But first as is the custom to reflect on the year and to resolve to do things differently I will outline my hopes and dreams for the tennies (or whatever the snappy martketing guy who coins such terms for decadel shifts calls it).
This year has been a medley of contradictions; I have moved to a job I thought was more secure and a step up only for it to be ripped from under me by circumstance, I have become a father and embarked on the most extraordinarily fantastic and expensive adventure mankind has ever endured with no job, no immeadiate prospects and little money, and more extraordinary still I have not wanted for anything throughout this holiday season, either for myself or for my family proper; barring my wife's illness it has been brilliant and blessed.
My hopes for 2010 are thus tied with my own aspirations for a better life for me and my family and my resolutions; first I want, even if it kills me trying, to get debt free- mortgage and student loans notwithstanding; I am fed up of the monkeys on my back and the privelege of paying for them.
Second I would like to find what it is I am supposed to be doing with my life and then cling on to it with all my effort; heck, I'd take a silver medal on completing this goal if only to know how to reach gold next year.
Third, and as I've said these are all selfish, personal items, that more people know what it is to be a libertarian; the most veils-fall-from-eyes of the last decade has been to be able to put a name to my ideas and observations of the ills of this world (of which, and I am trying not to sound too fauwning, a big part of which comes down to my discovery of blogging and in particular The Devils Kitchen; I know I am not alone in this). I will endevour to put the message out as clear as I am able and challenge inaccuracies and deliberately flippant and disengenuous misrepresentations.
Fourth is linked to my third resolution to write at least one new fair use of words posts each week and cite the weekly examples of this; perhaps the most powerful, certainly the most insidious, actions of the collectivist is the misuse and abuse of language to warp the meaning of words, and ultimately the thoughts of those stuck with them; it is here that the battle over freedom will be won or lost.
Lastly to coin a new law on the use of comparatives: Godwin's law for the Nazi's has served quite well in dissuading the swivel eyed loons and trolls on the web for decades.
Hence Tomrat's Law will apply with another oft abused zeitgeist; George Orwell's 1984. The fight for our language is a good and necessary thing; referring to every little infringement on our privacy as being like "something out of 1984" belittles what Orwell was really trying to say, and lowers the tone of debate to that of the Daily Fail.
That said I wish you all a unconditional happy new and prosperous new year.
'I did buy a new Alfa Romeo recently, but we needed it because the BMW was old.'
Family on £23,000 worth of tax free benefits from this article. (H/T to the ever brilliant Leg-Iron)
To be earning that kind of money in the real world after taxes one of them would have to be earning at least £33,000 or both would need to earn £16,000, though to pay for childcare at ~£600/month you'd need £40,000 from one or £19,000 each.
People are getting tired of paying for peoples inability to keep their legs closed, or at the very least wear a condom.*
*more to follow...
First let us state a few facts:
1. Barring massive funding and MSM airplay LPUK is unlikely to get the momentum it needs to win seats and push it's zero income tax policies into law.
2. Currently income tax receipts are now outstripped by the cost of our benefits system.
3. Corporate tax, VAT and all the other forms of sales taxes that are more the product of the deranged minds of exchequers from the last 2 centuries with far too much time on their hands are, whilst regressive, currently more than sufficient income for a government exercising it true reasons for existence; e.g. Provision of some public goods, defence of the realm etc.
4. Libertarians (the majority of) want a situation where we move ultimately to low/no taxation but ultimately to self-determination and responsibility; hence the existence of LPUK as a political body to meet the transition to a libertarian future.
Now let's say for one way of guaranteeing this transition and stopping the elderly, the poor and the feckless from dying in the streets we need to rely on a benefit system gauranteeing some income in ways in which private charity or private insurance cannot: how much income? The Adam Smith institute have set out various figures for taxation and, more importantly a guaranteed tax free income of £12000, currently just under twice the current level. For reasoms that should become clear my tax free income (remember, under a non-LPUK government,) is £15000.
Now my idea; imagine your tax free income as a tradeable commodity redeemable against any type of tax receipt. You could use it yourself and instantly keep £15000 of your income completely tax free; couples could have one stay at home parent or who works part time and they could offset the remaining tax free income against their partners income or the unemployed could trade this with brokers within companies trying to lower their companies corpration tax take (hence a slightly higher rate than the ASI's to account for the difference offered). Combined with a flat tax and a robust National Insurance Scheme so tax receipts are more easily traceable and quantified this would enable the benefits system to be abolished over night; extending it indefinately to all beyond the age of 16 (with tapered tax free incomes up to that age) could mean we could eventually wind down our state pension liabilities over time also.
At a stroke we have abolished welfare, set state pensions in permanent decline, encouraged personal responsibilty, voluntary community and increased the fairness of welfare; and best of all we've removed the need for vastly complicated state intervention and the incentive for favouring lifestyle choices by complex tax breaks/benefits to choice groups a la NuLabour single mums/Glasgow East or Tory yummy mums/Surrey.
What do people think?
Apt considering this:
The setting of the book is Gordon High School in 1969. The plot of the book revolves around a history teacher (Mr. Ben Ross), his high school students, and an experiment he conducts in an attempt to teach them about how it may have been living in Nazi Germany. Unsatisfied with his own inability to answer his students' earnest questions of how and why, Mr Ross initiates the experiment in hopes that it answers the question of why the Germans allowed Adolf Hitler and the genocidal Nazi Party to rise to power, acting in a manner inconsistent with their own pre-existing moral values. Ben starts by having his history class sit up straight and obey his commands by, at first, standing at attention beside their desks and having to say "Mr. Ross..." before asking or answering questions. After seeing the students' reactions toward the experiment, he decides to continue it the next day by creating a salute, a symbol and addressing three mottoes he made up: "Strength through discipline, Strength through community, Strength through action." He calls this movement "The Wave". At first, students are sceptical about The Wave, but after seeing how everyone becomes equal, and that the stress of making choices is lifted, the class falls into The Wave, and begins to recruit others into it. Robert, the class reject, seems to have changed the most due to The Wave - his physical appearance becomes neater and the students grow to accept him more. He becomes more outgoing and seems to be accepted in this new society.
Laurie, a student in Mr. Ross' class, starts to think that The Wave is having too much of an impact. A huge majority of the school is in The Wave, and its members attack students who refuse to join. Using her influence as the school newspaper editor, Laurie releases an entire issue of The Grapevine dedicated to showing the dangers of The Wave. While some thank her, especially teachers and parents, others do not. Laurie's boyfriend David, who has been in The Wave since the beginning, tries to get her to stop bad-mouthing The Wave. He eventually shoves her to the ground and this makes him realize how dangerous The Wave really is. After David realizes what he's done, he and Laurie go to Mr. Ross' house in order to convince him to terminate the program.
After talking with Laurie and David, as well as his wife, Christy, who is also a teacher at the school, Ross realizes that The Wave has taken a turn for the worse, and he is determined to stop it. However, he wants to do so in a way that communicates the lesson he intended The Wave to teach in the first place. He calls a Wave meeting in the auditorium and requests that only Wave members be present. They gather in a similar fashion to the Nazi rallies, even equipped with banners and armbands emblazoned with the Wave logo.
