A Man of the People

As the slogan for the Nationwide Building Society goes, "On Your Side". So those who do their daily dealings of a financial nature can assume that their money is secure, isn't going to be drained to any nasty shareholders and that for the savers, returns will be relatively healthy. Laudable. 

Let's expand the word "nationwide" metaphorically and then split it into two almost as big words "One Nation". That's the idea pervading the (alleged) thinking in the Labour Party, particularly after that rousing speech given by their apparent leader, Ed Miliband. One nation, where come 2015 under a Labour government, there will be blackouts. Land seizures. Even more borrowing and unworkable schemes because the  money will have gone. We are Britain, we certainly can do better than that. 

Be under no illusions here, folks, allowing Labour back in will do us irreparable damage. Our fragile growth, albeit growing more robust by the day, will be squandered in a year and by 2017 the country will be at the polling stations once again. Is that what we want? Ed asked his party conference and by wider dint anyone who was remotely interested not in Brighton, if people were better off than they were four years ago? Well four years ago there was still a Labour government and people were miserable. Some will have certainly answered the question in their heads with a tentative "Well, actually...". 

Pundits are saying that the next election will focus largely on the cost of living. Certainly that will be uppermost in the minds of many and rightly so. Prices have risen almost every month since May 2010 and the horrible Tories, along with their Lib Dem lackeys have done nothing to abate it. Yet the inflation rate went down recently. The Chancellor froze fuel duty in the Budget and now the supermarkets are cutting their prices at the pump. We agreed an increase in the personal allowance, set to rise again in 2014. That'll help with the cost of living; paying less tax will mean more to spend on the everyday items. Council tax has either been frozen or raised (by most authorities) below inflation and no authority can raise it above 2% without a mandate from local residents. 

But to return to Red Ed and his fun-loving band. As I touched upon, he wants to regulate energy prices. An excellent idea, the greedy energy company shareholders fill their pockets and the consumers face a heat-or-eat crisis. So heroic, crusading, on-my-side Ed comes in and says that Labour will pass legislation in 2015 to freeze energy price rises for 20 months. Great! An extra £120 to each bill payer per year, equating to £10 a month or so. For some this will be a drop in the ocean, to others a lifeline. But it comes at a price: government interference. The Government will tell private companies what to do in terms of the prices they set, in a nutshell, price controls. This will extend to the supermarkets and railways as well. Commuters and consumers will cheer initially; policies coming from a compassionate government at last! Of course, but for the supermarkets this will mean a limit on profit being made. Limits on profits mean that their staff and services will start to suffer. The less a company makes, the less it can afford to pay its staff. Less money for the lower-paid = less immediate consumption in the market. Labour will make lower-paid workers worse off in the long term. 

Ed claims to be on the side of small businesses. Again, something I could get behind, it's what we do best as a nation. He wants to freeze a business rates hike and reverse a 1% corporation tax cut to fund it. Doing so would be suicide, particularly in terms of the latter. Not cutting the corporation tax will mean that the larger business won't be able to hire any more workers, invest in their operations or just give their staff a pay boost. We also won't be attractive to future investors from overseas wanting a decent place for European operations. If we want to stay ahead in the global race, then we must be able to demonstrate that we're competitive. Labour will price us out of the global market. 

Then came the pronouncements on social issues; housing and childcare. An extra 25 hours a week for care-givers in order to accommodate parental working hours. Because recognising marriage in the tax system is just plain wrong, as are any tax cuts. Then there's the land-grab I mentioned earlier. One Nation Ed will ensure that there isn't much nation left to look at not covered by concrete and tarmac. The "new towns" he wishes to build to solve the housing crisis (presumably funded by the repeal of the hated Bedroom "Tax"). Where will they go, please? The Cotswolds? The Chilterns? How about the Yorkshire Dales? How affordable are we talking for the new housing? Will everyone have the right to buy, or is it just renting? Who will be allowed to apply for the new houses; those in employment, or those who only receive housing benefit? Maybe they'll just be for show. Labour will re-entrench socialism. 

