Does prison work?

"We need less understanding and more condemnation", Michael Howard's mantra following the Bulgar murder. This has been the guiding principal throughout British prison policy since; in relation to youth crime, and 'petty crime'. Yet 'prison works' is set to crumble north and south of the isle however as both English Tories and SNP plan to abolish short sentences.

Re-offending rates

Prison does not 'work', and we need more understanding; not less. There, my stall is set out up front. Kenneth Clarke is correct to seek to direct more focus into rehabilitation and community service orders instead of prisons. More than a decade has passed sine Michael Howard occupied the home office; and since then re-offending rates for youth criminals has risen to over 80%, and general short term sentence re-offending is at 60%. Prison is not working.

But while there is a truth in the Daily Telegraphs argument that when prisoners are "behind bars, they cannot harm the public", this is short termism of the worst form. And yes, the Scottish Conservatives in opposing the abolition of short sentencing are guilty of this to my mind.

Yet there is something more at play. When we have Annabel Goldie arguing that the abolition of short sentencing will create "a soft-touch Scotland by emptying our prisons", and English Tories are saying "falls in crime recently is down to social and economic factors, not prison" we can see an ideological collision.

On the one hand we have a liberalesque approach focusing on rehabilitation, transcending the 'now' in pursuit of the inestimable human desire to better oneself. On the other is a more socially conservative belief, reminiscent of Hobbes to Clarke's [and SNP's] Rousseau.

The division over short sentencing is therefore a direct and unbridgeable gap over ideology, and political philosophy. Cameron cannot do anything about this. To Scottish Tories Kenneth Clarke is 'not one of us', and anyone lining up beside him is perceived as more of an enemy than Labour and Nationalist combined.

We cannot go on like this.

Thus calling it a day on the merger is now inevitable. And it is not just prison and sentencing where a clear difference of fundamental political philosophy has reared an ugly head. Most Scots Tories are against further devolution; indeed so much so that Goldie was nearly overthrown for signing up to delivering Calman. Cameron and the southern Tories however seem eager to deliver fiscal responsibilities to Holyrood. Constitutional divisions are perhaps an even better indicator over how our two wings of Conservatism have drifted irrevocably apart.

My only fear is that an independent Scottish Tory successor Party would end up rejecting all of Cameron's modernity in favour of a Hobbesian reality. An end to the merger, I have always said 'yes', but if that means losing touch with the Ken Clarkes I may have to reconsider.

Having one child

Is having one child the act of a selfish woman, or the sacrifice of the responsible Eco-citizen?

Many mothers with one child live in constant fear of it, "how many children do you have?" If they answer with "just the one" they are more often than not subject to a barrage of hurtful toss-away comments; such as "Only one?" [eyebrows raised skyward], or "Oh, a lonely only" [accompanied with a devastating sigh].

It is time for our society to confront the prejudice held against couples with a single child; but to do this we need to ask ourselves two questions: are the assumptions about single children true? and are our deductions about the parental motivations accurate?

Besides the lonely only comments many parents with one child like Adele Parks of the Style [Sunday Times] are faced with more than suspicion about parental motivations being less than honourable. She writes in Style that "besides the "lonely only" comment, complete strangers have felt compelled to tell me my decision is selfish, damaging to my son and - this really takes the biscuit - that "being a mum to a single child must be a part time job"". Thus again I emphasis that latter question, are our deductions about the motives of parents such as Adele Parks accurate?
.

Frankly to any right thinking person, especially those with children themselves, will realise that having offspring is an all-absorbing experience. A massive ride of emotion, total commitment and adrenaline to defy the fatigue. This must surely be true whether a couple have one child or five.

Be under no illusions, it isn't just mothers of multiple offspring who are responsible for ignoring this fact. I was once at a party with my friend [only child], and a fellow party goer actually informed him that his parents "must be selfish". It subsequently transpired that this little moraliser has three children by three different mothers; all born outside of marriage and any semblance of stable home life. Oh, and he was only 21.

On this basis, can we begin to wonder the horror pushed the way of women who made a choice not to have any children?

Absurdity. That is the only answer available to describe the thoughts of people who think that having a single child is in any way selfish. I guarantee that mothers like Adele Park, and others, have never made any comments to mothers who have chosen to have more than one child. The truth that our society needs to realise is that couples, both mothers and fathers have a right to enjoy a fulfilling career, ones which can make them feel whole and well rounded individuals. Surely vital qualities in prospective parents? Not that this means that couples with a single child are placing their careers ahead of their child, just the opposite. If they have the chance to feel fulfilled by an active and flourishing career; what can possibly be more important than that for parents? It compliments, not hinders child rearing.

Indeed single children are individuals. They aren't cursed, being "the big one", the "middle one" or the "baby" of the pack. Children like Conrad Park aren't considered by his mother or father as "the only one"; he is considered as Conrad. An individual. "He is a person, not a number".

Yet let us assess other factors, for example the Eco-footprint for spouting more than one child into the planet. Our planet is positively bursting at the seams, resources are growing scarce, and in parts of Africa there are experts warning of water wars. Add to that the hurt of demographically overpopulation globally. Isn't thus an argument to be had that couples with a single child not only bring up well rounded individuals, but their motivations are fundamentally progressive and enlightened? [Answering both of my original two questions].

Yet let us reverse this flow. It is time to consider the motivations of couples with more than one child, lets reverse the flow of irrational and unfair assumptions for a while; just for the sake of argument you all understand.

Given that the wider social pressure to have more than one child doesn't go away; what are the motivations for the couples with multiple offspring? There is always the mothers who hold true to the desire to 'have a little girl'. But why? What are their motivations, and what happens to the resulting children? Do these parents think that female children are born to accompany them shopping? Follow them to H&M every Sunday going spare? Are those any reasons to go for daughters, and multiple kids?

But of course lets not forget that to others the rationale for multiple kids could be financial - they could be selfish! Parents with their so-called 'lonely only' obviously do not seek them to go on every-Sunday shopping trips, or 'take care' of them gratuitously upon retirement. They have an individual, a single kid which can have the chance to enjoy his own life, without preconceptions, selfish ulterior motives.

But then, surely the main point is that we all just ought to be more open minded. We need diversity of family type and size. We need to challenge these horrible societal bias against parents with only one child. After all, as we can see, if we reverse their bias and thought process against them - it is nakedly absurd.

The world doesn't owe you a living: end entitlement

David Cameron said that the UK has no automatic right to be a wealthy, high debt country - they world doesn't owe us a living. He is quite right, but it is a principle that he needs to extend into the welfarism of the leftists

Reboot and rebuild

It is a dangerous time under which we all live, with UK structural debts now expected to exceed £606bn potentially - we are under a very real threat of defaulting on Labour's debts. Our economic model is unsustainable, our welfarism cannot be afforded, and too many Britons labour [or not, as is the problem] under the delusion that the taxpayer owes them a living.

It is time to reboot and rebuild. Quite right Mr Cameron. But the killer question is, 'to what?'

For starters transform our economy into one with minimalist government debts, of slim lined welfarist burdens, and finally of high octane economic competitiveness. Only then can we all rest easy in the knowledge that the high standards of living which we currently possess can be secured for future generations. As it will no be if we 'carry on up the Khyber', spending more than we can afford on the idle, the lazy. Only the genuinely ill are a tolerable exception.

British decline since the end of the empire is not inevitable. That was a lesson once taught to us by a certain Lady, now our coalition must teach it again. In the national interest. And lets start by getting the idle into work.

With 32.4% of all future domestic state spending being drained by 'social security and services' it is time to realise we cannot afford to have mountains of people sitting unemployed. Get them training, get the moving, get them working. Indeed many universal benefits can be done without, without harming anything except leftist dogma; so lets start by abolishing child benefit, and freezing all benefits for two years. Nothing is free, no one owes us a living.

Where the cuts should fall

UK structural deficit: £606bn, UK cyclical debt 2009-10 £81bn. It is time to locate the cuts to pay for Labour's economic incompetence.

Where to start

The Coalition urgently needs to address the structural debt left by the previous Labour government, and the mere fact that it is a coalition of two separate political movements makes an already difficult challenge near impossible.

But when it comes to tidying up after Labour, the impossible is what the Conservatives have always had to do.

