Rich Are Getting Richer – Especially If You’re a Charity Boss

There was a report out yesterday by Oxfam that claimed the wealthiest 1% in the world, will soon own more than the rest of the world's population. The charity's research showed that the share of the world's wealth owned by the richest 1% increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% last year, on current trends, Oxfam says it expects the wealthiest 1% to own more than 50% of the world's wealth by 2016.

Oxfam's executive director Winnie Byanyima, said she would use the charity's high-profile to demand urgent action to narrow the gap between rich and poor. "It is time our leaders took on the powerful vested interests that stand in the way of a fairer and more prosperous world. Business as usual for the elite isn't a cost-free option; failure to tackle inequality will set the fight against poverty back decades. The poor are hurt twice by rising inequality, they get a smaller share of the economic pie and because extreme inequality hurts growth, there is less pie to be shared around," she added.

Now none of us can really disagree with this sentiment, but don’t forget this report was based on the world population, not the UK - so most of us are part of that “rich” 1%. What got me more was the hypocrisy from Oxfam’s director who goes on about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer whilst being paid a huge six figure salary herself. This led me to do a bit of research myself on some of the other large charity director’s salaries. This revealed that most of them are getting paid rather handsomely.

Just How Much?

My bit of internet research revealed the following, most of which are figures from 2013:

In 2013, Sir Nick Young, the chief executive of the British Red Cross, saw his pay jump by 12% to £184,000 since 2010, despite a 1% fall in the charity’s donations and a 3% fall in revenues.

Another in the same pay bracket is Justin Forsyth, UK Chief Executive of Save the Children; Mr Forsyth received £163,000 in 2012, just less than Anabel Hoult, its chief operating officer, who was paid £168,653. However Save the Children is paying its top employee a massive £234,000 a year! This individual is believed to be International Chief Executive Jasmine Whitbread; she is among 20 employees earning more than £100,000 at the charity’s international body. And there’s another nine that are on six-figure salaries at the charity’s UK arm. Interesting that these huge pay packets are considerably more than the £142,500 a year paid to David Cameron, whose wife Samantha is an ambassador for Save the Children.

The top paid executive at Christian Aid was Loretta Minghella, a former chief executive of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, who was paid £126,072 in 2013. The NSPCC has one employee on over £160,000 and over 40 on over £60,000 p.a. Cancer Research UK spends £130m on wages and has 154 exec's on between £60k and £230,000 per annum.

All of this is surpassed by the salary of the highest paid employee at Marie Stopes International, who earns more than £290,000 a year. A second employee at the birth control charity is paid more than £200,000 and in total 11 people are on six-figure salaries.

In their annual accounts, charities are not required to detail by name how much their top executives are paid, and many express the sums in bands, disguising the true figures. Can they really justify these obscene amounts of money, when they are really just selling an easy product - human kindness?

I’ve now stopped giving money to Cancer Research. I feel it's a good cause but I'm not giving my hard earned money to a boardroom full of executives on high salaries.

It’s Just Not On!

To me, you think charity and you think retired ladies in charity shops, you think volunteers rattling their collecting tins, vocation, and compassion. You don’t think mega-salaries!

The Save The Children salaries are particularly galling. They are the reason why the price of goods sold in charity shops has risen so significantly. After all, the nationwide network of charity shops has to sell an awful lot of second-hand clothes simply to raise enough money to pay a £234,000 salary. Makes you wonder how much is left for those in need, probably just a few crumbs.

I watched an advert for Save the Children asking people to sign up to give £2 a month - I thought about doing that, but I think I'm better giving food to a local food bank than putting money into that overpaid woman's pocket. She, and all those overpaid charity executives, should be ashamed of themselves. This is also the "charity" which decided that 25% of UK children live in poverty.