This is to say nothing of the other hare-brained schemes cooked up at conference. I have given a taste of what could happen in 2015 should we, as a nation, make the wrong choice and elect the wrong man. We all remember how in 13 years Labour ruined us through high-tax, mega-spend policies and the same looks set to happen again. 

So on that, I shall finish on another slogan, borrowed from a far-distant General Election campaign OLD LABOUR, OLD DANGER. 

Blood and Honey

I think I've been silent long enough and while this is still current, I am minded to write something on the events of the past few days, culminating in the disgraceful display on the floor of the House of Commons on Thursday night. As usual, a little context, just in case anyone has missed anything, although I suspect that only applies to that nice family from Croydon to whom I'm renting my Tahitian cave. Anyway. 

Syria. Five letters, one country and now a myriad of problems. Once a great centre in the entire Middle East; Damascus, centre of learning and culture for Muslims, Christians and Jews. A gateway to Turkey and the Mediterranean, it has stood proud and strong for millennia. Until the Assad regime came. Firstly, the family were good enough not to go off half-cock shooting innocent people and terrorising the populace at large. A dictatorship yes, but largely benevolent and decent in its treatment of the large Christian and Jewish minorities resident in Damascus, Aleppo and elsewhere. That was until the events of the Arab Spring, when the Syrian members of Generation Y took to the streets in the big cities and demanded, as their Tunisian, Egyptian and Yemeni counterparts, greater freedoms and change. Events were quick to escalate and now we've had nothing but two long years of Syrian internal strife, culminating on Wednesday 21st August this year with the first use of chemical weapons this century. I have to say I'm impressed that mankind managed to hold off that long before doing something so stupid or dangerous. 

Now what do we have? A frightened population and 1,429 people whose lungs were filled with toxins and allegations of napalm used at a playground only a couple of days ago. The reaction from much of the world was righteous indignation; who would do such a thing and to so many women and children? A frightened and paranoid despot who will stop at nothing to ensure the re-enslavement of his people. Nations both large and small registered their disgust and anguish at such a diabolical atrocity. The UN sent in weapons inspectors, who are now safely back in New York having completed their investigation and who will report to the Secretary-General. We know they won't lay any blame, but my hope is that the provenance of the weapons used will do that for them. 

So what happened otherwise? Well, the UK tried to get the Security Council to agree to some sort of action plan but Russia as usual proved intractable and China non-committal. Quelle surprise, but surprisingly France is on board for military intervention. Which brings me to the nub of why I've written this. 

In Opposition, David Cameron promised that the UK would only be involved in military action if Parliament deemed it worthy to do so. He promised to consult Parliament every step of the way, in a bid to avoid doing another Blair and riding roughshod over Parliament's absolute sovereign right to keep the executive in check. He was given assurances by Ed Miliband that Labour would support the motion tabled on Thursday night to involve the UK in some form of military action, provided that the UN route had been exhausted, the case was built and Parliament was given two votes. 

285-272. That was the result and the government's motion was defeated. Our hands are now tied and we can only sit idly and watch as the rest of the world, including Australia, France and Turkey back the US in going up against Assad et al. Dan Hodges wrote in his Telegraph blog that he felt so ashamed by the duplicity showed by Miliband that he has now left the Labour Party. I do hope that The Telegraph keep him on, I don't believe he'll renege and join the Tories or even the Lib Dems any time soon. 

Even at time of writing, my Facebook feed is showing me articles from The Political Writer and other sources arguing that Britain shouldn't be following the US into every conflict and even suggesting Obama may not be too eager to wade on in just yet. Putting that aside, I do wonder what went through the minds of those MPs voting "No" on Thursday night. Some will have done so in the hope of being seen as good MPs who were concerned and listening to the voters. Others will have of course been politicking, although I won't be uncharitable and entirely blame the Opposition. 

I know Ed Miliband won't be ashamed of himself in what he's done. He'll doubtlessly think he's done the country and enormous favour that it'll play well in the national memory in 2015 and indeed at his party's conference in a few weeks. Big rubber balls. He's proven that he's totally unworthy of the burdens of the office to which he aspires (or believes should be his because he's entitled to it). I do hope that those Tory MPs who voted against aren't all in the crucial 40/40 seats we're targeting. I know some of them will have wanted to "stick it" to Cameron on some other issue because they just don't like him. I am comforted, however, that now Miliband has soured relations with the Democrats in the US; their memories are long and I know that even if we lose in 2015 and the Republicans win in 2016, the words Prime Minister Miliband will not be met with any great enthusiasm in Washington. 