Where to start then? Many Tory purists urge the leadership to start with health spending, arguing that it doesn't require 2-3% budget increases [above inflation] to continue to deliver improving services. And if we are talking about predicted state side spending in 2010-11 the health budget is projected to cost the UK government approximately 17.5%, perhaps, some argue, this could be thinned down more? Inject some productivity into the NHS institution they say. It on the face of it must send the Tory taste palates salivating with expectancy and delight, however I argue they are missing a couple of key points.

For a start, the 17.5% for the NHS is surely justified, given the postcode lotteries for the cutting edge treatments. The nationalised health service needs above inflation increases in its overall headline budgets, that is medical necessity. But if productivity, and economic competence with the overall budget is what we are after it is much better to devolve more powers to individual hospitals, and abolish the target culture.

To have more competent spending of NHS monies, you need to cut down on the management, and this means overhauling how we run our hospitals. If you devolve powers to local hospitals, and trusts then you can reduce the amount of bureaucratic staff in the system as a whole. To see more money spent on curing the sick, and less on bureaucratic empire building, do not cut the headline NHS budget, inject devolution and localism into its day-to-day running and operations.

But more fundamentally, if we want to cut back on projected excesses, don't go after the NHS. The real scandal rests in social security and services. If you want somewhere to begin, begin here. 2010-11 will see a projected 32.4% of all state spending on social security and services, what a national scandal.

But how to row some of that 32.45 back? Begin by freezing all benefits across the board for two years. That is predicted to save the hard pressed middle earning taxpayer £6bn. Additionally to further reduce the amount the coalition plans to hand out to the idle you can abolish child benefit. That will also safe a significant amount to pay down our structural deficit; £12bn to be precise.

It would be wrong for Conservatives to see the NHS as the number one target for government spending waste, the real empire of profligacy is 'social security and service'. Lets start there, and save an extra £18bn from what I've outlined above.

Extra measures

Beyond social security profligacy there is also ministerial departments that could be done without. Some over on my fellow bloggie mate's 'Munguins Republic' argued for the abolition of the department of education, and while I am not myself necessarily going that far- I am going down that road.

Abolish the department for culture, media and sport - and save the hard pressed taxpayer £2.3bn in the bargain. There is much room for wholesale burnings of ministerial portfolios, but to return to my opening theme, given coalition government means weaker than normal government, this radicalism however justified remains a pipe dream.

Finally some economic purists are arguing for raising more money to pay down the deficit by ending the food exemption from VAT. This is a suggestion that New-Right will strongly oppose, not least because VAT increase from 17.5% to 20% would be severely hard on those on the breadline if it also proved applicable to food, clothing and the other VAT exemptions. Given that the UN measurement for 'real' poverty includes affordability and access to food, VAT increases on food would undermine our goal of ending 'real' poverty in the UK.

But still, plenty of ideas for additional cuts remain open to boy-George. He needs to be radical, the emergency budget was well received, with 49% saying they regarded it as "fair" [Telegraph, Monday 28th]. He needs to strike while the iron is hot as my dear old grandfather tells me.

Tory SNP coalition?

With senior Tory party leaders concerned at the polls for Holyrood 2011, they are prepared to enter coalition with the SNP to keep Labour out. Guess that means an acceptance for a referendum too then...

The general idea of coalition is not to be laughed off, not least because in proportional systems they are largely inevitable. And if we did indeed see a Conservative - SNP - LibDem grand coalition after 2011, it would deal a decisive blow to Labour in their Scottish heartland.

.

The Sunday Times article explains that with Goldie on the verge of resignation, and a major review of the Party taking place- there is a movement afoot to actively promote the coalition idea.
.

And do not underestimate the scale of the internal civil war afoot within the Scots Conservative Party. The fallout within the Conservative Party following the 2010 disaster in Scotland is threatening to end the brand 'Scottish Conservative Party, replaced with a new name and new [independent] organisational structure'. This could throw the Scots political kaleidoscope into spin. Scotland desperately needs a centre-right party.

It does transcend our own confines. After all the Sunday Times reveals that SNP ministers are in discussion with the Tories concerning this plan; if they should need it to keep power. How will SNP voters react? Many of them are still to get over the 1980s, would this coalition be a step to far?

There is the very real possibility that the Scots Tories reorganisation may free us from London micromanagement, reversing the Heath merger. This it increasingly looks like will result in a drift towards reconciliation. Reconciliation with the SNP through coalition, reconciliation with the Scots people through accepting the need for a referendum on independence.

It isn't idle speculation any of this either. Not when senior Party sources are publicly telling major Sunday Newspapers "It's a no-brainer that we ought to get off the sidelines and into the Scottish government", even it seems at the price of holding a referendum on independence. Changing times in Tory circles indeed.

But there is logic to all of the propositions flaying around.

Coalition with the SNP, we can hardly argue against it. Not when we are in one in Westminster, and is working quite well. Let us remember that coalitions, and Party deals are in essence at the beating heart of PR politics, and therefore as essential to Scots political landscapes as MSPs are.

Furthermore the proposal to work with the SNP, if necessary to keep Labour out isn't as hard to believe as all that. "We're in a proportional system so any party which refuses to contemplate coalition is pretty stupid", is what 'a senior Scottish Tory source' is saying. But more deeply, if the SNP do get their independence referendum and we agree to support it being held [though campaign on different sides], I guarantee the Nats would have to seriously consider it. They are in the business of delivering their ideals after all.

Let me finish on the remarks in the Sunday Times of an unnamed SNP minister [not too many of them, so take your pick]:

"If the Tories were prepared to entertain an independence referendum I suppose it would be possible" ... to be continued?

Euthanasia

A top German court has ruled that it is not a criminal offence to cut off the life support of a dying person if that person has given their consent.

In a landmark ruling the German Federal Court has aquitted a lawyer after he advised the daughter of a comatose woman to cut off her feeding tube.

While active euthanasia remains illegal in Germany, with a punishment of up to 5 years, this ruling does apply to passively assisting death through the removal of artificial life support. It makes this legal if the patient has given clear consent.

It is time to question more precisely our own attitudes to euthanasia in the UK, especially given Margo MacDonald's bill recently in Holyrood.

The Scottish debate

The euthanasia debate has been particularly active in the years since devolution arrived, with Jeremy Purvis of the LibDems, whose proposed euthanasia bill was thrown out several years ago. Then came Margo MacDonald, with her very personal intervention last year. It is time to ask ourselves about the merits and details of this very active debate.

To start, Jeremy Purvis contends that there is a distinction which needs to be drawn between euthanasia on the one hand, and providing the right to die to terminally ill patients; able to make a conscious decision themselves;

"He was at pains to point out that he was not proposing euthanasia. His proposal would not affect children, the infirm, the elderly or the depressed. It would apply only to competent people who had been told by two doctors that their illness was terminal - people, perhaps, such as MacDonald eventually. Purvis pointed out that it is lawful to withdraw lifesaving treatment from individuals in a vegetative state. But people in possession of their faculties are refused the right to die — a strange contradiction."

Strange indeed, but regardless of whether what has been proposed recently, or what has been ruled in the German Federal Court constitutes euthanasia, or not, the question remains. Should one have the right to die, at a time of his/her own choosing?

All too often the question has been posed in the wrong way, asking, 'can we have the right to kill ourselves?'. The answer according to law is a plain and simple 'no'. Additionally, why ask if we can. Many, Margo included, contend there is no 'can' involved; that the right to die is as inherent as the right to life.

However the consequences if we accept this general principal, that we all have a fundamental right to die, what impact shall this have? For example, the right to die, and euthanasia, may undermine the very important strives achieved in palliative care for the terminally ill. Is this really a consequence we can be happy living with? Tory MSP Mary Scanlon, a nurse in a previous life, focused particularly upon this during the Holyrood debates on Margo's proposal;

"The Conservative MSP Mary Scanlon, who was once a nurse, pointed out that it can be difficult to interpret the wishes of a terminally ill person if they are delirious, confused or demoralised

Both Scanlon and Labour's Richard Simpson, another doctor turned politician, drew attention to the advances in palliative care for the dying in recent decades. Simpson is an expert in this field, having helped to manage one of Scotland's first hospices in the 1970s, yet he admits he still “wrestles” with the issues"

And great advances there has been in these areas. It wasn't so long ago that the terminally ill where dumped in impersonal hospital wards, or pushed off to families to burden the duty. Now with the rise in the hospice movement, Marie Curie and Cancer Research UK there has been a greater focus upon the quality of death, and the last days. There is the risk that euthanasia could undermine the significant progress achieved in these areas; after all isn't it quicker and easier just to pull the plug before the terminal illness becomes a cost? To the families, the patients themselves and of course the taxpayer. Safeguards are reached for by many supporters of euthanasia like Margo- however they cannot guard against human nature.
.

