I have never believed the people of Ireland were about to drastically reverse their positions in such a short time on Lisbon, and having spent some time in Ireland last year I got a sense that voters in Ireland feel very removed from politicians and from politics, though not apathetic towards political subjects and discussion. Discussion on Lisbon was not dismissed, and was widely in-depth and considered. This was never appreciated by the EU who seemed to openly assume Ireland could not have understood the treaty, that's the only reason they could fathom for its rejection.
So I am excited tonight to see that England Expects has said that word has reached him that a Gael Poll with a sample of 1,500 shows a massive surge in support for the NO camp, with a potential 59%/41% split in favour of rejection.
I hope I am not putting the cart before the horse but this is potentially positive news and comes much earlier than the last minute swing that occurred for the first referendum. It would make the Czech, German and Polish ratifications moot, and throw the EU in chaos. So assured were they of their project, that huge swathes of Lisbon has already been implemented prior to acceptance.
Things could be about to get very interesting.
Update: Slugger O'Toole says the same HERE.
Update 2 22-Sep-09 12:08:: UK Polling Report says the Poll should not be taken seriously HERE.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Local Councils Should Be Funded Locally
Update 4:12pm: Daniel1979 humbly requests that you please disregard this post. I would press delete, but that is not really very fair - I am pretty certain now that the assumptions I based part of the below on are wrong (i.e. proportions of council tax retained locally). I am not happy with myself for being wrong, I usually reference when possible; however I had something in my head that I had read previously that I either must have mis-interpreted, or would now have proven discredited. To go into much more detail would be an even more non-sensical and unwarranted ramble.
But as I got it wrong here I will leave this up, with this acknowledgement that, again "I was wrong"...
Thanks to Man in a Shed on Twitter I have just seen this article.
Thereis a £2.5bn blackhole in local authority finances, i.e. the difference between predicted costs and expected revenues so taxes. Council Tax will have to rise so as to pay for this shortfall.
Except, the Scottish Executive has intervened, and with the co-operation of Alistair Darling Scottish Council Tax will be frozen in Scotland, whilst Council Tax in England, and presumably Wales and Northern Ireland will increase on average by £50 per house.
This is unfair, but is legal under the devolution that Labour has imposed upon us all. Scottish councils will have contributed to that shortfall, and under the present system of collection, Scottish Taxpayers should be included in the revenue collection. If councils are projecting a £2.5bn blackhole then could always cut their budgets, not ask for more cash. This will not happen, and here's why.
When Council Tax is collected by your local council, nearly all of it then goes up to Westminster, when it is then doled back out to local authorities according to their budgets, and local iniatives. In my opinion, Council Tax should be set by local authorities and kept and spent by local authorities. If a council cuts its costs, and becomes more efficient, it still needs to raise as much revenue in Tax, because about 75%... (Not sure on the current number... I will try to find out and link later)... has to go to Westminster to go into the national pot. There is no real incentive for Councils to be efficient.
If Council Tax and spending was decided locally, Councillors would become accountable for it in local elections, smaller councils could tax less and a "fairer" system would develop because the effects of council tax raises and cuts could be felt and reflected locally, and there would be greater motivation for efficiencies and local people to keep spending in check. Areas which would favour a higher tax and higher spend policy can have it, where as areas favouring smaller state and taxes could also have that and everybody could be happy. Some national Government assistance would be needed for grander projects imposed from above, and concerning select councils, but the ratio of tax collected and sent to Westminster could be reversed, at least.
Add to this Conservative proposals to publish Public Expenditure and Top Earners salaries and I believe a situation could develop where by Council Tax could be slashed as wastage and extravagance could be tracked and eliminated.
By placing decision making on Council Tax closer to the Scottish voter, the Scottish voter will receive a benefit that they will be happy for. Everyone in the UK should be able to take these decisions, but at an even more local level which is fair to all people of the UK.
But as I got it wrong here I will leave this up, with this acknowledgement that, again "I was wrong"...
Thanks to Man in a Shed on Twitter I have just seen this article.
Thereis a £2.5bn blackhole in local authority finances, i.e. the difference between predicted costs and expected revenues so taxes. Council Tax will have to rise so as to pay for this shortfall.
Except, the Scottish Executive has intervened, and with the co-operation of Alistair Darling Scottish Council Tax will be frozen in Scotland, whilst Council Tax in England, and presumably Wales and Northern Ireland will increase on average by £50 per house.
This is unfair, but is legal under the devolution that Labour has imposed upon us all. Scottish councils will have contributed to that shortfall, and under the present system of collection, Scottish Taxpayers should be included in the revenue collection. If councils are projecting a £2.5bn blackhole then could always cut their budgets, not ask for more cash. This will not happen, and here's why.
When Council Tax is collected by your local council, nearly all of it then goes up to Westminster, when it is then doled back out to local authorities according to their budgets, and local iniatives. In my opinion, Council Tax should be set by local authorities and kept and spent by local authorities. If a council cuts its costs, and becomes more efficient, it still needs to raise as much revenue in Tax, because about 75%... (Not sure on the current number... I will try to find out and link later)... has to go to Westminster to go into the national pot. There is no real incentive for Councils to be efficient.
If Council Tax and spending was decided locally, Councillors would become accountable for it in local elections, smaller councils could tax less and a "fairer" system would develop because the effects of council tax raises and cuts could be felt and reflected locally, and there would be greater motivation for efficiencies and local people to keep spending in check. Areas which would favour a higher tax and higher spend policy can have it, where as areas favouring smaller state and taxes could also have that and everybody could be happy. Some national Government assistance would be needed for grander projects imposed from above, and concerning select councils, but the ratio of tax collected and sent to Westminster could be reversed, at least.
Add to this Conservative proposals to publish Public Expenditure and Top Earners salaries and I believe a situation could develop where by Council Tax could be slashed as wastage and extravagance could be tracked and eliminated.
By placing decision making on Council Tax closer to the Scottish voter, the Scottish voter will receive a benefit that they will be happy for. Everyone in the UK should be able to take these decisions, but at an even more local level which is fair to all people of the UK.
Czech Republic May Refer Lisbon Treaty To Courts
It is being widely reported that President Klaus is preparing to refer the Lisbon Treaty back to the courts for another Constitutional Review causing a delay on ratification of at least 6 months, regardless of whether Ireland ratifies or not.
