Sweet Nothings

Eight months, ladies & gentlemen. Eight months until we decide who governs us next; will anyone form a majority? Will there be another coalition? Who would form such a government? From my analysis below, it hopefully won't be the Labour party. Their conference finished yesterday, ours starts on Sunday (can't remember when the Lib Dems have theirs. Oh well). Here's what Ed said (or didn't say) this year and what he's also promising you all come May 2015.

He seems to have caught Michael Foot syndrome rather badly. The main theme was his big tax on housing. The "mansion tax" he wants is clearly not just aimed at those lucky enough to have a £2 million (and upwards) valuation on their house in the capital. No, it's going to be rolled out piecemeal in the provinces to the extent that, if the rumours are true, houses valued at roughly £500K in the north will be hit as well. He's also looking to France to base his socialist utopia; let us not forget that the flight of the rich in France was due to taxation increases; this could send our own moneyed classes running for the airports. So that's a kick to aspiration isn't it; don't live in a house in London and don't earn enough to be able to afford a £500K house north of Gloucester. Build high-rises wherever possible and value them accordingly. Brilliant. 

He wants this tax to fund the NHS. Not a bad idea, really, it could always do with the extra...Wait! Wait a moment! No it doesn't need any extra money than has already been ring-fenced. Why has the debt gone up? Well aside from the state pension bill growing again, NHS spending has been going up in real terms for four years. Yes the Chancellor hasn't quite got that bit of the public debt down, but that shows the effort being made to keep the NHS public. Quite where the money is going is a matter for the CCG's and Trust managers, but we won't go there. What, therefore, will the extra £2.5 bn raised by the new tax, cover? Sadly it was just part of a long diatribe of sop, delivered to the apparatchiks in the hope that a sound-bite or two might make the evening headlines. I suppose some did, when the journos woke up and remembered where they were. 

Ed likes meeting people, so we hear. Whether or not they like meeting him is for another time, but bear with me. The people he meets seem to be in favour of a hike in the minimum wage to £8 an hour. That's fine, but it won't help people like me much, who are already on an inflated hourly rate. I am insulted by the idea that my time will be worth less than a shelf-stacker or cleaner. If it sounds snobby I don't care, I am a skilled worker and will not be priced out of the market on some socialist whim. Of course it's state intervention by the back door, because Balls will have a real job on his hands explaining to companies why it's in their interest to lose profits in order to help their workers. It'll only push prices up further in any case over time and won't encourage much aspiration either. Some businesses may just decide they won't invest as much in Britain in future if it's too expensive in terms of human resources. Thankfully it's nowhere near as bad as the Greens' proposal of £10 an hour. 

Then we come to the matter of devolution and here there was absolute silence from him. In his lengthy monologue, Ed completely failed to mention how England would fare in the new constitutional arrangements being drawn up by William Hague. Whether he doesn't like any non-Marxist history or believes history only truly began in May 1945 on the day when Attlee kissed hands is anybody's guess. The idea that he could just ignore how English people don't like being pushed around by anybody and then completely ignored when it comes to their governance is beyond me. There is always a backlash and he ignores the semi-nationalist sentiment running through England at the moment at his peril. He and his ilk may be contemptuously dismissive, safe in their metropolitan ivory towers; but the memory of 1381 is long embedded in our muscles, the faintest hum of memory lingers from events in the 17th century. He'd better watch it. 

That is, of course, what he remembered to say. He forgot to talk about deficit and immigration, two vital components if he is to win over the electorate. He mentioned tax loopholes, but not much beyond current Treasury policy. He is still committed to energy price freezes (see my post A Man of the People) among other disastrous policies. Over the course of 80 minutes what the British public were given was a series of what looked like unworkable or unwieldy policies all linked by the word "together". I cannot identify at all with Ed Miliband in the same way I cannot entirely identify with the Prime Minister. Cameron gives voice to what I largely hold to be true despite his privileged background, but Miliband baffles me entirely. Millionaire son of a Marxist just does not equate in my head, largely because he also believes what he says. 

I gave thought earlier to adapting a quote from House of Cards, in which Francis Urquhart described Henry Collingridge's morality. I believe I now have the words for Miliband, for this speech was nothing more than backstreet Marxist bookshop hypocritical cant; picked up in Angel, or Islington, or some other such god-awful place. 

On A Day Like Today

It has been forever, it seems, since I deigned to post anything on here and for that I once again apologise. I was realistic in my expectations that posts would eventually become erratic and so it seems to be. Nevertheless, I have a lot to say in this one, as I've been musing for a while and I'm sorry but I must go back 10 days to last week's Budget. My theme will become clear, I promise. Here goes. 

The Budget last week seemed to have once again set the agenda for the year's economic debate. It was a far cry from that awful debacle in 2012 when nothing that came out of the Chancellor's mouth made much sense. Last year was slightly better, although Conference in September was a little subdued. Then came last Wednesday. 

A rip-roaring roller-coaster which gave people more money in their pockets and more freedom to spend it. It was a general win-win, particularly for me and others like me, who will be paying less tax and will be succeeding someone who will have been able to retire comfortably. Annuities took a bit of a pasting in the markets, but that's to be expected when people are given the freedom to spend their money how they wish. John McTernan (former Labour adviser), however, sneered and said that "you cannot trust people to spend their own money sensibly". I'd beg to differ, but that would mean, well, begging. Such sentiments are wholly immoral in my view, how dare anyone suggest that the government ought to control how my money is spent? I am fully in control of my faculties and if I were coming up to retirement and decided to blow my pension pot on some ridiculous whimsy then that is my decision. The only money of mine the government will ever have any input on are the taxes I surrender to it. That and the state pension I will eventually receive of course. 

It seems to be that the Conservatives are once again championing individual liberty in another spectrum of life. This leads me nicely into my next topic. Today, Saturday 29 March 2014, marks the day when people of the same sex can enter into valid legal marriages in England and Wales. The Scots will have something broadly similar come October so I hear. Personally getting married in Edinburgh would be worth the wait. Here again we as a party are championing the right, and it is a basic one, for people to marry whom they choose with all the rights and entitlements which go with it. Coupled to the tax breaks and all that are coming in for married couples in April, this couldn't have come at a better time. I don't care that people have left the party over this, of course it's sad that they cannot bring themselves to be progressive, but it's their loss. I respect those who object for religious reasons and understand their concerns, but from a Christian perspective, Jesus taught us all to love one another and be egalitarian in our outlook. I take large parts of the Old Testament with a pinch of salt, I make the New Testament my focus and in there do I find little to condemn homosexuality; in fact only three verses in three separate books make any concrete reference to it. If, as a party, we did not wish for progress in this and other aspects of society, then surely we would be called the Preservative & Unionist Party. 

I have been cheering all this on a little too quietly, so here I am on the megaphone making more noise. I was inspired to come back to you all today thanks to an article done for ConservativeHome, in the form of an interview with James Delingpole. This interview, for me, affirms why I am a member of the Conservative Party and why we should never let give Labour the slightest chance in 2015 of re-setting the clocks back to April 2010. We are giving people a say on our membership of the EU, something to which Miliband cannot give even his characteristic vague support. We are championing individual liberty, although Ryan Bourne of the Institute of Economic Affairs believes we can (and I think should) do more on that front. We are now a little over a year away from the general election which will make or break the reforms undertaken thus far. It is for the British people to decide whether or not they want rampant socialism in the form of price controls, enforced regulation and possible re-nationalisation, or the opportunity to give themselves more responsibility and the increased ability to make the important decisions in life for themselves. I know what I'll be voting for. 

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.