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.
Friday, 7 May 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