For me, this is great news. It puts a very tight and narrow window of opportunity in front of David Cameron for holding true to his pledge to give the UK a referendum after a Conservative election victory. But it also helps aid the argument that the people of Ireland are not alone in their doubts about this treaty. President Klaus is made of stern stuff, and he knows what an EU with expanded powers will do, and he like the majority of us does not like that prospect. But at least he has the backbone to stand up to the EU elite.
If Lisbon is no longer a possibility, maybe Labour will get on with an election anyway - or at least boot out that incompetent oaf that is in charge now.
This is not the end of it, EU leaders like Barroso and Sarkozy will huff and puff; but if Ireland does vote yes, and I hope they will not, our fate will only be kept alive by the Czech Republic and Poland.
And don't forget, Lisbon hands a lot of defence initiative to the EU, and weakens NATO's role in European defence - after last week's announcements regarding the end of the Missile Shield in these countries, a further resolve can be established in not wishing this horrific treaty to be ratified. Which would you trust more for your security if you lived so close to Russia, NATO or the EU?
Just to say thanks, may I encourage people to have a quick look through the Czech Export guide and see if we can help Czech export trade. Personally, I am going to go out and buy a few pints of Staropramen which is sold in my local pub.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Daniel Hannan's Message To The People Of Ireland
Please add to your blog or social network.
If you want to see Daniel in Westminster, please sign and spread the word of this petition.
If you want to see Daniel in Westminster, please sign and spread the word of this petition.
Recommended Reading
Here is my latest recommended reading list.
Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:
Iain Martin asks if the Tories will axe the RAF?
The Croydonian has uncovered proof that Polly Toynbee is in the pay of the government.
Steve Green Daily Referendum caught The New Statesmans blogpost where James Macintyre brands Daniel Hannan and The Conservative Party as Racist.
The Telegraph has photos from the amateur space photograper of the year, Britains Martin Pugh.
And finally, Dulwich Mum has uncovered a scam that all Mum's should be aware of!
Enjoy!
Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:
Iain Martin asks if the Tories will axe the RAF?
The Croydonian has uncovered proof that Polly Toynbee is in the pay of the government.
Steve Green Daily Referendum caught The New Statesmans blogpost where James Macintyre brands Daniel Hannan and The Conservative Party as Racist.
The Telegraph has photos from the amateur space photograper of the year, Britains Martin Pugh.
And finally, Dulwich Mum has uncovered a scam that all Mum's should be aware of!
Enjoy!
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Daniel Hannan Petition
I have just started a petition over on The Voice Of The Resistance Blog regarding Daniel Hannan.
If that sounds interesting, please go take a look.
If that sounds interesting, please go take a look.
Curse Of Jonah - Caught On Camera
Update 4.48pm: Original video removed, second version uploaded
Poor boy, he never had a chance!
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Recommended Reading
Here is my latest recommended reading list.
Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:
Lord Elvis has an interesting quote in light of the Governments proposed vetting procedures of the public.
An audio link; Ron Paul talks to the CATO institute about the Fed.
Rantin Rab thinks Dave is not Thatcher-like enough to fix the country.
David Blackburn on Coffee House thinks the Tory mole has exposed Gordon Brown as a liar.
And finally, David Forward with the latest big name snapped playing the lying down game.
Enjoy!
Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:
Lord Elvis has an interesting quote in light of the Governments proposed vetting procedures of the public.
An audio link; Ron Paul talks to the CATO institute about the Fed.
Rantin Rab thinks Dave is not Thatcher-like enough to fix the country.
David Blackburn on Coffee House thinks the Tory mole has exposed Gordon Brown as a liar.
And finally, David Forward with the latest big name snapped playing the lying down game.
Enjoy!
Did David Cameron Do Wrong, Or Did He Act Just Like The Rest Of Us?
One of my blog readers emailed me with a link to an interesting, and slightly embarrassing story in the Oxford Mail.
It seems that in his annual constituency newsletter, the MP for Witney (David Cameron MP) has urged the members of his constituency to "keep trade local", however a recipient of that newsletter has noticed that the very newsletter in which this plea is made was not printed locally, but was actually printed in Surrey. This is obviously a little embarrassing.
David Cameron’s spokesperson Caroline Preston replies
The Oxford Mail then links in the closing of a local press in Witney which led to 106 redundancies for force of effect.
The Oxford Mail however fails to obtain or discolse competitive quotes for comparison or disclose if the disgruntled complainer is affiliated to a competing political party.
It is an interesting story, because not only could you take either point of view as correct, it reflects the choice many of us have to make in our own lives. Just about everybody will proclaim the need for strong local businesses, it is unquestionably important to our economy and society; but we are, naturally enough often influenced by price.
As regular readers will know, I am in my first year of marriage, and it is not easy getting by. The deciding factor on nearly everything in the past few years has been the price. Today’s lunch was Tesco Value bread, Value Ham, Value Chicken and Value Mayo, this would be a consistent representation of my lunch box. We could not and probably will not anytime soon be able to afford to shop at a local butcher / baker / green grocer / local store. I am trying to do right by my family by putting food on the table, but conversely local tradespersons suffer when I have to go to the nearest supermarket. Yet, Supermarkets also employ at lot of people too, many of them locally; I am sure it is not as nice as working in a local store, or learning a trade but it is people in jobs.
So what is the answer? At what point does a person, family, MP or business morally need to stop looking at price, and put other concerns first, and how can that trade off be measured, so that it can be effective? Should my social conscience really be troubled by such decisions and if so, could I or any person ever be in a situation where by that conscience is completely untroubled? If so, why?
Are we not expecting too much of others? If not, what is the rule?
I don’t have answers but I think it is an interesting subject. I do think it is a matter to be decided as individuals (people, families, MP's or company decision makers) as they alone have to weigh up what to do; and every single decision is weighted by different factors. I think it would be very hard to take a consistently local theme, [unless one were completely loaded]. As good as it would be to print locally, if David Cameron was overpaying for a local printer the opposition could claim he is using constituency funds to buy votes, or they could claim to not be in sufficient control of the local finances. It's a lose/lose. Though, it is clearly a double standard to espouse the notion of supporting local trade in a publication then made elsewhere.
