Tuesday 30 May 2017

CONSERVATIVE CONTROL OR LABOUR PROFLIGACY ?

Although, as every financial adviser is required to say 'past performance is not a guarantee of future performance', it is worth considering history when it comes to choosing governments.

In 1964, after 13 years of Conservative government, the electorate voted for a change and chose to be ruled by Harold Wilson's Labour party. The Conservatives had left behind them a reasonably stable country though they had, perhaps, rather run out of steam; nonetheless, they had begun the process of giving independence to many countries of the old Empire and had thus taken on a strongly reformist role whose ramifications we still feel today.

Labour, while being supportive of breaking up the Empire, also seemed intent on handing control of the country to the Trades' Unions. Increasingly left-wing policies introduced by the likes of Tony Benn and Barbara Castle saw the beginnings of the almost total demise of our traditional industries - steel manufacture, car making, ship building and coal mining. Increasing union domination saw productivity collapse beneath the weight of ludicrous and destructive restrictive working practices, while wages increased beyond the ability of industries to pay them without eventually introducing significant price rises. The economy went into decline and the pound was devalued, though many of the people may well have been more interested in the excitement generated by the 'Swinging 60s'; sadly, this was transitory and the realities of life would soon become apparent.

Although 1970 saw a brief interlude with the surprise return of a Conservative government under the arch Europhile Ted Heath, high inflation and a multitude of strikes, a legacy of the Labour years, culminated in power cuts and the 'three day week'. Labour, and Harold Wilson, returned to power in 1974 and remained in office, with Wilson replaced by Jim Callaghan in 1976, until 1979. By then, the Trades Unions were in almost total control; some people had found themselves paying tax at 98% on part of their income, the government had been forced to beg for support from the International Monetary Fund to avoid effective bankruptcy and we were visited by the appalling 'Winter of Discontent' when rubbish was piled high on the streets and bodies remained unburied, all due to industrial action.

Labour were soundly beaten at the general election in 1979 and so began 18 years of Conservative government. During this time the Trades Unions were brought to heal though little could be done to negate the ravages of the past; coal mining, steel manufacturing, ship building and car making were reduced to minor side lines of the economy. However, the country did begin to become more prosperous, taxes were reduced, more people were enabled to buy their own homes and the economy thrived. The Falklands War was dealt with in stern fashion and it was not until the attempted introduction of a so-called 'poll tax' that the government found itself in real difficulties. After the succession of John Major to the Premiership, things were certainly more problematic as various factions vied for control of the party but withdrawal from the catastrophic European Exchange Rate Mechanism was eventually managed successfully, if not without some pain, and by 1997 the country was on a sound financial footing.

However, after 18 years of government by one party, the electorate wanted a change and voted for the populist approach of Tony Blair's Labour party. The succeeding 10 years saw huge amounts of money thrown at public services and an assortment of popular 'family orientated' measures. Taxes and borrowing were increased in order to support this spending while the banks were increasingly encouraged to lend to individuals and businesses without ensuring adequate security. These policies were also followed by other countries and culminated in the catastrophic financial collapse of 2007-08, from which we are still suffering. Once again, Labour's profligacy had resulted in economic disaster.

The return to power of the Conservatives, initially in coalition with the Liberal Democrats but, from 2015, by themselves has necessarily been a time of retrenchment as the economy has been slowly restored to a semblance of health and the years of excessive borrowing and spending have had to be paid for. We are now faced with a choice between continuing along the path to full economic recovery set out by the Conservatives, including getting out of the money-pit which is the European Union, or returning to the bad old days of tax and spend under what would be the most left-wing government ever to take power in this country.

If the Conservatives are returned at the election there will be a degree of stability; taxes will be controlled and business will thrive. Unemployment is likely to remain at a low level and the economy will grow at a consistent and sustainable rate.

If Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party is returned, there will upheaval; taxes will rise dramatically, the pound will lose value and inflation will 'take off'. Business will suffer and unemployment will most probably begin to increase. The productive economy will shrink even as an already inefficient public sector balloons out of control.

So which is likely to be the better choice ?




Sunday 28 May 2017

SOCIAL CARE COSTS - THE REALITY.

I have previously written that I agree whole-heartedly with Theresa May's proposals about the funding of social care for the elderly. Michael Portillo, a former senior Conservative Cabinet Minister with whom I was at school, though never very 'pally', has also supported this as being a thoroughly right approach.

On last Thursday night's 'This Week', one of the few truly bright spots in the BBC's recent output, Portillo repeated and expanded on his previous comments in debating with Suzanne Evans, UKIP's Deputy Chairman. While Evans made the case for those with significant assets nonetheless being supported by the state when it comes to their own social care, Portillo shot her down in flames.

Portillo quite simply pointed out the illogicality of the state being expected to safeguard the inheritance of the wealthy when it is supposed to be there as a safety net for the poor. He made it clear that the expectation, which has only arisen in recent years, that the state would provide for our old age regardless of the value of our assets is misguided. He pointed out that the uproar against Theresa May's proposals is not about the funding of the costs of care, but about the potential loss of inheritance that could be suffered by the children of those who happen to own their own home; Portillo stated clearly that the issue is not about the care of the elderly but about the state guaranteeing the inheritance of the younger generation of the well-off 'middle class'.

In defending her position, Evans stated, unequivocally, that she is a socialist and thinks that the state should support everyone regardless of wealth. However, Alan Johnson, sitting alongside Portillo and certainly a socialist, supported Portillo and even said that he had a degree of admiration for Theresa May's approach. Johnson pointed out that the current system, and that proposed by Andrew Dilnot, both suffer from the same defect; they leave the 'just managing' paying the same as the very well-off when it comes to care costs which is not at all socialist.

To my mind, Theresa May, and Portillo, are absolutely right. Why should those with property, which includes myself, be supported by the state simply so that we can be allowed to pass more onto our own next generation ? Surely it is better to use the value in the property in such a way as to reduce the costs to be borne by the generality of the younger, tax-paying generation.

The opinion polls suggest that some in the electorate don't agree with this approach. Presumably this is due to a reluctance on their part to accept that their lifelong efforts and savings should be applied to their own needs rather than being purely for passing on to their children. In this, they are categorically wrong !