I do feel sorry for the PM, no good deed goes unpunished and the pundits may be right about his authority being diminished. He's spent so long, along with William Hague, re-building British foreign policy and increasing our standing abroad. Now that all lies in tatters and the Britain that once stood up twice to an over-mighty Germany twice in a century, as well as halting atrocities in Africa and the Balkans not less than twenty years ago is no more. While I applaud that Parliament was able to rightly assert its will, the choice was the wrong one. There may yet be an opportunity to re-frame the question once the weapons inspectors' report is published. For now, I shall simply let my rage subside and grieve quietly for a period in our history which has ended so abruptly. 

Gibraltar

Egad! Another post so soon, hot on the heels of the last? Yes, indeed, but on another theme about which I feel very strongly; British sovereignty. A brief context; much has been made over the past few days of the story concerning Spain's apparently aggravating policies of wanting to instigate border charges at the point of entry from mainland Spain to the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar. The Spanish government wishes to charge each vehicle €50 (£43) to enter and exit the territory. That is a cost of roughly £96 per day to those who have to work there, estimated at 4,000 or so. While that would be a very nice little earner for the blighted Spanish economy, which currently suffers at 25% unemployment, this is an entirely unworkable solution, when considering what else they wish to impose, namely the closure of Spanish airspace to all inbound and outbound flights to Gibraltar. That would be far more damaging to the Spanish economy as a whole. Yet what is the reasoning for this dispute in the first place? Simple: a fishing dispute. The Spanish government claims that the building of a reef by the Gibraltarian is harming the Spanish fishing trade. 

Regardless of whether or not this is true (and I suspect is isn't); the imposition of a fine in contravention to various schedules and sections in all EU treaties to which both Spain and the UK are signatories is a violation. Without wishing to sound too much like a Little Englander or, God forbid, a UKIP candidate (I am not, by the way), why has Brussels chosen to let Spain and the UK fight it out? These are EU member states and as I said, the fines are in contravention of what is ostensibly EU law. The EU would be perfectly within its rights to act as a mediator, yet it chooses to ignore the dispute. I guess part of the reason is that both countries' heads of government have managed to take some of the heat out of the argument by talking directly. 

There are, however, some aspects which still need to be addressed and I shall go wider here. Gibraltar is sovereign UK territory, its last referendum was held in 2002 and the popular will was still to remain British. There may be another plebiscite held this century, but I do believe that the Rock will still have the Union Flag flying above it during the rest of my lifetime. Despite the bilateral phone conversation earlier this week between David Cameron and Mariano Rajoy, the Royal Navy has still seen fit to divert one of its fleet to Gibraltar (we are reminded of Lord Palmerston and his effective 'gunboat diplomacy' during the 1860's). We still maintain a small presence in another small, but no less important, territory and they need no name at all here. They too held a vote and in March this year decided to remain British as well. As has been said in other parts as well this week, it is a clear indication of troubled or failing governments which border a BOT and claim British imperialism if they perceive a slight or wish to cause trouble. President de Kirchner of Argentina said she doesn't recognise the Falklanders' vote this year, cries foul and all sorts of nonsense. These places were British territory recognised by treaties signed before either Rajoy's or de Kirchner's great-grandparents ever drew breath and will be so when their great-grandchildren's death rattle will sound. 

I visited the reception given by HM Government Gibraltar at Conference last year and signed the book at the Falkland Islands stall as well. The quiet dignity of the First Minister of Gibraltar when he spoke (although at length) impressed me greatly and is reflective of those resident in the territory. We should not give in to demands made just because they are made. We are backing Gibraltar and should do so until instructed otherwise. No government has the right to tell us otherwise.  