I guess it is the response and the attitude that is more interesting than the predicament itself. There is no formula that can decide when paying too much locally demands it be reasonable to seek price further away [or is there??]. I am sure there are people who are seldom price sensitive and are able to help local trade more, it does not mean that they do.
I know there are lots of people that need to take price as first or primary concern, because that more accurately describes more people that I know and interact with. Personally I would like to shop more locally, but the cost is noticeable higher. I am in a lose/lose situation as well.
Does anybody have a rule for themselves or their business that they follow and would be prepared to share on such matters? And how would your rules have effected David Cameron’s decision to print in Surrey on this occasion?
It seems that in his annual constituency newsletter, the MP for Witney (David Cameron MP) has urged the members of his constituency to "keep trade local", however a recipient of that newsletter has noticed that the very newsletter in which this plea is made was not printed locally, but was actually printed in Surrey. This is obviously a little embarrassing.
David Cameron’s spokesperson Caroline Preston replies
“In this instance, the printing of the newsletter was organised and paid for by Conservative Party headquarters and I understand it was necessary to use their contracted printers to ensure costs were kept down and because of timescale constraints.
“With all printing requirements which are commissioned locally, it is our policy to use local printers wherever possible.
“This newsletter was paid for by local party funds and not from any Parliamentary allowance.”
“David uses local printers for things like his Christmas cards, 18th birthday cards and surgery posters and will continue do so.
“For all local authority elections each year the Conservative Party in west Oxfordshire also uses local printers on every possible occasion to print its election leaflets, posters, calling cards, etc.”
The Oxford Mail then links in the closing of a local press in Witney which led to 106 redundancies for force of effect.
The Oxford Mail however fails to obtain or discolse competitive quotes for comparison or disclose if the disgruntled complainer is affiliated to a competing political party.
It is an interesting story, because not only could you take either point of view as correct, it reflects the choice many of us have to make in our own lives. Just about everybody will proclaim the need for strong local businesses, it is unquestionably important to our economy and society; but we are, naturally enough often influenced by price.
As regular readers will know, I am in my first year of marriage, and it is not easy getting by. The deciding factor on nearly everything in the past few years has been the price. Today’s lunch was Tesco Value bread, Value Ham, Value Chicken and Value Mayo, this would be a consistent representation of my lunch box. We could not and probably will not anytime soon be able to afford to shop at a local butcher / baker / green grocer / local store. I am trying to do right by my family by putting food on the table, but conversely local tradespersons suffer when I have to go to the nearest supermarket. Yet, Supermarkets also employ at lot of people too, many of them locally; I am sure it is not as nice as working in a local store, or learning a trade but it is people in jobs.
So what is the answer? At what point does a person, family, MP or business morally need to stop looking at price, and put other concerns first, and how can that trade off be measured, so that it can be effective? Should my social conscience really be troubled by such decisions and if so, could I or any person ever be in a situation where by that conscience is completely untroubled? If so, why?
Are we not expecting too much of others? If not, what is the rule?
I don’t have answers but I think it is an interesting subject. I do think it is a matter to be decided as individuals (people, families, MP's or company decision makers) as they alone have to weigh up what to do; and every single decision is weighted by different factors. I think it would be very hard to take a consistently local theme, [unless one were completely loaded]. As good as it would be to print locally, if David Cameron was overpaying for a local printer the opposition could claim he is using constituency funds to buy votes, or they could claim to not be in sufficient control of the local finances. It's a lose/lose. Though, it is clearly a double standard to espouse the notion of supporting local trade in a publication then made elsewhere.
I guess it is the response and the attitude that is more interesting than the predicament itself. There is no formula that can decide when paying too much locally demands it be reasonable to seek price further away [or is there??]. I am sure there are people who are seldom price sensitive and are able to help local trade more, it does not mean that they do.
I know there are lots of people that need to take price as first or primary concern, because that more accurately describes more people that I know and interact with. Personally I would like to shop more locally, but the cost is noticeable higher. I am in a lose/lose situation as well.
Does anybody have a rule for themselves or their business that they follow and would be prepared to share on such matters? And how would your rules have effected David Cameron’s decision to print in Surrey on this occasion?
A Party Politicial Broadcast
On behalf of Conservative Home
At least Mrs Brown knows what to buy Gordon now for Christmas.
Some new flip-flops.
At least Mrs Brown knows what to buy Gordon now for Christmas.
Some new flip-flops.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Iain's New Home
I was sad to learn in July that Iain Martin was leaving the Telegraph as his was one of the more entertaining blogs on offer there.
Anyway, for those who shared that disappointment, I have good news. Iain has a new home on the WSJ Europe blog pages.
Anyway, for those who shared that disappointment, I have good news. Iain has a new home on the WSJ Europe blog pages.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Recommended Reading
Here is my latest recommended reading list.
Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:
EU Referendum Blog has a lesson in fact-checking for the newspapers.
James Delingpole says Barrack Obama has lost the healthcare debate thanks to sinister right-wing blogs, just like his.
Mary Ellon Synon wants to connect some dots for you between The Lisbon Treaty and Libya.
Norfolk Blogger asks where is the Swine Flu vaccine?
And finally, Alan Wallace with news of a popular cartoon character who is running as a councillor in County Tyrone.
Enjoy!
Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:
EU Referendum Blog has a lesson in fact-checking for the newspapers.
James Delingpole says Barrack Obama has lost the healthcare debate thanks to sinister right-wing blogs, just like his.
Mary Ellon Synon wants to connect some dots for you between The Lisbon Treaty and Libya.
Norfolk Blogger asks where is the Swine Flu vaccine?
And finally, Alan Wallace with news of a popular cartoon character who is running as a councillor in County Tyrone.
Enjoy!
Predictions:
Prediction 1.
This Friday night Derren Brown will amaze and entertain a watching nation as he demonstrates how he has the ability to manipulate the subconscious minds of millions of people through a television broadcast.
Prediction 2.
On Saturday morning, Gordon Brown will invite Derren Brown into his "Government Of All Talents"
This Friday night Derren Brown will amaze and entertain a watching nation as he demonstrates how he has the ability to manipulate the subconscious minds of millions of people through a television broadcast.
