Give Us Back Our Voice

Whilst this plebeian often fantasises about a life absent of governance, he also ponders about potential improvements to the shambolic status quo.  Anyone who has spent five minutes observing our "democratic" system will have come to the realisation that it is nothing more than a minority elected dictatorship.

Besides low voter turns outs (I guess one has to conclude that by not voting you have no preference for the idiot in charge) the major problem with our system, as I see it, is the powerless & pointless positions held by Members of Parliament.

Although we technically tick the box for our local MP in the polling booth, this ceases to matter the moment any party reaches a majority in the commons, or a coalition for that matter.  Once the numbers are in and our new PM is appointed, the role of the MP quickly vanishes to the cabinet legislators & party whips.

This is the crux of my problem, nobody voted Vince Cable, George Osbourne, Kenneth Clarke, Theresa May or any of these other cronies to be supreme policy makers of their country.  They were voted for in their constituencies, sure, but so were 650 other MPs whom now essentially sit and hum the party tune, occasionally popping up to question the PM on Wednesdays.  This is a problem caused by using Statutory Instruments (delegated legislation) rather than Acts of Parliament (primary legislation), power is pushed further away from the voter and into back room conferences & under the table deals, all in the name of saving time.

To reverse this horribly undemocratic state we must do away with the cabinet, individual MPs should submit bills for discussion regardless of who the majority party are.  The power to draft/pass laws should be in the hands of every MP, not a privileged few who happen to be best mates with the PM.  This could probably be extended to doing away with the PM altogether, instead using an arbitrary speaker (MPs name from a hat?) who communicates the position of the house on individual issues, rather than having a party leader speak on behalf of the entire country.

This of course puts a spanner in the works for lots of government policies, budget allocation would be more difficult (the exact redistribution figures for supporting the lazy would no doubt be a hotly contested issue), economic meddling would slow down;  in fact policy authors might actually have to balance the budget in order to convince enough MPs that policy X is affordable & beneficial enough to actually warrant voting for.  They might also realise that small details are more efficiently dealt with by local councils rather than by lengthy discussions in the commons, aka localism.

My god, this might actually go someway to restoring democracy, handing power back down the pyramid whilst simultaneously diluting the compulsive cock-ups of the ruling elite.  Eureka?

Yes Sir, Mr Commissioner

A disturbing quote from the BBC: 

"The government has promised to keep the number of prisoners given the vote to a 'minimum', after being ordered to allow them to take part in elections."

There we have it, even the BBC aren't even attempting to hide it from us anymore, our parliament has 'officially' become nothing more than a serf to the bureaucratic empire of the European Union.  The very fact that our PM is bowing down to lick the boot of a foreign power shows what a spineless cunt of a leader he really is.

Whilst I cannot be bothered to discuss the full extent of the insanity which is 'Human Rights' I would like to demonstrate just how backwards the European Court of Human Rights really is.  A convicted criminal John Hirst, found guilty of manslaughter, successfully argued in the European Court that his human rights had been violated by not being allowed to vote.  So a man found guilty of crimes against a society has (according to the EU & 'human rights') a birth right allowing him to still have a say in how that society is run?  This is absolute madness, he was imprisoned and removed from society because he had harmed it, demonstrating his disregard for the preservation of society & its members, yet he is still entitled to vote on how it should be run.

If anyone can form a logical argument to support this insanity please send it my way, I'm going out of my mind trying to figure this one out!

The Teen Booze Subsidy

I really do feel sorry for the British tax payer, well those in the private sector at least; productive and useful members of society watching their hard earned money being redistributed to the nations future liver transplant list.

Whilst I was never deemed "needy" enough for a £1080 yearly handout many of my friends were eligible for this generous biro and notepad fund. 

I'm sure that 1 or 2% of recipients spend their EMA on educational related uses, but the vast majority (from my own experience) were less prudent, buying beer, the new FIFA xbox game, clubbing, cigarettes and generally enjoying themselves.  I can't say I blame them, everyone enjoys a free meal, but this policy has been creating a generation of "entitled" youngsters who now view the state as their provider, rather than their own pair of hands.

I for one will be glad when this policy is scrapped, not only due to the fact that robbing hard working individuals to pay for a student’s night out is completely wrong, but that this scheme has completely failed to achieve its objective.  Take a look at Dudley College of technology, which, according to Sky News, "has 2,500 students aged 16-18 and 80% of them receive EMA, the majority at the higher rate of £30 a week.".  Now lets take a look at the A-Level results figures for this college (courtesy of the BBC):

Oh dear, well below the national average and with 80% of students on the scheme.  For £30 a week I could buy a book from Amazon on any topic I am studying, or 30 packs of biros, thousands of pages of note paper, buy 8 day tickets on my local bus to get to my college/library, or even hire a private tutor for a couple of hours.  Quite frankly there is no excuse for such poor results when 80% of your students are receiving £30 a week to spend on educational needs.  Unless of course they are wasting it!

Discrimination Laws, the Ultimate Hypocrisy

Today brings another triumph for the invasive laws of the left, as Peter and Hazel Bull were successfully sued by Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy for £2,600 (£1,800 each) courtesy of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.  To summarise the case Mr & Mrs Bull, the owners of Chymorvah Private Hotel, refused a double room to the civil partners on the grounds that they don't believe in sex before marriage, and I infer therefore that they do not view civil partnerships in the same light as marriage.