You Do Surprise Me

Following on from the rows about the NHS and the damning reports which have been published about care provision in the last few months, I thought I too would offer my own opinion on the subject. I was moved by the revelation published by online magazine The Commentator that the Guardian had yesterday permitted the publication of a piece on its much-revered Comment is Free page by a Spectator contributor, namely Melissa Kite. The subject being funding for the NHS and why those who have private health insurance are denigrated. 

Ms Kite's motivation came from the revelation by Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director for the NHS, that the organisation ought to be more like PC World in its delivery process. Like many right-wingers, Ms Kite included, I believe that the NHS should reform and perform better. I do share her scepticism that maybe it wouldn't be entirely wise for the NHS to privatise entirely, given the fluctuating ability for the markets to provide universal services (but that's the price we pay for capitalism, eh?). 

Her article quotes from the original Beveridge report, which was the arguable cornerstone for the founding of the NHS in the first place. Sir William himself said, "The state, in organising security, should not stifle incentive, responsibility, opportunity in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family". In other words, the NHS will happily provide you with all the basic stuff you need, but don't expect it to bear the brunt of your bad lifestyle choices. 

I also agree that those who do pay for much of their healthcare ought to be applauded for not adding to the burden of our already overstretched system. If I were fortunate enough to have the money, then I too would pay for my healthcare (albeit with certain strings. Tax break for one). 

This leads me onto another similar argument made by the Telegraph's excellent Janet Daley last month. Being American-born, she is well placed to comment and indeed makes some excellent points in the article, particularly on the topic of health insurance. She contends that having a co-payments system for non-basic procedures would help benefit the provision of basic healthcare from a financial standpoint. Again, this should come with strings attached, preferably in the form of reduced NI contributions for those who do have some form of basic health insurance. 

Both of these combined could see a resurgence in healthcare provision and ensure real demand from those patients who will be particular about the treatment they receive. To be able to better provide basic healthcare is what the NHS ought to be striving for, that is why it is there. Added to this the Friends and Family test which, although shaky right now (and unwittingly mentioned in an earlier post of mine), should add weight to what patients think of their treatment and enable others to choose where they are treated. All this is designed to continue to help raise the NHS's game and ensure that it continues to deserve the epithet of "best in the world", for I am sure neither we or it can stomach another damning report. 

In Memoriam

It is no doubt apparent to you all that something momentous happened today. Sometime this morning, the United Kingdom lost one of its great historical and political figures since the Second World War. I speak, of course, of the Rt Hon Baroness Margaret Thatcher KG OM FRS. She died in her hotel suite at The Ritz at the age of 87.

Hers was an undoubtedly controversial legacy, but I firmly believe that she transformed this country for the better. From her time as a humble backbench MP, she rose through the ranks, intending to become Chancellor of the Exchequer, but ended up holding the highest of the Great Offices of State. I shan't recount her story, that's not why I write this blog. I shall instead give my verdict on the longest postwar premiership served and the remarkable person upon whose shoulders that august burden fell.

I was born in the year of her third and final general election win and indeed was but a toddler when she left Downing Street. By the time she left, Britain was a markedly different country and indeed was left in a much better state than when she found it.

In the 1970's, the United Kingdom was the sick man of Europe, crippled by rising international debt and held to ransom by overmighty unions. Things came to a head in 1979 during the Winter of Discontent when a weak Labour government was forced from office by having to go to the IMF for a loan. All that changed significantly.

The 1980's saw our island go through massive upheavals. Yes, there were riots in Liverpool and London and the miners went on strike for almost a whole year in protest at the closing of the pits. Entire communities were decimated, but there were positives. Her tenacity and sheer force of will ensured that we won the Falklands War, still a sore point for Argentina and the question is trotted out each time a president of theirs is in difficulty. Her determination for people to aspire to home ownership led to the relaxing of controls and restrictions on the City of London and for the possibility for those in council housing to have the right to buy. Of course local authorities became greedy and didn't bother replacing much of the stock (quelle surprise), but it was still the right thing to do.

Further to that, people could buy shares in the privatising nationalised industries, such as British Gas and BT. The state was rolled back and people were left to spend their money on what they wanted. With the lines of easy credit stretching far toward a golden horizon, this was of course rather easy.