Prediction 2.
On Saturday morning, Gordon Brown will invite Derren Brown into his "Government Of All Talents"
Friday, September 11, 2009
We Are Not Paedophiles!
This immediately caught my eye lunchtime today, and I am quick as I suspect will others be to protest the latest over-reach from Mother-Labour.
National press are today reporting that ordinary people will have to start getting CRB checked if they visit schools, contribute to the school run, volunteer with the cubs and scouts... etc.
We reached the point when Labour went too far a long time back, but this piece of proposed legislation is absolute trite and an exercise which highlights how vacuous this Government is. More jobs for the boys, and empty legislation designed to make the Idiots in Government look tough whilst being downright insulting and intrusive on the people in the real world. England was once the land where the people were free and happy; the land where nobody would ever be forced to turn over evidence regarding themselves in the absence of criminal charges.
The absence of a check will lead to fines and the check will allow for local authorities to be given legal access to enter homes and establish private interviews with children. Upon announcement Baroness Morgan said the legislation was designed to “avoid another Soham,” sewing immediately an image in the minds if those who are unthinking and stupidly willing that ANYONE who would not welcome such an intrusion must be like Ian Huntley.
Look where we are today. Your rights are just something that gets in their way, an obstacle that can be got around.
Fining parents £5,000 for dropping the neighbour’s kids at school in the absence of a CRB check could turn out to be the poster image and abiding memory that will haunt Labour for decades.
Faustie has already set up a facebook group entitled “I am not a Paedophile” - I hope if you too are outraged that you will go join as well.
I have a suspicion.
My suspicion is; and it is outrageously low, even for Labour is that this is a political ploy… It is the announcement of a huge database and super-sized QUANGO, increased snooping powers for councils all rolled up in an action that increasing diminishes individual rights. This, just months before an election, and right as their chief opposition are arguing that the state needs to be rolled back.. Labour then counter and use their interpretation of the protection of children in their argument to carry on with the uber-Marxist project.
… Or am I being just overly cynical of an already despised and disreputable Government??
National press are today reporting that ordinary people will have to start getting CRB checked if they visit schools, contribute to the school run, volunteer with the cubs and scouts... etc.
We reached the point when Labour went too far a long time back, but this piece of proposed legislation is absolute trite and an exercise which highlights how vacuous this Government is. More jobs for the boys, and empty legislation designed to make the Idiots in Government look tough whilst being downright insulting and intrusive on the people in the real world. England was once the land where the people were free and happy; the land where nobody would ever be forced to turn over evidence regarding themselves in the absence of criminal charges.
The absence of a check will lead to fines and the check will allow for local authorities to be given legal access to enter homes and establish private interviews with children. Upon announcement Baroness Morgan said the legislation was designed to “avoid another Soham,” sewing immediately an image in the minds if those who are unthinking and stupidly willing that ANYONE who would not welcome such an intrusion must be like Ian Huntley.
Look where we are today. Your rights are just something that gets in their way, an obstacle that can be got around.
Fining parents £5,000 for dropping the neighbour’s kids at school in the absence of a CRB check could turn out to be the poster image and abiding memory that will haunt Labour for decades.
Faustie has already set up a facebook group entitled “I am not a Paedophile” - I hope if you too are outraged that you will go join as well.
I have a suspicion.
My suspicion is; and it is outrageously low, even for Labour is that this is a political ploy… It is the announcement of a huge database and super-sized QUANGO, increased snooping powers for councils all rolled up in an action that increasing diminishes individual rights. This, just months before an election, and right as their chief opposition are arguing that the state needs to be rolled back.. Labour then counter and use their interpretation of the protection of children in their argument to carry on with the uber-Marxist project.
… Or am I being just overly cynical of an already despised and disreputable Government??
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Calling Blogger
Dear Blogger,
I am still very happy with the platform and service [especially the fact that it is free]. I was delighted to see when playing around with the settings recently that there was a new publish platform available which I duly used... However, as a child of the UK national curriculum and state schooling I am not sure if this blog will survive without a Spell Check function.
I ain't kidding.
Please install ASAP
Ta
Daniel
I am still very happy with the platform and service [especially the fact that it is free]. I was delighted to see when playing around with the settings recently that there was a new publish platform available which I duly used... However, as a child of the UK national curriculum and state schooling I am not sure if this blog will survive without a Spell Check function.
I ain't kidding.
Please install ASAP
Ta
Daniel
A Reminder
Just 267 days to go until the most dour and disappointing 5 years of British Political history comes to an end.
Roll on 03-Jun-2010 - I am looking forward to that more than Christmas!
Roll on 03-Jun-2010 - I am looking forward to that more than Christmas!
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
No Rest For The Wicked
From the BBC
A little harsh wouldn't you say?
Seven hospital staff have been suspended for their part in the game, played in mid August.
The game involves being pictured lying down with arms by your side and toes pointing towards the floor.
A hospital official said: "Disciplinary hearings are yet to take place and we cannot predict the outcome."
The images, since removed, were posted on the social networking site Facebook under the title Secret Swindon Emergency Department Group.
Great Western Hospital medical director Dr Alf Troughton said: "A number of staff were suspended following allegations of unprofessional conduct while on night shift duty in the hospital during a weekend in August.
"This did not involve patients and we are satisfied that at no time was patient care compromised.
"The Great Western Hospital sets high standards for staff behaviour at all times and therefore takes any such breaches extremely seriously.
"The allegations have been thoroughly investigated and seven members of staff remain suspended pending formal disciplinary hearings."
A little harsh wouldn't you say?
Ireland - Please Say No To Lisbon, (Erm, Again)
Get Widget
Ireland, it's your vote and your choice (again), this blogger was very happy that you made the right decision last time and I hope you will do so again.
It is my hope that you say "no", and then upon a change of Government here in the UK we can help kill Lisbon and set the EU into a different direction, whereby at the very least we can all control our seperate destiny's and keep control of the matters that we care most deeply about.
h/t for the widget - VOTR
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
David Cameron Speech On Reducing The Cost Of Government
ConHome give a roundup of David Cameron's speech today on cutting the cost of Government. To be honest, I have not seen or heard the speech so I am basing my reactions on what I read on ConHome – so I will try not to be too harsh where I disagree. - I will certianly correct myself if I am laterly convinced I am wrong with the below.