Scanlon is right to point to the problems surrounding establishing the wishes of the dying, and given these complications, combined with the financial imperatives which would surround patient euthanasia there are very real risks that the culling of the sick may become an imperative in the medial profession. Slippery slopes and such like.
.

This is why it is surely obvious that while euthanasia as a debate is very active, there is rarely very much deep insightful debate conducted into it. What are the complications? what would the consequences perhaps be? Rarely are these discussed, and when they are it is all too often a matter of detail between political parties in parliamentary debates. Debates where the public seem frozen out, ignored.

As for my own views on euthanasia, the right to die, and the German Federal Court remain undefined. I remain to be convinced by both sides as to the merits of the discussion.

The Immigrant Cap

The coalition has proposed a cap on immigration numbers, and given the possibility of a return of Polish, and eastern European immigrants into Britain, it is unavoidable

While this cap is temporary, the home Secretary Theresa May has explained it is step one towards delivering Tory pledge to institute a permanent cap. Apparently there is still technical side issues to be remedied, therefore, until then there is to be a temporary cap. This is welcome news given that some in the coalition were calling for the Tory leadership to drop the manifesto pledge, however May seems bent on honouring that commitment. How refreshing, a Party honouring their manifesto pledges.

Yet some business leaders are complaining that it will make it harder to recruit the staff they need, with the skills they need. But here is a radical idea for everyone to chew on; why not train these skills into our own people?

For too long it was Labour policy to cream the talent and skill off of other countries, and that was harmful to us and the countries in question. The cap offers the UK the chance to realise the areas where our education system is failing. And we urgently need to.

A total of 190,640 immigrant labour entered the UK for work last year, despite unemployment hitting 2.5 millions. What this informs us is that we are subsidising large sections of unemployed people; with an imported work force. This is denying opportunities to the unemployed in the UK, the majority of which want to work, but for the sakes of political expediency are unable to. There is a lack of training for the new skills, there is a failure to promote employment opportunities for the long term unemployed; and all because it is easier to import labour than train our domestic population.

This is unsustainable, if the cap forces business, government and legislature to realise this then all the better.

However let it be clarified that I am all for free movement of goods, people, finance across our European Union; the key point is that we should not allow this to undermine our duty to the British people. The unemployed need training, and so long as there is a permanent supply of foreign skilled labourers, this will always remain second fiddle.

Believe it, before this cap we have all seen; some sadly maybe experienced; that once you hit 50 and are made redundant - it is very hard to find work. By that age you lack the skill training for newer industries, you are seen as a liability. So much easier to import eager workers from abroad, willing to work for less money; and sometimes fewer rights.

If the cap proposed by the Tories can force a crucible that will change this; then New-Right strongly supports it.

Boy-George steps up to the plate

George Osborne has delivered his first budget, and by all accounts the "unavoidable" budget was largely a success; but with a few notable exceptions

Tax

The changes to the tax system are wide ranging, as expected; however there are a couple of points that are surprising.

VAT increased to 20%, a tough decision for sure; and one that will hurt many people in the pocket. However Osborne has pledged that for the length of the coalition parliament, the exception for children's clothing, food and such VAT-free items is to remain VAT free. This is to be welcomed, not least because it makes sure that the VAT increase doesn't disproportionately hurt the middle earning families out there any more that it must. Those VAT exceptions being maintained were unexpected and unpredicted, with many experts predicting they would be abolished - but thankfully they were not.

Alongside that, the goal for the first £10,000 to be exempt from taxation altogether remains on track, with this budget making a major inroad with £7,475 now being before tax. This is predicted to raise as much as 900,000 people out of paying tax altogether- according to the BBC website. It is important to note that this reform is suggestive that the coalition is planning to push to implement the LibDem goal of a restructured tax system. Conservatives ought to broadly welcome the aimed for redistribution of the burden of taxation up onto higher earners. Progressive change today.

Pensioners

One of the mistakes of the 1980s has been reversed; by a Tory led government. Now pensions are guaranteed to rise in line with with earnings, prices or 2.5pc, whichever is greatest. It takes a Conservative led government to do what 13 years of Labour could not. Again, another deeply progressive change as part of the Osborne emergency budget - the left are silenced over their shame for not having done so when they were in power.

Yet more news, as the basic state pension is also being linked to earnings, to ensure that there will never again by an insulting 75p increase under future Labour governments.

It is vital that the most vulnerable are protected from the hard realities of having to pay back Labour's debt mountain; thus the protection and help offered to pensioners must be welcomed by all, no matter political disposition.

Public sector changes

Child tax benefit is to be removed from any family earning over $40,000 a year. This is surely common sense, as benefits must be a safety net for the very poorest, if the benefits handed out each year is diluted then the total amount available to the most needy is reduced. Osborne is correct to attack the Brownite policies of tax benefit complications for the upper middle classes. If you can afford to live without these tax credit complications, then you ought to. Benefits are a support mechanism for the genuinely needy, it is there to help them. Not the affluent middle classes.

Again, ironic that it takes a Tory led government to make this reality, after 13 wasted years under the previous labour government.

As part of this theme the chancellor has also announced that tax credits will be reduced for families earning more than £40,000. Another proud step forward for common sense and human dignity.

Yet, there is some tough medicine as well, it isn't all silver linings and sunlit uplands.

Housing benefit is to be restricted to a maximum of £400 per week, and there is to be an acceleration of the retirement age to 66 within this parliament. Tough, but as Osborne said unavoidable given the realities of £1.4 trn of Labour debts to service.

Unemployment

Osborne continued with his pledge for open and transparent government, and has revealed that unemployment will peak at around 8.1% over 2010-11. However he matched this with a new regional fund, to be accessed by Wales, Northern England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The goal is to provide Westminster money for major capital projects in these regions, that will aid the private sector, create jobs and reduce the headline levels of unemployment.

And given that regions like Northern Ireland and Scotland will be disproportionately hurt by reducing the size of the unaffordable public sector it is only right that such funds exist to support job creation. No one must be left on the scrap heap like Thatcher did, ours is a progressive revolution.

The aim therefore is to see unemployment headline figures [claimant count, so not accurate enough for my liking, accepted] to fall to 6.1% by 2015, the date of the election.

Good bag there, but the unemployment peak will be a sore point; but given the proper support for those made redundant, I see no long term problems.

Growth and business

The expected UK economy growth figures have been issued, and thanks to the Office of Budget Responsibility the coalition introduced are believable:

UK economy to grow by 1.2pc in 2010

UK economy to grow by 2.3pc in 2011

UK economy to grow by 2.8pc in 2012

No politicisation of the numbers unlike the previous labour government era.

But the business reforms are a mixed bag, good and bad. Before launching back into my current theme of CGT, lets cover the other stuff first.

Good news includes Corporation tax being cut to 27pc next year, alongside Corporation tax cut by 1pc point a year for next three years to 24pc. Small companies are set to benefit even more, with tax rate cuts to 20pc for them. This will aid job creation, and push up economic growth.

Furthermore there is to be a UK bank and building society levy from 2011, aiming to encourage more longer term responsibility in the financial services world. Thus a new levy also on UK operations of foreign banks is to be introduced, to reduce the risk factor from the banking institutions.

However, rightfully smaller banks not liable for a levy, enabling more growth for them, and creating more competition in the banking world, which is all too often the preserve for major transnational conglomerate empires.

Overall the banks levy alone is expected to raise more than £2bn a year. All going to the £50bn in structural debt reduction goals.