Ben tells The Wave members that they are only one in many schools across the nation that is involved in the Wave, and that they are about to see the leader of the whole organization and that he is going to speak to all of them on television to create an International Wave Party for Youths. Everyone is shocked when Mr. Ross reveals that there is no leader, and that there is no International Wave Party. However, Mr. Ross tells the audience that if there were a leader, it would be the man on the projection screen - Adolf Hitler. He explains how their obedience led them to act like Nazis.
The shocked students drop all their Wave-branded trinkets and items, and slowly leave the gym. As Ben turns to leave, the one person who really flourished in the Wave, Robert Billings, is standing alone, upset that The Wave ended. During The Wave, he was finally accepted as an equal, no one picked on him, he had friends, but his new-found social status is now worthless without The Wave. Mr. Ross tries to cheer him up by commenting on his tie and suit, and they walk out together to grab a bite to eat.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's law I cannot think of a more appropriate title to this demonstration.
I'll post more on it later but for now the web chat is an interesting place to go - brought out all sorts of extreme left trash, anti-growth and depopulationists; quite chilling.
Do go see.
My comment on the HYS thread:
The authors of the emails and data represent the main arm of the IPCC's scientific authority; if there message is compromised then the IPCC can close up shop.
What are the chances the IPCC. a body set to look for a problem that just simply. isn't. there. will not find in favour of a group that justifies there existence?
Answers on a postcard...
-- Post From My iPhone
My favourite was the one in which a person was bound and tossed into a deep river/lake the result was determined thus:
1. If you floated, Satan as your master wanted you alive and was keeping you afloat to save you for all the nefarious deeds you could acomplish shortly before they dragged you to a stake and burnt you as a witch.
2. You didn't float and drowned, safe in the knowledge that you weren't a witch (doubly important, as I later found out, because your few posessions would be taken from your family and split between the accuser/crown/witchfinder general).
It occurs to me that this has many parallels with the current hysteria surrounding Anthropogenic Global Warming; what remains of the relatively free market has now been accussed of the modern day equivalent of "magic", and in a fit of fear, encouraged by the feckless and useless looters that occupy positions of power for their own gain, is being tossed into a sea of regulations, laws and curbs on behaviour, whose sole intent is to kill it; proving it's righteous credentials once it is damaged beyond repair.
If it survives, adapting to the rules, the regulashoons and curbs on behaviour to remain the most effective means of raising the quality of life in ways it's detractors could never achieve, the outcry from the righteous (TM Leg-Iron) would be so great, their power so amassed through fear and ignorance they would drag what remains to the fire.
What is a certainty with the latest travesty of justice and reason revealed with the ClimateGate scandal is that this "devilish magic" that our capitalist, consumerist society is being accused of is to the best anyone can credibly claim, a minor, almost insignificant, inconvenience; attempts to make them fess up has led to the above witch trials, now revealed for the nonsense rent seeking it truly is.
This is why ClimateGate is so important and I shudder to think what will happen if the witchfinder generals win.
Next week, Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Climate Change, heads to the international climate talks in Copenhagen. It's urgent that the world signs up to a fair, ambitious and binding deal, and real progress at these talks is crucial. This week, we have a brilliant opportunity to urge the minister to push hard for real progress in Copenhagen.
Ed Miliband has agreed to join a phone call with 38 Degrees members before he sets off. He'll answer our questions and hear our concerns at 10am, Saturday 5th December. Thousands of us dialing in to listen and ask questions will be a great way to send a powerful message - he'll go to the summit with our words ringing in his ears.
Register to join the phone call now:
Joining the phone call is easy, but you need to sign up to take part.  Enter your details in a few seconds, and you'll be sent instructions including the number to dial on Saturday and password to join the call.
Together we can send a powerful message to the government that we want them to do all they can to secure a good deal to tackle climate change. Ed Miliband has agreed to join us for this call because by campaigning together we've got the government's attention. Now we can talk to him directly and send a strong message that we want the government to bring back a good deal.
We know that people power is crucial to persuading world leaders to sign up to a strong deal in Copenhagen. Next Saturday afternoon, thousands of people from all over the UK will march through the streets of London to demand a safe climate future for all. Some of us will be there.  For those that can't make it down to London, joining a phone call with Ed Miliband that morning will be a great way to still be part of the pressure.
Register to quiz Ed Miliband on the UK's first public phone conference with a cabinet minister:
Thanks for getting involved,
David, Hannah, Johnny, Nina and the 38 Degrees team
PS: Please forward this email to your friends and ask them to join the call too by clicking here: http://38degrees.org.uk/phone-call-with-the-secretary-of-state
 Once you've registered, we'll provide you with a number to dial and a password to join the call. Calls will cost the same as an ordinary national phone call. You can submit your question to Ed when you register. Later this week you'll have a chance to vote to prioritise the most popular questions. Register here: http://www.38degrees.org.uk/phone-call-with-the-secretary-of-state
 38 Degrees will be gathering in Grosvenor Square in central London at 12pm, ready to set off at 1pm. Come and find us - we'll be the ones with the big 38 Degrees banner and we'll have some blue paint if you want to join in with the blue hand stunt around Parliament at 3pm! More info about The Wave and Stop Climate Chaos can be found here: http://www.stopclimatechaos.org/the-wave
38 Degrees brings you together with other people to take action on the issues that matter to you and bring about real change. To find out more visit www.38degrees.org.uk. If you no longer wish to be part of our movement and receive our emails, please click the link below to unsubscribe:
™ 38 DEGREES 2009 Registered Company No. 6642193
Do your bit for Climate change.
UPDATE: My question to Ed:
Does the recent leak of emails and data from the CRU/UEA groups (dubbed "ClimateGate" in the media) change our position from one supporting mitigation to one supporting adaptation, considering the emails and data cast serious doubt on the entire case for Anthropogenic Global Warming particularly as the main scientists involved represent the scientific arm of the IPCC?
Still need questions regarding what his definition of the Greenhouse effect is, whether he will enforce FoI requests to access all data used in policy formulation and, for fun, Whether he thinks 1 tree rings worth of data from an obscure wilderness in Russia is enough evidence to base a multi-trillion pound, multinational project with the ability to impoverish millions worldwide?
Go on; you know you want to.
So on the one hand the banks can dip into your already threadbare trouser pocket with one hand then get government to dip in your other.
Wait I should correct that; the government long ago plundered your trousers for your remaining coppers; there deficit spending means their tucking into your childrens piggy banks and your grandchildrens birthday card money.
"investing in your childrens future"? More like divesting them of it.
-- Post From My iPhone
Steve Bettison at the ASI writes about independant schools advertising subsidised private education on adverts in London; this can only be a good thing.
My sister benefitted from such a scheme at a brilliant all-girls school in Yorkshire; having narrowly missed a total scholarship due to procrastination and a missed deadline she was still able to get a partial subsidy; it was hard going on our family but the options it opened to her even today have been worth it.
Education policy in the UK angers me; it is elitist, it is rent-seeking and it is destructive of the minds of the kids it churns through it; my wife, a teacher, tells me I'm imagining it, that stories like this are over-estimating a problem that is non-existent in her experience; I then have to point out that as her Catholic School is diocese-subsidised the overall resources have been increased for her pupils, and we should look at the experience of our youth group who go to some of the worst schools in Leeds, if they go at all.
She then sits, lips pursed.
