Friday 31 March 2017

FORGET THE POSTURING AND POLITICKING.

Now that Theresa May has sent her letter officially informing the European Union of the UK's intention to leave their inward looking little club, the politicking and positioning has begun.

Mrs May's letter gave an indication of some of the UK's hopes and expectations and the EU's response has, not unexpectedly, indicated some differences in approach. Much of the media has concentrated on highlighting these differences and has been at pains to tell us how difficult this is all going to be and how the EU will now be in charge of the negotiations and pulling all the strings; what idiots they are.

The EU needs the UK at least as much as the UK needs the EU. Of course there will be some contentious areas that cause difficulty but there can be no doubt that there will be agreement and it will be achieved without real problems, though our political masters will make it seem that things are terribly difficult and even dangerous, mostly in order to be able to eventually demonstrate how clever they are and how bad life would be without them saving us from disaster.

Forget all of the current exchanges, all of the media analysis and expert comment; this is all for the benefit of voters across Europe and maintaining the media's own high opinion of itself, and has nothing to do with reality. The best thing we can do is to close our ears to the deafening racket that will surround us over the next 2 years and simply wait for the final agreement to be published. It won't satisfy everyone, but it will be the best that BOTH sides can achieve.

Wednesday 29 March 2017

ARTICLE 50 IS TRIGGERED !!!!!!!!!

As Prime Minister May gives formal notice of the UK's intention to leave the European Union, the diehard remainers continue to witter on. Some fly in the face of every smidgeon of economic evidence and continue to try to convince the rest of us that the long forecast disaster is still just around the corner. Others, such as the Scottish First Minister, see opportunities for simple political advantage for themselves and their own particular plans.

Back in June of last year, we were being told that a vote to leave the EU would result in instant catastrophe; 9 months on and there is little evidence of any such thing. In fact, most businesses have carried on as before and many have even found new opportunities arising. Predictions of additional heavy government borrowing have not materialised and, while the pound has lost value against other currencies, many would argue that it was previously overvalued and that what has happened has been nothing other than a much needed correction. There has been no collapse in consumer confidence, no outrushing of businesses terrified of the future and the sky hasn't fallen in, yet the likes of Nick Clegg and his Europhile pals still persist. The truth is that they simply don't want to lose their access to a highly profitable gravy train and yet another opportunity to stick their snouts in the trough of public money.

Those who see Brexit as a political opportunity may be an even worse bunch. These are people who care nothing for their constituents or, indeed, for the United Kingdom, people who have no faith in our nation and who desire only to maintain the status quo and their own positions; all they care about is how to use the situation to achieve their own political ends. One of these, Tony Blair, sees an opportunity to forge a new role for himself as some sort of 'elder statesman', and, possibly, even as an opportunity to retake possession of the crisis ridden Labour party.

In Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, sees Brexit as an opportunity to demand another referendum on the question of Scottish independence. Despite the fact that there was a referendum less than 3 years ago and that the Scots voted against leaving the UK by a significant margin, Sturgeon refuses to give up on her dream. She and her like-minded fanatics ignore the reality of Scotland's economic position, the 55% of their population who voted against separation and the massive political and economic issues that it would create. While releasing the UK from the EU after 44 years is not straightforward, separating Scotland from the United Kingdom after more than 300 years would surely be far more so. The affairs of Scotland are so intricately linked with those of the rest of the UK, in every respect, that separation would be difficult and painful in the extreme, not to say potentially catastrophic for Scotland which relies so heavily on financial support from England.

Additionally, Sturgeon seems to be so determined to achieve independence for Scotland that she also makes light of the political difficulties that it would then face. She tells her people that an independent Scotland would still use sterling as its currency, there would be no border controls between it and England and it would be able to re-join the European Union without the slightest delay or difficulty. All of this is, of course, a mixture of sheer speculation, fantasy and nonsense but is essential propaganda if Ms Sturgeon is to have any chance of winning an independence referendum.

We are obviously set for 2 years of argument, counter-argument, promises, lies, threats, horror stories, and an entirely phoney political war. Regardless of all of this, from 1st April 2019, the UK will no longer be a member of the European Union and then the rule changes will happen and opportunities become apparent and real. Bring it on !


