Today, Labour were wiped of the map in a Glasgow by election, by not just an earthquake, but off the Richter scale (still trying to work that one out), by the SNP. They lost their 25th safest seat in the country, with 11, 000 odd votes.
There is a message to labour in there. Labour says that the country is saying they must listen harder. Wonder what the country is really saying?
Friday, 25 July 2008
Thursday, 17 July 2008
2p fuel tax hike delayed
The Gov's delayed the tax hike in November (ish), until next year - they can't afford not to put tax up somewhere.
Perhaps they should start by looking at redusing there £25000 pa allowances for furniture and stuff, just tlike the rest of us.
Perhaps they should start by looking at redusing there £25000 pa allowances for furniture and stuff, just tlike the rest of us.
What the government might do for us.
Ok, not a rant on what the government's done for us, but a comment on what the conservatives say they're going to do for us.
Fair fuel stabiliser (tax down when price up, tax up when price down)
Stamp duty first time buyers
Savers - deposit protection scheme if the bank goes bust.
Lets see what happens - he does sound very reasonable - now.
Fair fuel stabiliser (tax down when price up, tax up when price down)
Stamp duty first time buyers
Savers - deposit protection scheme if the bank goes bust.
Lets see what happens - he does sound very reasonable - now.
Monday, 14 July 2008
Maternity leave discrimination
Not really a rant at the gov, just a general rant and eye rolling excercise.
Maternity leave is discriminating against women, because employers would rather not employ or promote women of child bearing age.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article4333479.ece
The solution - increase the length of paternity leave. The above article mirrors my views exactly. What is the small business to do - has anyone stopped to consider them, the bureaucratic hassle, the elven safety nightmare, the disruption to all the other workers, the increased expense of finding other people to fill in while they take the time off on leave.
Fathers are becoming increasingly marginalised says another article. I'm sorry, but most fathers DON'T WANT THE TIME OFF WORK, THEY WANT TO GET BACK TO WORK, AND LEAVE THE CHILD REARING TO THE MUM.
As incredibly sexist as you may think this is, its a simple biological fact - mothers raise, fathers hunt and gather. If you can't afford to take a few years off to raise a child, without relying on government hand outs, then don't.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2301133/Fathers-'increasingly-marginalised'-in-children's-upbringing.html
Frankly, the chief executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Nichola Brewer talks a complete load of PC twaddle, with the base line assumption that fathers should spend more time at home with their children. Has anyone asked them. Or are we all so emasculated now, that we daren't say that we want to go back to work, and let the nurturers raise our children.
Is this the answer to increasing family life, to decreasing the number of broken homes, and single parent families. Of course it isn't. We are creating a society of people who think they deserve what every body else has, that they have a right to it and that someone else should provide it for them. The school child who keeps the baby, still goes to school, has a creche provided for them, and still has money for a 'social life' factored into their benefits allowance.
This is another example of social engineering that can only end one way. Worse than what it is now. All these people whose jobs rely on saying the stupid things, like fathers need more time off, should be consigned to the politically correct dustbin, benefits and allowances for people who are not prepared to take responsibility for their own lack of forethought should be demonstrably cut, and these people made to fend for themselves, and the equillibrium should be allowed to be re established.
"The economic penalty for fatherhood is too high" says Ms Brewer. So don't have children. If you can't afford it, who says you have a right to have children. Why should everyone else support you in your right to have children. You want them - commit to it, sacrifice, scrimp and save, don't have so many.
"Companies should be made to consider the economic benefits of flexible working!" There aren't any. No, really, there aren't. It just means we have to employ more people to get the same amount of work done, as we did before.
Maternity leave is discriminating against women, because employers would rather not employ or promote women of child bearing age.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article4333479.ece
The solution - increase the length of paternity leave. The above article mirrors my views exactly. What is the small business to do - has anyone stopped to consider them, the bureaucratic hassle, the elven safety nightmare, the disruption to all the other workers, the increased expense of finding other people to fill in while they take the time off on leave.
Fathers are becoming increasingly marginalised says another article. I'm sorry, but most fathers DON'T WANT THE TIME OFF WORK, THEY WANT TO GET BACK TO WORK, AND LEAVE THE CHILD REARING TO THE MUM.
As incredibly sexist as you may think this is, its a simple biological fact - mothers raise, fathers hunt and gather. If you can't afford to take a few years off to raise a child, without relying on government hand outs, then don't.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2301133/Fathers-'increasingly-marginalised'-in-children's-upbringing.html
Frankly, the chief executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Nichola Brewer talks a complete load of PC twaddle, with the base line assumption that fathers should spend more time at home with their children. Has anyone asked them. Or are we all so emasculated now, that we daren't say that we want to go back to work, and let the nurturers raise our children.
Is this the answer to increasing family life, to decreasing the number of broken homes, and single parent families. Of course it isn't. We are creating a society of people who think they deserve what every body else has, that they have a right to it and that someone else should provide it for them. The school child who keeps the baby, still goes to school, has a creche provided for them, and still has money for a 'social life' factored into their benefits allowance.
This is another example of social engineering that can only end one way. Worse than what it is now. All these people whose jobs rely on saying the stupid things, like fathers need more time off, should be consigned to the politically correct dustbin, benefits and allowances for people who are not prepared to take responsibility for their own lack of forethought should be demonstrably cut, and these people made to fend for themselves, and the equillibrium should be allowed to be re established.