We no longer ask the simple questions or debate the logic anymore; my belief is simple and can be summed up thus:
If private schools do better why not make all schools private?
This however needs to be expanded on a little - we tend to misinterpret the word "private" in this setting to mean "state directed, but privately controlled": again the premise is faulty; we are not providing a service to the state but are enabling our children to cope with the world and engage in independant thought- we should not be turning out drones for the state to bleed parasitically but free-thinking individuals who's strength and ingenuity is a benefit to all.
The road here is long and will only be climbed properly if we take the state out of education; out of the curriculum, out of schools and out of teacher training- if it needs to remain anywhere it should stick to funding it, not running it.
-- Post From My iPhone
DK, amongst others (rejoicing?) over the head of a private company saying he will resign if the Bory's (power pending) go through with their plans to nationalise their business (one business hopefully the majority of libertarians** and conservatives agree needs it. Badly)
In an interview for BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Sir Hugh said: "Even the perception that the police service of this country… is under any political influence, I think that suggests you cannot argue that you are a proper democratic society. It's as simple and as stark as that.
"Every chief officer fully understands the need to be held accountable. "We must be operationally independent in terms of how we deliver policing. We should not be influenced by anyone who has any potential or suggestion for a political basis."
Let's have a look at a definition of politics:
Politics is a process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic and religious institutions. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and refers to the regulation of a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.
So really the problem he has is not with politicisation, which occurs whereever authority and power is wielded over a social group, but with the democracy he states our society is under, i.e. one in which he and his cronies can be ousted for doing a crap job, ignoring local needs and pandering to greater, illiberal power bases that have become the norm under labour.
Many bloggers positions themselves along common themes within their understanding or interest in things that bug them; for me it is the use of words and their understanding- I am well aware that meanings change quite naturally but the coalescence of political pull in the hands of those with a collectivist mindset brings about a perversion of this natural process to suit their needs; George Orwell realised this whilst writing 1984; doublethink and doublespeak have been slipping in the backdoor ever since.
If the individual is to win this assault on our freedoms we first need to identify and fight this most fundamental of enemies- the inversion of meaning and the framing of arguements; noone rebukes Sir Hugh Orde for claiming that democratically electing police chiefs is anti-democratic; noone challenges the premise that printing more money in a world with a fixed number of resources undermines the value of all money.
Noone challenges the legalised plunder of our hard earned cash either from it's dilution or from it's deliberate removal on pain of menaces.
The Bory's plan will become toothless at best, be abandoned at worst when the lobbying of vested interests begins; LPUK's policy won't because we understand that the sheer mental gymnastics and wishfull thinking won't keep the whole charade from collapsing- our government, as has many western governments have effectively traded in what the Americans term chapter 11 bankruptcy; we trade our deficit in for the prosperity of our children and grandchildren. This will end, either way.
Local accountability is the first of many steps in fixing this country; it'll lead to questions and a better understanding of how we've been conned all these years. Let's hope it isn't killed off before it can be born.
Well worth a read as it illustrates the anti-democratic nature of the EU to a T; it seems the prerequisites are simple enough - you must show a flair for this and a predisposition towards this type of thinking.
Some years ago my friend JonJon and I went to the Leeds Film Festival Night of the Dead and saw a Belgium film called The Ordeal; normally not a lot phases us, being veteran horror buffs but this film's tale of unrelenting misery and cruelty is unmatched in any film we've seen in the near-decade we've been going to the festival; not because it was scary but because it was also depressing.
Since then we have had a maxim we've never been able to disprove (though I open to proof to the contrary):
Nothing Good Ever Comes From Belgium
Time to leave.
I take it Ms. Honeyball that youhave read this? I would submit this article to Geoffrey Jackson's viewing in particular just so he can see the extent of how this problem, essentially non-existent, and then ask him if he would see a large proportion of finite police resources spent on it which could be spent on a problem like gang activity, gun-running or muggings with greater effect?
The truth is that politically directed policing operations make great copy, but make little difference and have a tendency to ignore bigger problems while focusing attention on smaller, more media/pressure group friendly problems- meanwhile old ladies are beat up in their homes, pre-teens are murdered by gangs and drug dealers peddle their substandard and potentially dangerous concoctions to the lower dregs of society, perpetuating misery.
Prostitution is treated bizarrely in this country; how can we think the act itself is fine between consenting adults but then benefitting from it monetarily is a bad thing? Do we treat similar transactions to the same sort of insecure, swivel eyed nonsense? If I like food, and start a business as a chef am I going to be put in jail for providing a service I love to others with similar feelings/desires?
This is a beautifully emotive subject and I am not saying the problemdoes not exist; but by criminalising it in the way we do we exacerbate it to the detriment of the prostitutes, the punters and give a helping hand to those groups who benefit (whether you be a pimp, human trafficker or an MEP or pressure group with an ideological axe to grind).
Again we see a solution to these problems; liberalising, legalising and acknowledging the existence of a market for sex protects the most vulnerable within it- in New Zealand we have licensing authorities which register and protect the most vulnerable; income taxes are collected which can then be used to deal with the health and criminal concerns of the industry and reduce it to non-existent levels; Portugal have done a similar thing with drug legalisation which is transforming the face of drug use their in a way which protects the most vulnerable.
Only we, the so called birthplace of democracy and enlightenment, are stepping backwards and in so doing allowing chaos to rule.
Do not mistake me- as a follower of Jesus Christ's teachings I find the act of selling that most wonderful and precious gift between man and woman as upsetting as the next; I would however direct my fellow Christians to this; take care as to who you side with, whether wittingly or otherwise. If we have a problem with how a peoples conduct their business or live their lives we should tell them with love and seek out our own salvation first with fear and trembling; we should not use the force of the law to push our agenda - that is the broad road and has created this mess which allows the kind of abuses we see with human trafficking, White slavery and pimping to continue. The law should be an extrapolation of the maxim Freedom from...:
Freedom from coercion.
Freedom from Interference.
Freedom from oppression.
We undermine all freedoms when we forget any one of these freedoms; this allows those who prey on others to prosper.
As I've said in previous posts I like sex; it's the most wonderful union you can have between man and women; I think that those with multiple partners build up a lot of emotional baggage God doesn't want them to be burdened with, but that doesn't give me licence to proscribe the act itself and under what terms it is conducted; if we do this we ultimately drive it into the hands of worse people who oppress whole peoples.
Like drugs, prostitution should be legal and clarity on this needs to be given for the sake of those few trafficked or damaged women who the law should protect, not reject for ideologies sake.
-- Post From My iPhone
A portion of the answer given to the original e-petition to abolishing the 1972 European Communities Act.
As Wat Tyler has pointed out ad nauseum in his immigration posts there has been little benefit. Personally I think immigration is a benefit to any country; what we have been experiencing is a balancing act between those who do come to look for work and those who come to rinse the benefits system because their is no impediment to this. That doesn't even take into account non-EU immigration; whole peoples brutalised and belittled; doctors scrubbing toilets; physicists and philosophers washing cars or serving drunk chavs on nights out with congealed minced lamb in a nan. All the while hated by all the knuckle dragging, daily sport reading, BNP Luddites lounging on their DFS sofas watching Jeremy Kyle, smoking and drinking up their benefits all the while.
