Friday, 27 January 2012
Costa Concordia
Some people just don't get it, do they? I see the wife of the captain of the Costa Concordia has said, loyally in his defence, that he is a 'brilliant navigator' and a 'maestro'. Events however, would seem to fairly powerfully contradict her. When a crowd has gathered in the street to look at the rubble that is all that remains of your collapsed house, that is not the time to tell everyone what a talented DIY'er your husband is. The armed robber who shot himself in the foot as he ran from his crime, is not a criminal mastermind.
Pot, Kettle
Well, unbelievably the headline in today's Telegraph online is that Dave Hartnett, head of HMRC wants us to understand that paying tradesmen in cash is 'diddling the country'. Firstly, to be true it requires every tradesman to be a liar, inasmuch that he is saying they all don't pay their taxes, which I don't doubt is largely true but still potentially libellous.
Secondly and much more importantly, I think the head of the tax office letting large companies off billions of pounds of tax (and interest) owed is a far more serious situation, perhaps requiring a slightly more serious word than diddling to describe. There has been some talk recently about the decline in moral standards in Britain (with some correctly understanding this is directly connected to the overt corruption of Tony Blair's gang) and I think this clearly fits into it.
Economically literate types (e.g. not Labour) understand the Laffler curve effect on taxation. If you tax highly, people look for ways to avoid paying it. At a lower level everyone pretty much agrees it is something they should pay and also low enough that they can't be bothered to see if they can avoid any of it. So you get more by lowering the rate of tax (as long as you don't have someone lunching with big company bosses from the tax office).
The kind of deceit Hartnett refers to has always been tacitly accepted, but much of the moral decline is due to more unsavoury behaviour by New Labour than just their incessant raising of taxes. The lying (and obvious lying) by the PM and his MP's sent a message that it was OK for everyone to do it. And with binge drinking, which is also part of the NL culture a little lying fits in pretty well. No personal responsibility, you see.
There was a comedian (I believe) on QT last night who was quite brilliant with his left liberal deceit. He started off by saying that the top 1 percent of Footsie 100 executives had increased their pay recently (during a recession) by 49%. He then contrived to link this to the £26,000 benefit cap, proposed by the coalition government and then had a stab at Melanie Phillips for being concerned about the 'working poor'. He was applauded well for this diatribe by the audience.
I wonder though, if they listened to the words and not the delivery they would have thought 'hang on, that doesn't make sense'. The working poor do get a bad deal. If you can't afford another child on your wages you don't have one. The state doesn't find you a nice, larger house, because you have decided you need ten child benefit payments, to meet your needs. More should be done for those that help themselves. Similarly, the well paid executives wouldn't offend me if they earned it, but too often they are paid highly 'by arrangement'.
One set of executives sit on a remuneration committee for another set and award generous salaries and bonuses for success or failure. The favour of course, is returned. This is what we must stop.
It is rich however (no pun intended) to watch politicians spout on about nasty bankers when a) the bankers did what they did following the leadership of Blair and the financial pushing from Brown -two particular idiots, a perfect storm of politicians. And b) the MP's were finding ever more openly criminal ways to enhance their salaries, but how many of them paid a price for their behaviour? The message over MP's expenses was writ large and clear; we are corrupt, we acknowledge that we have been caught, but we don't really care what you think, we will carry on doing whatever we want and only the small will go to jail, if anyone must.
There should have been serious police intervention, with large scale arrests and, from what we know quite a lot of imprisonments. However, when one force cannot decide what happened when the Deputy PM was filmed assaulting a member of the public and when another force agonises over what to do, when presented with clear testimony supporting a charge of perverting the course of justice against a Cabinet Minister, then I guess we couldn't expect much from the Constabularies, who are clearly corrupted themselves.
If we think a political party of any colour will offer a fair system of taxation and do substantive good to support the working poor, when senior members of their ranks are not prosecuted for lying in their declarations to the tax office and parliamentary officials, then we are deluding ourselves.
Secondly and much more importantly, I think the head of the tax office letting large companies off billions of pounds of tax (and interest) owed is a far more serious situation, perhaps requiring a slightly more serious word than diddling to describe. There has been some talk recently about the decline in moral standards in Britain (with some correctly understanding this is directly connected to the overt corruption of Tony Blair's gang) and I think this clearly fits into it.