Unfortunately this came at a price. First, she has been demonised for crushing the unions. The unions needed putting back in their place; they had stalked the land for far too long, creating mayhem and misrule wherever they could, just to show force. We are not to be cowed by such people, nor such people as the IRA. Gerry Adams' comments today were not particularly welcome and he knows he ought to be ashamed of himself. Terrorists are brutes and deserve brutalising. Last, was the poll tax. The riots that caused were unnecessary and marked the beginning of a startling trend, which culminated two years ago in the horrific scenes in our large cities.

Of course, she was also unswervingly patriotic on the world stage. I have mentioned the Falklands, but foreign policy was conducted with a single view in mind; how greatly will Britain benefit? In Europe she won us back a rebate on our contribution (squandered by a so-called admirer of hers who shall remain nameless). Elsewhere she helped win the Cold War, bridging the gap for the Soviet Union and the United States.

It is therefore with a full heart that I say how sorry I am that such a figure has now departed from us. Margaret Thatcher will be as loved by many as she is reviled by others. However there can be no doubt that she was a remarkable person and the world shall never be the same for lack of her in it. I was surprised equally by the positive comments on my social media feed as I was appalled by others. Before I go to press with this, I will add that anyone who comments negatively out of pure spite and malice on Facebook will have their comments deleted. Such people ought to know better; remember a family tonight lost a mother and grandmother.

Once again, ladies and gentleman, Margaret Hilda Thatcher. Such will never be seen again and a chapter in our island story is ended.

It's Not Fair

So at least the headlines will run today as the new NHS reforms and the Health and Social Care Bill come into effect. Goodbye NHS, farewell to the welfare state; the Coalition has sunk us all and just so that the rich can get richer and the vile Tories can once and for all eradicate the poor from our land. Utter tripe.

Let's take a look at how Britain came to this position, shall we? Starting with the creation of the welfare state, under a postwar Labour government, which saw that there were those in Britain who genuinely required a lot more state support than was available. Already there was some old age provision in the form of the state pension created a generation earlier. This was a laudable idea; a safety net would be created in which those who had genuine needs would be caught. Food would be put on the table and the concurrent NHS, brought online in 1948, would help keep household healthcare bills down. Additionally, new social housing would be built, clearing the slums and thereby reducing the burden on the new healthcare service because the diseases contained therein would be reduced significantly. For a while this seemed to work, until the social housing became unliveable and the baby-boomers began to have children, thereby requiring more welfare to be made available.

What happened next? Well social security payments continued to be made, the state pension went through some increases and universal benefits were made available. This, too, seemed to work, until the advent of child benefit. For struggling people this was again something of a boon, the kids would be clothed and shod and middle-class people had more disposable income to dispose of. This system was largely unchanged, even during the Thatcher and Major years, although social housing was largely sold off and councils never thought to rebuild in order to maintain supply. Then came the real bombshell.

There were already a small but growing number of families who were growing up on welfare; grandparents retiring and parents who were finding it easier simply to claim, claim, claim. After May 1997, this became exacerbated by New Labour. New Labour, which claimed that it would provide for families, which would reform and improve education and the NHS so that the British people would have world-class services began the systematic wholesale growth of those who were rendered totally dependent on the state. Then the stories of the abuse of the system began to become more apparent and more abhorrent. Families who were spending their welfare on luxury items, such as holidays, massive TV screens and top-brand clothes. Stop me if this sounds familiar, but it has now culminated in some being offered custom-built houses by their local authority, with right of refusal if it doesn't match specifications. Is it any wonder the taxpayers are irate? is it any wonder there must be reform? Yet where is the taxpayers' righteous indignation? Where are our protests at these vile parasites, who leech from us?