Sky News - Gay Couple Win Discrimination Case

Now I don't really care what Mr & Mrs Bulls religious beliefs are, or whether or not the "victims" were civil partners, married, engaged or a dude with a sex doll; my real concern here is that according to this ruling we can no longer choose to associate or sell our labour/goods to whoever we prefer.  That everyone must treat everybody else exactly the same, despite our human prejudices and preferences.

Don't misunderstand me (any lefties who come across this), I'm a very open minded individual and couldn't care less about people’s sexual preferences, skin colour or anything other human distinctions the activists keep drawing attention too.  If i were running the hotel I would have let them stay, but this isn't the point, the key issue is why should one group be made to suffer to satisfy another?  By what standard does one decide that the life style of Mr Hall & Mr Preddy should be given precedent over that of Mr & Mrs Bull? (this is even more perplexing when you look at it from perspective that 'everybody is equal')

I personally find it impossible to make a decision about who should be given precedent, leading to the conclusion that neither of them should be (true equality).  Yet under the courts line of thinking it seems that some people are more equal than others, but there was a much better solution to this problem; the free market (yup that favourite problem solver of mine!).

With the free market nobody is given preference over another (no hypocritical 'equal rights' laws), people simply act in accordance with their own beliefs weighed up again their wants/needs.  The aim of a business is to make money (people who own them want to make money), obviously you will make the most by granting access to the largest customer base, that includes doing business with people of all colours, genders, sexual preferences, etc.  A company which does this makes the most money, one which doesn't loses out on earnings (which equates to a loss of wages, profits, business stability, etc), so Mr & Mrs Bull would be paying a premium for discriminating against their customers.

To summarise, under a free market people who choose to discriminate pay a premium for their choices (unable to pay themselves as high a salary as other, non-discriminating, companies).  This may lead to some people changing their policies, to avoid losing their business, and those that don't have not had their freedoms and private properties infringed upon by the government.  A win - win situation.  This reminds me of a similar argument for equal pay, which Milton Friedman sorts out quite nicely (watch 3.30).

Council Monopolies, the real shit heap

Birmingham City Council's refuse workers have successfully made the list.  For the second week running my garbage is left to fester in my drive way, leaving the "foxes" (the neighbours fucking dog) to pick over the remains and scatter it across my law!

 According to unite, yes of course these fuckwits are involved, "Refuse workers are in dispute with BCC because it is cutting their pay by as much as £4,000 a year. BCC is now escalating the dispute by threatening to pay the refuse collectors not by their contracted hours but by the amount of waste collected."


I wouldn't usually have a problem with strike action, after all refusing your labour is a perfectly workable, if not somewhat extreme, method of negotiating with your employer, but as we are dealing with the monopolistic public sector I can't help by feel aggrieved!  If I paid a private company to empty my bins I could take my business elsewhere and avoid the unpleasantness of picking litter up off my lawn, and this got me wondering; why does the government force us to pay for the pleasure of them empting our bins, or failing to in this case?

After all my council tax bill (which fortunately I am exempt from paying as a student) came to over £2000 last year, £200 for police, £70 for fire protection and well over £2000 miscellaneous spending!  If two of the most essential services cost on average under £300 per household what the fuck is all this extra money being spent on?  Sure the street lights are on and the roundabout flowers are sometimes watered but this surely isn't costing £2000 a year, and the refuse services certainly aren’t earning their share either!

This money is being tipped down a golden plated sewer, so why all the whinging about spending cuts when I can think of some obvious privatisations/cuts that will not only save money but stop these fuckers holding the taxpayer to ransom.

- Bin Collections
 drive yourself to the tip or pay someone to do it for you, would only cost a pittance
- Parks
sell the land to private owners and charge people who want to use them.  Why should anyone pay for dog soiled land they never set foot on?
- The whole Leisure & Tourism department can be scrapped
companies don't need the council to advertise on their behalf, if something good is going on we can find out ourselves.  Also private swimming pools/gyms can operate just fine
- Boot out the Mayor 
I have not heard or seen him do anything, ever!
- Allotments 
again private owners can operate these no problem
- Libraries & Museums
if they can't sustain themselves then there is obviously not enough public demand for them anyway, a drain on our wallets
- Council Tax Benefits 
even the council says that not enough people claim them, stop recycling the money by not charging people so much in the first place
- Famous People Heritage sites
 who visits those places anyway?
 
Those are just a few, but I think you get the point.  All this without even touching the "essential" services, such as the H for Hygiene award, police, fire, streetlights, social care or the Disabled Children’s Champions.  Fuck me, I bet there may even be a few pounds spare to decorate the roundabouts or buy in some new Christmas lights if that lot went.

Charities call for new bonus tax

Does this sound like charity to you?

BBC News - Charities call for new bonus tax

char·i·ty[char-i-tee]

–noun, plural -ties.

1. generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless

Can somebody point out to me how a transfer of money raised by force constitutes a charitable action?  If I take my neighbours car and give it to a stranger that it theft, and the receiver of the car is guilty of handling stolen goods, I fail to see how this is any different!