Economically literate types (e.g. not Labour) understand the Laffler curve effect on taxation. If you tax highly, people look for ways to avoid paying it. At a lower level everyone pretty much agrees it is something they should pay and also low enough that they can't be bothered to see if they can avoid any of it. So you get more by lowering the rate of tax (as long as you don't have someone lunching with big company bosses from the tax office).
The kind of deceit Hartnett refers to has always been tacitly accepted, but much of the moral decline is due to more unsavoury behaviour by New Labour than just their incessant raising of taxes. The lying (and obvious lying) by the PM and his MP's sent a message that it was OK for everyone to do it. And with binge drinking, which is also part of the NL culture a little lying fits in pretty well. No personal responsibility, you see.
There was a comedian (I believe) on QT last night who was quite brilliant with his left liberal deceit. He started off by saying that the top 1 percent of Footsie 100 executives had increased their pay recently (during a recession) by 49%. He then contrived to link this to the £26,000 benefit cap, proposed by the coalition government and then had a stab at Melanie Phillips for being concerned about the 'working poor'. He was applauded well for this diatribe by the audience.
I wonder though, if they listened to the words and not the delivery they would have thought 'hang on, that doesn't make sense'. The working poor do get a bad deal. If you can't afford another child on your wages you don't have one. The state doesn't find you a nice, larger house, because you have decided you need ten child benefit payments, to meet your needs. More should be done for those that help themselves. Similarly, the well paid executives wouldn't offend me if they earned it, but too often they are paid highly 'by arrangement'.
One set of executives sit on a remuneration committee for another set and award generous salaries and bonuses for success or failure. The favour of course, is returned. This is what we must stop.
It is rich however (no pun intended) to watch politicians spout on about nasty bankers when a) the bankers did what they did following the leadership of Blair and the financial pushing from Brown -two particular idiots, a perfect storm of politicians. And b) the MP's were finding ever more openly criminal ways to enhance their salaries, but how many of them paid a price for their behaviour? The message over MP's expenses was writ large and clear; we are corrupt, we acknowledge that we have been caught, but we don't really care what you think, we will carry on doing whatever we want and only the small will go to jail, if anyone must.
There should have been serious police intervention, with large scale arrests and, from what we know quite a lot of imprisonments. However, when one force cannot decide what happened when the Deputy PM was filmed assaulting a member of the public and when another force agonises over what to do, when presented with clear testimony supporting a charge of perverting the course of justice against a Cabinet Minister, then I guess we couldn't expect much from the Constabularies, who are clearly corrupted themselves.
If we think a political party of any colour will offer a fair system of taxation and do substantive good to support the working poor, when senior members of their ranks are not prosecuted for lying in their declarations to the tax office and parliamentary officials, then we are deluding ourselves.
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
MoD
I see the reports coming in confirm my suspicions about 'cuts' in the MoD. Front line troops who risk life and limb on low pay are considered dispensable, but office workers with their higher pay, safety, pensions, bonuses and payouts for 'stress' cannot possibly be lost. It is becoming clear that in the not too distant future we will have offices across the country brimming with staff employed at public expense, but who don't actually do anything.
There will be no binmen, no nurses or doctors, no police on the streets or fire service. Instead there will be senior officers in their headquarters with staff and secretaries, all busily running no-one. If you have no frontline, why do you need a bureaucracy? Only those in government, paid from the public purse could answer that one. It is what they are largely doing today.
We are paying for endless reams of talking shops; government departments that talk to Quangoes who hire Management Consultants. Outcome? Usually more tax to pay for more of the same and misery for anyone trying to achieve anything themselves, for their activity attracts the attention of the bureaucrats. You present them with an opportunity, an opportunity to interfere.
There will be no binmen, no nurses or doctors, no police on the streets or fire service. Instead there will be senior officers in their headquarters with staff and secretaries, all busily running no-one. If you have no frontline, why do you need a bureaucracy? Only those in government, paid from the public purse could answer that one. It is what they are largely doing today.
We are paying for endless reams of talking shops; government departments that talk to Quangoes who hire Management Consultants. Outcome? Usually more tax to pay for more of the same and misery for anyone trying to achieve anything themselves, for their activity attracts the attention of the bureaucrats. You present them with an opportunity, an opportunity to interfere.