We all have personal responsibility for our lives, which includes making provision for our own old age and, if needed, our own care should we become incapable of looking after ourselves. In the past, the elderly were often cared for by their families though, today, this is less common as the state has become more and more involved in our lives; the consequence is that children are less happy about looking after mum and dad as it impinges on their own lifestyles and, anyway, 'isn't it down to the state and what about my inheritance ?' Astonishingly, in the days when families cared for themselves, they were far worse off than almost everyone is today and inheritance was usually irrelevant.

The state should be there to help those who can't help themselves, basically the poor who simply don't have the resources and others who have the most complicated medical or social needs. Some of us, perhaps even a majority, seem to have forgotten this very basic point, though Theresa May and Michael Portillo have not; they understand the realities. The rest of us need to wake up and accept that the 'free lunch' no longer exists.

CONSERVATIVES VERSUS MARXISTS - VOTERS' CHOICE.

With the General Election now less than 2 weeks away, the gap between Conservative and Labour in opinion polls has closed quite significantly. However, has anything really changed ?

Exactly as at the start of the campaign, Jeremy Corbyn's Labour believe in much higher taxation for all, much greater public sector borrowing and debt, less support for our armed forces and the defence of our nation, nationalisation of major services and industries, more state control of our lives but little control over immigration. The people currently leading the party have fairly extreme left-wing views and some, such as John McDonnell and Diane Abbott, are clearly much closer to Marxism than to Socialism.

In contrast, the Conservatives believe in taxation being at the lowest sustainable level, less public sector borrowing and debt, greater resources for the defence of the country, relative freedom for major services and industries, less state control of our lives and greater controls over immigration. The Conservatives are not dominated by a faction of extremists and remain mildly right-of-centre in political terms.

The Conservatives are committed to carrying out the will of the people as expressed in the Referendum on membership of the European Union while Labour's position on this crucial issue is less certain but would quite possibly lead to the UK remaining members of this egregious organisation.

While Labour would rob us all through increased taxation and create vast amounts of 'new money' through borrowing, which it would throw around with gay abandon, the Conservatives would try to tackle the most serious economic issues affecting us by increasing productivity, increasing efficiency and reducing public sector costs. The Conservatives believe in personal responsibility while Labour believes in the 'Nanny State', which knows best and will keep us safe by taking control of our everyday lives away from us.

It cannot be denied that the Conservatives have made a bit of a hash of things in the last week or so of campaigning but the basics remain the same. Do we want to control our own lives and be able to spend our money on our priorities, or do we want the government to do it all for us ? Do we want to be in or out of the European Union ? Do we want to be in a forward looking country or one that is harking back to the Trades Union dominated days of the 1960s and 1970s when we were bankrupted by Labour policies ?

Do we want a government run by moderate Conservatives or one run by fanatical Socialists and neo-Marxists ?

Friday 26 May 2017

CORBYN & TERRORISM.

Jeremy Corbyn seems to believe that the reason for terrorist attacks in our towns and cities is our previous involvement in conflicts in Islamic countries. He thinks that, rather than going to war in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, the Western world should have conducted what might be called 'peace talks'.

Corbyn is wrong. The reason the Western alliance launched their attacks against these barbaric countries was their support and harbouring of terrorists. Al Qaeda came into being long before there was any Western intervention in Afghanistan and terrorists from Libya were in action around the world, and in London, long before Colonel Gaddafi was overthrown; Saddam Hussein sent his forces into Kuwait in 1990.

Terrorists who claim to be Islamic cannot be reasoned with. They have been so indoctrinated as to believe absolutely in a cause that most of us cannot understand and which makes little sense. They are fanatics. Unfortunately, the countries within which they principally live and thrive are disorganised, backward and often barbaric places; the Western world has no real understanding of either the places or people. Attempting to negotiate with their leaders, people like Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi who were insane megalomaniacs, is pointless, as was attempting to agree peace with Adolf Hitler.

Where the Western world has, indeed, got things horribly wrong, is in failing to lend meaningful ongoing support to countries such as Libya and Iraq once the initial aims of conflict had been achieved. Libya and Iraq are now disaster zones while Afghanistan is just the same as always - an unbelievably medieval place. Only in Syria, where the West has failed to remove the country's leader is there any semblance of effective government.

Corbyn is trying to find a way of laying the blame for atrocities such as the Manchester bombing at the door of governments such as our own and, by implication, blaming the Conservatives for it. In truth the blame lies with the insane notion of 'multiculturalism' that has swept our own country in recent years. The idea that people could come to live in the UK and carry on as if still in their former countries is the problem; we now have millions of people here who owe no allegiance to the UK and, indeed, still see themselves as being Libyan, Iraqi, Afghan, Kurd or whatever. Many do not speak English and do not wish to do so; they do not engage in the UK's own traditional culture, but create ghettos where the indigenous people are unwelcome.

Corbyn may be well meaning but he's also the Neville Chamberlain of his day. He refuses to see the truth and prefers to seek out any and every alternative to it. In his hands, the UK would be at the mercy of terrorists of all types.

Tuesday 23 May 2017

MANCHESTER BOMBING : MEDIA OVERKILL.

Those responsible for the terrorist attack in Manchester last night know full well that no matter how appalling their actions are, they will have little long-lasting effect on life in the UK. However, what they really want is to cause disruption and to gain the maximum possible publicity.

Sadly, publicity and disruption is exactly what they have achieved. Wall-to-wall coverage on multiple television channels plus chaos in Manchester and the surrounding area as police cordon off streets, hospitals cancel appointments and schools consider cancelling examinations. While the short-term disruption may be necessary, the blanket coverage by news media is not.

BBC, ITV, Sky and, no doubt, other broadcasters have given over hour after hour to mostly repetitive coverage of the events. Their normal schedules have been abandoned and they have simply tried to wring every last ounce of 'news' out of the horror, injury and loss suffered by the people who were at last night's event. All other news, however, important or worthy, has been side-lined and one wonders what would have to happen to gain their attention, focused as it is on a mawkish and morbid determination to concentrate on this one tragedy.