And I don't think that the other charities are any better. They've all got their snouts in the trough! It's a racket, when there are so many overseas and home charities struggling with people who volunteer, giving their time for nothing to help children and orphans. I don’t know how these exec’s sleep at night. Daytime TV is one endless parade of deserving causes all asking for "just" £2 a week to save a child, a cat or a donkey. After seeing these salaries, I don't feel so bad about ignoring their TV appeals and to the tins shaken in my face at Asda.

In my mind the whole charity apparatus stinks.  First of all, isn’t charity supposed to begin at home? Err, uh, nope.  Charity goes as far away as possible, while our needy and homeless go without. A freezing cold beggar in winter cannot walk into a UK high street charity shop and be given a warm coat, hat and gloves, or a blanket. In this country, charity has become a racket, because British people are quite literally generous to a fault.

A CEO in the commercial industry needs to sell something. Bank CEOs also need to justify their existence and even if the banking industry is run by high risk sociopaths that repeatedly betray us, capitalism will make sure that their day will come (so far it is government intervention that has protected them). Charities on the other hand, provide no product. A charity operates solely to benefit others in need with no real return to the doner.

People give money because they believe that their money is going towards a good cause. So when charities say "£3 buys a kid a blanket" the assumption is that their money will buy blankets, not that it'll fund the lavish lifestyle of a CEO or high ranking workers in these charities. And if this is the case, they need to be upfront about it. After yesterday’s report, I looked but couldn't find the CEO's earning in Oxfam's financial statement.

Our "Third Sector" - these major charity organisations, is very closely aligned to the Public Sector. These two sectors seem to work very closely together, there’s often a revolving door in terms of staffing, particularly senior managerial staff, between the two. They use the same firms of PR consultants, management consultants, law firms and accountancy firms etc. You’ll find the same culture in both sectors - a culture of big salaries at the top, a bonus culture and gold plated pensions for the "senior management". And of course the endless junkets. Oh and don't forget the same culture of cronyism in terms of awarding fat mega bucks contracts to their chums in said PR industry, management consultancy industry and corporate law firms etc, no doubt with kick backs and all sorts of inducements coming back their way for doling out these fat contracts. Another thing that bugs me is they invest is the alcohol and tobacco industries, products which kill people. They are hypocrites and sadly, should he avoided.

Salaries Should Be Comparable With Industry?

Seems to me there is no such thing as a charity – it’s simply another name for a business. The argument the charities give back about high salaries is that they need to provide salaries competitive with industry. Well I suppose most charities are just businesses, there to rake in funds, their overheads can easily use well over half the money they collect. Doesn’t mean its right though does it? "We establish remuneration to attract the best talent", is what they say – so the same excuse as the bankers and the councils then.

Don’t forget, these charity businesses also get tax breaks, so in a way; we are already paying for them. Why should they have preferable treatment as a business entity, if they are in the making money game just the same as any other CEO from industry is? These high positions have prestige too; they’re given access to politicians and the like: they’re an elite in themselves.

When we talk of what charity CEOs could earn in industry, shouldn’t we also compare what unpaid volunteers could earn in paid work? Also when we talk of thousands reporting to the CEO, the job would still get done without a CEO. He or she might well work with a board to develop strategy but they’re not needed for day to day operations any more than a council chief’s presence is needed to repair a pothole.

In any event there must be many rich philanthropist executives that would give their skills free of charge. Bill Gates might be an example. I don’t think he pays himself for work he does for his foundation. Maybe the answer is that charities should be trusts that are headed up by retired exec’s who do the work out of the goodness of their heart. Putting something back into society as a thank you for the high salaries they received during their career.

I am not going to give these parasites a penny until their fat cat salaries go to zero. If they are rich (which they are) they can afford to give their time for free. Otherwise leave it to others with the vocation and the desire to help. 

Solutions

Simple solution. If the remuneration package is over a prescribed limit set by the government then the charity loses its registered charity status and all the tax benefits that registered charity receive.

Any "charity" that receives any taxpayer money should have to publish how much they pay their staff, from the top down. Once they start paying their top people huge salaries they should lose their charitable status, and start paying the dues that any other business has to.

