
That could not mean both repairs and new builds would be zero rated, the EU would not allow that. It means the full whack on both, or what? They do not specify, but suppose they decided to level the two at 10% of any number between 1 and 17.5 how could that be done? All homes need maintenance money spent on them every year so someone would have to decide what is regarded as part of an established building and liable for a reduced VAT rate. Landlords now know that central heating, secure doors and windows, carpets, curtains, cooker, fridge and washing machine are included in a refurbishment programme as standard. Would they all now be at a reduced VAT rate and at what cost to the exchequer?
They do say they want to retain green land unbuilt on, but what it would achieve is a massive worsening in the housing shortage.
And one point that really bugs me - I object to people regarding all land and buildings in Britain as a national heritage as if belonging to all when I know I am the only one paying my mortgage and repair costs, that farmers are alone in facing the costs of repairing and maintaining land, public rights of way, gates and all trees and buildings thereon.
http://www.libdems.org.uk/our_manifesto.aspx
100% mortgages are no longer on offer so you would be paying a deposit of between 10 and 20%. At 10%, that is £10,000, you need to borrow £107,500 against a property worth £100,000 and no bank would allow that. With a 20% deposit, that is £20,000, you need to borrow £97,500 and on selling that house would have only £2,500 to offer as a deposit, to cover legal fees, and tax charges.
So if VAT were to be charged on new houses as proposed by the Lib Dem manifesto nobody could buy a brand new home and no bank could lend on one. When you buy a house you add all costs onto the amount you need to borrow.
They say on Page 81, (that a Lib Dem government would) “Protect greenfield land and our built heritage by reducing the cost of repairs. We will equalise VAT on new build on an overall revenue-neutral basis. This will also reduce the costs or repairs to historic buildings.”
That could not mean both repairs and new builds would be zero rated, the EU would not allow that. It means the full whack on both, or what? They do not specify, but suppose they decided to level the two at 10% of any number between 1 and 17.5 how could that be done? All homes need maintenance money spent on them every year so someone would have to decide what is regarded as part of an established building and liable for a reduced VAT rate. Landlords now know that central heating, secure doors and windows, carpets, curtains, cooker, fridge and washing machine are included in a refurbishment programme as standard. Would they all now be at a reduced VAT rate and at what cost to the exchequer?
They do say they want to retain green land unbuilt on, but what it would achieve is a massive worsening in the housing shortage.
And one point that really bugs me - I object to people regarding all land and buildings in Britain as a national heritage as if belonging to all when I know I am the only one paying my mortgage and repair costs, that farmers are alone in facing the costs of repairing and maintaining land, public rights of way, gates and all trees and buildings thereon.
http://www.libdems.org.uk/our_manifesto.aspx
Monday 12 April 2010
Letter to Gordon
12th April 2010
10 Downing St
London
Dear Mr Brown,
You said today in the manifesto launch press briefing that you would make sure everyone has access to a GP, but you must be aware that since the salary of a five year trained Family Doctor is now the same as that of a fully qualified six year trained GP there are very few GPs around.
Last year I found out the hard way that this village has no NHS GPs when I phoned the local surgery asking for the usual treatment for a flare up of my chronic medical condition. I needed two injections as I had received years before on two occasions, always from one of my local GPs. The receptionist said they don’t do injections. I asked to speak to a doctor and she too said that they do not do injections. A doctor called to my house and refused to deliver any treatment because as a family doctor she is not trained to do that. I was not well enough to drive to the hospital and I do not believe calling for a paramedic would bring a fully trained doctor to my home.
So I got no treatment and the flare up was still raging and active when I reported to Moorfield’s Eye Hospital for a cataract operation the following week - it is too dangerous to operate in those conditions so I was sent home without it. Operation cancelled.
I checked, it is true that no doctors at the local surgery are fully qualified GPs so I switched to another surgery in another village who do. But they not do home visits to this village. NICE guidelines clearly say that I was right to ask for those two injections to be delivered in the home environment immediately by a qualified doctor. But under Labour I do not have access to a GP, and neither do the vast majority of British taxpayers living in Britain today - we only have Family Doctors.
Under a Conservative government I had a GP, under Labour I do not. Under a Conservative government I would not still have a cataract, under Labour I do.
You are still in office and depriving me from access to a GP. Do something about that immediately by ruling that all doctors surgeries must have at least one fully qualified GP on the staff and on call.