As a floating voter on the centre-right, such a speech would seem to be aimed at securing the votes of people of a similar mind-set as mine, so here are my thoughts.
Each and every QUANGO having to justify its existence –
The sentiment is right, but I would need to know more about what is planned. If the idea is to set up a governing QUANGO or enacting lots more job creation without bringing down costs then the above is a pointless statement.
However, if the link between QUANGO’s and Ministerial accountability (and ergo Parliament) is to be tightened, and if unneeded QUANGOs, and government funded Charities can be culled then this will be positive.
We have moved too much of the public sector away from ministerial control and accountability, and as such the costs have spiralled, and the link to the voters has been diluted. Any substantial efforts to reverse this will be welcomed.
Every item of Government spending over £25,000 to be published online –
This is a good initiative. Firstly it increases accountability to the public and should ensure that all taxpayer know where money is being spent. Secondly, it is not overly ambitious, and it should is at a realistic level that should ensure it is possible to put a consistent system in place. Once it is, it is a matter of debate where to set the publishing threshold moving forward.
I am concerned though as there will inevitable by some areas where by certain expenditure will not be published, or at least not in any great detail; I am thinking for example national defence. It needs to be as widely encompassing as possible and though the details for certain expenditure will not be disclosed, everybody should be clear on what is, and what is not, being reported.
It might be a bit much to wish for, but if we could also catalogue any expenditure which is being made because of implementation of EU Law or UK law following EU Directives so that a real analysis of the cost of EU membership could be made, it would only serve the interests of open and honest debate.
All Public Sector salaries over £150,000 to be published online –
Like with the expenses above, it is at about the right level so as to be achievable.
The threshold is also important; and would seem to be set so as to include the top earners of national government. It will be interesting as I suspect there will be a great number of regional and local councils included in such a list, and this would almost instantly ignite public anger because I think the sums involved will be massive.
My mind though turns to questions on the details. For example, will the payroll of QUANGOs be included? And if not, why not? How about the BBC which is collected via enforced licence fee? Also, how about those individuals who drawn money from both the EU and the UK Government such as Lord Mandelson, will their full earnings be made public, and to what level of detail? The next question is the same, but with, but with members of devolved governments and assemblies.
Will expenses and/or allowances count towards earnings? Certainly an allowance is definitely supplementing income and I would feel should be included.
Will people drawing gold-plated public sector pensions above the threshold be included?
What also of people who are drawing a salary from the public purse and privately – will their incomes be included and how will it be monitored?
I guess the sentiment of the gesture is welcomed, but its effectiveness could be limited.
Opposing new MP’s getting a final pension salary scheme -
I think that given the better than average salary and Perks that MP’s do not need a publically funded pension scheme, and any MP’s who are genuinely not so well of will have to make do with the ordinary state pension, or privately funded pension which is the same as their constituents will. It is an abuse of the state for the decision makers to award themselves better Pensions than those of the lower earning civil service and also of the taxpaying public.
Abolishing Regional Assemblies -
This is an interesting one because I suspect most people will skip past it. Regional Assemblies should never have been set up in the first place, are costly, unpopular and ineffective.
However, they were implemented as the wish of the EU which wants to regionalise England so as to weaken our voice of opposition within the EU. I sometimes read articles which describe this effort as the Balkanisation of England.
This could quietly be a useful litmus test for observers of a Cameron government measuring their influence with the EU; the EU will certainly oppose it. I suspect this one will later be scrapped or seriously modified.
Scrapping the Standards Board for England -
I do not know too much about this body but my instinct after 4 second on their website is that this is another QUANGOesque non-entity that serves as a barrier between Government and people. Its entire function seems to be so as to remove accountability and responsibility from the councils and in more serious cases from National Government and act as a middleman.
I feel a little too undereducated on this particular body to form a strong opinion, but the first instinct is that this is probably a positive move. Accountability from local councils to individuals should be improved upon by making the link more direct, so this would fit with my general opinion anyway.
Reducing the number of MP’s by 10% -
I have written about what I see as the need for an elected upper house before, which includes the need to reduce the number of MP’s; I will be writing more in the future, so broadly I agree.
I cannot remember where I read it to be able to link to it, or the exact number, but I recall seeing that there is room for in the region of 430 MP’s to sit in the existing benches in the House of Commons, so why not simply reduce the number to a level that can be comfortably accommodated for a full house?
This will also raise post-devolution questions, and open up the West Lothian question further. I am not sure that I have seen a compelling argument that would suit most people in this respect anyway, but at least would concentrate the brain.
Ministerial salaries to be cut by 5% immediately and frozen for the lifetime of the next Parliament –
In my gut, I actually don’t think ministers are over paid in terms of their salary, or at least if their salary was the extent of their earning. But when you look at the bigger picture of allowances and expenses, they scarcely need a salary. So I would welcome this whilst the Conservative address the wider picture.
As I mention above, with bigger salary’s being published, there is going to be a lot of public attention, I foresee this 5% reduction will play well in the mix with a cull of the Council luvvies.
Taxpayer's money will no longer subsidise politician's food & drink –
Predicted to save £5.5m.
A conservative government should practice what they preach and allow a little free enterprise into Parliaments restaurants & bars. There is no reason for MPs to charge for food or receive subsidy. I recall seeing a number of MPs arguing that they need a food allowance to sit alongside their second home subsidy, this is of course nonsense, people only eat in one location, and expecting MPs to dip into their already handsome salaries for a extra pint of milk and/or loaf of bread is not an unreasonable expectation from the public.
I would like to also see steps taken to ensure that when hotel bills are charged that food and newspapers not be reimbursed as well.
The budget for official government cars to be cut by a third –
ConHome quote David Cameron as saying "There are times when having a car to hand which gets a minister to a certain place on time is absolutely vital to our democratic process – for example, to make a vote in the House of Commons, or to meet a foreign dignitary or open a school. But there is no need for 171 of these cars to be on hand for every government minister, whip – and indeed, myself."
I absolutely agree with the point, but looking at the number of cars – 171 versus the number of ministers – 169, versus the current number of members of Cabinet – 31.