Friday 24 March 2017

EU SOFTENS ITS COLD HEART.

As we approach the triggering of 'Article 50' next week, it's interesting to note the way in which the tone of comments from officials of the European Union and other European political figures, has softened.

While an assorted rag-bag of yesterday's UK figures, including Blair, Major, Heseltine, Clegg and others, have continued to argue that the UK's exit from the EU can, and must, be prevented, it seems that EU leaders have finally realised that BREXIT is actually going to happen and that they'd better start thinking seriously about how to make it a success for all concerned. Previously hard-line figures such as Jean Claude Juncker have been at pains to say that there is no question of punishing the UK and that the eventual settlement must be realistic. Hooray !

Of course, all politicians are liable to be highly disingenuous and their words need to be taken with a pinch of salt. however, what can't be denied is that the tone of their statements has changed. Let's hope that this more sensible tone is translated into sensible negotiation.

Thursday 23 March 2017

WESTMINSTER BRIDGE - LESSONS TO BE LEARNT.

Yesterday's shocking events in London must remind us just how vulnerable we are to such outrages. In a free society, it is impossible to prevent such things from happening; the best that can be hoped for is that they are few and far between.

That said, in recent years and in order to lessen the chances of such events, our society has become less free and more controlled. We are surrounded by vast numbers of laws, rules and regulations; access to the buildings of state - the Houses of Parliament, the courts and many other places - is heavily guarded, and our police are increasingly armed with an array of weaponry. Are these the marks of a 'Free Society' ?

At the same time, we have allowed, and even encouraged, hordes of immigrants from around the globe to come here without any insistence that they adopt the ways and customs of our society. Rather than encouraging assimilation into our society, we have allowed the creation of what amount to mini-states populated by immigrants, and their descendants, who owe no loyalty nor allegiance to our country, but who have established their own almost separate communities. Many of these people never learn to speak English and continue to act as if they were in their former countries, following their own imported laws, ways and religions, regardless of ours.

In such communities, extremism is born. Religious fanatics feed on the beliefs and prejudices of impressionable young minds, corrupting them and turning them into instruments of terrorism. The 
result is atrocities like those seen in London yesterday, France, Belgium, Germany and many other places over the years. The response is to be evermore vigilant, to have more and more control and less and less freedom for us all, except the immigrant communities which continue to be a law unto themselves.

Will those who rule over us never learn ? The real answer to terrorism is assimilation, not separation. When immigrants assimilate, they became part of the broader society and no longer have any reason to rebel against it; as long as they remain separate, they can easily see themselves as put upon, disliked and threatened, and indeed, it is very easy for the rest of society to see them as something alien and to be feared. Is it any wonder that some of their number fall prey to evil fanatics ?

Yesterday one man in a car caused havoc and mayhem in London simply by driving across Westminster Bridge and towards the Houses of Parliament. Anyone could have done the same at any time, but this fanatic chose to drive on and off the pavement, mowing down pedestrians at random. Two have died and many more have been injured. After this, the man ran into the grounds of the Houses of Parliament and killed a policeman, before he, himself, was shot and killed. The police now say that this was a terrorist incident and the assumption is that it was inspired by Islamic extremism.

It is not time for a reassessment of our priorities and the ways in which our nation is run ?

Tuesday 21 March 2017

MARTIN McGUINNESS

Martin McGuinness was a murderous thug who found a way to avoid the retribution that was due to him for his evil past by 'engaging' in a so-called peace process.

As a leading member of, and active participant in, the IRA, McGuinness had a hand in countless terrorist outrages, brutal torture and murders. In any sane society, such a man would have been hunted down, arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to eternity in prison. In the fantasy world of 'political reality', none of this happened and McGuinness morphed into a political figure, respected, at least outwardly, by his political allies. Following his death today, the BBC has behaved as though this man was a political giant, giving over a huge part of its news broadcasts to him. Politicians, and ex-politicians such as Tony Blair, have rushed to heap praise on him.

The truth is that he was a monster and the world is well rid of him. A 10 second mention on the news and a note at the bottom of page 8 of the Sun would have been more than he warranted.

Friday 17 March 2017

GEORGE OSBORNE - HOW MANY JOBS ?