"The economic penalty for fatherhood is too high" says Ms Brewer. So don't have children. If you can't afford it, who says you have a right to have children. Why should everyone else support you in your right to have children. You want them - commit to it, sacrifice, scrimp and save, don't have so many.
"Companies should be made to consider the economic benefits of flexible working!" There aren't any. No, really, there aren't. It just means we have to employ more people to get the same amount of work done, as we did before.
Thursday, 10 July 2008
More snouts in the trough.
Gordy's noticed that the average family wastes £8.00 per week in food that it throws away. He suggests we should be more frugal with what we buy, and less wasteful with what we throw out.
Is he joking?
He said this just before jetting off to the G8 summit in Hokkaido, to discuss rising fuel and food prices, condemning Bob Mugabe, and troughing at the vast banquets laid on at the summit. (18 courses from one source, which I can't find again)
Who ate all the pies again?
Is he joking?
He said this just before jetting off to the G8 summit in Hokkaido, to discuss rising fuel and food prices, condemning Bob Mugabe, and troughing at the vast banquets laid on at the summit. (18 courses from one source, which I can't find again)
Who ate all the pies again?
Gas guzzlers get hit
So, the details have been released by the Treasury - 43 % of UK drivers will be £250 pa worse off after the swingeing new vehicle duty rules - about 9% may be better off.
The rule covers all cars bought since 2001, and is based on fuel consumption and emissions.
Top of the hit list must be that well known gas guzzler the Ford Focus.
Apparently, this move will add another 1 billion to gov's coffers. After they've lost 2 bn from compensating people for the idiotic 10p tax rate abolition, I await with baited breath to see what they will do about this idiotic tax.
Probably hoping people won't notice, and will be so incensed by the extra 2 p on fuel later this year, they will forget about this. Bear in mind with the increase in fuel prices they will be getting an absolute windfall with the increase in actual money from the already existing duty.
The rule covers all cars bought since 2001, and is based on fuel consumption and emissions.
Top of the hit list must be that well known gas guzzler the Ford Focus.
Apparently, this move will add another 1 billion to gov's coffers. After they've lost 2 bn from compensating people for the idiotic 10p tax rate abolition, I await with baited breath to see what they will do about this idiotic tax.
Probably hoping people won't notice, and will be so incensed by the extra 2 p on fuel later this year, they will forget about this. Bear in mind with the increase in fuel prices they will be getting an absolute windfall with the increase in actual money from the already existing duty.
Friday, 4 July 2008
Snouts in the trough
So, MP's have rejected changes to their 'expenses and allowances' for second homes in London, the so called John Lewis List. Hands up who's surprised?
Daily Mirror
They can claim up to £23.500 A YEAR for items such as fridges, TV's, food, building a conservatory etc, as well as payments for mortgages, etc etc etc the list goes on.
Bottom line - they now earn, or take, anything between £60,000 and £170,000 a year of taxpayers money - for consistently hashing things up.
No one's asked the question of what happens to all this stuff when they retire, or get voted out. Who gets to keep the proceeds of the house, sale of TV, fridges and so on? Fair enough there is an element of they have to live in London in order to do there work, but they are supposed to be 'public servants', and surely the idea should not be to profiteer from the work that they supposedly do for us - perhaps I'm being naive.
There were 144 MPs who voted to accept the crackdown. Good on them. There were 172 who voted against it - shame on them
Perhaps we should be screaming out for our load of elected, chosen by the people, politicians, to give back to the people what they take when they are done working for us. Sell their houses, and give the proceeds, and the profits back into the coffers. Donate the stuff (TVs etc) to charity.
Going to happen? Oink oink.
Daily Mirror
They can claim up to £23.500 A YEAR for items such as fridges, TV's, food, building a conservatory etc, as well as payments for mortgages, etc etc etc the list goes on.
Bottom line - they now earn, or take, anything between £60,000 and £170,000 a year of taxpayers money - for consistently hashing things up.
No one's asked the question of what happens to all this stuff when they retire, or get voted out. Who gets to keep the proceeds of the house, sale of TV, fridges and so on? Fair enough there is an element of they have to live in London in order to do there work, but they are supposed to be 'public servants', and surely the idea should not be to profiteer from the work that they supposedly do for us - perhaps I'm being naive.
There were 144 MPs who voted to accept the crackdown. Good on them. There were 172 who voted against it - shame on them
Perhaps we should be screaming out for our load of elected, chosen by the people, politicians, to give back to the people what they take when they are done working for us. Sell their houses, and give the proceeds, and the profits back into the coffers. Donate the stuff (TVs etc) to charity.
Going to happen? Oink oink.
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
24-hour licensing fails to cut drunken violence, report finds
Well duh. Only the gov could produce something as utterly stupid as to increase the available time for drinking, and expect it to reduce the amount people (partic young, cash rich, low responsibility, highly sexed lads and laddettes commonly seen in town centres onSaturday night) drink, just like they do in Europe. No thought given to the fact that the whole drinking culture in Europe is completely different.
Plus, it's cost millions more in police, hospital and general clean up and repair time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jul/01/health.justice
Another shining example of expecting the facts to fit the reality, an d being surprised when they don't.
Plus, it's cost millions more in police, hospital and general clean up and repair time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jul/01/health.justice
Another shining example of expecting the facts to fit the reality, an d being surprised when they don't.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)