I would think there is scope for a deeper cut here. Surely not every minister across all portfolios should be entitled to a car.
Perhaps the point is that David Cameron will be reducing the number of MPs and the size of his cabinet so there will naturally be less need for the cars anyway.
Public sector bodies will be stopped from hiring consultants and lobby politicians –
It is an absolutely corrupt scandal that the taxpayer has to pay for the public sector to convince itself to do what it already wants to do. Fake Charities should also be looked at post haste.
Similar practices are also employed by the EU which have helped swell the size and scope of its remit, (I would argue illegitimately) – so the debate around this will be interesting.
Electoral Commission must be run more efficiently –
ConHome again quote David Cameron "with advertising campaigns and wasteful marketing initiatives" and that under the proposed QUANGO review, "we will identify all the unnecessary functions it has assumed and see what savings we can make for the taxpayer".
My opinion is that The Electoral Commission needs have some independence from Central Government to allow for fairness and to avoid being too easily influenced from the Government of the day or even by the politics of the day; however that does not and should not absolve them from criticism, and does not mean they too can be profligate with taxpayer’s cash. So yes their spending should be reviewed openly and if there is extravagance it should be reined in.
Parliamentary authorities must cut costs by 10% -
Again, I would need more details before I jump on board and say that it is a good idea, but at a high level it would appear that most areas of Parliamentary spending is in excess of what is needed, so I expect that this will be a popular and prudent move.
My conclusions:
I will wait until I see the speech and have been able to read into the details a little more before I form any solid opinions and conclusions but I generally supportive of all of the announced policies. Government can be much, much cheaper and we have scope to demand greater efficiencies for less money.
The present Government has failed to rein in spending, and it is the public that are showing the way by paying down personal debt. It is to Gordon Browns shame that hardworking poor families are feeling the pinch of his expensive social experimentations and to David Cameron's credit that it would appear he is ready to steer a Conservative Government in the right direction and set the right examples on tax and spend issues. Devaluing our currency to decrease the pinch and give a pass to the cost of the last decade of a progressive agenda I think could see the UK struggle for as long as a decade economically.
I suspect these proposals will receive wide backing and broad popular support. It will be difficult for Labour to argue for more borrowing to keep the leviathan afloat – but then again they did not ask permission to indebt us to present levels. The debt will keep on rising until they are booted out of power. The next election will be won or lost by the coping classes; Labour is unwilling to ease the burdens but David Cameron is, and in the fight between two not very popular leaders I think this time voters will follow their wallets.
However, there is little detail, which is trademark Cameron. This is somewhat clever, as it halts Labours ability to overly scrutinise, but also because few people think that the books are clean, and I think there is broad acceptance that until the Conservative get into power, budgeting will have to be more strategic rather than specific. All spending plans could fall apart on day 1 if Labour has been cooking the books, or heavens forbid a little economical with the truth.
It is a shame David Cameron could not go further as I am sure there will be calls to do so. Labour are predictable when wounded and the “Tory Cuts” line will already have been deployed. The reality is that these spending cuts represent the tip of the iceberg of what could be cut without affecting vital services or continuity of Government, and past battles between Tories and Labour are influencing the shape of the debate more than the numbers and concerns of voters.
Floating voters will associate with the direction and some may be won over. My floating vote has not, but then I have been quite open about the reasons for that in the past. But it is a good and sensible move by David Cameron as Gordon Brown squandered more than billions of pounds of our money, he has squandered his economic reputation in under 12 months. By keeping the conversation public spending and the cost of Government David Cameron will win more and more votes the closer we get to decision time.
My final contribution would be to add that it is nice to be able to comment on stated Conservative policy on the economy that has been announced in advance of the elcetion, rather than as a reaction to the demands of politics. I hope there is more to come, and I am sure the Blogosphere has plenty to say and offer as a better picture of a future Conservative government becomes clearer.
As a floating voter on the centre-right, such a speech would seem to be aimed at securing the votes of people of a similar mind-set as mine, so here are my thoughts.
Each and every QUANGO having to justify its existence –
The sentiment is right, but I would need to know more about what is planned. If the idea is to set up a governing QUANGO or enacting lots more job creation without bringing down costs then the above is a pointless statement.
However, if the link between QUANGO’s and Ministerial accountability (and ergo Parliament) is to be tightened, and if unneeded QUANGOs, and government funded Charities can be culled then this will be positive.
We have moved too much of the public sector away from ministerial control and accountability, and as such the costs have spiralled, and the link to the voters has been diluted. Any substantial efforts to reverse this will be welcomed.
Every item of Government spending over £25,000 to be published online –
This is a good initiative. Firstly it increases accountability to the public and should ensure that all taxpayer know where money is being spent. Secondly, it is not overly ambitious, and it should is at a realistic level that should ensure it is possible to put a consistent system in place. Once it is, it is a matter of debate where to set the publishing threshold moving forward.
I am concerned though as there will inevitable by some areas where by certain expenditure will not be published, or at least not in any great detail; I am thinking for example national defence. It needs to be as widely encompassing as possible and though the details for certain expenditure will not be disclosed, everybody should be clear on what is, and what is not, being reported.
It might be a bit much to wish for, but if we could also catalogue any expenditure which is being made because of implementation of EU Law or UK law following EU Directives so that a real analysis of the cost of EU membership could be made, it would only serve the interests of open and honest debate.
All Public Sector salaries over £150,000 to be published online –
Like with the expenses above, it is at about the right level so as to be achievable.
The threshold is also important; and would seem to be set so as to include the top earners of national government. It will be interesting as I suspect there will be a great number of regional and local councils included in such a list, and this would almost instantly ignite public anger because I think the sums involved will be massive.
My mind though turns to questions on the details. For example, will the payroll of QUANGOs be included? And if not, why not? How about the BBC which is collected via enforced licence fee? Also, how about those individuals who drawn money from both the EU and the UK Government such as Lord Mandelson, will their full earnings be made public, and to what level of detail? The next question is the same, but with, but with members of devolved governments and assemblies.
Will expenses and/or allowances count towards earnings? Certainly an allowance is definitely supplementing income and I would feel should be included.
Will people drawing gold-plated public sector pensions above the threshold be included?