Former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne is now using his connections to get himself an assortment of jobs in addition to his existing role as Member of Parliament for Tatton in Cheshire.

A week or two ago, it was announced that he has found himself a highly lucrative role as an 'advisor' for the financial services company 'Blackrock'; this reportedly involves a commitment of 4 days a month at an annual salary of £650,000. Now, he's been appointed as editor of the London Evening Standard, having never before worked as a journalist; his pay for this has not yet been made known but he will, apparently, actively edit the paper for 4 days a week. On top of these roles, he plans to remain as a Member of Parliament, a job which surely requires a greater amount of time than will be available to him.

Osborne's salary as a backbench MP is close to £75,000 a year, paid for by the taxpayer. One would have thought that, for this money, his constituents would expect him to commit the vast bulk of his time to them. Clearly Osborne has a different view of the world and is far more interested in feathering his own nest than in bothering with the duties of his public office.

George Osborne and David Cameron thought that they were some sort of celebrity politicians, destined to be in charge for many years. As soon as he didn't get his own way, Cameron quit for more rewarding avenues, showing just how committed he was to public office. Now Osborne, having lost his job as Chancellor, seems likely to take a similar path and will no doubt be concentrating on adding to his already substantial wealth.

People of this type are the worst that we have - arrogant, self-serving, sneering, petty and vindictive. Cameron is gone and the sooner Osborne's constituents kick him out the better. 

Monday 13 March 2017

YET ANOTHER AFRICAN HUMANITARIAN CRISIS.

The more one hears from the United Nations, the more one is inclined to believe that it must be the most useless and ineffective organisation ever invented.

Some high official of this talking shop has recently been in the news begging for more billions to be made available to help to alleviate the effects of yet another African famine. How many times this same situation has arisen over the last 40 or 50 years I cannot recall, but it is most certainly an annual event at the very least.

Time and time again, the UN tells us of some humanitarian crisis that is afflicting somewhere or other, most often in Africa. Time after time, it asks for billions of pounds, dollars, euros, francs and anything else that may be available. Time after time, the money is produced and the problem is seemingly solved, until the next time, which inevitably rolls around within a year or so. Why do we do it ?

Rather than tackle the underlying causes of these recurrent crises, the UN keeps throwing OUR money at them in a generally uncoordinated and pointless fashion. Rather than digging wells, irrigating land and making it productive, it provides food; rather than taking action against the despots, fanatics and money-grabbing rulers of the affected countries, it allows them to continue starving their people in the expectation that the rest of the world will come to their aid. Rather than taking action to prevent the endless wars and revolutions that are the root cause of many of these problems, it does nothing.

The United Nations was a grand idea dreamt up by politicians after the Second World War as a replacement for the equally useless League of Nations which was invented after the First. For it to actually do anything of any consequence it has to gain the approval of so many competing factions that it is toothless; very often, action against any particular country is rendered impossible due to the need to garner support from countries which see themselves as next in the firing line. Tyrants and their brutal regimes remain in power and their people starve, while the rest of the world is expected, at the behest of the United Nations, to continually fork out billions to stave of catastrophe.

Juts like the European Union, the United Nations is a talking shop. It's top officials are always selected from countries of no account, who consequently have no real power or authority, while the real power remains with the governments of the most powerful countries, inevitably the USA, Russia, China and 2 or 3 others. The UN, just like the EU, costs vast amounts of money and is largely useless; both organisations have to kowtow to their most powerful members but neither can do anything of note; both are dragged down to implementing nothing more than the lowest common denominator.

This time, the UN is asking for something like $4bn; one wonders how much it has had over the years and how much more it will demand in the future before people realise how hopeless their approach is. 

Saturday 11 March 2017

SELF-EMPLOYED SHOULD STOP WHINING.

There's been a huge furore about Chancellor Hammond's proposal to increase National Insurance contributions for the self-employed from 9% to 10% and then 11% by April 2019. As well as being accused of breaking a manifesto promise, Hammond is being painted as an oppressor of these supposedly wonderful and hard done by people.

While the question of manifesto promises may or may not be an issue, the matter of the self-employed being 'put upon' deserves more consideration than has been the case so far, at least by the media. In truth, the self-employed receive huge tax advantages not available to the employed and also now receive most of the same benefits. How are they 'hard done by' ?