And whilst person A gets angry at person B, person C is creaming the EU gravy train for all it's worth, laughing as one lot doesn't vote in any meaningful way whilst the other group is sent back to whatever hole they crawled out of.
It may be good to look through a few more of these early petition answers to realise how much nonsense has really been spouted.
The Prime Minister is completely focussed on restoring the economy, getting people back to work and improving standards in public services. As the Prime Minister has consistently said, he is determined to build a stronger, fairer, better Britain for all.
I know I shouldn't expect much from these petitions being that they are little more than agit prop in a can, but I did hold out some hope this might be the push he needed.
Do you like the use of language that is as evasive as it is meaningless? I think it needs a fair, open and honest retort:
Gordon, to make sure you understand the mood and language of those who signed this petition we weren't asking you to "try harder" or "make Britain fairer", I don't want you to "get me back to work"; I want you to get out of the way of the wealth creators left in Britain so that they can provide me with the oportunities I need to make a worthwhile contribution to the UK, and be compensated well without a gouging on payday.
I want "public services" to be just that: public - not in the hands of idiot, box-ticking commisars or rent-seeking big business donors; I most certainly want as a new father health and education system that responds to me as a consumer, not a pleb to be marshalled into action by diktat. In short I want you to give this country what it is crying out for: less of you, the odious floaters you call a cabinet and the assorted wooden tops and vultures who occupy Parliament.
And if this is still too much for you to take in Gordo here's the abridged version: you and your answer to this petition can kiss my hairy ballsack.
In the West today, we all join hands and sing ring a ring a roses when we talk about the Nazis of the 1930s. We all agree, oh so easily, that they were evil and wrong and what they did was disgusting and the treatment of the Jews was awful.
This follows an interesting illustration of the anatomy of rage and anger, and reminds me of some stories Oma tells me.
Oma is my wife's grandmother, so called because she was born and raised in Germany, moving to the UK shortly after the war to become a nanny for several families.
During the war a sprightly Oma in her tweens was sent as part of the Hitler youth to work on a farm plantation whilst the war machine rattled all over Europe; she has described the entirety of this experience to us in vivid living colours, in many ways as real and remarkable as Em's grandfather's experience, who rode the tanks onto the beaches at Normandy and was even responsible for the Queens training as an engineer (sadly he passed away last year but his stories were incredible).
Anyway back to Oma; one thing is clear - in between the stories of rationing, of scarcity and of military marches, both beginning with the reichs armies outward and ending with the Allies inward, we see a clear pattern emerging of good people, good German people, being made to do very bad things, or, and in some ways this is worse, do nothing at all, by very evil people. My wife's grandma tilled fields and worked in veritable slave labour on a farm as part of her "civic" duty (best to remember this when Obama uses oxymorons like "compulsory volunteer work" or Cambo pushes for his own version of the Hitler youth; it's the tools of fascism if ever I saw them). These are the Group C lot who are instigating the hatred between 2 counter groups in society to capitalise on it.
What JD is pointing out is that good people can do bad things; it is not without reason that Jesus Christ warned that anger was as much murder as murder is.
What I think is that we are finally figuring out who Group C are and what they are doing to the rest of us; we no longer get mad at each other because we can see the true cause of the worlds problems rest with a small band of elites who thrive on out capitulation and consent- many are saying no more.
This isn't rage.
This is a righteous anger. The lens of our vitriol is slowly being focused on those who need it; we need to be careful where we direct this anger.
20 Million pounds an hour borrowed on your children and grandchildren's credit card.
Unemployment benefits now exceed income tax revenues.
The Americans have a name and system for this type of spending; it is called chapter 11 bankruptcy and allows a failed business to continue trading in order to pay back moneys they've borrowed. When the extra innings fail to work they call time on the proceedings.
It is time for us, his masters, to call time on this rogue government.
Let him know how you feel here; let him know this is not a request.
The damn fool wants me to hand back £826,000 to the Great Unwashed.
Have just got back from the Yorkshire Libertarians meet up, and aside from a few howlers on my part (like getting the pub name wrong), the lack of sleep due to baby teething and my near hyper state brought on by a combination of Berroca, coffee and my inability to shut up I felt it went quite well.
Got a long way to go, but it is comforting to see satire being revived in the 21st century and people beginning to openly question the feckless wastrels and thieves who rule over us.
Nice to meet new friends and see old ones to boot again. Next stop the AGM.
-- Post From My iPhone
Leg-iron surmises in this post about whether this is actually that bad an idea.
Yes, yes is it is a bad idea and I'll explain why.
Leg-iron is working on the supposition that the Borys, en masse, hate NuLabour and would actively start epoch making changes to the current government; this supposition is profoundly wrong - where this the case they could have easily drawn attention to most of NuLabours rubbish whilst in opposition, rendering them a single term party.
No, Dave is merely a shadow of Bleurgh; he has chosen rightly to be as harmless an inoffensive as TB was throughout - about as strong and vibrant as a weak cup of tea, knowing full well that the majority of sheeple don't make rational thinking judgements on politics; they make irrational emotive judgements on people (a reason related to why the televised debate is also a bad idea- it is inherently meaningless as we don't pick leaders we pick
MP's who pick leaders).
Personally I hope Leg-iron is right, but considering the almost complete lack of spine exhibittes by those most outspoken of Bory's, Hannan and Carswell, to call their bosses bluff on getting to grips with the EU, I doubt it.
-- Post From My iPhone
So now I reread this over at Guido's and I have to say this entire concept confuses me- what the hell are these people "bouncing" to? The fact that our feckless, deluded bum-lesion of a leader has lifted his head above the trenches only to bitch at journalists and mutter tired party lines about getting the job done when it is quite clear people wish to fire him from it?
I remember when the toad made the departure from No11 to No10, commentators on the BBC were saying things like "he should call an election now while he's "bounced" back in the poles"- why? I can barely hazard what must be going on in the heads of those idiots responsible and their comments on the polls:
"I was fairly indifferent to labour and politics in general, but when I saw that Brown was moving to the house next to his I realised then how exciting it all was; I mean, moving house eh? Awesome."
"I've been a bit uneasy these last few months and feeling insecure, what with my 200% mortgage from Northern Rock looking like quite a bad idea as I'll be paying it till I'm 90, but when I saw those removal vans at No11..." you get the point I'm sure.
Do you really want to put your faith and autonomy in the hands of people who's political opinions rest on what is a fairly politically benign event, not far removed in concept from something like "Location, location, location for ugly people"?
Don't know about you but I want life-altering decisions, decisions on healthcare, on education, on where my money goes and who it goes to and on how I run my families life, as far removed from these people as can be, and noone in the big 3 is offering anything like that.
Either way this isn't tyranny of the majority; this is tyranny of a minority- what's the betting it is completely ignored, the result championed if it's a yes, but torn to bits if it's a no?
-- Post From My iPhone
While sitting contemplating the text I got into thinking that the most important point of the text is the rationale for his policy formulation, "zero base policy"; that rather than try to polish, cut and shape the turd that is the current government machine we should just start from scratch with a view as to what we want a particular arm of government to achieve.