What also of people who are drawing a salary from the public purse and privately – will their incomes be included and how will it be monitored?
I guess the sentiment of the gesture is welcomed, but its effectiveness could be limited.
Opposing new MP’s getting a final pension salary scheme -
I think that given the better than average salary and Perks that MP’s do not need a publically funded pension scheme, and any MP’s who are genuinely not so well of will have to make do with the ordinary state pension, or privately funded pension which is the same as their constituents will. It is an abuse of the state for the decision makers to award themselves better Pensions than those of the lower earning civil service and also of the taxpaying public.
Abolishing Regional Assemblies -
This is an interesting one because I suspect most people will skip past it. Regional Assemblies should never have been set up in the first place, are costly, unpopular and ineffective.
However, they were implemented as the wish of the EU which wants to regionalise England so as to weaken our voice of opposition within the EU. I sometimes read articles which describe this effort as the Balkanisation of England.
This could quietly be a useful litmus test for observers of a Cameron government measuring their influence with the EU; the EU will certainly oppose it. I suspect this one will later be scrapped or seriously modified.
Scrapping the Standards Board for England -
I do not know too much about this body but my instinct after 4 second on their website is that this is another QUANGOesque non-entity that serves as a barrier between Government and people. Its entire function seems to be so as to remove accountability and responsibility from the councils and in more serious cases from National Government and act as a middleman.
I feel a little too undereducated on this particular body to form a strong opinion, but the first instinct is that this is probably a positive move. Accountability from local councils to individuals should be improved upon by making the link more direct, so this would fit with my general opinion anyway.
Reducing the number of MP’s by 10% -
I have written about what I see as the need for an elected upper house before, which includes the need to reduce the number of MP’s; I will be writing more in the future, so broadly I agree.
I cannot remember where I read it to be able to link to it, or the exact number, but I recall seeing that there is room for in the region of 430 MP’s to sit in the existing benches in the House of Commons, so why not simply reduce the number to a level that can be comfortably accommodated for a full house?
This will also raise post-devolution questions, and open up the West Lothian question further. I am not sure that I have seen a compelling argument that would suit most people in this respect anyway, but at least would concentrate the brain.
Ministerial salaries to be cut by 5% immediately and frozen for the lifetime of the next Parliament –
In my gut, I actually don’t think ministers are over paid in terms of their salary, or at least if their salary was the extent of their earning. But when you look at the bigger picture of allowances and expenses, they scarcely need a salary. So I would welcome this whilst the Conservative address the wider picture.
As I mention above, with bigger salary’s being published, there is going to be a lot of public attention, I foresee this 5% reduction will play well in the mix with a cull of the Council luvvies.
Taxpayer's money will no longer subsidise politician's food & drink –
Predicted to save £5.5m.
A conservative government should practice what they preach and allow a little free enterprise into Parliaments restaurants & bars. There is no reason for MPs to charge for food or receive subsidy. I recall seeing a number of MPs arguing that they need a food allowance to sit alongside their second home subsidy, this is of course nonsense, people only eat in one location, and expecting MPs to dip into their already handsome salaries for a extra pint of milk and/or loaf of bread is not an unreasonable expectation from the public.
I would like to also see steps taken to ensure that when hotel bills are charged that food and newspapers not be reimbursed as well.
The budget for official government cars to be cut by a third –
ConHome quote David Cameron as saying "There are times when having a car to hand which gets a minister to a certain place on time is absolutely vital to our democratic process – for example, to make a vote in the House of Commons, or to meet a foreign dignitary or open a school. But there is no need for 171 of these cars to be on hand for every government minister, whip – and indeed, myself."
I absolutely agree with the point, but looking at the number of cars – 171 versus the number of ministers – 169, versus the current number of members of Cabinet – 31.
I would think there is scope for a deeper cut here. Surely not every minister across all portfolios should be entitled to a car.
Perhaps the point is that David Cameron will be reducing the number of MPs and the size of his cabinet so there will naturally be less need for the cars anyway.
Public sector bodies will be stopped from hiring consultants and lobby politicians –
It is an absolutely corrupt scandal that the taxpayer has to pay for the public sector to convince itself to do what it already wants to do. Fake Charities should also be looked at post haste.
Similar practices are also employed by the EU which have helped swell the size and scope of its remit, (I would argue illegitimately) – so the debate around this will be interesting.
Electoral Commission must be run more efficiently –
ConHome again quote David Cameron "with advertising campaigns and wasteful marketing initiatives" and that under the proposed QUANGO review, "we will identify all the unnecessary functions it has assumed and see what savings we can make for the taxpayer".
My opinion is that The Electoral Commission needs have some independence from Central Government to allow for fairness and to avoid being too easily influenced from the Government of the day or even by the politics of the day; however that does not and should not absolve them from criticism, and does not mean they too can be profligate with taxpayer’s cash. So yes their spending should be reviewed openly and if there is extravagance it should be reined in.
Parliamentary authorities must cut costs by 10% -
Again, I would need more details before I jump on board and say that it is a good idea, but at a high level it would appear that most areas of Parliamentary spending is in excess of what is needed, so I expect that this will be a popular and prudent move.
My conclusions:
I will wait until I see the speech and have been able to read into the details a little more before I form any solid opinions and conclusions but I generally supportive of all of the announced policies. Government can be much, much cheaper and we have scope to demand greater efficiencies for less money.
The present Government has failed to rein in spending, and it is the public that are showing the way by paying down personal debt. It is to Gordon Browns shame that hardworking poor families are feeling the pinch of his expensive social experimentations and to David Cameron's credit that it would appear he is ready to steer a Conservative Government in the right direction and set the right examples on tax and spend issues. Devaluing our currency to decrease the pinch and give a pass to the cost of the last decade of a progressive agenda I think could see the UK struggle for as long as a decade economically.
I suspect these proposals will receive wide backing and broad popular support. It will be difficult for Labour to argue for more borrowing to keep the leviathan afloat – but then again they did not ask permission to indebt us to present levels. The debt will keep on rising until they are booted out of power. The next election will be won or lost by the coping classes; Labour is unwilling to ease the burdens but David Cameron is, and in the fight between two not very popular leaders I think this time voters will follow their wallets.