It is said that the self-employed receive no holiday pay or sick pay, something which is blatant nonsense. What they do is to build an additional amount into their basic charges to allow for the fact that they expect to have holidays and, perhaps, some days of sickness. They are also permitted to set a variety of expenses and costs against their income tax bill; items such as clothing, cars, travel costs, office equipment and materials and even the costs associated with rooms in their homes can be offset against tax, something which the employed can do none of.

While the employed make a contribution of up to 12% of salary in respect of National Insurance and their employers usually make a further contribution of 13.8%, the self-employed have historically paid far less, most recently just 9% plus £2.80 per week; part of the Chancellor's package includes the fact that the small  weekly payment is being discontinued. There are certain benefits to which the self-employed do not have access but does that really justify paying less than half of the National Insurance paid by the employed and their employers PLUS having a vast array of tax-deductible allowances ?

Of course it doesn't. The self-employed choose their status, pay less National Insurance and receive considerable tax advantages. They can choose when to work and when not to work, unlike the employed. Basically they have it easy, far too easy in many ways and they should stop whining about a minor increase in the contributions which they make and which still leave them far better off than most of the employed.

DRUNK WOMEN HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THEMSELVES.

It's not that unusual for a judge to be criticized but usually it's because they've said or done something that's blatantly wrong, unfair or unreasonable.

Yesterday a female judge, Lindsey Kushner QC, made an entirely sensible comment at the end of the trial of a man who'd been found guilty of rape and whom she was sentencing to 6 years in prison. She said that women were entitled to "drink themselves into the ground" but that their subsequent "disinhibited behaviour" could put them in danger. She warned women that being extremely drunk potentially put them in danger of being targeted by rapists.

Inevitably, Judge Kushner has been attacked for her words. An organisation calling itself 'Rape Crisis' has accused her of being outrageous and misguided though exactly why is unclear. Surely women have a responsibility to themselves and cannot expect to be mollycoddled by society; if they want to get drunk, that's their choice, but they also have to accept the potential dangers that follow. If a drunk wobbles into the path of a bus or lorry, or trips on a kerb, or simply falls over and breaks a leg, whose fault is it ? Surely it's the drunk's. If a drunk women finds herself being molested it may not be her fault entirely but she may well bear some responsibility for her situation as a result of earlier behaviour.

Judge Kushner is exactly right and all women who are out on the town, getting drunk and being 'on the pull' should take note.

Thursday 2 March 2017

HOUSEHOLDS WORSE OFF - OR NOT ?

It is quite amazing how figures can be manipulated and distorted to produce pretty well any answer that those doing the manipulation want to arrive at.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has just issued a report in which they claim that typical households will each be £5,000 a year worse off by 2021 than they would have been had the financial crisis of 2007/8 not happened. They attribute this to an 'income squeeze' over the intervening period. Fine. Given their accepted expertise, they are bound to be correct, aren't they ?

Actually, it depends on just how one looks at the figures and events.

Incomes, and general wealth, in the period immediately prior to the cataclysmic events of 2007/8 were greatly inflated due to the uncontrolled and ultimately disastrous lending encouraged by governments and happily entered into by banks and other financial institutions which saw only profits ahead. Once this 'froth' was removed, the true state of affairs was revealed and a more realistic picture emerged. In simple terms, we had been paying ourselves too much and were enjoying a level of 'wealth' which was largely illusory.

A correction was inevitable and would have occurred sooner or later; that it happened in 2007/8 is now history. The IFS may well be mathematically correct in their claims but they have clearly failed to take account of the underlying economic weakness at that time and the fact that real incomes could not be sustained at an inflated level indefinitely; consequently, their conclusions have been presented in the wrong light. Their projections for 2021 do not show, as they claim, that households will be 'worse off', instead they show a far truer picture of the real position once the financial profligacy of the pre-crisis period is excluded; they should not be seen as a consequence of the effects of economic policy since.

The IFS and it's parent body, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation' are left-leaning organisations which have an interest in promoting the causes of the supposed 'poor' and 'disadvantaged'. As such, their reports are not immune to political bias and should be treated with a degree of scepticism, at least in so far as their bland conclusions are concerned. 

Beware experts, no matter how respected and lauded they may be.