Given enough time it should be possible to achieve this without having usher in a political revolution that no democratic mandate would ever allow, especially when a mere fraction of the population vote you in; you can just whittle down the rules and laws you dont like, such as those giving you (some) right to self-determination, to a presumption of innocence till proven guilty by a court of your peers and the belief that taxation should serve a function of government, not the swivel -eyed, moral diarrhoea of a few select morons and their bribe-endorsed clientelle, and add a few that alter justice and the law at it's core, a salami slice at a time.
And then I remembered that Labour had had 10+ years, with 3 electorial mandates born of mix of apathy, stupidity and a belief that the never never would not stop, until the crunch proves otherwise.
Reader, don't believe for a minute that Cambo will change a thing; it is in his interests not to piss off his paymasters in the EU; no majority or popular mandate on earth will stop the rot taking hold; it'll just mean the elephant in the room is covered over with a blue-ish cover instead of a red one, Hannan and Carswell apologising all the way in their pleasing Hugh Grant kind of way for the readers of the Telegraph will enjoy.
Here are my predictions in this light: The Borys, despite having no real policies, just a shiny-headed freak who's entire ambition is to drive the big red bus (despite the breaks being cut and a cliff fast approaching) will sweep to victory, Brown having accepted reality and becoming a fully fledged basket case, having finally seen the illusion come tumbling down, will drag Labour disappearing into debt ridden destitution, it's party leaders rightfully nailed to the wall (except for Mandelson, who's only job having been to keep the Zanu NuLabour train ticking over till the Lisbon Treaty is ratified).
Ireland vote no in October and are bled for their crimes against the progressive righteous, before being asked again, cos we didn't hear you properly last time.
Longer term we have yet another freezing bloody winter and world temperatures drop over the subsequent decade; somehow everyone is still convinced we are all going to burn to death while thousands die from cold weather, war and entirely missing the point; that all the AGW debate has been is the latest socialist death-cult, hellbent on "population control".
And you will vote for the other guy once the Borys collapse into scandal- never realising that perhaps the person you should put your trust in is you.
And when it comes to that think LPUK, and hope it is no longer illegal to say you are your own keeper and not your brothers.
-- Post From My iPhone
One has to wonderful on one thing straight off; by page 13 he is calling for a mire fair tax system which doesn't punish the poor or the rich in society- this includes an illustration that Tolley's Yellow Tax Handbook, the standard go to text on your tax "liabilities" (ie what they will put you in jail for if you don't pay up) has effectively doubled in size from 4988 pages to 10134 pages (not taking into account a format change, making it more condensed!)
I'm wondering if their is a simple solution to tax reform which will prevent aggresive taxation; standardise the format, text size and font and limit the number of pages that the tax code is codified on, say to 500 pages, then protect these standards constitutionally, changes being put to plebiscite.
Wealth creators would then have an easy frame of reference and be less able to "avoid" being robbed from, and the wealth destroyers would have to be more open about their theft.
Think about the more extensive opportunities of this kind of approach to legislation- imagine why this would do to health and safety regulations, finance etc...
Just saying is all.
-- Post From My iPhone
Do be do be do be do be doooo!
A cautionary tale indeed.
Of course in our world somehow the grasshopper convinced enough people the summer would last forever and so they deposed the queen. Now that its winter and the pickings are slim he still will not admit he's right.
When foreign nests will no longer bail him out, when the pantry is finally empty, and the ants are eating tree bark to maintain a meagre, miserable existence then they will see that the truth.
And they will eat him and his cronies alive.
Forget Maggy, forget asking who is John Galt; where is John Galt?
Now I'm a Christian so I believe that you shouldn't have sex before you married, but it would be wise to point out that from my reading of the bible God doesn't much concern himself with fancy tax-write-off titles ordained by men in frocks and a state official; he's more in it for seeing who you have paired off with- God has little time for titles.
The one thing I dislike, and do not actually believe exists, is "casual sex"; whether you treat sex as casual or not the act itself is as powerful emotionally and spiritually as it is physically-to not feel in this act is to push the emotional baggage elsewhere and for it to come manifest itself somewhere else in your life.
All this feeds into this post by Leg-Iron; it seems that in line with the standard modus operendi of ZNL pragmatism is about to be subsumed by a minority, ironically calling themselves Christians; I would have to call them to task on this- I would take my Christian brethren to task on this, that they are willing to sacrifice lives for the sake of spreading their ideology.
Most parents have higher aspirations for their kids than for them to merely keep their legs closed and pants on during their teenage years; they want their kids to live better, more fulfilled lives than themselves and hopefully outlast them, which is really all this vaccine does- it mitigates the risk of developing a deadly disease which wil reduce their quality of life.
I would say in answer to it's detractors that despite their proselytising what have they really achieved? Are we to win our cause through faith or through fear? The reformation movement, which all modern denominations were born off, was a rejection of fear instilled in them by an increasingly corporatist and brutal blend of state and theocracy; the act of presenting Jesus' message in al it simplicity without the garb and pomp meant we no longer had to live in fear, just in Christ.
It appears were are regressing to a period of fear and loathing; Labour will be obliterated at the next election but the degree,, whether they ate bankrupted by the experience and become a nasty blot in the history books or whether they carry on keeping the Soc Dems seats warm when they become the opposition party for the next decade is all down to how many minority groups they can give patronage to now; politicians thrive on mob rule and popular impetus, Christians will be no different in how they are treated.
I am not advocating we give our kids carte blanche on being promiscuous; the most powerful birth control known to man is money, or the lack thereof, so maybe we shouldn't be offering free homes or money to single mums, and relaxing overzealous rules on foster care and adoption service so that "unwanted" children can find homes in "wanting" families.
Either way this fits the pattern of control began long ago and accelerated during ZNL's autocracy and the Bory's laxness as an opposition; In exchange for a secure but impoverished existence for our nations poor, it's broken and it's children it demands the control over them; here is hoping that their inability to satisfy these basic needs without driving this country into the ground leads us to ask some fundamental questions about the freeing power of choice, self-reliance and personal charity rather than how the other guys will "fix" things.
Here's hoping my fellow Chistians will have the courage to tell it like it is in the future, rather than rely on government judicial fiat.
Who is to blame for all of this? Whilst sitting in the meeting yesterday having the tales of our youths activities told to us in all it's depressing horror I no longer feel that I or my fellow youth group have not done enough; we have simply reached the end of our resources to deal with these children- and it is not a question of physical resources, but spiritual and mental; some of these kids have simply been deprived of the mental and spiritual capacity to interact with us.
This is a product of 90 years of socialism; these kids, like the kids of Doncaster, cannot interact with each other or with the adults (who themselves are little more than jailers rather than educators, since Balls got his hands in education) because they lack the spritual and mental growth- why? They are not encouraged because adulthood not only carries the "responsibilities" that our fearless leaders now try to instill with "citizenship" classes but "rights" too, and if you have rights you have the freedom to question the responsibilities that those who deem to rule use force on us, and they cannot have that.
Their world of rubbing shoulders with others of their kind is built using the power of democratic fiat over the free will of others- they loot the wealth creators by thinly veiling their actions as "altruism"; it could not be further from altruism if it tried. Don't believe me? Look at the way "poverty" is calculated- it is pegged to average wage rather than living conditions meaning which ever percentage they deem poverty as being below it you will always have poverty!!! The average wage could be 1 million pounds in todays money, able to buy goods at todays prices, and the righteous (TM Leg-iron) would claim those with only £500k in the bank where in poverty.
