Council tax rebates or proper boots? a new flatlet or sufficient spare parts for equipment? What a choice!

So Des Browne said yesterday that new “bachelor flatlets” will be built to replace ageing barracks dormitories, and he also said that members of the armed forces serving six-month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan will get a £140 council tax rebate.

(Incidentally I don’t know why he bothered to announce these things, since they were heavily trailed word for word in the days before.   That goes for all ministerial announcements these days.)

The trouble is that both these “benevolent” gestures, which have only come as a result of wide public criticism, have to be met from the existing defence budget.   So that means, of course, that savings will have to be made elsewhere.

There is already widespread anger at the lack of supplies and their condition.   What will happen now?   Less ammunition;  fewer spare parts;  only one poor quality boot instead of two.

At a time when normal people recognize that the armed forces are overstretched and that their budget will not expand any further, it is outrageous to make these “offerings” and then say they will not be separately funded.

Norman stop stormin’ –

I just wonder how Norman Tebbit would have reacted when he was Party Chairman if an elder statesman then had done what he did yesterday.

I think I know, and it would not have been pretty.

Just shut up, Norman, and help us win the election rather than working against us.

The threat to our way of life from Puritan Brown

I recall, in 1997, having a real fear of what the incoming Labour government would do.  

Eighteen years of the Conservatives meant that so much of the damage the previous Labour administration had done had been put right.  Margaret Thatcher had stopped the nationalisation of industry and services, the dead hand of the all-powerful closed shop trades unions, the destruction of the economy, and the building up of the welfare dependent, shabby council estate syndrome, where a huge proportion of the people were in thrall to left-wing, dogma-driven local authorities.   And John Major had continued this work from 1990 to 1992.

In the event, not a lot happened, and we were all lulled into a sense of warm security.   Underneath, of course, Labour was changing things.   One only had to read the job advertisements in the “heavies” to see that the number of public and publicly-funded appointments, whether in government, local government, quangos, or whatever, were multiplying.   Now, it seems, most jobs are in that sector.   And all these people are dependent on government for their livelihood, and are unlikely to do or say anything to disturb the status quo.   Despite Prudence, public and private borrowing was spiralling, destroying the stable economy left by the Conservatives.  Stealth taxes were increasing the amount of each individual’s/family’s compulsory contribution to the Treasury, and reducing the amount of money left to them to be spent as they wished.

How strange it seemed that this summer there was a 1997 feeling about Brown taking over.   Blair, although heartily disliked and despised for what had happened on his watch, (Iraq, spin, cash for peerages, et al), seemed on the surface a reasonable middle class metrosexual, with no reds under the beds fear necessary.

But Brown, well that’s another matter.   The son of the manse is a puritan, and seemed much more of an old type Labour leader.   I confess that the fear came back.

Now the spin from the Brown government, (oh sorry, I forgot he doesn’t do spin, does he?), tries to convince us that he is wooing middle England, Worcester woman, and all the other buttons he must press if he is to retain the vote of those who had previously voted Conservative.

But look beneath that extremely thin veneer, and note the hints that have been coming out of Downing Street:-  a return of a certain amount of power to trades unions; more council houses to be built for rent; more and more surveillance of the individual justified by “the war on terrorism”; a return to local government power over schools; identity cards; central databases of everyone’s medical records; central database of the details of every child; home inspectors interfering in the sale of houses and thereby building up information for future property tax changes; and more, and more.

Burning our Money puts it very well:-

Ten years of control freakery and huge splurges of our cash have left our public services entangled in a dense bureaucratic mangrove swamp. Police who can’t police, schools that can’t teach, and health services that we can’t access.

Yet all he could offer yesterday was more of the same: on his direct orders hospital wards are to be steam-cleaned, police hit squads are to target problem areas he has selected, teachers are to teach one-to-one as he’s decided, ten new “eco-towns” will go up where he wants, twenty fresh divisions are to be sent to the Eastern front, etc, etc.

Read the whole post at:    http://www.burningourmoney.blogspot.com/

I think we do have more to worry about under Brown.   I see my way of life threatened, and yours too.

The milk police are at it again

I see the mother’s milk police are at it again.

There is a letter in The Times today from eight so-called experts, of both genders, from all sorts of nasty sounding pressure groups, including one called Baby Feeding Law Group.   How’s that for scary!

They are pointing out that the consultation on the law on formula milk advertising ends this Friday  -  ie they want to ban advertising.

I come from a generation where, not only were the vast majority of babies born in their own homes, but most mothers used formula milk as a matter of course.   Breast feeding was hardly heard of.   None of us seems too bad as a result.

The letter actually says:-

“All parents have the right to choose how to feed their babies, free from commercial pressures.   Parents who use formula also need clear and accurate information on its use.”

But they can’t see that by banning advertising the knowledge of a source of infant food is denied to mothers.   Because you can bet any “information” on the subject provided by these people will be heavily biased in favour of breast feeding, and will make out that feeding a child formula milk is as bad as giving it cocaine!

Just go away experts, and leave people to make their own decisions.  

Unions try to rule the roost again?

Proposals are to be unveiled today aimed at making building sites safer, as, we are told, there have been many fatalities in recent months. 

Now, nobody would oppose attempts to avoid loss of life, even though, I suspect, it will bring yet more molly-coddling from Elf & Safety.

But there is a nasty little half-hidden threat in this story.

Peter Hain, the Work and Pensions Secretary, who will make the announcement says that union health and safety officers should be appointed at every building site.

Well Mr Hain, thankfully many building sites, particularly those operated by small companies, do not have a unionized workforce.   Indeed, the smallest sites, say one house, often have just the builder and a member of his family.