Charity work should come out of duty. It should be run by humble people that should be put on a pedestal for the fabulous work they are doing. Not just a way for CEO to take home extortionate wages.

What About Me and You?

I’ve come to the conclusion that large charities, with the exception of the RNLI and the Air Ambulances, are not worthy of my support. I find it truly unbelievable that a charity should pay such amounts as we’ve seen. Even more disgraceful is that these directors should accept it!

Not only are senior employees grossly over-remunerated, but some charities are far too political. Others receive far too much cash from HMG and the EU, but still continually ask for donations from us lot. Most of these large charities adopt aggressive fund raising techniques - they see it as being "professional", but for me it is very off putting. I also object to being asked for my bank details by a bunch of scruffy yobs in the high street and feel that expensive television and billboard advertising soon swallows my contribution.

I will now only give to local causes where it is clear that collectors are genuine volunteers and where the committees are made of up truly local volunteers.

For the rest of you, it’s down to your own conscience. As long as you’re happy that less than 5% of the money you give to Christian Aid or Save the Children actually goes to the needy then carry on donating. The majority of money goes elsewhere within the charity; it’s a racket to suck in gullible people.

Remember if hundreds of thousands of gullible people pay two pounds a month, just two pounds a month then these parasites can continue to live the good life. Next time you are asked to contribute ask how much their Chief Executive takes for no added value.

40 World Leaders On The March, Any Action Though? #JeSuisCharlie

We all saw the magnificent pictures of the huge crowds in Paris this weekend, just looking at the numbers should make everyone in France proud. The people were all very humble and also patriotic with many kind words for those who suffered last week’s atrocities and also for the police and security services. It gave you a feeling that hopefully the journalists and the innocent people caught up in the carnage did not die in vain. Now though, the politicians have to do their job.

The marchers were a wonderful sight and showed the depth of public anger to what has occurred, but Islamic terrorists are blind to this kind of unity. They are on a fanatical mission to destroy all that is good. The march was fantastic to see, but it’s what happens next that really matters.

40 World Leaders

It’s reported that there were forty World leaders in attendance, ironic then that Merkel, Cameron and Hollande all appeared together at the march to protest against a terrorism that they and their predecessors directly caused by their desire to make Europe home to everyone whilst invading Middle-East countries. As usual with politicians they are hypocrites. Their liberal pursuit of multiculturalism while denying us the right to say we don't want it, have been a major cause of this problem. Instead they just have a big group hug and think it will all go away. The question is, when will our leaders WAKE UP to this global problem? To me they’re just pathetic!

This march was by the French public to honour the people who died and to back their right to freedom of speech. How dare the politicians jump on the bandwagon and use this as a propaganda tool to basically say that we should all live in peace and get on together. Multiculturalism doesn't truly work and never will as long as the cultures themselves don’t want to integrate. This whole problem was started by left wing politicians and do-gooders saying we must be tolerant. Really?  Who said? Is that really free speech demanding we are all tolerant to things we don’t believe in, because that certainly isn't democracy. And if these politicians condemn the terrorists actions so much and insist on free speech, when will they post the controversial Charlie Hebdo cartoons on their social media sites? Surely they must if "Je Suis Charlie" is to mean anything? Otherwise they are saying "I like the idea of it but I'm too scared to do it myself"

Don’t forget as well that this Jihadist terrorism is global. What about the 1000+ killed by Boko Haram in Nigeria? When are our World leaders going to pay tribute to them? And what about another tragic terrorist event this last weekend where at least 10 people were killed when a young girl, thought to be aged 10, blew herself up at a crowded market in the north east Nigerian city of Maiduguri?

I was glad to see some Muslim leaders among the march participants. But we need to see strong condemnation of violence from forty or so Muslim leaders too. All Muslim religious leaders who care about their religion should toughen up and condemn every act that gives that religion a bad name. Not just terrorism but treatment of women and people of other religions, honour killing, cruel punishments like dismembering or stoning basically anything that goes against basic human rights. Times have changed drastically they should adjust for the sake of saving their religion.