Real poverty- the kind where you have to eat treebark and live in a cardboard box is ignored, and the focus is placed on shiny baubles rather than the underlying sprititual deprivation, and I lay the blame for this entirely at the socialists, the progressives and the righteous' gold-plated, index-linked doors.
You pay people to behave like scum and you will have more scummy people; there children will excel in scum studies.
You convince people that "despotism-by-proxy" is the best way to achieve "utopia" and you will have more despots.
You champion a system based on need and you will have more needy people.
-- Post From My iPhone
I have a far simpler hypothesis as hinted in the title; the BNP in all their swivel-eyed, odious angst and unrealistic buck-passing make excellent copy in the papers whilst truly important, highly destructive policies Which if not putting lives at risk by the thousands are putting our children and grandchildren into perpetual penury by those politicians in power, despite their "progressive" viewpoint, and all for the feckless face-saving of todays politicians.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain; have a look at that guy over there who says he hates brown people.
This is not the focus of this particular vent; again many people will most certainly overlook the most important point here: they are prattling on about how much they plan on stealing from your wallet in the next political round.
They are thieves, liars and corrupt to boot; let me put it another way; where they to come direct to your home and told you they were taking HALF your wages each month to pay for over a thousand busybodying quangos, an ineffective health and police service and for the feckless to find the time to keep these services occupied would you hand it over? No? How much less do you appreciate it when you could be thrown in jail for not doing so?
Mrs. DK has put it beat here:
This assumption is gigantically invidious, as it underpins every argument redistributionists and opponents of ‘privilege’ make about the state’s choice to reduce or remove taxation on particular bodies or transactions. And I speculate that most people do not, as I did not, even notice the presence of that assumption. We are letting them get away with it. And before long, it will no longer be an assumption that nobody notices; it will be a general principle that is taken for granted. Perhaps it already is.
Why, oh why, do we libertarians continue to allow our opponents to dictate the terms of debate in this way?
This mindset is what needs to be corrected; that our government exists by the whims of its people, not for the betterment if one group at the expense of another but so such actions can be proscribed an dealt with by the law.
We can't achieve anything if we continue to let them frame the debate with us in chains; we have already lost in that instance.
-- Post From My iPhone
Most libertarians I know are naturally predisposed to black and white rules applied across everyone; they (I) surmise (normally rightly) that greying the rules normally leads to plenty of areas for those with a collectivist mindset to hide, grow and cause damage.
As involved with children, with youth groups and my church as I am I have to say I agree with this supposition; lives may not be black and white but the rules governing them can be- hence I have often advocated that the best way to apply social care is to see it for what it is: a mix or choice between criminal and health concerns best left to the police and judicial services and/or a minimised health service designed to deal with crisis, emergency an long term care.
What the current situation illustrates is that the focus on individual rights, which ultimately are un-upholdable in the long term (the right to moneys unearned, healthcare etc), has led to ignoring the responsibilities these people needed to keep; to their kids, to society (i.e. not causing misery through criminal action) and so on.
I don't think the present setup is recoverable; we have children who come to our youth group from incredibly deprived backgrounds who, despite enduring horrifying things, are starting to go on the mend (if such a thing is possible) but such groups as ours are not only few but are actively thwarted by those in authority; fot example, it is hard to justify multiple-million pound budgets for drug rehabilitation when a bunch of volunteers and real compassion can achieve better results; best to constrain them in the hope if looking less bad.
Hence I propose this short-term solution, with an explanation that, though doesn't make it hold water against the libertarian ideal for individual freedom, at least explains a radical idea and compromise based on the following precepts:
1. We are paying untold benefits to people to behave like scum.
2. Scum are having children who in turn stand a good chance of not breaking the mold.
3. Biotechnology and fertility technology is advancing at a substantially fast enough pace to enable all sort of people previously unable to conceive to conceive, and for tissue samples to be preserved.
Hence my idea, the nuclear option if you will, to the problem of feral children and parents is thus: a precondition to remaining on long term benefits (say longer than a year) of any kind is the forfeit of your "right" to have children, implemented by chemical sterilisation with storage of egg/sperm/reproductive tissue prior to this. These rights would then be "restored" by the free provision of reproductive health consults and artificial insemination when they can present a "co-gaurantour" who will part fund that child's upbringing; forfeit of reproductive rights would be immeadiately compulsory to first time single mothers applying for child benefit, though the benefit would be higher than it is now (the extra perhaps being specifically proscribed in it's use).
This I aware is incredibly autocratic and as unlibertarian as it comes, but consider the following:
1. You have a right to children but their welfare is your responsibility: the welfare state has created a state of affairs where children are little more than currency, to be exchanged for beer, fags and a free house- this is only possible whilst the taxpayers agrees to this gouging.
2. is the alternative- unmitigated access to having children with no individual responsibily working out?: all the evidence of remedial care from social services indicates no to me, compounded by the states numerous attempts to undermine private initiative.
3. Am I likely to be the first person to think this?: and is it likely the righteous in a position of power thinking along the same lines might omit to give them the option of children later on?
The present situation is untenable for another generation; with 1 in 4 (myself included) receiving one benefit or another and 1 in 6 children living in a household with noone working on more generation will push the strain beyond what the productive part of the economy can handle and it will up sticks and move to a more grateful and productive nation. This is still a reality even with such radical ideas- it would be irresponsible to continue supporting the production of children to parents who are unwilling to support under their own steam if at all, as is being aptly demonstrated of late.
"The Justice Secretary said he was unapologetic about including Abdelbaset al Megrahi in the agreement, citing a multi-million-pound oil deal signed by BP and Libya six weeks later....
....When asked in the interview if trade and BP were factors, Mr Straw admits: “Yes, [it was] a very big part of that. I’m unapologetic about that... Libya was a rogue state.
“We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal.”
The (In)Justice Secretary is unapologetic to the 259 people who lost their lives in a terrorist attack; there deaths pave the way to palms being greased by big oil and business interests and a few extra pounds from their british registered corporate satellites into government coffers.
Not that I think that Al Megrahi is guilty, but if you think about it releasing him on the grounds of pseudo-clemency (i.e. he recanted on his appeal in order to be released earlier than an appeal hearing would keep him so he can enjoy the last few months of cancer ridden life he has left) kills 2 birds with one stone:
- Britain gets a business deal with a nation with proved oil reserves.
- No appeal and the assumption of guilt through psuedo-clemency; no awkward questions about the Iranians, the Syrians or the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3rd 1988 by the U.S. Navy’s missile cruiser USS Vincennes or how this figures into the run up to thefirst Gulf war.
Any investigation into this whitewash would have tarred Labour, Tory, SMP and US officials in the process. Yet again though we witness an elite whose actions are ignored by a compliant sheeple who will simply "retaliate" on the most recent shower of bastards by voting for the other turd with a rosette in the next election.
BUT THERE IS ANOTHER WAY!
LPUK wants the individual to be at the centre of policy; hence we would support a minimum state to support the plethora of diversity amongst individuals - we would not, I repeat, NOT, sacrifice people on the altar of big business nor for political expediency; YOU ARE ITS MASTERS AND THE GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO SERVE YOU, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
Remember that if you vote for the same, you get the same.
I have a considerably simpler idea on how to achieve this goal: abolish the DfID outright, and use the money as a drop in tax from which we can donate to charity ourselves.