Yet, there it remains; capital gains tax. The madness is now reality for any entrepreneur in the UK. How on earth does Osborne hope to put up any sign saying "Open for Business" if we are attacking share owners, and damaging entrepreneurs? Oh, and I didn't hear about any opt outs for pensioners...a major sore point for any self respecting Tory. But at least the increase was by only 10%, keeping the rate under 30-40% as planned.

But there the mistake remains: 10pc CGT rate for entrepreneurs extended to first £5m of qualifying gains. Bad news.

Emergency Budget day: expected measures

The budget details have been leaked to the press for a while now, so much for parliament hearing news first...

Expected measures

The package expected to be announced, some of it is actually very positive. Indeed, even the cuts, if conducted properly can be positive, and progressive.

To start with, we expect 900,000 people to be lifted out of the tax system, at the bottom end of the scale. The plan to raise the minimum threshold at which a person will have to start to pay tax is set to rise by £1,000 to £7,475. This is extremely good news, and is to be offset through higher rates for bigger earners. The need to rebalance the tax system is a progressive reform, which every Conservative should definitely welcome from this budget.

On the other hand Osborne is set to introduce new levy charges on the banking sector, to claw some money back for the taxpayer, and the middle earning Brit. Coupled with strategically reduced headline corporation tax rates; this could very well increase government revenue; while reducing the burden of tax on job creating businesses. Another sensible change.

Yet the most important structural reform due to be announced by boy-George is his plan to simplify the tax system. With our tax code the longest in the world, even larger than India's 1000 page long version - it has become unfit for purpose. Another stinking legacy of the 13 wasted New Labour years.

Thus, to kick off a new era in tax simplification, Osborne is expected to outline sweeping simplifications to corporation tax; to compliment the rate cut. Again, sound economics, and vital for stimulating future growth, and real jobs in a thriving private sector engine. It is time to get this economy on the move.

But what is Osborne planning to do about the public sector job losses? It is obvious that regions like North East England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland would be adversely impacted upon by reducing the size of the state. So is there anything on offer for all those set to be put on the dole? Yes, and it is a sign of a coalition government concerned about the unemployed, ours is to be a caring revolution.

Osborne will remove national insurance contributions for any new business set up in these specific regions, for at least a year; some are reporting planned two year stretch. What this will do is generate private sector jobs for the newly unemployed from the public sector to move into. The job skills ought to be the same, as we are not just referring to supply sector jobs- administration jobs etc will be available. Excellent, we must not repeat the mistakes of the Thatcher revolution, as we role back the dark spectre of the state.

Naturally however I'd like to repeat my strong opposition to Osborne's ridiculous capital gains tax hike. This is counter to our goal of popular capitalism, as it punishes share ownership, and hurts pensioners. Even with the exemptions that he seems set to make, I'd contend that this planned tax hike will look more like a lopsided slice of Ledammar cheese. Madness, indeed I have friends who if the CGT is pushed up to 30%, they will lose £100,000 in income. And they are currently out of work, looking for fresh work- the kind of work you need to 'go for a coffee' to find. Osborne needs to back down, and abandon his mad CGT hike plans.

On whole, Osborne must unleash the human spirit in his budget, but be prepared for pain. With duties on petrol, alcohol, cigarettes all set to rise- this shall be painful! But remember, it has to be done, and we are all in this together. One Nation, united in purpose, and spirit. Old Britannia isn't done just yet.

Seize the moment George

George Osborne's approaching emergency budget has the opportunity to set the economic tone for the next decade; he must make sure it is ambitious, bold and most importantly radical

After Gordon Brown briefly danced with prudence, he quickly got bored; and resumed the traditional role for Labour chancellors. Thus Mr imprudence was born, anew, it had been abolished during the 18 years past, but by 2001 the era of big spending, and ever growing government had arrived.

Mr Osborne therefore faces an uphill task, a job which transcends the need to simply reduce the structural deficit - though important it is - he must role back the dark stain of 13 years of big statism. It will not be easy, it never is when one is set to challenge a mass of people and their vested interests, but it will be all the harder for Osborne. He only in part has himself to blame, but this chancellor was the one who alongside David Cameron sought to build a new economic consensus until the recession hit.

We had, following the Cameroonian election as Tory leader, a new era of Butskellite consensus. The Tories under the duo had offered rising spending; though less than Labour, and tax cuts; however very modest. Now they must flip, and realise that we need major tax cuts in business coupled with comprehensive reductions in the state side spending. They thus are forced to confront their own silly legacy, when they chose to copy Brown and Labour during the years of frolicking recklessness.

However they are the men capable at least to oversee what is required; and demanded; of them. I believe Osborne and his emergency budget will not fail to step up to the mark.

The urgency is pressing after all. With public spending constituting 48% of gross domestic product, there is something seriously wrong in the state of Britain today. When most advanced economies have a figure approaching 30% [yes, even most in Europe] you must realise the state is too big, and is now an unaffordable drag on our economic life.

Nor indeed is it an ethical and moral public service empire. My friends, what is moral about a public sector which is so large that we are leaving huge debts to our grandchildren? Public sector pensions are a fine example of vested public sector interests; harming and not improving our lives. Nick Clegg was entirely right when he spoke of tackling "gold plated public sector pension pots"; they need targeting urgently. After all, the bill is set to rise from £4bn to a whopping £9.4bn a year over the next four years. The leftwingers need to ask themselves how it helps the poorest in our society when you overburden the public provisions with unsustainable levels of reckless spending. They are yet to do this, thus we Conservatives must, in the national interest for the many, not the few.

While there are questionable economic decisions; like the capital gains tax mistake, these kinds of compromises are the unfortunate fallout from coalition governance. What he can do however is ensure that middle earners, who lose their jobs in the public sector reductions can find work. After all this is peoples livelihoods we are discussing, and even here there seems some original thinking. Osborne is apparently planning to give firms in the regions most dependent on the public sector tax breaks; so that they can hire new workers who have been made redundant and displaced. Good, because Osborne needs to avoid making Howe and Lawson's mistakes; we must have a small government revolution - with care. Those displaced must be looked after in ways they were not during the 1980s. This is why the Osborne tax break for the regions proposal is clear, imaginative and extremely welcome.

Osborne must therefore seize his moment to issue a trend setting budget like 1979. He can establish a more caring attempt at small state than the Thatcher revolution. But he must start by making clear the 50% income tax is temporary, and will only return us to the politics of envy. Labour must not be allowed back in to destroy our nation, Osborne must therefore be radical, brave, tough, and if he gets it right- he can himself help to prevent the ultimate disaster of another Labour government.

ABE?

HMV has withdrawn T-shirts from its Scottish stores after it was revealed that they were bigoted, and incited hatred

HMV took the decision after Fife police visited a store in the Kirkcaldy constituency of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

The Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) contacted police about the "insensitive and provocative" items which, their website claimed were "criminally irresponsible".

The CEP said: "We understand HMV have agreed to withdraw their insensitive and provocative 'Anyone but England' window displays and T-shirts from their Scottish stores following complaints from members of the public and a complaint by the CEP to Fife Police for incitement to racial hatred.

"During the last World Cup, a number of racist attacks were committed in Scotland against English people and anti-English racism remains a problem whether it's a World Cup year or not."
An HMV spokesman told The Scotsman newspaper: "If we thought the shirts were in any way racist, then we certainly wouldn't have stocked them.

"In our view, the shirts are not against England or the English, but are simply about some Scottish fans expressing a view that they want any team other than England to win this year's World Cup.

"This is about the World Cup and should not be turned into a race issue."

Scotland failed to reach the finals after a dismal qualifying campaign, but the anti-England bigots remain marching. It is time to confront this last socially acceptable national bigotry, discrimination is unacceptable; no matter ones politics.

CGT: I did not vote Tory for this

The Adam Smith Institute has joined the campaign to prevent the disasterous planned rise in Capital Gains Tax; and on a personal note; if Osborne does raise CGT- this is not why I voted Tory.

Reductions

The Adam Smith Institute [ASI] has demonstrated that the LibDem proposal to raise CGT is not only harmful to entrepreneurs, and the Conservative ideal of popular capitalism, it will also reduce, and not raise, income for the government.

The ASI revealed that for every 1% raise in CGT you can expect to see around a 10% drop in revenues generated by the tax. This confirms the arguments set out by John Redwood, David Davis, and the anti-CGT rise campaigners, it is now time for the coalition to listen.