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
Justice? And A Bad Idea
My favourite quote was from a couple of days ago when the news reported someone (I didn't catch the name) who objected to the proposed welfare cap, by saying that it would force people out of their current house into one they could afford. Mind you, even Duncan Smith kept referring to people 'earning' £26,000 of benefits.
Just after a judge, hearing how remorseful a lawyer reckoned her thug client was that he inflicted lasting harm on a man by attacking him, for no reason at all, we hear a juror has been jailed for wrecking a GBH trial (completes the irony), by researching the defendant on the internet. So now we know. Crimes of violence are OK with judges, but they get mighty upset if you disrespect their court.
Just after a judge, hearing how remorseful a lawyer reckoned her thug client was that he inflicted lasting harm on a man by attacking him, for no reason at all, we hear a juror has been jailed for wrecking a GBH trial (completes the irony), by researching the defendant on the internet. So now we know. Crimes of violence are OK with judges, but they get mighty upset if you disrespect their court.
Socialism - The Ideology Of The Lazy
Life is not lived by people, it is an individual experience. Everything you know, everything that happens to you exists inside your head. I am not you and I have never seen the world through your eyes. We may live and love another person, share experiences and care deeply, but in the end it is just you. That is not to say you are selfish, but at root, you do what suits you meaning no harm to anyone else. That is the nature of a society; it is also the essence of what Thatcher meant when she said there is no such thing as society.
True Conservatives believe in the rights of the responsible individual, that by gaining what you want and need you can co-exist peacefully with others doing likewise. Otherwise, no constraints need be placed upon you. It is the polar opposite of a police state. What organs of government exist do so as a service to the community, not as masters of their charges.
Socialism deals in lumpen masses, it pretends to care but cannot do so as it never addresses the individual. Instead this lazy creed talks of 'the working class' and the hated 'upper class' and accords types and categorisation to these hordes. A socialist is someone who feels they care for others and know that many injustices exist and that something must be done about it. Beyond that things get a little hazy and maybe it is teatime, or the hippy trip is starting to work, or at the adolescent end, the thought alone is sufficient.
A socialist requires other people to do a great many things for them, as their benign nature cannot be denied and implementation is difficult. At first, they are right; this is something that must clearly be understood. Their ideas are not only right, but pure and good. This is the start point for the defining tenet of socialism; intolerance. Anyone who disagrees with a socialist is not only wrong but dangerous as they oppose A Socialist Idea, which is a heresy and incomprehensible behaviour.
So socialism sees the proletariat as a mass, the enemy as a mass and their ideas are for massive control, state control needless to say and that state must be run by them, due to their undeniable goodness. At no point does a socialist stop and ask what the practical application of their ideology is, as it impacts on individuals who then react as individuals do.
Welfare is not an evil, but when applied thickly it has unintended consequences. An employed person considers their position before having children and will seek to limit the number by affordability. The welfare recipient is paid more per child, has no need to act responsibly and as such has their basic character modified. The worker submits to a discipline, has respect and pays his way. The welfare dependent has no fear of losing a job, of losing their home, no need to rise early or look after their kids, many of whom they didn't want if they don't actively despise them.
Welfare suppers tend towards aggression because it keeps others away from questioning what they do; teachers, social workers and increasingly the police, leave them alone as they do not relish the encounter and their authority is undermined from above. For socialists it is imperative that there are poor people as it is their constituency. Like Greenpeace and Oxfam they do not plan to see themselves out of work, their objectives are political and their aim is to stay. and stay in control. An effective way to help a starving nation is to turnaround their own food production, so Oxfam fly in bags of food and do small infrastructure projects to placate.
Socialist know that education is the route by which people climb out of the pit designed for them, so our education system has been systematically destroyed. It is no coincidence that the state control of schools leads to lower standards, that government intervention tends to reward lowered standards and that as a consequence we have some of the poorest educational standards in the developed world and maybe beyond that.
Socialism is lazy because it seeks to deal in stereotypes and overviews, in mass rather than at the individual level. It has an idea, spouts it, expects it to be adopted and walks away. A living embodiment of this was an encounter I had whilst a Special Constable. I was in a unit doing a fixed task (cycle coding) and a woman came up to me and, pointing to a stray dog that was clearly undernourished said that I should deal with it. She declared herself a former member of the RSPCA and that 'something should be done about the dog' and with that, conscience salved she washed her hands of it and walked away. It never occurred to her that she was ideally placed to deal with it, rather than an already occupied police officer.