Sunday was an impressive mass of people but the big question is whether our leaders are going to learn something and change things in Europe, or is the opportunity and its momentum just going to disappear like a fart in the Sahara? It doesn't matter if it becomes 37 million people marching. It's all just useless posturing that accomplishes nothing if the politicians don’t show proper action.

Don't forget, 2 Million marched against the Iraq war. Our government, ie Tony Bliar, ignored them. So don't hold your breath that anything will happen now.

"It’ll  Be Over Here Next"

It genuinely bugs me when people say "oh it'll be over here next". It's already here! What about Lee Rigby? The day that you have a British serving soldier killed on the streets of Britain in the name of Allah is the day that you have a problem. I've been tolerant, probably too tolerant. Perhaps that is the problem that we face here in Britain. We've given too much and then wonder why when it’s used against us.

Why isn't Britain protesting as strongly as France? Our leader is there marching amongst the French (and I do applaud him for that because it shows unity) but Islamic extremists who hate Britain are walking our streets. Something needs to be done, before it truly is too late! Yes, if we fight, they'll fight just as big; but if we do nothing, they will take over and it won’t just be freedom of speech that’s lost!

Something should have happened after Lee Rigby’s murder, but we were assured - yet again- that those were one off attacks. How many one off's does it take before our politicians get some balls and stand up for our country? David Cameron is a two faced coward who won't deal with the threat we have around us. He even tolerates hate preachers without so much as a condemnation.

Poor old Lee Rigby was forgotten by the politicians. His death shouldn't have been in vein, just like all those in France last week shouldn't be.

The Blame Game

Despite everything, you can still hear the apologists in the left wing media claiming that the cartoons should not have been published. Irony again that socialists hate freedom of speech yet they dominate journalism, and don’t forget either that Charlie Hebdo is a left wing publication.

The do-gooders go on about “society should have done more to include these individuals". I'm sorry but stop blaming Western countries for what has happened here, everyone has free will, no one made these psychopaths go out and slaughter people, they did it themselves, they are not the victims here, the people they shot and their families are the real victims, I'm so sick of hearing from apologists, wake up, if these fundamentalists don't like democratic countries, why don't they leave and go back to the Middle-East, I'm sure we wouldn't miss them.

What offends us all, are the actions of the criminals who, dared to use Islam to justify the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians. This wasn't about Islam or being offended by the Charlie Hebdo magazine. This was about a handful of extremists who wanted to slaughter people for any reason and at any cost. Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and mercy. It is a source of comfort and strength for more than 1.6 Billion Muslims -  the same people who are shocked, saddened and appalled by the events in Paris this week.

Whichever way you look at it, there is no place for Dark Age, Middle Eastern brutality in our 21st century civilised world.

So What To Do Next?

Extremist Muslims didn't exist until the 70s; but because of Saudi Arabian, Qatari and Iranian oil wealth many mosques preaching the harshest form of Islam, mocked by the other sects are being built everywhere. If Saudi Arabia didn't have that wealth, there would be fewer extremists in the Middle East and the West. It's always about the oil. Just ask the Dalai Lama whose country has no oil and therefore no help from the West or anyone else.

Marches are all very lovely and everything but do you think a bunch of Jihadist terrorists with guns give a toss? They are laughing their heads off at us silly Westerners. The only true way to sort this is to leave them alone in the Middle East. Cameras and media leave, stop paying them any attention and stop going into their countries and telling them how to live. You can't force societies to advance and you shouldn't tell someone our culture is correct and theirs is wrong. Just let them sort it all out amongst themselves. We've got enough to do at home without attempting to sort out the rest of the world.