CGT is too important a fund raiser for a hike in the rates from 18% to around 30-40% to happen, according to the government statistics the tax raised £7.8bn in revenues. If the rates are hiked up, punishing pensioners and undermining our popular capitalism message - you can expect to see that total amount collected fall. For what is frankly a deeply illogical, and ill considered LibDem policy. It is time for the Conservative leadership to remember who elected them, what they were sent there to do, and to stop giving away our values for the sakes of a coalition with the Fiberal Undemocrats.

"Not terribly smart"

The aim of the move is to raise money to help cut Britain's deficit but Peter Young, from the Adam Smith Institute, informed the BBC in an interview that it could actually have the opposite effect.

"It seems that for every 1% rise in the capital gains tax rate above a certain fairly low level of around 10 %, you get a 2% drop in revenue,"

"So if you put the rate up by less you'll get a bit less revenue and if you put the rate up by a lot you'll get a lot less revenue, which means that it doesn't seem a terribly smart thing to do at this time because it will widen the deficit rather than bring it down."

The think tank said that when CGT was cut in Ireland from 40% to 20% in 1997 it actually led to a near-tripling of the tax revenue. Maybe Osborne could listen and learn? Conversely, it said an increase of the size anticipated in the Budget could leave a hole in government finances equivalent to having to cut an additional 30,000 public sector jobs. More cuts for the public sector then? To pay for a foolish Fiberal Undemocrat policy proposal?

The warning was echoed in an open letter to Mr Osborne written by a group of entrepreneurs, who said that while they supported the effort to prevent wealthy individuals avoiding tax by "disguising" income as assets, a blanket rise in CGT "could have a significant long-term detrimental effect on entrepreneurial activity in the UK".

"The net effect of a unilateral CGT tax hike in the UK would drive talented executives abroad and discourage international investors from placing equity investments in the UK, resulting in reduced growth, less entrepreneurship, fewer jobs and of course, reduced tax revenues,"

"We would therefore urge the chancellor to consider zero-rating CGT for all types of genuine equity investments or start-up incentive schemes, provided assets and options have been held for a significant period of time, such as 12 months or more.

"Such a policy would help the UK become the natural home for innovative entrepreneurial start-ups, creating new jobs and delivering long term recurring tax revenues."

I did not vote, campaign and work for a Tory government for it to behave like a bunch of socialists.

The public sector to bare the brunt says Cameron

Confirmation of what we all already understood has taken place; it is a case of 'target public sector'; and maybe it isn't before time?

Public sector conditions

It goes without saying that the cuts will hurt, and that vital public sector programmes may need scaled back; in England & Wales by the coalition, and in Scotland by the SNP government. This is the shocking legacy of Labour tax and spend incompetence.

Yet, if we look at the figures, it can be established that under the 13 wasted Labour years that public sector pay and conditions got seriously out of hand. And on that basis, not only is a bout of public sector stringency called for- it is fundamentally good governance.

For example, Cameron has announced that for any public sector worker earning over £18,000 his pay will be frozen; and on the face of it its rather tough medicine. But for all of you working in the private sector well know, as I do, that the 13 years of pay and conditions means that this is ethically an eminently justifiable policy. To start, as things stand if you compare public sector workers pay with their private sector counterparts on a like for like basis; you find they are in effect paid 2% more. And that goes hand in hand with the gold plated pension schemes propped up by the hard pressed taxpayer.

On top of that, it appears that around 7 million working days have been lost to strikes in the public sector; aiming it seems to pad out their already more privileged position vis-a-vis the average private sector worker.

Cameron is correct in his aim to target the excesses of the public sector; and excess there is. Between 2002-2009 the public sector pay bill rocketed 33% under Labour; more than triple the rise in the private sector. That kind of wild growth in costs to the taxpayer is simply unsustainable and more importantly excessive for the original purpose of the public sector. Originally the sector was designed to carry out vital public work, and their generous pensions and holiday schemes were designed to compensate for their lesser pay compared to the private sector; now that is all out of sink. The public sector has kept all of its privileges, and has an on average higher pay bill than the private sector. The only problem is that this empire of excess is fueled by the hard pressed taxpayer; and Gordo's 50p in the pound tax. It does not produce economic growth, it merely sucks it away.

Indeed the public sector now enjoys so many benefits compared to the private sector that not only are middle pay packet workers in the private sector earning 12% less, but they equally longer hours on top of their smaller pay packets.

All of the evidence is clear, Cameron and the coalition must target the public sector for some tough medicine. It is overpaid, excessive, inefficient, and in desperate need for some streamlining. Maybe then we can avoid having to tax the hard pressed middle earning Britons to pay the debt for Labour's debt bombshell.

Missing the point: Toynbee style

The disenchanted former Brownite is missing the point in her opposition to Michael Gove's free schools project

Social inequality and access

There is a growing argument, not entirely devoid of good points, that is maintaining that free schools shall actually reduce the equal access for the socially disenfranchised. According to Toynbee of the Guardian the free schools will on the one hand suck resources away from your bog standard comprehensive, and on the other act selectively against poorer children wanting into the new free schools. On both points she is wrong.

Equal rights to a good education is clearly somewhere that all sides of the political spectrum can agree on; thus; can someone please ask Toynbee to stop pretending that we 'Tories' want to abolish the right to education for anyone earning under the average wage? Her entire argument is littered with an underlying presumption that Conservatives; like myself; cannot be trusted - that we have at all times some ulterior motive yet to be uncovered. This is childish attitudes typical of the disheartened left.

A prime example is the failure to understand that far from free schools sucking monetary resources away from the 'bog standard comprehensive'; they actually do nothing of the sort. All Gove is suggesting is that we extend parental choice in English & Welsh education. More precisely, the money at all times in English & Welsh education shall follow the child it is allocated to- no matter which school their family choose to send them to. Among the advantages of this is that it can help reduce the unfairness of the current system; by enabling schools to wriggle free from unfair and deeply discriminatory catchment area policies.

And be under no illusions Ms Toynbee, your statist approach has led to the deeply discriminatory development of catchment areas. In areas where there is a good school; automatically funded by the previous model based upon success; we could see a rush of upper middle class parents buying up the properties in the catchment area. How on earth does that lead to equality of access into the better schools in our system Ms Toynbee?

Moreover, her notion that the new free schools will be practising selection is nonsense; why? Because the money shall now follow the child! No more will the underlying decisions in the system be dominated by success-to-exam outcome ratio's. Finally the smartest poorer children can have a more equal chance at accessing their chosen school; doing away with inherently unfair catchment area approaches.

Indeed Toynbee's only true point which can be considered reasonable or sensible is her concern that a system dominated by free schools and the new funding model may be unstable. Unstable in the context of a lack of local authority involvement to pick up failing standards. Here there is a worry that given the heightened competition for students [to get the money which follows them], there may be 'runs' on less well performing schools. Do we really want to see North Rock style queuing as parents rush to withdraw their child from the attendance role in their local [failing] free school? It is here, and only here, where Mr Gove may need to listen to possible safeguards, after all his bullish response to this concern is inadequate to say the least:

"If they falter, if things go wrong, if there's any jiggery-pokery, schools will close."

Mr Gove urgently needs to realise that middle class parents tend to be the most aware and 'switched on' when it comes to entitlement and access issues. That is not a criticism, it is a deeply worthy quality- capacity and interest in their child's chances; however it may yield predicable results. Not least poorer families, less articulate, and less 'switched on', due to their less well off position; are left out in the cold.

However my New-Right strongly supports the Gove reforms nonetheless, yet we do need more thinking and a tad more safeguards.

Europe and the Tories

Given that my New-Right blog is Europeanist in outlook, it is with the greatest delight that the Daily Telegraph had an article entitled "Europe has fallen for the Tories", yet as one reads further down, the 'but' hits me square between the eyes

In the beginning

Anyone remember the pre-GE feelings across the chancelleries of Europe? At home, our foreign diplomats and experts where warning of hostilities as soon as a Tory government set up shop in No.10. And in Berlin Merkel could barely conceal her anger over Cameron's [frankly idiotic] withdrawal from the EPP-ED. Sarkozy and the French corner where equally scathing; after all the Tories threatened to remove Sarky's love [i.e Gordo Broon] from power.