For her, an order had been given and it was the pure goodness of her heart that gave her the undoubted authority to order someone else to do something she felt no compunction, despite her compassion to do herself. Socialism is a child of a rich society, one that can tolerate such idle wasters and socialism, on being rejected by the society it exists in relentlessly seeks poor and ignorant nations on which to inflict its miserable ideology: the Russian peasants, South East Asian peasants and the poor of South America. Strangely, this ideology that arrives to help 'the masses' to rise up against some undefined group known as 'the masters', seems instead to keep them poor but now under the rod and rule of people demanding comfort and obedience.
Yes, capitalism can lead to injustices and a society must have some checks and balances in place, but because it is not an ideology, rather it is an extension and structuring of natural human behaviour, it is capable of doing much good. It allows people to achieve. Socialism, because it is an ideology is too inflexible and too often the root for intolerance and injustice, for lies and destruction, just as is the case with the 'Green' movement. The 'environmental' idea is childish and uses socialist conditioning (denial of debate on the grounds that they are, right; from the outset) in an effort to achieve its goals. It is in fact true that some pretty smart people, believe some pretty dumb ideas. Because they don't think enough and that is socialism.
True Conservatives believe in the rights of the responsible individual, that by gaining what you want and need you can co-exist peacefully with others doing likewise. Otherwise, no constraints need be placed upon you. It is the polar opposite of a police state. What organs of government exist do so as a service to the community, not as masters of their charges.
Socialism deals in lumpen masses, it pretends to care but cannot do so as it never addresses the individual. Instead this lazy creed talks of 'the working class' and the hated 'upper class' and accords types and categorisation to these hordes. A socialist is someone who feels they care for others and know that many injustices exist and that something must be done about it. Beyond that things get a little hazy and maybe it is teatime, or the hippy trip is starting to work, or at the adolescent end, the thought alone is sufficient.
A socialist requires other people to do a great many things for them, as their benign nature cannot be denied and implementation is difficult. At first, they are right; this is something that must clearly be understood. Their ideas are not only right, but pure and good. This is the start point for the defining tenet of socialism; intolerance. Anyone who disagrees with a socialist is not only wrong but dangerous as they oppose A Socialist Idea, which is a heresy and incomprehensible behaviour.
So socialism sees the proletariat as a mass, the enemy as a mass and their ideas are for massive control, state control needless to say and that state must be run by them, due to their undeniable goodness. At no point does a socialist stop and ask what the practical application of their ideology is, as it impacts on individuals who then react as individuals do.
Welfare is not an evil, but when applied thickly it has unintended consequences. An employed person considers their position before having children and will seek to limit the number by affordability. The welfare recipient is paid more per child, has no need to act responsibly and as such has their basic character modified. The worker submits to a discipline, has respect and pays his way. The welfare dependent has no fear of losing a job, of losing their home, no need to rise early or look after their kids, many of whom they didn't want if they don't actively despise them.
Welfare suppers tend towards aggression because it keeps others away from questioning what they do; teachers, social workers and increasingly the police, leave them alone as they do not relish the encounter and their authority is undermined from above. For socialists it is imperative that there are poor people as it is their constituency. Like Greenpeace and Oxfam they do not plan to see themselves out of work, their objectives are political and their aim is to stay. and stay in control. An effective way to help a starving nation is to turnaround their own food production, so Oxfam fly in bags of food and do small infrastructure projects to placate.
Socialist know that education is the route by which people climb out of the pit designed for them, so our education system has been systematically destroyed. It is no coincidence that the state control of schools leads to lower standards, that government intervention tends to reward lowered standards and that as a consequence we have some of the poorest educational standards in the developed world and maybe beyond that.
Socialism is lazy because it seeks to deal in stereotypes and overviews, in mass rather than at the individual level. It has an idea, spouts it, expects it to be adopted and walks away. A living embodiment of this was an encounter I had whilst a Special Constable. I was in a unit doing a fixed task (cycle coding) and a woman came up to me and, pointing to a stray dog that was clearly undernourished said that I should deal with it. She declared herself a former member of the RSPCA and that 'something should be done about the dog' and with that, conscience salved she washed her hands of it and walked away. It never occurred to her that she was ideally placed to deal with it, rather than an already occupied police officer.