In summary on this point, I say this. Those of you who are angry about the so-called "Bedroom Tax" (it isn't, it's a benefit reduction to stop under-occupancy of social housing (you know, the ones Labour never really seemed keen to build), direct your anger at Frank Dobson and Bob Crowe, both of whom are paid handsomely and have never moved from their council houses. Council housing was designed to help those who could not find housing in the private sector and thereby meant to be a temporary solution until an individual's circumstances improved. Benefits are being cut because more jobs are being created, so the work is there for those who want it I take with a pinch of salt the figure of the nearly 900,000 who will not undertake a medical in order to prove unfitness for work. I believe this is two-fold; firstly because there will be people who are genuinely in need and are scared the stringency of the tests will be too great for them. There will also be those idlers who have been continually signed off by a lazy GP for years and who may be in danger of finding their so-far "cushy" lifestyle somewhat impugned.

Now to the NHS reforms. I was at first sceptical when the plans were announced, particularly on the commissioning front. One cannot simply allow GP's to take control lock, stock and barrel of NHS service commissioning without the proper controls. Commissioning boards ought to have membership widened to include other healthcare professionals and ensure that there are GPwSI's (GP with Special Interest) sitting on them.

What is clear, particularly from the Francis Report, is that the NHS is in dire need of an overhaul. Management is too complex; certain wards in hospitals are managed differently to others and thereby the messages coming through seem to be incoherent. The problem with the NHS, of course, is that it is now treated as a sacred cow and should not be given to the private sector to run at all. However, the reforms are intended to help give professionals clear guidance on the best treatment and patients better information on each hospital. After all, this is how society operates; word of mouth. People are more likely to listen to their friends and neighbours when it comes to experience of the medical profession. Which would you trust; an impersonal leaflet, or a friend or relative who will have an anecdote to attach about a particular hospital and how it is run?

There is also hype that the NHS will not survive much longer under the Coalition and it will simply be yanked away. In the case of Mid-Staffs, that's surely a good thing. No, don't misunderstand me, I'm not in favour of privatising the NHS entirely; just the bits that don't work. They did it with the Hinchingbrooke in Cambridgeshire and it posts regularly about good patient satisfaction levels. There are now more private healthcare companies advertising their services publicly, so the system is beginning to work. Once you subject the state to market forces, it becomes less bloated and idle and will begin to shape up with the view to keeping its pole position. That is what the reforms are designed to do; provide the taxpayer with a top-quality, value-for-money service. Get them charging for missed clinical appointments and then we'll really see the difference. I'm still going to use the NHS, because it isn't going anywhere.

To summarise in full; I make no apologies for the views herein expressed, I've decided that if people are going to be offended, then good. This is a democracy after all, I'm entitled to say these things without fear of a lawsuit. I believe in the state and I believe in the Conservative Party, the two are not mutually exclusive. The reforms coming into force today are good, they will make Britain fairer. Nobody has the right to live off the state when they've no need or good reason to do so. We must continue to support our most vulnerable and make example of those who shirk responsibility. Do not get caught up in the hype today; make your own judgements with a cool and clear head. Britain is changing and it will be for the better.

It's Been Too Long

Indeed it has been too long and far too much has happened since November. I must admit the ventures I've embarked on recently have al been neglected for one reason or another (none that I can find are particularly good) but I was encouraged to start back here once again and so I am. I cannot make any promises or predictions as to how long I'll be back for, but we'll see how it goes. I hope you've all been well and that life has been treating you accordingly.

I'm going to start with the Eastleigh by-election in which we came third. We trailed UKIP by 1000 or so votes and I'm honestly not surprised. UKIP steal, folks, and do so because of disaffection within the party. Not mine I have to say, I think the PM and Cabinet are doing a decent enough job; but already the warnings are sounding. We have weeks now before the Budget is announced and we need to ensure that within it are contained measures to help us gain back voters and reassure potential ones that the Conservative Party is the true party of government.

So where are these haemorrhages to be found? Well some will point to gay marriage and although I am vocally in favour, as are many both in the party and nationally, there have been doubts. I have discussed this issue in earlier posts, so I won't go into too much detail again, but suffice it to say if you're not familiar with my views on it now, then read my post entitled Now Pay Attention. Nevertheless it is emotive and has caused a small rift within our ranks, a rift which must be healed. We have already ensured caveats to religious organisations, but we cannot be blind to the fact that more has to be done if we are not to alienate the grassroots further.