Yet, the date came, and to astonish all [and me], there seems a love-in going on between Brussels and the Tory-Liberal coalition. How much of this is necessity, and just how much of this is down to positive hard work by ministers? Indeed, what impact has the coalition had on the expected Tory plans for our European project?

Engagement, the Clegg factor, and a peace gesture

All the assumptions about how Mr Cameron would address the EU question have been overturned; in real statesmanlike capacity to surprise the establishment. Cameron may even be re-writing the EU as an issue; a poisoned chalice within the Conservative Party.

Naturally the coalition plays a significant role in all of this. With the creation of the coalition Cameron has what he has lacked since he became leader; a left wing to affiliate with. He lacked a leftwing One Nation movement in the Tory PCP; it had withered under all the bile from the rightists; thus he has grafted a fresh left on via the Liberal Democrats.

This, among other things, has enabled Mr Cameron to abandon the rhetoric concerning repatriaton of powers.

Yet, beyond the coalition and the strategic opportunities it opens up for Cameron; there is the remarkable engagement offensive being conducted by ministers.

The Telegraph describes it;

"The truth is that ministers have engaged with their European counterparts - and with the European Commission - with a single-minded seriousness that has surprised"

Evidence of the truth of Benedict Brogan's statement can be found easily. Take a look at an obvious example, George Osborne. Osborne has surprised the new French ["Chiraquiste"] Michel Barnier; our new EU commissioner for the single market, and financial regulation. He has described his surprise when his first phonecall came from George Osborne, but that he was so impressed that he described Osborne as "intellegent and sympathetic".

Another good example is Caroline Spelman. She in turn has impressed EU counterparts with her avid engagement in the agriculture and fisheries council; talking in fluent and near-perfect French and German. The Telegraph explains that they loved her "mastery of her brief".

But the biggest factor in the warm relation with our continential brothers and sisters is the Osborne peace-gesture. He has abandoned [much to EU elation] Brown's demand for a written commitment to the need for fiscal stimulus. Apparently this won some glowing praise from our fellow Europeans in high places.

Finally there is the warming up of Cameron's personal relationships. Never discount the importance of personalities in global politics. Cameron has become to Sarkozy that Blair was to ... well Bush. Only in a more equal sort of way [neither is a lapdog so to speak].

"Nicolas Sarkozy is smitten" report French diplomats. Diplomatic? Obviously, but all the evidence does point to a good personal relationship starting up; with Sarkozy planning to visit London to celebrate De Gaulles speech [and naturally pay a visit to "Cammie"].

He is it seems in love [he is a lover after all] with Cameron's pragmatic serieux.

Even Merkel apparently is beginning to enjoy Cameron's "straight talking" [compared to Brown?]. Yet never ever forget much of this is surely necessity, plus- just you wait till the battle begins over the reforms to Lisbon kick off...

New regulatory role

George Osborne has confirmed the new regulatory role of the Bank of England [BoE], outlining the new approach to regulation of Britain's discredited financial sector

Mansion house

A wonderful scene for such an important historic speech. This is the location of Lloyd George's mansion house speech which helped avoid war in Morocco in 1911; a more suitable setting could not be hoped for for this speech. And be under no illusions, this Osborne speech is of central importance to all our lives. If he is too meek in his chosen direction for regulating the banks, then we may all be right back to square one; however if he has indeed got it right - we can sleep a tad easier.

First up is the FSA. An organisation of the failed Labour tripartite regulatory model, it is to be abolished; or in Osborne's wording "cease to exist in its current form".

This effectively means that all regulatory responsibility is to be undertaken by the BoE alone. All big, small and medium regulatory functions. Some question whether this is too much for one organisation alone; however I'd like to point to the capable and expert BoE handling of the financial sector before Gordon Brown's disastrous tripartite scheme was introduced.

Secondly in the speech came the far more interesting proposals. Mr Osborne has announced that Sir John Vickers will chair a review into the proposal to break up Britain's largest banks into two separate aspects: casino style investment, and deposit taking high street.

A note of caution, this is not the fulfilment of Cable's dream, it is merely the beginning of what shall be a year-long review into the proposal. While 'kicking into the long grass' does spring to mind, it does seem that the review shall go beyond considering the possibility of such a move, but actually how to do it. That would indicate that there is very serious consideration in the coalition for such a division of the major banks. For those of us hoping to see that Cable division happen, this is not a little step in the correct direction.

Mr Osborne has also given us his projected timescale for reform, 2012. By then the coalition government will have comprehensively reformed our financial sector, and the regulatory structures that confine them. A long time, but if the reforms do prove comprehensive, detailed and as thoroughgoing as the talk would indicate, I for one am happy to wait.

On a last note, it appears that there will be further action on bankers bonuses, and on introducing a bank levy; aimed to claw back our taxpayer dimes. Jolly good news that!

Bryant is right about French

His choice of expression may have been considered a tad over the top, but Chris Bryant is correct - French as a language is not as useful as was once the case

The importance of language

The importance of new generations being bilingual, or even multilingual is obvious to anyone able to see beyond Dover. And while I too disapprove of foreign and commonwealth office former minister Chris Bryant's choice of language; his point is reasonable enough to merit serious discussion.

Shadow Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant tell the Commons that times have changed and French is no longer as useful as it once was. And a little look at the linguistic future and he has a good case; Mandarin, Spanish, German - these can be said to constitute the major languages of tomorrow's world. The statistics speak for themselves, around one fifth of the entire global population speak Mandarin, as opposed to French; which exists only in former colonial Africa - and declining there too.

Think about it, already we see 1.5 bn people speaking Mandarin - a figure only set to rise as the oriental dragon awakes and spreads its potentially vast economic wings. Thus, isn't it time to review our languages programme in education? After all, we teach French as part of the entente cordiale. And loath may it be for this Scotsman to undermine it, frankly, it is not all that important anymore. Yet we can all realise that we need to maintain our competitive edge in economics, and part of our status in the west in being 'high skill economies' rests in our linguistics. Our businessmen and entrepreneurs of tomorrow require a thorough knowledge of the languages that they will most come up against; and that my readers - is not French.

But beyond even the chances opening up to us to change the non-English language we teach, we also need to realise that our entire approach to foreign language needs improvement. Now, yes, I am moving slightly past Bryant' original point - however - this needs mentioning.

Wrong way round

Children are most able to pick up language skill at an earlier age, and at puberty, the emotional and chemical internal balance can undermine this. Thus, why do we persist in the ultimate folly of beginning French lessons at primary 6 [in Scotland]? Why not earlier? It can be done, take a look at Europe [all europhobes tune into BBC radio 2 now], the Netherlands is a primary example. In the Netherlands they teach English alongside Dutch in elementary schools from group eight upwards [around the eight year old age group].

Thus not only do we urgently need to consider the languages we are choosing to teach our new generations, we also need to think about methodology too.

No room for Obama

A Federal government which has expanded by 30%, the re-federalisation of social-security, and the disastrous permission given to deep sea drilling, isn't it time for the USA to ask why they have this spendaholic 43rd president?

Europeanization

The changes that President Obama has brought into the USA body politic are not idle leftwingery; they are cold, calculated and inherently agenda ridden. Secret agendas are central to most Democrat white houses, and Obama's is no different.

This president, to be fair to him, did inherent a financial sector meltdown during the dying days of the Bush presidency; however it was he who massively expanded upon the Bush stimulus. It was he who instituted European style state-driven health care to the USA, running up huge public debts into the bargain. If any change can be attributed to Obama, it is the reversal of the Democrat tag line "Tax and Spend", under Obama it reads "spend and tax".

"These errors are not random. They amount to a comprehensive strategy of Europeanisation: Euro-carbon taxes, Euro-disarmament, Euro-health care, Euro-welfare, Euro-spending levels, Euro-tax levels and, inevitably, Euro-unemployment levels. Any American reader who wants to know where Obamification will lead should spend a week with me in the European Parliament. I’m working in your future and, believe me, you won’t like it."

As much has it pains to echo Daniel Hannan, he does have a very good point in his column for the Telegraph. He is correct to identify the key failures of the EU project as being an over-reliance upon statist solutions; he is entirely spot on the mark to identify that Obama has an agenda aiming to introduce these mistakes into Washington.