For her, an order had been given and it was the pure goodness of her heart that gave her the undoubted authority to order someone else to do something she felt no compunction, despite her compassion to do herself. Socialism is a child of a rich society, one that can tolerate such idle wasters and socialism, on being rejected by the society it exists in relentlessly seeks poor and ignorant nations on which to inflict its miserable ideology: the Russian peasants, South East Asian peasants and the poor of South America. Strangely, this ideology that arrives to help 'the masses' to rise up against some undefined group known as 'the masters', seems instead to keep them poor but now under the rod and rule of people demanding comfort and obedience.
Yes, capitalism can lead to injustices and a society must have some checks and balances in place, but because it is not an ideology, rather it is an extension and structuring of natural human behaviour, it is capable of doing much good. It allows people to achieve. Socialism, because it is an ideology is too inflexible and too often the root for intolerance and injustice, for lies and destruction, just as is the case with the 'Green' movement. The 'environmental' idea is childish and uses socialist conditioning (denial of debate on the grounds that they are, right; from the outset) in an effort to achieve its goals. It is in fact true that some pretty smart people, believe some pretty dumb ideas. Because they don't think enough and that is socialism.
Monday, 23 January 2012
Rip Off Gov
I mentioned in an earlier post that a large part of Rip off Britain is due to the Government. Well, here is something more to chew on; in the Eighties the Thatcher government sold off a number of the utilities and other nationalised entities. Now putting aside whether this was good or bad, do you feel better for it? I mean better off?
Large amounts of money was sprayed at these 'companies' as they were rarely self funding. But now we don't own British Gas, or British Railways, where is the benefit? Where the reduced taxes? Government it seems continues to need ever larger amounts of cash (our cash) to do less and less. Or more accurately to achieve less and less. To cover the gross incompetence of his administration, Blair placed more responsibilities onto local government, without the corresponding funds and Brown borrowed more.
Where does it all go? We know that, even without corruption, government is an inefficient and wasteful entity so it would make eminent sense if the government just did less. This is just one of a long list of reasons for smaller government, but our politicians shouldn't worry about their wealth and status. Those can be confirmed by bringing back powers from Brussels, which in itself can be achieved by leaving the EU and casting them adrift. An old Soviet style trading block, with rigid rules and unelected functionaries is a recipe for disaster, politically, economically and socially. And in this age of the internet, the end can be very swift when the people finally grow tired, as the Middle East is showing us.
Large amounts of money was sprayed at these 'companies' as they were rarely self funding. But now we don't own British Gas, or British Railways, where is the benefit? Where the reduced taxes? Government it seems continues to need ever larger amounts of cash (our cash) to do less and less. Or more accurately to achieve less and less. To cover the gross incompetence of his administration, Blair placed more responsibilities onto local government, without the corresponding funds and Brown borrowed more.
Where does it all go? We know that, even without corruption, government is an inefficient and wasteful entity so it would make eminent sense if the government just did less. This is just one of a long list of reasons for smaller government, but our politicians shouldn't worry about their wealth and status. Those can be confirmed by bringing back powers from Brussels, which in itself can be achieved by leaving the EU and casting them adrift. An old Soviet style trading block, with rigid rules and unelected functionaries is a recipe for disaster, politically, economically and socially. And in this age of the internet, the end can be very swift when the people finally grow tired, as the Middle East is showing us.
Police And Prescott?
The Mail is today reporting that John Prescott is considering a role as a police commissioner. I think he may have misunderstood (wouldn't that be strange?), the idea is that we get better policing, not the old crony based policing of his days in 'High Office'. The idea is that people who go around fighting in the street don't get special treatment because of the position they hold.
Tony Blair had special reasons for having a half wit as a deputy, the nation and the police have their fill currently and aren't looking for any more. In fact, the new elected posts have a key remit of eradicating the stupid non-policing that is the vogue for senior officers at present.
Can you imagine how Prescott would spend his time as a police commissioner? None on things that matter, 80% out of the office, sunning himself at public expense or playing bowls and 20% insisting Labour party members don't get prosecuted.
Tony Blair had special reasons for having a half wit as a deputy, the nation and the police have their fill currently and aren't looking for any more. In fact, the new elected posts have a key remit of eradicating the stupid non-policing that is the vogue for senior officers at present.
Can you imagine how Prescott would spend his time as a police commissioner? None on things that matter, 80% out of the office, sunning himself at public expense or playing bowls and 20% insisting Labour party members don't get prosecuted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)