Likewise Europe and immigration are both points which are still contentious. UKIP seem to thrive on Tory disaffection where Europe is concerned. Let's not beat about the bush, folks, this is just one aspect of UKIP policy. UKIP and the EU need each other; the EU to appear democratic in letting an opposition party into the Parliament and UKIP because they hate the EU. Their domestic policies fracture and drift like so many ice floes. Alas, unlike these majestic wonders, there is very little below the surface. They rubbed their hands with glee when the PM announced in his speech on having a referendum that it would require a time-frame. Of course it needs a time-frame, things have to be negotiated! We cannot simply wrench ourselves out, we must extract properly. I understand frustration with the EU, I think it's a hatefully pernicious organisation; I am reminded of the busybody neighbour when I think of the Commission. Views are given but rarely sought or wanted and often the advice is bad. I believe that while we are in the EU it is our duty as a member-state not to let the Commission get away with its mismanagement of the member-states and to ensure that policies are regularly interrogated and if necessary opposed.

As for immigration; there are parts of Britain now where the schools require regular interpreters and in London there are schools in which the pupils' second language is English. This is not polemics run mad, this is cold sober fact. Labour had the gall to issue a half-hearted apology through Yvette Cooper but they have no better solution to the problem. Their credibility is fast waning not just on the economy, but now it seems in other policies as well. I am not a racist, but when people come over here they should be able to ensure that they will contribute to the economy and make an effort at integration.

So that takes care of why not to vote for either UKIP or Labour. Not voting for the Lib Dems is a no-brainer (almost like Nick Clegg).

So why vote Tory? I know that there will be frustration over things like the Bedroom Tax and now something people are calling the Mummy Tax. Both are misnomers are neither are actual taxes; they are cuts in benefits. There is no shame in rolling back the welfare state to a point at which it can be properly managed. There is no room in this society for those who do not pull their weight and in fact do not wish to. There are those who have fallen on hard times and must be helped, that is why it was created, under the slogan "All Pay, All Benefit". Some have simply latched on to the latter part it seems. As concerns the Bedroom Tax, it is designed to address the social housing crisis that is prevalent in the UK at the moment. Why does a single person with no dependents require a three-bedroom house over a family of four? There are of course discrepancies, such as the elderly, but they seem to have been accounted for. Additionally social housing ought not to be a permanent solution for anyone; as one becomes more affluent, one should continually look toward ownership. This is one aspect of this government's commitment to empowering the individual.

Another way is education. Michael Gove continues to power through with his highly successful reform programme. Parents will have a better choice of school for their child in the new academies and the schools themselves are now directly funded from Whitehall. Long gone are the days when the local authority had direct control over high school budgets and indeed groups are setting up schools in order to ensure that they provide the education they believe their children deserve. Couple this with the pupil premium payments for those from disadvantaged backgrounds and we can really make a difference, giving British children the chances they deserve.

The NHS has long been a sore point and has been in dire need of real reform. I was sceptical about allowing GP commissioning; with no disrespect to GP's in general, but they are there to refer on to specialist treatment if prescription drugs aren't working. Similarly permitting any qualified provider is equally thorny. However, as with education, standards only improve if there is competition. Patients themselves know what they want from their healthcare providers, although the Francis Report has shown that certain trusts cannot even competently provide that which is required by codes of practice. Mid-Staffs cannot and must not happen again and the only way to be sure of that is to allow greater patient choice and increase accountability.

I would talk about the economy, but it is continually done to death. All I shall say is that despite our losing the AAA rating (downgraded by only one agency I might add), we have still managed to borrow at a reduced rate. The deficit has been reduced by a quarter and more part-time posts are now available, taking more people off welfare dependency. More must be done; I myself would like to see a reduction in VAT for example. The way to raise money is not to tax the rich further and certainly not to impose silly mansion taxes or tax moveable wealth a la Oncle François.

We are still credible. We are the right choice; Labour have no real policies and oppose everything we do for the sake of it. The Lib Dems insist on having caveats and moveable goalposts. UKIP are simply a one-man single-issue party in which disagreeing with Nigel Farage means membership is forfeit. Vote Conservative in your local elections and in 2015. There are miles to go, but we are the ones to stay the course.