While there is no denying that Mr Obama was dealt an rotten economic hand, he has played it ineffectively, dangerously and the results have been noticeable. Americans are since the Obama presidency less free, less fair, and less powerful. That ought to worry us all.

Yet my beef with the Obama regime however isn't his ineptitude and hypocrisy over BP and the oil spill, nor is it even his chronic overspending. It is his regimes support for Peronist Argentina; with his administrations stubborn refusal to recognise the sovereign will of the Falkland Islanders [who wish to remain living on the 'Falklands' under Her Majesty the Queen].

"All these things are minor irritants compared to the way the Obama administration is backing Peronist Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands – or, as Obama’s people call them, “the Malvinas”. British troops were the only sizeable contingent to support the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have fought alongside America in most of the conflicts of the past hundred years. Yet, when the chips are down, Obama lines up with Hugo Chávez and Daniel Ortega against us.

Not that we should feel singled out. The Obama administration has scorned America’s other established friends. It has betrayed Poland and the Czech Republic, whose Atlanticist governments had agreed to accept the American missile defence system at immense political cost, only to find the project cancelled. It has alienated Israel and India. It has even managed to fall out with Canada over its “Buy American” rules and its decision to drill in disputed Arctic waters. Never has there been a worse time to be a US ally."

Middle earners: "not entitled to 'universal service' say police"

Middle-class Scots will no longer be entitled to a “universal police service” as huge public sector spending cuts eat away at forces’ budgets, the country’s most senior officer has warned.

Deal with it yourself

You pay your taxes, you pay for a service, high among them is police protection. However, if your one of Scotland's middle earning families; your on your own. That is what you get for paying your taxes. Shocking.

"Chief Constable Patrick Shearer said manpower would be increasingly focused on crime hot spots, suggesting middle-class suburbs will have to deal themselves with ‘petty’ offences such as vandalism.

He admitted his remarks may appear “quite frightening” to the public but police need to target their resources on the areas where they are most needed and not those where their presence is most requested."

Now, far be it for New-Right to dare to question the estabishment police force, however this is worse than outrageous. There is nothing petty about 'petty crime', indeed how many reports do we here of old pensioners murdered and assaulted during robberies? Or missing work when your car is stolen and torched? Petty crime demands more attention, not less - the police must be forced to change tac.

Yet the biggest insult is from the SNP, how have failed to see this strategic review of police activities in Scotland coming. And the signs and potents were there; with the projected Strathclyde police deficit, and the obvious need for fiscal constraint due to 13 wasted Labour years of over-spend. Kenny MacAskill ought to have seen this coming - after all Scottish Tory law and order spokesman Bill Aitken did; and warned about these very shortcomings.

Mr MacAskil, and the SNP know what they can do with their "1000 extra bobbies", given that they are leaving the taxpayers who keep their wages out in the cold.

"A gold-plated service is no longer appropriate and we’ll have to stop doing some of the things we are doing at the moment or have done in the past,” Mr Shearer continued.

“For us to continue to be effective we have to very much target our resources where the need is and not necessarily where the demand is."

A successful police service is one which ignores 'demand' [meaning 999 calls]? A modern police force, with an average police salary in excess of £25,000+, is one which refuses to aid the victims of crime? The very people who pay their taxes on time.

You really couldn't make this up. What a farce, and the SNP justice secretary better put this to bed quickly, or else they will be pelted in 2011 by those middle earning [and mass voting!] victims of crime.

Squeezing middle Britain

Average wage earners are set to be clobbered again in the forthcoming emergency budget. New-Right investigates just how the sociable drinker is set to be hurt due to tax hikes and Labour's debt legacy

Average wage, above average tax

Middle earners in Britain today are hardly rich. The average wage in the UK sits under £20,000 - yet the forthcoming emergency budget is set to see these hard working middle earning families be punished by a range of tax hikes.

Treasury officials revealed in the Sunday papers that there is consideration for a repeat of the 5% increase on alcohol duty; which was proposed last march. Before investigating the practical implications of such a tax hike, it is also important to take a look into the forcast VAT increase; which is hoped will make Labour' debt legacy more manageable.

Despite coalition pledges that parliament would be the forum for new announcements; the Telegraph has revealed that Osborne is "actively considering" moving VAT up from 17.5% to a whopping 20%. This will hit drinkers in the pockets, despite the cynical stealth tax hikes from the labour years.

Labour's stealth tax legacy

Statistics speak for themselves, and they best highlight the cynical methods deployed by the previous government to fuel their tax & spend addictions. According to the Office of National Statistics, the duty paid on beer and wine increased by a huge 26% since the start to 2008. Couple that with the rise of 22% on spirits during the same period, we can see just how all of the middle earner families are being hammered by incompetent leftwing politicians, and cheating bankers.

Remember, middle earners are not rich, they ought to be given tax cuts, not tax hikes in perpetuity. But then, the 26% and 22% best highlight the tactics of Labour governments; they invariably prefer to hike up taxes which are less visible, less immediately obvious than an increase in income tax may be. That after all is why Darling put VAT up to 17.5% before the GE; at a time the economy couldn't afford it, and went on the pledge to implement a tax on employment.

The implications of Osborne

Yet, looking forward, we can begin to see the financial implications of Osborne's equally unpalatable plans. If another 5% was added to the duty on alcohol, combined with a 2.5% increase in VAT rates would see the average price of a bottle of Hardy's VR Chardonnay increased to £4.74, while the price on a bottle of Gordon's Gin would rise 65p in one go; from £13.15 to £13.80.

Middle earners beware of tax hikes coming to a domestic budget near you! And who to thank? Why Labour of course...it is their debt legacy which is forcing a tax cutting coalition into implementing these hikes.

Ed Balls: out of touch

Ed Balls, the Labour leadership contender, seems even more out of depth than before the election. Is there no end to New Labour's capacity of self denial?

Its all down to VAT

Might the defeat have been down to Labour's excessive tax and spend hangover? Or the debt nightmare that they created in their economic incompetence? Oh no, according to Balls the main reason for Labour defeat; had nothing to do with ID cards, failing school standards, Iraq & Afghanistan; it was all down to VAT.

Seriously, that is what he is arguing. And for a potential Labour leader to undertake to put out such a message of denial is frankly unbelievable. If Labour are ever to claw their way back from opposition, they must accept their disasterous failures when in office - such as the Labour's job tax and economic recession.

Reading Mr Balls article you may be forgiven for believing that he lived on a completely different planet from the rest of us:

"Each time we looked at whether it was right to raise VAT, and concluded it was not. We reached that conclusion because VAT is the only tax that everyone has to pay, even if they are unemployed or pensioners, and because it hits couples with children the hardest. It is always the least fair option for raising tax."

So that is why Mr Balls was among the government loyalists who staunchly defended the tax when in possession of high office? They hypocracy of this man is absurd. When in opposition, it seems he is ready to say the exact opposite from when in government. How many times did Mr Balls defend the VAT increase as fair and appropriate when in office? For him to pretend that he opposed it [oh, and Iraq he'd have us believe] all along is to take the voters for fools.

The idea that Labour can argue that VAT increases are morally wrong, after 13 years in government where they raised VAT to 17.5%; at a time of critical economic weakness. It bogles the mind.

But read to more of Mr Balls article:

"I believed that if we made a principled case for ruling out a VAT rise, as well as against premature cuts in public spending, it would change the course of the election campaign."

Mr Balls is saying that he wanted Labour to rule out any VAT increase after the GE. However, how Labour would have proposed to reduce their budget defict is beyond me. Not least given the fact that since 1979, our tax system [rightly] is geared more towards spending based as opposed to income based forms of tax.

On a last thought, is anyone actually convinced that the oppressed masses would have/will flock to Labours banner if they promise to rule out a future VAT increase? No. Thought not. Not least because of the current polling numbers on the issue, which reveal that well over 30% of voters actually support a VAT rise, and a further 55% of people support Tory planned £6bn in cuts this year. Balls is completely out of touch with public opinion in this matter.

Mr Balls is currently trailing David and Ed Miliband in the Labour leadership race [nothing like choice and diversity- eh], any sensible leftie shall most likely hope it stays that way.