Of course, the bombing was shocking and awful but does it really demand such coverage by the media ? There is little to report on a moment-by-moment basis and, after the initial reports and coverage, updates in the regular news bulletins would surely have sufficed. In fact, in their excessive coverage, the media has provided exactly what the bomber and his accomplices wanted - maximum publicity for their cause, whatever that may turn out to have been.

Saturday 20 May 2017

SOCIAL CARE - TIME FOR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Various organisations have risen up to criticize the Conservatives' proposals about changes to the funding of social care. Some have said that this is some sort of tax, a suggestion which is, frankly, nonsensical. What it is, is a restoration of freedom of choice.

Everything provided by the government is a 'benefit'; every aspect of health and social care that is funded by the government is a 'benefit', however it is dressed up. Altering the terms of a 'benefit' is not a tax and never can be. All benefits are funded by taxing all of us; therefore, how can the reduction of a benefit be seen as anything but a potential reduction in taxes ?

This is akin to the attempts of the left to claim that the restrictions of housing benefit introduced a couple of years ago were a 'bedroom tax'; this change did no more than equalise the treatment of tenants whether they were under public or private landlords and had nothing to do with tax.

Social care never was a state responsibility other than for those who were seriously incapacitated. In the past, families looked after their own elderly relatives and, mostly, that was that. It is only in more recent times that selfish and self-serving generations have sought, and become accustomed to, state support for their parents' generation. The idea that the wealth of parents is a right to be inherited has taken hold, and the suggestion that the accumulated wealth of a life should be applied to caring for a person in old age has become anathema.

Of course, parents want the best for their children and of course they want them to benefit from their achievements. However, we are all responsible for ourselves and it is fundamentally wrong for children to expect, automatically, to benefit from their parents' efforts and frugality; most people talk about 'saving for their old age', which is exactly what they do by buying a house or putting money in the bank. They don't, and never have, saved for the specific purpose of passing money over to their children. If that has been possible, all well and good, but if it hasn't, so be it.

The Conservatives proposal regarding the funding of social care is not only logical, it is right. Anyone who has been cautious with their money may have a little nest egg which they might like to pass on to family or a favourite charity; that is good. However, if they are unfortunate and find that they require an element of care as they grow older, their nest egg is also available for that too. Which did they really save for - their family or their own future ?

The Conservatives' proposal won't actually affect many people in a negative way. Under the current system, anyone with more than £23,000 in savings pays for themselves; under the new proposals, this is lifted to £100,000 but includes the recipient's home. Perhaps this may actually encourage more younger people to think about other ways of looking after their aging parents and not simply dump them in a home, paid for by the state and safe in the knowledge that they'll still inherit the old family home worth £500,000.

Unexpectedly, Theresa May's initiative may actually result in a rekindling of genuine family feelings and relationships which have been so eroded by the increasingly left wing, state orientated policies of the last 30 or 40 years.

Friday 19 May 2017

SOCIAL CARE FUNDING QUESTIONS.

Listening to representatives from the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, one would think that 'The State' is some sort of bank with never-ending resources.

Today, they've been having a go at the Conservatives and, in particular, their manifesto commitment regarding the funding of social care. While the Conservatives believe that people with significant assets should take responsibility for funding their own care to a large extent, the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties believe that 'The State' should pay and that individuals should be able to keep their assets to pass on to their children.

The trouble with this socialist nonsense is that 'The State' is all of its people. 'The State' has no money other than what it can take from its people and the businesses that are based in it. In other words, when they say that 'The State' should pay for something, what they mean is that the people, in general, should pay. They have no interest in protecting family assets, they simply plan to get their hands on them in different ways, for instance, through increasing inheritance taxes or introducing a wealth tax.

While the Conservatives believe in people taking personal responsibility, Labour and the Liberal Democrats believe that the bulk of the people are incapable of running their own lives and, therefore, the government should do it for them. Their way of paying for this state organised management of our lives is to tax us increasingly heavily and to borrow large sums as well.

The choice is simple. Do we want to keep more or less of our own money; do we want to run our own lives or hand over responsibility to whomever is in government ?

I know which I prefer.

Thursday 18 May 2017

CONSERVATIVE MANIFESTO : SURPRISINGLY SENSIBLE.

And so now, with the publication of the Conservative Manifesto, we have a complete set.

Unlike Labour the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives have shied away from making huge spending commitments and have, instead, mostly concentrated on some tinkering at the edges and some measures designed to release funds.

Most significantly, they are proposing changes to the way in which social care is funded, a much needed and long-awaited reform. They propose that the existing nonsense of people's houses being ignored when assessing eligibility for state funded care should be scrapped. Instead, everyone would be expected to provide for their own care if they have total assets, including their house, of more than £100,000, something which seems to me to be quite right. The notion that the state should have to pick up these costs while the family wealth is protected and passed on to future generations is plain crazy and it's long passed time for this change to be made.

The Conservatives are also proposing to reduce the so-called 'pension triple lock' to a 'double lock', dropping the commitment to an annual increase of 2.5%, again something which is eminently sensible. There can be no justification for ensuring that pensioners get a higher increase than those of working age or than inflation, and this is also a measure to be applauded. Allied to this is the introduction of means testing for payment of the 'Winter Fuel Allowance', something else which is long overdue.

As someone who will potentially lose out from all of these proposed changes, I still have no hesitation in supporting them; they are right and sensible. The 'triple lock' on pensions' is completely arbitrary and illogical, giving a fuel allowance to people who quite obviously have no need for it was nothing other than a vote-winning gimmick, and for the state to be paying for the social care of someone owning a house worth hundreds of thousands, or millions, of pounds is ludicrous.

Why they're fiddling with school meals is a bit of a mystery, though I suppose an effort to ensure that all children have a good start to the day makes sense. However, while a lunchtime meal takes place during the normal working day, providing breakfast raises various issues about times and staffing. Many parents may welcome being able to dump their children at school early though others may find their usual routine horribly disrupted if they take up the offer. How much it will all cost is another matter.