There is one fully qualified GP in this village but they are for private patients only. If I have another flare up should I phone them and have the taxpayer funded government pick up and pay the bill?
Yours sincerely,
10 Downing St
London
Dear Mr Brown,
You said today in the manifesto launch press briefing that you would make sure everyone has access to a GP, but you must be aware that since the salary of a five year trained Family Doctor is now the same as that of a fully qualified six year trained GP there are very few GPs around.
Last year I found out the hard way that this village has no NHS GPs when I phoned the local surgery asking for the usual treatment for a flare up of my chronic medical condition. I needed two injections as I had received years before on two occasions, always from one of my local GPs. The receptionist said they don’t do injections. I asked to speak to a doctor and she too said that they do not do injections. A doctor called to my house and refused to deliver any treatment because as a family doctor she is not trained to do that. I was not well enough to drive to the hospital and I do not believe calling for a paramedic would bring a fully trained doctor to my home.
So I got no treatment and the flare up was still raging and active when I reported to Moorfield’s Eye Hospital for a cataract operation the following week - it is too dangerous to operate in those conditions so I was sent home without it. Operation cancelled.
I checked, it is true that no doctors at the local surgery are fully qualified GPs so I switched to another surgery in another village who do. But they not do home visits to this village. NICE guidelines clearly say that I was right to ask for those two injections to be delivered in the home environment immediately by a qualified doctor. But under Labour I do not have access to a GP, and neither do the vast majority of British taxpayers living in Britain today - we only have Family Doctors.
Under a Conservative government I had a GP, under Labour I do not. Under a Conservative government I would not still have a cataract, under Labour I do.
You are still in office and depriving me from access to a GP. Do something about that immediately by ruling that all doctors surgeries must have at least one fully qualified GP on the staff and on call.
There is one fully qualified GP in this village but they are for private patients only. If I have another flare up should I phone them and have the taxpayer funded government pick up and pay the bill?
Yours sincerely,
Wednesday 7 April 2010
Election 2010, an idiot’s viewpoint
Having already decided which way to vote in the forthcoming elections I have little or no interest in the election coverage being laid before us. It is as if we are to be subjected to blanket bombing by proxy. The BBC, though, as a wholly owned agent of government, is bound by instructions to serve the many not the few. My contention is that most of us have already decided what to vote and are unshakable in that commitment so only the “few” are interested in election coverage in the media unless it be entertaining. There are some entertaining bits to be found. For instance, the public relations officer of one infamous fringe party has been dismissed for plotting to kill the party leader - not funny in itself but it has its funny side. But no amount of leaflets through my door telling me this is not a two horse race will ever persuade me that this two horse race will be won by one of the two.
What really gets my goat as a TV licence fee payer, and always has, is when you get one TV presenter well dressed and fully made up above the waist being interviewed by her fellow TV presenter. This is to pass information gathered by that reporter into the mind of the viewer. We are paying two for doing what one could be doing straight into camera, leaving the other to do something actually interesting, like reporting on bungee jumping, or the primordial effects of meditation in the Himalayas. They could report on real people doing or failing to do real things. One assumes that would mean using a second cameraman but with so many of the unemployed having shown they are well able to aim a camera from infancy this should not be a deal breaker.
Rows of little skyscraper charts on TV with blue, red and yellow windowless office blocks rising and sinking on command from a man we know has been a dyed in the wool socialist from birth or he would not have got the job do not amuse. Images of a man who bought a bus to match the colour of his new tie are even less amusing after the first few chuckles.
I demand the right to watch Gordon Brown stumble on the sands and get his new suit soaked in the encroaching tide at least once in this election campaign.
What really gets my goat as a TV licence fee payer, and always has, is when you get one TV presenter well dressed and fully made up above the waist being interviewed by her fellow TV presenter. This is to pass information gathered by that reporter into the mind of the viewer. We are paying two for doing what one could be doing straight into camera, leaving the other to do something actually interesting, like reporting on bungee jumping, or the primordial effects of meditation in the Himalayas. They could report on real people doing or failing to do real things. One assumes that would mean using a second cameraman but with so many of the unemployed having shown they are well able to aim a camera from infancy this should not be a deal breaker.