Sex Education in Scotland

Following up on my previous article on abortion rates and the state of sex education in Britain today, I had decided to focus on Scotland specifically. The statistics remain frightening

Picking through the numbers

It appears that the liberal approach to sex education has well and truly let us down. The latest numbers confronting us make worrying reading, with 1,000 girls under 14 having had an abortion last year [UK], and the rates of STI in Scotland continuing to raise [see graph, my thanks to Subrosa]- it is surely time to question our current approach to sex ed.

Currently the focus has orientated about 'informing' rather than preventing, that is explaining sex in a mechanical way; and outlining the means to have safe sex. However warm and fuzzy this logic appears to liberal minded folks, it has even come under fire from the abortion lobby itself; with head of Britain's largest abortion provider coming out in the Telegraph arguing that young women are "living chaotic lives that meant they cannot organise contraception".

This being potentially the case, coupled with the fact that the sex ed lessons growing up focused so heavily upon the mechanics, is it any wonder we are seeing dire sex related health problems in Scotland?

And for any doubters out there, I ask you to confront the figures. Can it be imagined the psychological harm having two or more abortions can place on a woman's mind? Indeed 34% of all women in the UK who had an abortion last year were on there second +. Therefore, it isn't just about the worrying rise in STIs in Scotland, it is also the mental damage potentially caused by the commoditisation of sex, and cheap-come-easy abortion access.

I again urge my readers to confront those figures above. They tell that official figures indicate that the largest increase in testing for chlamydia is among the youngest age group. But going even further, the latest statistics saw a dramatic rise of 21% in tests on young men aged 16-24 and in young women of the same age there was an increase of 16% recorded in the same period.

With increases of 16% for chlamydia; which seems to be affecting younger age groups proportionately more, surely it is time to think long and hard about our entire approach to sex education in the UK, and Scotland? Thinking back to my own time at secondary school [not that long ago!], I remember how the PSE class was treated as a joke. Indeed is it any wonder, the focus was/is all wrong - the problem is best summed up in the name of the class which is supposed to inform our children about the dangers of sex: 'PSE' that means : 'PRACTICAL SOCIAL STUDIES. 'Practical' is the give-a-way; it is all currently about the mechanics, where is the moral and ethical teaching?

Has abortion become 'just another contraceptive'?

18,000 abortions were undertaken on girls under the age of 18, with a further 1,000 on girls under 14. It is time to ask if abortion has become simply another form of birth control

Shocking statistics

The head of Britain's largest abortion provider has said that many young women were living lives "that meant they could not organize contraception". It seems the solution offered by the abortion lobby is that we can simply kill the inconvenient life.

Christian doctors have informed the Telegraph that the statistics reinforce the fact that liberal sex education policies have failed. Perhaps they do have a point? After all, years of sex education free from values has merely systematically generated generations of kids aware of the means; but not the underlying moral and ethical importance.

Further on the statistics field is the unbelievable 34% of abortions performed on women who had already ended one or more pregnancies before. This above all other numbers can indicate to us that abortion has become just another form of contraception.

Naturally however more research ought to be done into this worrying trend, not merely to establish if the 34% is an indicator of a wider norm. We need more empirical research, it doesn't do to just jump to conclusions on the back of one statistical find. Yet, 34% is worrying - as no matter how extraordinary the sample for the study, there still must be a significantly large underlying percentage. There seems no way around it; abortion is becoming an easy option to compensate for irresponsibility.

Time to rethink

Dr Peter Saunders from the Christian Medical Fellowship argues that the figures are profoundly depressing across the board; "It is increasingly that abortion is being used as a form of contraception". And remember, even the non-Christian abortion provider named in the Telegraph article concedes that abortion is, at the very least, being utilised as an easy option for those seemingly "too busy" to organise contraception rather than have abortions.

New-Right supports that a growing number of women and girls are tired of policies of liberal values-free sex education. The policy of the previous labour regime was to merely provide the kids with the knowledge about the mechanics, and then provide condoms- is it any wonder that 1,000 girls under 14 have had an abortion last year?

.

It is time to put moral and ethical alternatives back into the educational agenda. The liberal consensus is clearly failing a generation of youngsters. This isn't good enough, they need more knowledge than just the mechanics and contraceptives.

University Expenses

Not content to let MPs have it all their own way, Universities seem to be having their very own expenses scandal in the pipeline

It seems that university vice-chancellors are among the worst offenders, with their extremely ambitous claims. But with the spectre of higher education cuts due to Labour's recession; just how sustainable are these trends?

Lets start with Peter Gregson of Queen's University Belfast, who claimed his £950 Athenaeum Club membership on expenses, rather than paying it out of his £247,000 a year salary. Indeed last year the same university lavished an extraordinary £43,000 on a four day trip for senior staff to confer an honourary degree on the King of Malaysia. Oh, and they also sent 14 University representatives, including Gregson, to Japan to hand over an honourary doctorate. Expensive stuff higher education eh?

But this seems to be an international rather than purely British problem [much like that banking crisis]. Student journalists in New York meanwhile descovered that last month their vice-chancellor Brian Cantor [salary £248,000] claimed a whopping £50,542 in expenses last year alone. Shockingly the vice-chancellor in the last three years has cost New York university a unbelievable £134,857 in expenses - all mostly in travel.

The New York vice-chancellor tells us that it was all in good cause; "it was necessary to uphold the impressive reputation of New York"...so its all alright then...

Question: just how much else waist is their in our higher education sytems, both in Scotland, UK and futher afield; as it is doubtful that these are merely isolated examples. Indicative of a wider habit of behaviour perhaps?

Nick Clegg accuses 'tit for tat' Barack Obama

Gulf of Mexico BP oil spill: Nick Clegg accuses 'tit for tat' Barack Obama



Nick Clegg has correctly suggested that Barack Obama was engaged in a “tit for tat diplomatic spat” by employing anti-British rhetoric over the BP oil disaster. One question needs to be asked however: where is our Prime Minister? And why is he refusing to defend British pensioners?

A tax on chewing gum?

A rather sticky question has been posed for the midlife gum slinger...

Costs of cleanup

The over 50s are now calling for a tax on chewing gum, to cover the costs of clean-up, which according to reliable estimates revealed in the Times runs to £150m per year.

The call for the tax has derived from readers of Saga Magazine [maybe there aren't so many skateboarders to complain about?], who backed the principal of a tax by more than four to one. The levy on chewing gum proposed would be a proposed 10p a stick; and this would raise a projected £100m a year.

Ms Emma Soames, the Saga Magazine editor-at-large [she too chews and spits it seems] says that "It costs the taxpayers millions each year to clean up the worst of the mess and probably costs business and individuals much more".

Now, far be it for me to point out hypocrisy, but Ms Soames is a self admitted spitter, she is one of those rotten people that she is bemoaning about. People, stones, and glass houses at all anyone?

It does cost however

Yet being fair to the notion of the tax at least, it is a potential solution that attempts at least to deal with the rising costs to the public of gum-chewers and their spitting habits.

For example Westminster City Council says that "it costs 10p a time to remove gum from the streets of Central London" which leaves them with an annual bill of £100,000. Ed Argar, the council's Cabinet member for city management said, "Gum litter is a constant problem for us. We spend £100,000 a year cleaning up ugly blobs of chewing gum off our streets".

And the latest data available reveals that about one billion Britons chew gum each year, so a 1p levy would raise a whopping £10m and a 10p levy an even bigger £100m.

However, lets keep a sense of reality.

The Wrigley Company, correctly, points to independent research conducted by universities in the past when this was last muted which shows that the levy would if anything make the problem worse:

"Research shows that consumers claim they would be far more likely to drop gum as they feel they have already paid for the clean-up."

But beyond that important fact is the equally obvious point that you don't help private business which is needed to keep employment rising by taxing the heck out of them. Indeed a levy would if anything be just another stealth tax used by Liberal and Labour governments to earn a little more from the hard pressed taxpayer in middle Britain. Do I really need to point out the tobacco, petrol and alcohol examples where these kinds of deterrence through tax schemes have all degenerated into a means of earning additional revenue for big government?

No, this proposal is daft, and maybe its fans should spend more time thinking about those pensions Obama is doing so much to undermine...and less time whinging.