Perhaps surprisingly, the Conservatives have kept their previous pledge to reduce immigration to no more than 100,000 a year. As Home Secretary, Mrs May had no joy at all in achieving this target but perhaps she now feels that, with the open border to the European Union about to be closed, her government will be more able to control the overall number of immigrants. Some have complained that this would affect their ability to recruit staff with what they call the 'right skills' though why we aren't developing these amongst our existing population defeats me. Perhaps our schools spend too much time on teaching useless 'social skills' and not enough on teaching the skills needed for future careers.

All-in-all, what I've seen and heard about this final addition to the manifesto library makes good sense, certainly much more sense that any of the others. How it will all work, we'll no doubt find out over the next 5 years. 

Wednesday 17 May 2017

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS ? HA, HA !

W hile the Labour party is offering to tax the nation to death and create a Marxist state, the Liberal Democrats simply want to ignore Democracy.

Ever since the referendum in June 2016, the 'LibDems' have been trying to find ways of reversing the decision which was democratically arrived at by a majority of the people. Most recently they've been trying to convince us all that we were horribly uninformed and simply didn't understand the choice we were making; since when was calling the electorate stupid a good way of gaining their votes ?

Yesterday, on 'The Daily Politics', Nick Clegg was at it again, repeating over and over that the people didn't realise that a vote to leave the European Union also meant leaving the 'Single Market'; he claimed that this fact was simply not explained, or even worse, was ignored by the 'Out' campaign.

Clegg was then confronted with a series of television interview clips which made it absolutely clear that his claims were nonsense; David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and George Osborne were all shown stating, very clearly, that leaving the EU meant leaving the 'Single Market. There was no room for doubt and the interviews were all conducted by well-known figures on well-known programmes; importantly, the statements were made by campaigners for both the 'In' and Out' campaigns.

Astonishingly, Clegg still didn't bend. Instead, he shifted his ground to say that most people didn't watch these programmes and tried to imply that the problem was in some other, undefined, area. Now, in clear defiance of the democratic vote of the people, the Liberal Democrats are promising, if elected to government, to hold another referendum; obviously it is their view that the last one produced the wrong result so they want to give us all a chance to realise how silly we were and to get it right.

Accordingly, the Liberal Democrat manifesto promises another referendum along with a something about housing benefit for 18-21 year olds and bus passes for all; not exactly a programme for government. Interestingly, the real Liberal Party, the one made up of people who didn't like the way in which their old party was taken over by the left-leaning 'Social Democratic Party' in 1988, is perfectly happy with the notion of the UK leaving the EU and campaigned for a 'No' vote in 2016.

It would seem that the LibDems are not liberal at all, and they're certainly not democratic. In truth, they're just another bunch of self-serving and egotistical politicians who'll say and do anything to get votes and protect their own positions.

Tuesday 16 May 2017

LABOUR WOULD TAX & BORROW US TO DEATH.

Labour's manifesto includes plans to increase overall taxation for almost £50 BILLION per year. A small part of this huge sum, supposedly £6.4bn, would come from increasing income tax and some would come from increasing corporation tax; where the rest would come from is anyone's guess.

Taking such a sum out of the economy and chucking it at an assortment of inefficient and profligate public services would go some way to creating a recession. There can be no doubt that many businesses would relocate away from the UK and talented high-earners would look abroad as well. Consequently, it is questionable as to whether the predicted sums would be forthcoming in the first place and it must be highly likely that there would be a significant shortfall that would have to be met by an increase in borrowing. Regardless, there would be an adverse impact on inflation, which would be likely to rise substantially.

Additionally, Labour has now added nationalisation of the water industry to its list of industries to be taken over by the state in the event that it gains power. The cost of this programme, plus its plans to 'invest' in a variety of public sector projects, has been stated to be something like £250 BILLION, an amount to be funded by borrowing. This borrowing, plus interest, would then have to be repaid over a period of years, adding more pressure to the public purse and causing a further increase in inflation.

Labour's manifesto, if implemented, would see the United Kingdom return to the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s. Our country would be set on a path to becoming a Marxist state and enterprise and innovation would be stifled, stagnate and drift away like a cloud of smoke. As a nation we would become much poorer, less educated and less competitive; it would be an unmitigated disaster.

Monday 15 May 2017

THREE CHEERS - IAN BRADY IS DEAD.

If there is one person whom the world will not miss, it is surely the vile murderer, Ian Brady.

Brady, together with his collaborator, Myra Hindley, abducted, tortured and murdered 5 children in the 1960s. Both were eventually caught, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment following a trial in May 1966; now, Brady has joined his accomplice in oblivion by dying in the secure psychiatric hospital in which he had been imprisoned for the last 32 years.

For many years, Brady tormented the family of one of their victims, Keith Bennett, by intimating that he could identify where the child was buried but without ever doing so; Bennett's mother died without knowing where her son's body lay.

Brady was undoubtedly insane and his lifelong incarceration was well deserved. However, is it right that he and Hindley were kept at the expense of the state for so many years ? For crimes as heinous as theirs, surely they should have suffered the ultimate penalty and been sent to the gallows, if only the do-gooder brigade hadn't managed to get it abolished in 1965, the same year as Brady and Hindley committed their appalling acts.

Sunday 14 May 2017

VOTES AT 16 ? IT SHOULD BE 21 !

While our young people attend schools, colleges and universities, or work as apprentices, until some of them are well into their 20s, the Labour, Liberal Democratic, Green, Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru all want the voting age lowered to 16. Only the Conservatives and Ukip are opposed to such a change.


When I was 18, I was on the point of leaving school and was one of the relatively few who went on to university; the majority of my age group was either already at work or on the point of commencing work and the age at which mandatory education ended was 15. I had worked as a paper delivery boy for over 4 years and had summer jobs in offices.

Today, our children are required to remain in full time education or training until they are 18 and a ridiculously large number then move on to second rate and largely pointless university courses; few have ever had a job of any sort. In the end, far too many gain no experience of the real world outside of the educational sphere.

Despite this trend of keeping young people in education rather than sending them out into the real world of work and responsibility, all of our left-wing political parties want to extend the privilege of voting to more of them. In truth, most have no interest in politics and less understanding of the world; most seem to spend their free time posting drivel on 'Facebook' or other similar 'social media' websites.