However, there is little detail, which is trademark Cameron. This is somewhat clever, as it halts Labours ability to overly scrutinise, but also because few people think that the books are clean, and I think there is broad acceptance that until the Conservative get into power, budgeting will have to be more strategic rather than specific. All spending plans could fall apart on day 1 if Labour has been cooking the books, or heavens forbid a little economical with the truth.
It is a shame David Cameron could not go further as I am sure there will be calls to do so. Labour are predictable when wounded and the “Tory Cuts” line will already have been deployed. The reality is that these spending cuts represent the tip of the iceberg of what could be cut without affecting vital services or continuity of Government, and past battles between Tories and Labour are influencing the shape of the debate more than the numbers and concerns of voters.
Floating voters will associate with the direction and some may be won over. My floating vote has not, but then I have been quite open about the reasons for that in the past. But it is a good and sensible move by David Cameron as Gordon Brown squandered more than billions of pounds of our money, he has squandered his economic reputation in under 12 months. By keeping the conversation public spending and the cost of Government David Cameron will win more and more votes the closer we get to decision time.
My final contribution would be to add that it is nice to be able to comment on stated Conservative policy on the economy that has been announced in advance of the elcetion, rather than as a reaction to the demands of politics. I hope there is more to come, and I am sure the Blogosphere has plenty to say and offer as a better picture of a future Conservative government becomes clearer.
Recommended Reading
Here is my latest recommended reading list.
Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:
Boris Johnson says Westminster is pitiful in comparison to the cosmopolitan Brussels.
The Daily Telegraph has a list of 50 things being killed by the internet.
The All Seeing Eye says that the UN has declared Fidel Castro the "World Leader of Solidarity".
Burning our Money with the news of a small business initiative that may well catch on.
The Voice of the Resistance with the latest on Town Hall surveillance.
And finally, Tory Bear has a game you can play.
Enjoy!
Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:
Boris Johnson says Westminster is pitiful in comparison to the cosmopolitan Brussels.
The Daily Telegraph has a list of 50 things being killed by the internet.
The All Seeing Eye says that the UN has declared Fidel Castro the "World Leader of Solidarity".
Burning our Money with the news of a small business initiative that may well catch on.
The Voice of the Resistance with the latest on Town Hall surveillance.
And finally, Tory Bear has a game you can play.
Enjoy!
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Charlie Starmer Smith Mauled By A Lion
Just saw this over at the Daily Telegraph, what an amazing video! He is certainly braver than I am! The full accompanying article is HERE.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Recommended Reading
Here is my latest recommended reading list.
Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:
Brits at their Best have a recommendation after hearing that £6.6bn worth of military is missing.
Calling England with a little bit about the mayor who is drawing a lot of attention, for the right reasons.
LabourHome wants to know why people have stopped whistling.
Subrosa says that the Scottish Parliament is to introduce an Independence Bill.
And finally, The Irish Examiner says the main parties are ready to put politics aside and will jointly campaign for a yes vote on Lisbon II.
Enjoy!
Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:
Brits at their Best have a recommendation after hearing that £6.6bn worth of military is missing.
Calling England with a little bit about the mayor who is drawing a lot of attention, for the right reasons.
LabourHome wants to know why people have stopped whistling.
Subrosa says that the Scottish Parliament is to introduce an Independence Bill.
And finally, The Irish Examiner says the main parties are ready to put politics aside and will jointly campaign for a yes vote on Lisbon II.
Enjoy!
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
August Top Referrals
It’s that time of the month again folks, when I give THANKS and recognition to those who sent traffic this way.
August has been my quietest month of the year so far, which I am attributing to both a lengthy absence from myself and it being the silly season.
Here is my top ten referrals list for August, with the change from July’s position in brackets.
1. (+19) The All Seeing Eye
2. (+6) The Daily Referendum
3. (-1) Unenlightened Commentary
4. (-3) The Voice of the Resistance*
5. (+12) Scunnert Nation
6. (-2) Cato Says
7. (New) RantinRab
8. (RE) Advanced Media Watch
9. (New) Calling England
=10. (-5) Subrosa
=10. (-7) The Barking Spider
=12. (+5) My Own Doubts, =12. (New) Prats In Power =12. (New) The Voice of the Resistance* =15. (-5) Other Blogger Stuff =15. (-10) SNP Tactical Voting =15. (+2) John Ward 18. (New) Football Banter 19. (New) Fausty’s Blog 20. (-6) Events Dear Boy, Events.
So Thanks to everybody who links here, I always appreciate the traffic, and hope that I can reciprocate with some traffic back your way.
I will also re-iterate here my thanks also to those of you who took the trouble to vote for me on the Total Politics Poll, which placed me much, much higher than I had contemplated possible. As I said before, I have no idea based on my position how many votes that translates to, but I appreciate that those of you who did vote did so.
*There are 2 blogs called Voice of the Resistance, both of which I am fortunate enough to be linked on.
August has been my quietest month of the year so far, which I am attributing to both a lengthy absence from myself and it being the silly season.
Here is my top ten referrals list for August, with the change from July’s position in brackets.
1. (+19) The All Seeing Eye
2. (+6) The Daily Referendum
3. (-1) Unenlightened Commentary
4. (-3) The Voice of the Resistance*
5. (+12) Scunnert Nation
6. (-2) Cato Says
7. (New) RantinRab
8. (RE) Advanced Media Watch
9. (New) Calling England
=10. (-5) Subrosa
=10. (-7) The Barking Spider
=12. (+5) My Own Doubts, =12. (New) Prats In Power =12. (New) The Voice of the Resistance* =15. (-5) Other Blogger Stuff =15. (-10) SNP Tactical Voting =15. (+2) John Ward 18. (New) Football Banter 19. (New) Fausty’s Blog 20. (-6) Events Dear Boy, Events.
So Thanks to everybody who links here, I always appreciate the traffic, and hope that I can reciprocate with some traffic back your way.
I will also re-iterate here my thanks also to those of you who took the trouble to vote for me on the Total Politics Poll, which placed me much, much higher than I had contemplated possible. As I said before, I have no idea based on my position how many votes that translates to, but I appreciate that those of you who did vote did so.
*There are 2 blogs called Voice of the Resistance, both of which I am fortunate enough to be linked on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)