But how do we sort it out at home now it's out of the box? We need to stop pussy footing around Islam, some preach hatred yet they’re ‘sponsored’ by the UK as most are benefit claimants. Kick those who live in the UK and continue to promote hate out – full stop. In short kick those murderous scum out. Lee Rigby’s murderers and the three in France were all on the intelligence service's radar yet they still carried out their heinous acts unopposed. We should be rounding these people up and either deporting them or interning them. It’s been done before - we had internment during the Northern Ireland troubles.

We should also be controlling our borders properly. Going back again to the Northern Ireland troubles if you wanted to enter the country and you were in a car it was thoroughly checked, bonnet and boot opened, mirrors under the car to ensure it was safe, nowadays you just drive onto the Eurotunnel train unchecked and unopposed. We've done it before, we should be doing it now!  

Why in Europe do we allow our citizens to travel to terrorist countries and then allow them to return home! I don't understand this. We need to make it illegal for anybody to travel to these countries that have training camps. Deportation for traitors would be a good starting point. Also those normal Muslims in the UK must take a more active role in preventing the radicalisation of their own youngsters.

Politicians need to get the message - either you help us, or we do it ourselves by voting you out, they can start by once and for all kicking out the liberal PC rubbish that has enabled all this to happen. I will happily vote to have more powers against terrorism and allow GCHQ to get on with their job. I’ll happily vote against the policy of mass immigration that allows these ghettos to be set up and that allows extremist views to breed. And I’ll happily vote for a party that truly takes border control seriously including places like Dover, where anyone could return back from Syria or Iraq unchecked.

In the End

Last weekend in Paris, we saw hypocritical leaders with crocodile tears. It was they who have brought this to our countries and ruined the Middle eastern ones at the same time. This is exactly what they intended so they could smash our cultures taking away our identities as individual countries so that they could form the EU and take away our freedoms. It's all so ironic considering the mindless smears that are directed at UKIP just because they want sovereignty and border controls.

It sums up the mindset of the liberal Western masses that they think facing down murdering Islamic terrorists with pencils while in the background the EU strips them of even more of their rapidly diminishing freedoms will have any impact on the outcome of this situation. No wonder our aggressors in ISIS and Al Qaeda feel emboldened with every bullet they fire and every bomb they detonate.

We can only hope those in power understand that showing solidarity alone through street marches will not defeat these terrorists and the fanatics that plague societies across Europe and beyond. Put political correctness aside because serious action is needed immediately.

Might sound unbelievable, but If the leaders of Israel and Palestine can stand in Paris yards apart from each other at the same march then these Jihadist animals can be beaten.

Re-Nationalise the Railways? Maybe it’s Time!

It’s that time of year when rail passengers find out how much their fares are going up by again. The latest rise, determined by today's RPI inflation figure, will take the overall increase in fares to around 25% during this Parliament. That’s just extortionate! Labour has had to weigh in too with Shadow transport secretary Mary Creagh warning of a further rise of 24% by 2018 should the Conservatives stay in power. All that’s just the usual political tit-for-tat, but there should now be a bigger issue going on in the background, that of who actually owns and runs the railways and who pays for them.

Train travel shouldn’t be expensive; it should benefit from "economy of scale" and be the cheapest form of transport. This is where it fails. It is often more expensive than a taxi. Some European lines cost one-seventh of those in the UK. The average commute into London costs three and a half times that into Paris and ten times that into Rome.

Fares are so high in the UK because of the Treasury's rail franchise bid system where the highest bid wins, meaning the passengers have to pay higher fares. It is in effect a stealth tax imposed by the Treasury hiding behind the rail operators to raise more revenue from an unsuspecting public being steadily priced off the railways.

All Done Wrong

The privatisation of the railways was done against the advice of everyone who knew anything about the subject. Quite predictably, it cost far more in subsidies than the old nationalised system. In a few years it destroyed more than a century of experience in safety and track maintenance.

Don’t forget, it finished off most of what was left of our train manufacturing businesses. Passenger numbers increased not because of privatisation but in spite of it, as more and more people were forced by unhinged house prices to commute vast distances to work – and could only do so by train.