Rows of little skyscraper charts on TV with blue, red and yellow windowless office blocks rising and sinking on command from a man we know has been a dyed in the wool socialist from birth or he would not have got the job do not amuse. Images of a man who bought a bus to match the colour of his new tie are even less amusing after the first few chuckles.
I demand the right to watch Gordon Brown stumble on the sands and get his new suit soaked in the encroaching tide at least once in this election campaign.
Saturday 3 April 2010
To pay for care for the elderly we should have a scheme whereby everyone is obliged to pay into a sort of professionally managed insurance structure, like life insurance but more like an endowment in that it would not have to wait for you to die before paying out, to be administered in the commercial financial sector. We have the best financial managers in the world in the City of London. All government would have to do be approve each person's scheme and pay tax relief on premiums. That must be the only control the government has in this, the duty to monitor. Then when people need long term care the scheme pays out. Whether or not it would cover the whole of the care costs remains open to debate and always will.
I do not want people's money going into the hands of HM Treasury in this instance, it would perform and grow better in the care of independent specialist fund managers.
I do not want people's money going into the hands of HM Treasury in this instance, it would perform and grow better in the care of independent specialist fund managers.
Sunday 21 March 2010
UKIP - the truth
If you vote UKIP you will get 5 more years of Brown as PM. He would sign away all of what is left of our rights of self government and destroy democracy in these islands. You know UKIP are never going to get their way and the vote would be wasted.
You should know that UKIP ws set up by three people who worked in the Foreign Office in a culture that believed they were to work for foreigners. One died and when the other two retired they came out and saw the light, confessed to their old colleague Norman Tebbitt. They had set up the Referendum Party, now UKIP, to prevent anyone not wholly in favour of deeper European integration from getting elected to positions of influence by taking votes from them. Yesterday Lord Pearson was reported as saying they still intend to target Tory Eurosceptic seats above all others.
Voting UKIP is a vote FOR deeper European integration, not against, or why would they always stand a candidate against John Redwood?
You should know that UKIP ws set up by three people who worked in the Foreign Office in a culture that believed they were to work for foreigners. One died and when the other two retired they came out and saw the light, confessed to their old colleague Norman Tebbitt. They had set up the Referendum Party, now UKIP, to prevent anyone not wholly in favour of deeper European integration from getting elected to positions of influence by taking votes from them. Yesterday Lord Pearson was reported as saying they still intend to target Tory Eurosceptic seats above all others.
Voting UKIP is a vote FOR deeper European integration, not against, or why would they always stand a candidate against John Redwood?
Sunday 31 January 2010
Is it good to be green?
Labour and the Unions used to make us freeze or sit in the dark in exceptionally cold winters because they controlled the coal mines. 1947, for instance, saw all out strikes. 1971 was very cold and we had power cuts, three day working, travel aneurisms, awful, all because of strikes. They are mean and nasty and cruel. That is only one reason why I hate them but it is a start. Yet it was Harold Wilson's government that built our nuclear power stations, many of them on the other side of the Channel to avoid upsetting the major party funding body during an election. He talked of the white heat of technology and then of the pound in your pocket, apparently oblivious of the fact that most of us had only an old boiled sweet in our pockets and had no cash to call our own at all. Hmm, much the same as now really, the pound in your pocket is probably borrowed these days.
We have King Coal but cannot rely on it as an energy supply because of the trades unions control of production, supply and delivery. So we import coal from Poland or use oil or gas, and nuclear. To try and hand back control over our energy supply to the trades unions the Labour government has delayed the upgrading of our nuclear generation capacity.
We have hydro. There are rivers in this country that never stop flowing though sometimes the flow is very small.
We have wind but if that were reliable the Cutty Sark, fastest shop ever built, would not now be in dry dock. When the frost sparkles the wind turbines stand silent so the lighting is relying on a back up generation system that was running and burning anyway. If the wind power were to be used to pump water up hill to a reservoir or tank from where it would flow down again releasing almost as much energy as it took to send it up there, a back up energy storage system like a battery, then wind power might be called reliable.
We have the capability to use solar power, but those of us with roof mounted water heating or photovoltaic cells noticed they did not work under a foot of snow last month. Photoactive glass in the windows do not catch enough energy to make the investment worthwhile so again the lighting is relying on a back up system that was burning anyway.
So the green options are unreliable and small. They are pretty and cute, they must have a place in the whole if only because not having them would be a wasted resource, but there just is nowhere near enough capacity for a country with a population of 60 million.