Far from reducing the voting age, we should really be increasing it to reflect the longer time spent in education and away from reality. A return to votes at 21 makes much more sense than votes at 16 ever would, except to the socialists who expect the youngsters to vote for them in their droves.

A case of political expediency 'par excellence'.

FOR LABOUR, READ TAX, TAX AND MORE TAX !

As the leading contenders continue to try to bribe the electorate into voting for them, the differences between the choices available become evermore clear,

The Conservatives have promised, again, to make it easier for local councils to buy vacant land for the purpose of erecting an increased volume of social housing for rent; the slightly Thatcherite wrinkle in this plan is that the houses would be on fixed term arrangements and would be intended for sale to their tenants after a period of 10 to 15 years. It certainly isn't the first time that a prospective government has promised to build more houses and isn't the first time that one has promised to allow tenants to buy their homes, but at least it's a proposal that doesn't involve raking in vast amounts of new tax.

Labour, on the other hand, has announced that it would raise billions of pounds of new taxes by robbing savers, investors, pensions and the like. The want to introduce what has been called a 'Robin Hood' tax and increase the taxes paid on shares and other investments, seemingly without appreciating the effect that such a measure would have. Some years ago, Gordon Brown launched a huge attack on pension funds when he withdrew their low tax status and many have not only not recovered but have become unsustainable as a result; now, the Marxist McDonnell and Corbyn want to repeat the folly.

Money put into savings and investments is mostly out of already taxed income; can it possibly be right to tax it again in a penal fashion ? Admittedly, much of the money in pension funds has not been taxed but is only taxed when it is withdrawn; nonetheless can it be right to penalise people for being prudent and taking steps to make provision for their old age ? Labour's latest proposals would do exactly this and would make the vast majority of the population poorer.

As well as making us poorer, Labour's proposed raid on savings and investments would lead to financial institutions moving out of the UK to less oppressive locations. Given that the financial sector is a major contributor to the UK's economy and is already a little concerned about the consequences of 'Brexit', for Labour to add to the pressure would be foolish in the extreme. Nonetheless, being foolish has never stopped politicians from pursuing disastrous policies in the past, so why would it stop Corbyn and co. now ?

Saturday 13 May 2017

NHS IN COMPUTER CHAOS

Yesterday's 'Cyber Attack' which left parts of the NHS in chaos was a stark warning of the dangers associated with surrendering ourselves to rule by computer.

Those who believe in a ' because we can' philosophy would have us sit back and let computers and other technology do everything for us, simply because it can be done. We already have industrial production of all sorts that is controlled by computers, the NHS relies utterly on computers for data storage, sample analysis and even diagnosis, our railway infrastructure is controlled by computers and some want us to hand control of our cars to these impersonal boxes of wires and circuits. Many other services, industries and aspects of our lives are well on the way to becoming reliant on them too.

Computers are fine, in their place and used as an aid to human endeavour but, as demonstrated by yesterday's events, which have affected services in many countries around the world and not just the NHS, they can fall prey to criminals and troublemakers all too easily. Computers are obviously here to stay but we must all beware the dangers associated with them and call a halt before we give them, and the backers, total control over us.

Friday 12 May 2017

POPULISM RULES, BUT ONLY WHEN IT SUITS !

Many of those who campaigned against the UK leaving the European Union accused the 'Leave' campaign of pursuing 'populist' ideas. 'Populism' was identified with some sort of evil and underhand way of appealing to the people through the promotion of policies which, while popular, were fundamentally unfair and wrong. Similar criticism was levelled at the campaign of Marine Le Pen in the French Presidential election.

However, as we get into the nitty-gritty of our General Election campaigns, popularity seems to be what it's all about. Theresa May seems to be popular while Jeremy Corbyn is not and, consequently, the Conservatives are miles ahead in the opinion polls. The Labour Party Manifesto, due to be published next week but leaked yesterday, appears to be utterly populist, full of policies designed to appeal to particular groups in society. Both the Conservatives and  Liberal Democrats have been putting forward their own 'populist' policies, be they on energy prices, public service investment, welfare, paternity leave or whatever else they can dream up.

Obviously, political parties need to have a degree of popularity in order to win elections and they all appeal to voters with a range of relevant policies designed to appeal to their own supporters and, hopefully, some others as well. Why then was 'populism' so derided by the likes of Nick Clegg, an arch-Europhile, when his side lost the EU referendum ? Might it have been nothing more than a case of sour grapes ?

Surely not !

Thursday 11 May 2017

LABOUR MANIFESTO HORROR !

So now we begin to see the true horror that would result from a Corbyn victory in the forthcoming General Election.

Although it's not supposed to be published until next week, the draft Labour Party Manifesto has been leaked to the press and it makes a frightening read. In short, nationalisation of assorted industries, a return to Trades Union domination, abolition of tuition fees for all, increased minimum wage and much more that will cost a fortune. At the same time, 'Brexit' would only happen if an 'acceptable' deal can be achieved, our armed forces would be emasculated and our nuclear deterrent would be nothing but an expensive white elephant. Corbyn is also promising to extend the franchise to children of 16 and 17 years, something clearly designed to win the votes of the handful who have any understanding or interest in politics.

While these policies, and others, will undoubtedly appeal to some, they would be the foundation of total economic collapse. Anyone who remembers the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s will recall the weeks, months and even years of industrial turmoil as the trades unions manufactured strike after strike; the devaluation of the pound, the energy crisis and 3-day week of 1973-74, Denis Healey going to the IMF for emergency funding, coal strikes, rail strikes, the demise of the ship building industry, the 'winter of discontent' and piles of rotting rubbish in the streets, and so much else that characterised that awful period of extreme left wing domination of our government. Corbyn would bring all of this back.

To pay for this unprecedented 'back to the past' adventure, Corbyn would pick the pockets of every single one of us. Nationalising Royal Mail, the railways and parts of the energy industry would cost many billions and leave the government to pick up the bill for all future investment, while placing the management of these enterprises in the hands of politicians and civil servants who have no appropriate experience or ability. Throwing billions of pounds at students may buy the votes of many of them but will also cost billions, and Corbyn's other plans would similarly call for vast additional funding. Some of this would come directly from our pockets while much would be funded by enormous borrowings; these incur interest which has to be paid, again out of our pockets, and repayment of the capital itself also comes from our pockets in due course.