It appears over the last decade they have had enough spare cash to indoctrinate our children and engage in pure politically motivated activities; taking that back alone would give us enough money to buy over 800000 units per year which as they can filter 6000L of water and an average human male requires ~2L a day would last 3000 days or a little over 8 years by which point replacements would become commercially viable for a healthier African population.
Does anyone know how to create a transferable web badge? I want to start a campaign to abolish the DfID and include a pledge to use the money saved in lower taxes to donate to worthy charities of our choice; charity not only begins at home but also flows from there; government cannot be "generous" or "charitable" because by definition it does not have any of it's own money- I would not be considered a charitable giver by the judiciary if all the money I gave was stolen/mugged from other people- why is government different?
"'Well, you're of the right, and I'm of the left.'
Such a statement coming from a lefty means something like 'You are an evil right-winger who is only interested in stealing from the poor, whereas I am decent and wish to help them.' It says, 'this conversation is over'. Down come the shutters. Bang. There is a barbaric deliberate refusal to seek to know more from someone, who let's face it, thanks to her profession, her experience, her obsessions and constant thought on these matters, just, well, knows more."
Now I don't think of myself as either left or right wing but just wanted to point out; if righty's do indeed want this isn't their business plan a little flawed? The poor aren't known for their wealth.
Just saying is all.
It appears that our American colleagues have realised this also, and have sought to redress the balance; I for one salute their attempts and urge everyone who believes in actual freedom, not the faux freedom peddled currently, should take this battle to hand.
Now onto FUEN #3: -
WORD #3: Democracy:
Would you want these idiots to have a say in how we run our healthcare, justice or welfare systems?
wikipedia has this to say of Democracy:
Democracy can denote either the power or complete rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía (info)), "popular government", which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos), "people" and κράτος (krátos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.
In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom. These principles are reflected by all citizens being equal before the law, and have equal access to power. Additionally, all citizens are able to enjoy legitimized freedoms and liberties, which are usually protected by the constitution.
We have been led to believe that our current system is democratic, that it is more "equal" and "free" than ever before; we have been lied to - democracy in the context it is currently used simply means that once a sizeable majority champions one person, party or group they can very quickly override the legitimate actions of another; as I pointed out here in what is a fairly simple example, this "majority rules" arguement is profoundly wrong - less than 1 in 3 people can make decisions the other 2 have to live by; how is this a majority?
The American forefathers realised this and knew democracy when taken to mean everyone having a say over everyone elses actions would eventually lead to destruction - have you ever noticed that the original constitution does not mention "democracy" anywhere?
So what then is the only legitimate task of democracy? Take this quote from Thomas Jefferson to heart:
"Laws abridging the natural right of the citizen should be restrained by rigorous constructions within their narrowest limits. - Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813."
Government encroachment into "healthcare" (sickcare), the "welfare" (bribery) of its citizens (subjects) or aggresive actions against sovereign nations all lead eventually to tyranny, made up of an elitist minority with no real attachment to the world or people they are "serving".
ALTERNATIVE WORD/TERM FOR IMMEADIATE REPLACEMENT: If a minority can garner enough votes from a portion of the population whilst the majority abstain from voting for whatever reason they can effectively override individual freedom under the pretext of it being "the will of the people"; those whom they elect because there is very little incentive to look downwards - many people would vote for a turd with the correct rossette rather than realise they are voting for a turd - and so look upwards at those who can get them patronage, peerages and fancy side jobs in businesses with vested interests. taking the EU's faux-democracy into consideration we are actually ruled over by a relative few who care little about mass opinion.
Hence the term we should use instead of "democracy" from now on is:
DESPOTISM BY PROXY
Democracy should be a means of protecting carefully laid down constitutional freedoms given by the people to our elected representatives to ensure all are dealt with equally above the law; I use this phrase because treating people under the law allows governments to build on these for the loudest complaining groups so as to create inequality.
Future references to democracy, democratic society or a related concept will henceforth be corrected to the above.
I've got myself fit before and, with help of my brother Buffrat,who is a fitness fanatic, get myself fit again.
That was until Leeds city council had other plans- apparently despite indepth knowledge of gym equipment, having been using it for over 15 years, and having a brother who could write a PhD thesis on personal fitness development, without a five minute indictiom course on safe use of Bodyline equipment whichhas to be booked in advance I cannot use the equipment. With limited time and money I find myself not able to go again for a while.
Worry about the state of the nations safety will kill the nations health.
-- Post From My iPhone
GAH! THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM: THIS IS PURE, UNADULTERATED CORPORATISM!
Without seeing it I cannot be certain of its content, but one thing is clear; both Michael Moore and his detractors are clearly misrepresenting this as free-market capitalism.
CORPORATISM: A LOVE STORY
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
I feel a fair use expiry notification coming on, right after the vitriol dies down and I can bring myself to write about democracy.
Hang on - still incensed by this I thought I should ask Mike what the craiq is about this movie:
Just wanted to bring to your attention a typo in the title of your next movie, Capitalism: A Love Story. You have inaccurately used the word "Capitalism" which is defined by wikipedia as the following:
"Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor."
This situation hardly describes the financial industry within the United States; if you wanted to use "Mixed Economy: A Love Story", or better and more accurate yet, "Corporatism: A Love Story" either term would be acceptable to describe the situation we find ourselves in.
I look forward to seeing your movie as I believe from the adverts the content looks accurate (in part) and look forward to hearing your "solutions" to the crisis.
Meanwhile I was wondering if you could give me a taster of this new movie as I will have to wait till October (at least) till I am able to see it in the UK and tell me whether you mention either the part the federal reserve has played in stoking this crisis of political interference from democrats in the form of the Community Reinvestment Act and its subsequent amendments all the way to the 90s?"
In the highly unlikely event he (or one of his minions) replies to this I will post his answer.
Less 4 years ago I found myself in a similar position as I do now; family troubles meant I could not cope with my postgraduate studies and I withdrew from a PhD (in truth had I not done this it was very likely I would've been pushed, my work was suffering that much).
I found myself with my last stipend (a portion of which I would later give back compounding things further), Christmas looming and a new and supportive wife taking her teaching qualification meaning money was incredibly tight. Things had not started out well.
In that period of time I found myself turning to various job agencies; all except the most obvious one, the JobCentre, infact. Even then, still young and unsure of where I stood politically I knew I didn't want to collect a dole until then I had not paid for or supported.
One agency called back - one that dealt with the NHS and public sector bodies - saying they needed someone to start work; several posts followed at varying NHS sites around Leeds, Bradford and beyond, when finally I was given a 3 month temporary contract in a busy department at one of the main Leeds hospitals, a contract that would be extended repeated for over a year. It was here that I received perhaps my best compliment for my work I have received ever; I was acosted by one of the doctors I worked for and asked if I were an undercover reporter investigating standards at British hospitals, thus was the standard of my clerical work and attention to detail viewed. My family situation also recovered through this period even to the point that one of the consultants discussed a potential postgraduate research position in collaboration with my former department, which they declined.
This work, in a period of great "prosperity" (I used the term to describe the feeling, not the underlying lie that we are all paying for), made me realise precisely what the NHS is for - what it is truly for: it is there to provide health and support to a sick nation; it is not there to provide a haven for the workshy - my contract was renewed despite efforts to get someone else in the role permanently precisely because I worked hard and realised that my actions, however meagre in comparison to the doctors and nurses in the department, contributed to patient wellbeing.