I disagree with paying for energy that flows free from the planet 24/7. They are making it anyway so if I don't use it that amount goes to waste. They should change me a set amount for rental of the means of supply and leave the loading to me!
It makes no difference to anything if he energy is green or not. We need to lights on and the wheels of industry turning.
We have King Coal but cannot rely on it as an energy supply because of the trades unions control of production, supply and delivery. So we import coal from Poland or use oil or gas, and nuclear. To try and hand back control over our energy supply to the trades unions the Labour government has delayed the upgrading of our nuclear generation capacity.
We have hydro. There are rivers in this country that never stop flowing though sometimes the flow is very small.
We have wind but if that were reliable the Cutty Sark, fastest shop ever built, would not now be in dry dock. When the frost sparkles the wind turbines stand silent so the lighting is relying on a back up generation system that was running and burning anyway. If the wind power were to be used to pump water up hill to a reservoir or tank from where it would flow down again releasing almost as much energy as it took to send it up there, a back up energy storage system like a battery, then wind power might be called reliable.
We have the capability to use solar power, but those of us with roof mounted water heating or photovoltaic cells noticed they did not work under a foot of snow last month. Photoactive glass in the windows do not catch enough energy to make the investment worthwhile so again the lighting is relying on a back up system that was burning anyway.
So the green options are unreliable and small. They are pretty and cute, they must have a place in the whole if only because not having them would be a wasted resource, but there just is nowhere near enough capacity for a country with a population of 60 million.
I disagree with paying for energy that flows free from the planet 24/7. They are making it anyway so if I don't use it that amount goes to waste. They should change me a set amount for rental of the means of supply and leave the loading to me!
It makes no difference to anything if he energy is green or not. We need to lights on and the wheels of industry turning.
Sunday 17 January 2010
Bankruptcy matters
It is illegal to be a member of a parliament if you are an undischarged bankrupt. And so it should be. If the creditors of the Labour party were to club together and file for payment, quick and simple through the County courts, it would be declared bankrupt, according to all those in the know. Peter Watt said this morning, 17th January 2010, that it is the Labour Executive that would be liable but I believe it is the party treasurer and the party leader who are personally liable - and I suspect all those supplying goods and services to any political party believe so too. No credit controller would extend credit to a committee of people who might resign and leave the debt hanging and without a home base.
This point needs to be clarified, not only on behalf of all financial services who think they know the law of liability but for the actual organisations owed money and who must now declare to their shareholders that there are debts that might be written off, directly hitting profits, wages, salaries and company pensions. Labour’s credit rating should be published on the day the election is called so that voters can see in black and white what sort of organisation they are being asked to put their trust in.
Further, if the Labour Party plc were to be declared bankrupt then the party treasurer and the party leader would then be liable for debts in excess of, what is it now, £20m? We should be told precisely what the figure is before we go to the polls for the reasons outlined above.
I doubt even Gordon Brown and his wife could have amassed sums that huge while he was doing politics so he would be declared bankrupt, his assets and incomes sequestered – and he would be barred from accepting a seat in the House of Lords if it were to be offered.
This country needs to know and needs to know well in advance of a general election – are we being asked to re-elect to the position of Her Majesty’s Prime Minister in charge of this country’s credit rating a prospective bankrupt? Are we being asked to elect to control of this nation’s finances a party that failed to control its own?
This point needs to be clarified, not only on behalf of all financial services who think they know the law of liability but for the actual organisations owed money and who must now declare to their shareholders that there are debts that might be written off, directly hitting profits, wages, salaries and company pensions. Labour’s credit rating should be published on the day the election is called so that voters can see in black and white what sort of organisation they are being asked to put their trust in.
Further, if the Labour Party plc were to be declared bankrupt then the party treasurer and the party leader would then be liable for debts in excess of, what is it now, £20m? We should be told precisely what the figure is before we go to the polls for the reasons outlined above.
I doubt even Gordon Brown and his wife could have amassed sums that huge while he was doing politics so he would be declared bankrupt, his assets and incomes sequestered – and he would be barred from accepting a seat in the House of Lords if it were to be offered.
This country needs to know and needs to know well in advance of a general election – are we being asked to re-elect to the position of Her Majesty’s Prime Minister in charge of this country’s credit rating a prospective bankrupt? Are we being asked to elect to control of this nation’s finances a party that failed to control its own?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