All-in-all, Corbyn's plans are a recipe for disaster. He would effectively mortgage the future, placing huge burdens on our children, grandchildren, and further future generations for the rest of this century. The huge borrowings would cause a collapse in the value of the pound and would push interest rates up to unsustainable levels; at the same time, our public services and remaining industries would stagnate before suffering all of the ills of the past.

Corbyn and his Marxist ally, John McDonnell, would destroy our country with their fanatical adherence to policies of the past. Don't be fooled, don't be conned. Don't vote for them.

Wednesday 10 May 2017

WHAT IS A 'PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCE ' ?

With the Conservatives maintaining a substantial lead in the opinion polls, various voices on the political left are urging the creation of what they laughingly refer to as a 'Progressive Alliance'. What they really mean is an amalgam of socialist parties, all of which are hell-bent on raising taxes, borrowing vast sums and interfering in our lives as much as they possibly can.

The Labour Party is currently a party of the fairly extreme left, with Jeremy Corbyn being a throwback to the days of Michael Foot and John McDonnell being an admitted Marxist; both favour the creation of a Marxist style state with strong central control and little room for individual action other than their own. Watching some of their colleagues in action, it's clear that they have similar ambitions and would be quite at home as extreme left wing union agitators.

There are then a variety of other socialist parties - the Liberal Democrats, who are neither Liberal nor Democratic, the Greens who are potty and the Welsh and Scottish Nationalists who would be Labour if they weren't so fanatically nationalistic.

Importantly, none of these parties, with the possible exception of the Greens, are 'progressive'; in truth, they are locked into a class war which ended long ago but which they continue to whine about. They all believe in increasing the size of the State and in the State's control over the lives of the people; none of them believe in individual liberty beyond the liberty to do what the State allows. The Greens do, at least, have long standing policies which look to the future, though their way of implementing these is by pursuing the same fundamentally socialist policies.

Socialism has been tried in many countries, most notably in the Soviet Union and China; both experiments resulted in brutal dictatorships and economic collapse. Socialism is fundamentally contrary to human nature and cannot ever succeed; people are competitive while Socialism is all about removing competition and replacing it with State direction. In a Socialist state, there is no incentive to rise to the top as the top is at the same level as the bottom, with only the ruling elite experiencing a better lifestyle. In the end, a Socialist state as desired by Corbyn and his pals winds down and stagnates, at best; at worst, it results in the rise of Stalin, Mao and others of their type.

Don't be fooled. Voting for a 'Progressive Alliance' means voting for a socialist government with an extreme left wing and potentially disastrous agenda. Don't do it.

Tuesday 9 May 2017

WHO ARE CORBYN'S 'RICH' ?

Jeremy Corbyn continues to tell us that, if elected, Labour will go after 'the rich' and make sure that they pay their 'fair share' towards the state. He's also talked about some plan to limit the pay of the highest paid to a multiple of the pay of the lowest, perhaps no more than 20 times as much.

In pursuing this course, one wonders if Corbyn intends confining his assault on 'the rich' to senior managers of corporations or will be going after doctors, lawyers, accountants and so on. One also wonders what he might be planning to do about the truly highest paid in our society, the grotesquely overvalued sports 'stars'.

It's been reported that Manchester United's Zlatan Ibrahimovich is being paid something in the region of £370,000 per week, while we know that there are numerous other footballers who are paid well in excess of £100,000 per week. Some others, notably those in the Formula 1 racing sphere are paid similarly ludicrous sums, Lewis Hamilton being reportedly on some £600,000 per week.

The average worker might expect to earn, at current rates, around £1,250,000 in his or her entire working life, before tax, while these insanely overpaid footballers and others are paid that in little more than a few months or, even, weeks. These people often have special arrangements which reduce or remove any liability to UK tax, meaning that the disparity is all the greater. They can afford to live in places of which the rest of us can only dream and to have life styles which we can barely imagine. They are vastly more wealthy and privileged than virtually any others in society, matched only by a handful of the most senior directors of the largest international companies who are responsible for huge numbers of staff and enormous resources.

If Corbyn was to attack lawyers and accountants, he'd have many on his side, ignorant and ill-advised though they'd be. If he attacked doctors, he'd be roundly condemned, though he'd undoubtedly try to aim his attack at those in private practice. However, if he attacked our beloved sports stars, he'd have very few supporters; for some reason, no one seems to mind the profligacy of major sports' institutions even though the money paid to their stars comes from the pockets of those who pay ridiculously inflated prices for the privilege of watching their heroes perform.

If there are 'rich' who need to be targeted, it is those who are paid very large sums, often without being taxed, for doing nothing of real importance. Sadly, the broad sweep of the 'entertainment industry' seems to be immune to such things.

POLITICAL BRIBES ABOUND.

With the General Election campaigns getting into full swing, the 3 main parties are busy trying to buy our votes.

The Conservatives have made noises about immigration numbers and most recently, have issued a promise to 'cap' energy prices. Labour are offering to shell out loads of money on higher wages and benefits, and more spending on public services, while increasing taxes for what they call 'the rich' and the Liberal Democrats keep banging on about 'Brexit' and how unfair it all is.

This is all 'par for the course' and is the usual meaningless rhetoric that is trotted out at every election. Labour knows it can promise anything it can dream up as it has no chance of winning and the same goes for the Liberal Democrats. Both would be disastrous for the country anyway, with utter confusion over our relationship with the European Union and / or economic meltdown.

However, the Conservatives are treading on thin ice with their promises on immigration and energy prices. They will win the election, at least that's what the opinion polls strongly  predict, so they will have to act on their pledges. Having failed to have any effect on immigration over the last 7 years, it seems most unlikely that they will be able to make any real progress in the next 5, thus making the whole matter a hostage to fortune. Regarding energy prices, imposing a statutory control over these smacks of the type of price control beloved of Socialists and that was imposed by Labour in the 1960s and 1970s. It may also be a wholly unproductive policy, leading the energy suppliers to increase all of their uncontrolled prices in order to make up the shortfall resulting from the controls on their standard tariffs. Just as the regulation of railway prices has had unforeseen consequences, so would the regulation of energy prices and, while some would see their costs capped, others would see them rise dramatically.