Several years on, knowing more about the concept of libertarianism, having found my last company betraying myself and several others to maintain short term capital gains (for which I do not blame them; time will tell if this was the right decision), I find myself at the doors to the recruitment company I was at before, except this time there are no more jobs at the NHS; instead I find myself posted with another government body and I wonder if I am doing the right thing supporting the vast edifice I now find myself working for again, albeit this time with less of that feelgood factor.
I find myself rationalising it this way and that - that this is merely a tax rebate I am working (hard) for, that it will give me an excellent view from the inside. In truth with a little baby in tow, a mortgage and a wife who's career though taking off is still at an early stage (compounded by maternity leave) I find the simplest answer is that I must work in order to pay the bills.
I start next week; I do not know if this is a non-job, if it is actually something worthwhile as yet because I do not have all the details; I do know that my needs must, my savings exhausted and that I will do this job with my utmost for the shareholders - all of us. I plan on performing my utmost in this position because of the principles that I stand for; that I, an individual, can, and will, make a difference
Until then I urge everyone to join and vote for a party that will make government non-jobs a thing of the past and put some dignity back into governance, rather than just throw money at it.
It is not, as many have tried to infer, a party wishing to destroy the government - we would then have to be called the Anarchy Party. We simply wish to put the business of government back on the correct footing and keep it there constitutionally; that a governments only task is to protect the rights of the individuals of the country it serves, punish those who infringe on anothers rights to freedom and defend the realm. Anything else should be consensual, not forced.
Anyway this post is brought to you via it's almighty awesomeness- expect more to come.
Just brough my new baby daughter home...
...And become another statistic amongst the unemployed within the same day.
I've been in this place before and now I have all the better the incentive to get looking for work, and fast. Here's hoping that amidst all the gloom that there are things that employers still need employees for.
For those of the praying persuasion, a little help in that department would be appreciated.
Details of Petition:
“The last two local elections have shown that the people are no longer prepared to tolerate Nu-Labour without a mandate. Gordon Brown is a spent force and MUST now immediately go to the country - anything less will be be outright political fraud and maintenance of their expensive troughing lifestyles at all cost.”
Read the Government’s response:
Thank you for your e-petition.
As you may be aware, a general election must be called before June 2010, when the whole country will have an opportunity to express their point of view.
In the meantime, you may be interested to read the Government’s recently published plan, Building Britain’s Future. The document sets out a radical vision for a fairer, stronger and more prosperous society for all.
You can read the proposals, and take part in the debate about the country’s future, at the following website
Was persuaded by my very rotund and frustrated wife to break our normal Saturday malaise with a trip to the Kirkstall Festival this afternoon - weather was nice and I was not much in the mood for housework, so we went, along with our pet labrador, Bonnie.
Amidst the many tents selling their wares for various causes I noticed the following:
- The Labour Party.
- Solidarity With Cuba (replete with Che Geuvera merchandise).
- A group calling itself "Green Labour".
- The UK Communist Party.
Walking along the rest of the Abbey I noticed there was not a single advocate of conservatism, liberalism or libertarianism, and I ask myself why political dialogue was confined to rabid, left-wing ideology.
What was most striking about the event was that these stalls were in the order above as I passed them; reading up on the similarities and differences between the 2 before coming to write this I found the following article; this in particular is telling:
"Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism."
"Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialisation may be total, as in Russia—or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same."
I will be in contact with other members of LPUK next year to see if we can organise something to appear at this and other local fairs; if you like me are few up of a closed-off narrative that merely offs varying levels of theft from your pocket for varying reasons. Then try something different; try LPUK.
Driving home from work last night I often turn on to Radio 4 to listen to Eddie Mair- he tends not to give politicians an easy ride, which is why they must be lining up to take on his standin Carolin Quinn in his absence.
Yesterday evening Rita Donaghy talked about her enquiry findings into fatalities in the construction industry and how they amounted to an equivalent of 1 per day in the UK. She recommended greater protections for workers and the responsibility for good health and safety planning given to the director of any building project, making him prosecutable if the worst happened. Good, I thought. You can read the report here; 365 deaths stopped a year is a noble goal but in the running of things this is quite a good record considering the nature of the work.
It got me thinking about something I read last year here. According to a TPA report based on WHO data were the NHS to have the same “mortality amenable to healthcare” as the average of the other European countries studied (Germany, France, the Netherlands and Spain), there would have been 17,157 fewer deaths in 2004, the most recent year for which data is available.
1 death per day in the construction industry attributed (but not proven) to bad health and safety management.
47 deaths per day (at the last count) caused by poor management of disease and by a system that champions scarcity & rationing as a virtue over good healthcare outcomes - you need only look at Jade Goody's case to understand how this comes about.
Do not get me wrong; I have several friends in the health service who do many difference jobs; doctors, nurses, admin (in my younger days I temped in admin roles in many hospital departments - at one point for over a year in one) and in many of these cases deaths are not always down to poor treatment; the reason for these death I believe are 3 fold:
1. Risk is supplanted by regulation; regulation leads to more i's dotted and t's crossed but dont account for the rules not covering every possibility that good common sense would; frontline staff merely wish to avoid incurring the wrath of the clipboard wielders and, as our MP's expenses scam proves, it so much easier to state you were playing "within the rules".
2. As far as users of the NHS are concerned it is a free service; you dont have to pull out your wallet to pay for treatment ergo it must be free. This assumption is not just an oddity within the NHS but widespread socialist consensus-think has taught us - that nothing important in this country can function without the government sticking its oar in. Thus we do not value our own health or the services which help us when we are sick.
3. The governments attempts to use the private sector as a means of palming off responsibility which rightfully belongs to it (it deeming to control our healthcare system after all) in areas like cleaning, or the more insidious use of PFI or "management consultants" to reduce levels of nursing and support staff leading to faster turnaround for beds and greater risks of infection.
In all 3 cases it is the system that is at fault; you are compelled to buy into 1 system at the barrel of a gun and treated as a right-wing nut when you question the percieved wisdom that 47 deaths per day is a worthy sacrifice to keep this "wonder of the world".
BUT THERE IS ANOTHER WAY
The Libertarian Party manifesto for health is deceptively simple; government doesn't hold the key to the best healthcare system; you do - if you care about your life then you need to take responsibility over it. Understanding your own mortality, accepting it and the cost it takes to keep you healthy in terms of what you do to yourself and how you mitigate the risks when the worst happens is part of that.
For me I believe the best outcome would come from combinatorial medical savings accounts and insurance; considering fully comprehensive insurance for me, my wife and the little one due to arrive any day now would be approximately £80 for all of us (compared to roughly £200 each from my wife and me for NI contributions, considering our employers double these) the cost to offset our insurance against a tax free medical savings nest egg we could take to any provider would ensure the best outcome; the one we want. For those of us unfortunate to have long term ailments this could be covered by a fairer national insurance tax which also covers emergency and maternity services (accidents and healthcare for people who have had little say in needing it should not be forced to pay for it); the costs of these relative to other sections of the NHS are relatively small and manageable.
For a better idea of how this would work; look here.