I do hope this is not the thin end of the wedge in an attempt to force unions back into companies, with all that means in terms of potential industrial unrest, holding owners to ransom, and intimidation of non union workers.

Maybe this is part of the price the government has to pay for continued union funding.

More control freakery on housing

Driving from Leigh-on-Sea towards London on the A13 today, I looked around and found it hard to believe that the Housing Minister is going to give a £500 million package, (that is we taxpayers are giving it), to Councils to fast-track building new homes.

Yvette Cooper plans to give financial incentives to councils to increase development targets, identify new land for housing, and produce plans to speed up delivery.   She says many councils are not proactive in identifying sites for new homes.   Her scheme will require councils to locate at least five years’ worth of sites ready for housing and a further ten years’ worth for future development.   The grants are to be targeted at housing shortage areas, including the Thames Gateway.

So, here we go again.   The government sticking its finger in another pie.   The control freaks in Whitehall and Town Halls saying which land is to be used for housing and when, and pushing developers to get on with it.   Well, on that last point there won’t be a problem.   In my experience developers are keen to get the job done and get their money back.

But as I was saying, along the A13 there sure ain’t a need for any of it.   No sooner does a suitable house with a biggish garden get sold than it is demolished and a block of flats put there.   Everywhere you look along this bit of the Thames Gateway there are new houses and flats being built.  

So no need for Ministerial interference then.

Death of girl, 13, who was nearly twice over the limit

Normally I don’t like commenting on tragedies  -  whatever the circumstances the feelings of the families should be respected.   But today I must.

The headline is pretty sensational.   “Drunk girl, 13, electrocuted trying to cross rail tracks”.

The girl had gone with friends to camp overnight on Moreton beach.   At 2 am  they decided to walk to an all-night supermarket to buy food  -  and presumably drink.   They then took a short cut across railway tracks in The Wirral.   The teenagers had been drinking cider.   The girl who died tripped and fell face down on a live rail.

1.  These kids were trespassing on the railway, a stupid and dangerous thing to do.

2.  There was underage drinking.

3.  They were wandering about in the middle of the night, not really knowing where they were.

4.  The girl who died was found to have alcohol in her bloodstream at nearly twice the legal drink-drive limit.

Repeat and stress  -  This girl was 13.   She was a child.

Why were these children allowed to go off and camp overnight completely unsupervised?   The sort of excitement which arises when children get together meant it was virtually certain they would get up to some mischief.   What were adults thinking in letting them do it? 

Children shouldn’t be wrapped up in cotton wool.   They should take some risks.   But this expedition was foolhardy and ended in tragedy.

Primary Universities

News today that universities may need to give students grammar lessons, according to the President of Universities UK, the Vice Chancellors’ group.   He said if, as employers claim, graduates have a problem with written English, this should be addressed by universities.

This sounds like the sort of stuff children should know by the age of 11.   At the same time we have the government’s mad demand that 50% of young people must go to university. 

So here’s my idea of the day  -  why don’t we just re-name all primary schools as universities, and that would solve both problems.

Car owners – it’s time we stood up for ourselves

What a wonderful letter in The Times correspondence columns today.   It is from Mr Arthur Burgess of Twickenham:-   “I note from your report on ‘the identity of Britain’ (Sept 8th) that 46 million adults have cars.   Indeed 30 million have two.   Only 2 million have no car.   Why, then, do we, the overwhelming majority, accept the imposition of ever more taxes, parking restrictions and penalties, and a whole industry of quasi-prosecutors?

“Why do we, who individually contribute directly to the Exchequer at least £1,000 per car per year in regular duties and taxes, that is some £50 billion collectively, to say nothing of taxes on car purchase, repair etc, supinely accept constant denigration by politicians of all hues?

Why, indeed, does the motoring public not rise en masse and throw these blighters out?”

I’m very happy to join Mr Burgess in his revolt.   Motorists are just seen as an easy target for everything  -  taxation, police arrest targets, and so on.

Livingstone is a perfect example of a non-driver, non car owner who absolutely hates private cars and motorists.

No public transport will ever be able to compete with the comfort, convenience and flexibility of my car.   It takes me from door to door.   I don’t have to get cold or wet.    It is there waiting at the precise moment that I want to leave, and if I stop to take a ‘phone call it is still waiting when I have finished.   I do not have to sit in a mess of litter or endure bad smells of packed bodies in hot conditions.   If the car is dirty, it is my dirt.   I can keep umbrella, coat, water, and whatever else in the car in case I need these things.   I can use it as an extension to my office.    It will carry the week’s shopping for me and large, bulky purchases.

Anyone who hates all of that is a dinosaur still living in a world that believes private property must not be allowed  -  a control freak who wants to marshal us all to his way of thinking.    It’s time we car owners and drivers stood up for ourselves.

A bus for the bath

I’ve been giving some more thought overnight, (couldn’t sleep), to the suggestion from the Tory Quality of Life policy commission that supermarkets, DIY stores, etc, be forced to charge for parking.   I’m delighted that David Cameron has distanced himself from the suggestion, of course.

What I wonder, though, is whether any of the commission’s members have ever been to a large B & Q or Homebase? 

If they had, they would have seen people paying at the checkout for a full-size door, for example.   What fun it would be to get that on a bus.   Or it might be a bathroom suite.   B & Q often have those standing quite near the checkout, on the pay and go principle, (no pun intended).   How many seats on the bus would that take?   Then there are rolls of carpet, large wood garden table and chair sets, and many, many similar things.

I can just see how pleased all the other passengers on the bus would be:  delays while the bathroom suite is manhandled on board;  blocking the way for other passengers;  does the bath have to have its own bus ticket?  “please stand back while the loo disembarks”.