Wouldn't it be nice if our political parties could be honest with the electorate for a change and not simply use our money to try to bribe us to vote for them.

Sunday 7 May 2017

LABOUR TAX PLEDGES HIDE THE TRUTH.

In their efforts to convince the populace to vote for them in June, the Labour party is 'pledging' not to raise income tax for those earning less than £80,000 per annum. In addition, they're saying that they won't increase employees national insurance or the rates of VAT currently in place. However, they are saying that the 'top 5%' of earners will pay more, though how much more isn't stated.

Allowing that they have also promised to spend several hundreds of billions of pounds more on public services, this implies enormous increases in the taxes which they don't promise to freeze, and also a huge increase in government borrowing. Back in the 1960s, some 'top earners' found themselves paying an eye-watering rate of income tax of 98% on part of their income - is this where Corbyn and McDonnell are heading ? What about a straightforward 'wealth tax' to rob those who have anything, or a vast increase in inheritance tax ?

They've been careful to say nothing about employers' national insurance - watch out all those providing jobs ! Keeping the rates of VAT the same doesn't preclude extending the scope of this iniquitous tax - might we find that currently exempt items, such as lottery tickets, museum entrance charges, burial and cremation costs, hospital and care home charges, school fees and much more - are suddenly made subject to it ? There are also a myriad of other taxes and duties which can be dreamt up or increased and no doubt this would also happen.

Together with massive increases in taxation, the vast increase in public sector borrowing would lead to a collapse in investment, higher prices, a dramatic surge in both inflation and interest rates and a collapse in the value of the pound. Within 12 months the UK would be back where it was in the 1970s when Chancellor of the Exchequer Dennis Healey was obliged to go, cap in hand, to the IMF for vital financial support.

Don't be conned. Labour's pledges aren't worth the paper they're written on if, indeed, they're written down at all. After Ed Miliband's 'Edstone' fiasco, they may well decide to avoid putting pen to paper on this economic nonsense.

Friday 5 May 2017

JUNCKER : A SMALL-MINDED AND FOOLISH MAN.

Some of the petty bureaucrats of the European Union seem to be dead set on making petty little digs at the UK.

Today, one of the 'Giants' of the EU, Jean-Claude Juncker, made a wholly unnecessary and utterly spurious remark about the English language before he very pointedly made a speech in French. He commented that English was "losing importance in Europe", clearly not understanding that English is the language of choice for virtually all major international communications. While English is an almost mandatory second language for the vast majority of the world, French is spoken by the French plus a handful of third world nations, and almost no one else.

Juncker is a man of enormous self-importance, having been Prime Minister and Finance Minister of that great world power, Luxemburg, before his elevation to various positions in the European Union. Now, it seems, he is determined to make a name for himself by gaining as many negative 'Brexit' headlines as he can and, perhaps, making the process of negotiation as uncomfortable as possible.

However, soon after Juncker's pathetic jibe, another Eurocrat, Michel Barnier indicated a degree of unhappiness with his colleague's remarks by very pointedly making a speech in English. Barnier is the EU's chief Brexit negotiator and he, at least, seems to want to avoid the petty vindictiveness of Juncker and his ilk. It is good to know that at least some of the EU hierarchy know how to behave and appear to want to have a positive and productive negotiation. Barnier has, of course, served in a number of senior positions in governments of a proper country, France, so perhaps does not feel the same sense of inferiority as does Juncker and is consequently less prone to feel a need to grab the headlines with silly comments.

Juncker is an egotistical fool while Barnier seems to be a man of much greater substance and political ability. Fingers crossed that it's Barnier who really does hold sway.

Wednesday 3 May 2017

EU DOOM-MONGERS STILL TRYING TO SCARE US.

With the UK's General Election campaigns beginning to get into their stride, one or two of the unelected bureaucrats of the European Union appear to be doing their best to scare British voters with various stories about the difficulties associated with Brexit.

Suggestions include that the negotiations will be far from easy, that the UK will not get a good deal and even that the 'bill' for leaving could be as much as €100bn. Political giants such as Jean-Claude Juncker and Michel Barnier have issued carefully worded statements while there have also been assorted leaks of supposed information, all aimed at telling British voters that leaving the EU is not a good idea. Presumably the hope is that it will encourage voters to think again about whether to support Theresa May.

In reality, continual interference by EU officials, however its done, will only serve to have the opposite effect. The British voted to leave the EU partly because that body is interfering and dictatorial, wastes money in truck loads and is a bureaucratic nightmare; the recent interventions demonstrate all of this, and more, and can only backfire on the doom-mongers who delivered the messages.

Ignore the nonsense and keep the faith.



SO WHAT HAPPENED TO MADELEINE MCCANN ?

Madeleine McCann vanished from her room in a holiday apartment 10 years ago. At the time of her disappearance it's said that the not quite 4 year old Madeleine and her 2 year old twin brother and sister were alone in their apartment as their parents had trotted off to have a meal with a group of friends.

Theories about Madeleine's disappearance have abounded but, despite occasional excitement in the media, there has never been any proven siting of her, no remains have been found, no clear suspects or motives have been identified and the case continues to be completely unresolved. Huge amounts of police resources, from both the Portuguese and British services, have been utilised to no effect.

Of course, people sometimes go missing for no apparent reason and sometimes these people are never found. However, such cases almost invariably involve adults, or older children, who are mobile and have access to money, or relate to abduction and probable murder. In Madeleine's case, the first option is an obvious impossibility, leaving the second as the principal likelihood, but is it really likely that someone entered the apartment and removed a 4 year old child, without fuss ? If this did happen, is it really likely that Madeleine is alive and well somewhere, having forgotten all about her birth family ?

If Madeleine was abducted, it must be almost certain that she was murdered soon afterwards and her body disposed of. However, in such a case, the criminal underworld would quite probably have known and passed their knowledge to the police; no one likes child abusers. If Madeleine had been abducted for trafficking and was subsequently sold to a family in some other country, would she not, by now, have been discovered ?

There are surely only 2 possible conclusions. Either Madeleine was not actually in the apartment at the time of the supposed abduction or she was abducted and trafficked but is now dead. It's quite a conundrum.

PUNISH THE DRUG CHEATS, DON'T FIDDLE WITH RECORDS

It's well known that many athletics' world records set in the 1970s and 1980s were fuelled by illegitimate means. In particular, athletes from the Soviet Union and an assortment of eastern European countries achieved results that were not matched for many, many years, if they ever have been. It's certainly true that athletes from other parts of the world also used doubtful methods to achieve their aims and there has to be a doubt over many of the performances from that period.

Currently, there are a number of world records for women which date back to the 1980s :

100m - Florence Griffith-Joyner - USA - 1988
200m - Florence Griffith-Joyner - USA - 1988
400m - Marita Koch - East Germany - 1985
800m - Jarmila Kratochvilova - Czechoslovakia - 1983
High Jump - Stefka Kostadinova - Bulgaria - 1987
Long Jump - Galina Chistyakova - Soviet Union - 1988
Shot Put - Natalya Lisovskaya - Soviet Union - 1987 
Discus - Gabriele Reinsch - East Germany - 1988
Heptathlon - Jackie Joyner-Kersee - USA - 1988
4 x 400m Relay - Soviet Union - 1988

There's also a 3000m record of dubious nature which dates back to 1993 and is held by a Chinese athlete, records for the 1000m and Mile set by Russia's Svetlana Masterkova in 1996. Other more recent records have been thrown into doubt by the improved drug testing methods now available and a significant number of athletes previously thought to be 'clean' have been found to have been using illicit methods to achieve records and medals.

Men's records have tended to be rewritten more frequently, however, there remain two that have survived since the 1980s :

Discus - Jurgen Schult - East Germany - 1986
Hammer - Yuriy Sedykh - Soviet Union - 1986

In addition, a number date back to the 1990s, including :

1500m -  Hicham el Guerrouj - Morocco - 1998
One Mile - Hicham el Guerrouj - Morocco - 1999
400m Hurdles - Kevin Young - USA - 1992,
High Jump - Javier Sotomayor - Cuba - 1993 *
Long Jump - Mike Powell - USA - 1991
Triple Jump -  Jonathan Edwards - UK - 1995
Shot put - Randy Barnes - USA - 1990 *
Javelin - Jan Zelezny - Czech Republic - 1996
4 x 400m Relay - USA - 1993

* Known drug cheats

As with the women's records, there have been more recent dubious entries and some athletes have been 'caught out' by improved testing methods though it seems that fewer high-profile men than women have fallen foul of these.

It has to be recognized that longevity does not, of itself, indicate anything untoward and many of these records may well be perfectly valid. However, it's also the case that there is clear evidence that at least some of the record holders were using illicit drugs or other methods for enhancing their performances and there have been well-publicized cases of supposedly 'clean' athletes being shown to be cheating;  high profile examples include Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Butch Reynolds, Asafa Powell, Justin Gatlin, Dwain Chambers, Linford Christie and Tyson Gay, but there have been many hundreds more. Others from the 1970s and 1980s, such as Al Oerter, Heike Drechsler and Ruth Fuchs, have made self-admissions, making it evermore clear that drug taking in athletics has been endemic for many years.

As a possible way of dealing with the anomalies that drug taking has caused, it's now being suggested that all records set before 2005 should be expunged. It appears that the proposal has gained favour with the IAAF but been less well received by some of the athletes whose records my disappear, such as Mike Powell and Paula Radcliffe. Thinking about it, I have to say that I come down on the side of Powell and Radcliffe and against what is, after all, a sledgehammer approach to the issue.

Expunging all records set before any particular date makes little sense and raises many questions. 2005 has been suggested as this is from when test samples began to be kept, but should the validity of all records really be dependent on an administrative change ? If world records are to be reset, will that also apply to national, continental and Olympic records ? Will the medals awarded at national and international competitions, including the Olympics, be rescinded ? Will lists of World and Olympic champions be withdrawn ? To date, athletes have only suffered post-event disqualifications if found to have been in breach of the rules at the time of the relevant event through the subsequent testing of a sample taken at or near the relevant time. To effectively disqualify athletes for no other reason than that they competed before 2005 would be ridiculous. 

That athletics has a drugs' problem is a sad fact, but the proposed approach is not right. By all means introduce a new set of records starting in 2005, but let it sit alongside the existing set, not replace it altogether. Allied to much more stringent testing and the very severest penalties for athletes, coaches and national associations, the problem may gradually be overcome, while tinkering with past performances and records will achieve nothing whatsoever.

Ban cheating athletes AND their coaches for 5 years for a first offence and life for a second; fine their national associations $10m for every athlete caught cheating. Any association that doesn't pay should have an automatic ban, covering all of their registered athletes, from all international competition until they comply. Forget tinkering with records, bring in some real punishments for the cheats who are threatening to destroy the sport.

Tuesday 2 May 2017

ABBOTT GOT IT WRONG

Politicians rarely, if ever, admit to being wrong about anything. Instead, they waffle, ignore questions, change the subject or, their most recent wheeze, claim that they 'misspoke'.

Diane Abbott got herself in an awful muddle during an interview on the radio this morning when talking about the cost of one of Labour's latest election pledges. Questioned about the cost of putting an additional 10,000 police officers into action, she said the cost would be £300,000 over 4 years, and then, as she struggled to sort her words out, changed this to £80m; later, it was confirmed that the cost as estimated by the Labour party is £300m.

Putting aside any questions about the details and accuracy of this pledge, Abbott got her facts wrong. However, rather than admit this, she has insisted that she had got the facts right in other interviews and that she 'misspoke' during this particular radio interview.

'Misspoke' ? Checking in my Collins Dictionary, there doesn't appear to be any such word; in other words, it's been invented in order to allow certain people to avoid admitting being wrong. Abbott gave misleading facts to an audience of several million; that isn't 'misspeaking', it's getting things wrong. Why won't she, and others of her ilk, ever use the 'w' word ?