Good Idea if Done Right

Privatisation was a fine idea if it had been introduced correctly – however it wasn’t! The whole point of privatising public services was to open them up to the commercial market place, to generate competition which will then bring down prices. This never happened on the railways, franchises are generally regional with the winning operator providing most services and thus having a monopoly. Because they’re run by a cartel which conspire to squeeze as much money out as possible, there is no competition. You can cross the Atlantic for the same as a peak time fare to London, its gone beyond obscene these days.

The bigger problem for me is the subsidies the operators receive. In reality the whole rail franchising arrangement is fundamentally flawed and unsustainable. In 2012/13 the train operating companies collectively received £1.3bn in direct subsidies through franchise receipts and a further £3.9bn in indirect subsidy through investment in Network Rail services. In return, train operating companies paid back just £1.2bn in franchise payments to the government, but they took £172m in profits and paid out £204m in dividends to shareholders.  How is this beneficial to us the taxpaying public?

The idea should have been to run the railways and other industries as a public service not as a profit making enterprise. There is no way that a railway for example can be run if there are shareholders and executives making hundreds of thousands in salaries and dividends. A railway simply because of how it works could never ever make a ‘real’ profit. It should have been run with the public service in mind, not as a means of a few people using money from the Government and the public to laugh their way to the banks.

How can we sell off a railway and then the company that runs it gets taxpayers money to fund it? Where’s the sense in that? But we allow it and do nothing , could you see other European countries putting up with that ?

Yes, Investment Is Happening

For many years, investment in such things as electrification almost ceased. So I can’t fault this Government in investing in the railway infrastructure, and yes they are putting billions into it, with schemes like the Northern Hub; large scale expansion of electrification; Crossrail and yes the much derided HS2 (not the right solution that one, see previous blogs on my opposition).

But who’s all this investment going to benefit?  Well if the current arrangements remain in place, financially the private train operating companies are quids in. The passengers pockets won’t benefit, fares will just continue to rise to fill the pockets of the TOC shareholders.

Another thing that has improved is punctuality, but this is another whitewash. It’s only because the timetables are now padded to avoid penalties from the ‘Passenger’s Charter’. The trains themselves take just as long if not longer, and break down just as much, but are not officially late. 

 The Whole Thing Needs Looking At

A sure fire indicator that things aren’t working is when they start going back to what they had. I find it amazing that Network Rail, successor to the disastrous Railtrack, is now officially classified as a ‘government body’ and its debts of £30 billion are part of the national debt. Meanwhile, one of the most successful ‘privatised’ train companies, East Coast, is currently publicly owned, and many of the others are owned by foreign state railways.

Look at the figures referred to above. The train operating companies paid the government £1.2bn in franchise payments whilst making profits of £172m. Well unless my maths are wrong that means they raised c£1.4bn, why shouldn’t this be made by the taxpayers?

The time is right to re-look at the whole operation, this needs to include :

• Reverting to state ownership by not renewing franchises as they end
• Investment in rail manufacturing
• The leasing companies – who should own the rolling stock?
• Selling off of unused railway land
• Removal of parking charges at rural and suburban stations which just add to the fares
• Simplifying the whole tickets and fare structures so that passengers know they’re travelling on the cheapest available ticket for the train they’re on.
• Significantly reduce prices to those comparable with other European countries. Yes this will cost money, but it is a public service, something we seem to have forgotten.
• Create better freight flows which will bring in proper revenue, this should be linked to getting freight off the roads. Investment and encouragement would be needed but it would be for the good of everyone. 
• Scrapping of trains that are over 30years old, my office overlooks the mainlines into Manchester Piccadilly Station and at least 60% of the trains that go past were built in the 70s and 80s and to coin a phrase are knackered’!

The list could go on I’m sure. We have strategic reviews of things like defence every few years, now it’s time for one on the railways. It’s time to learn the lessons of not just the last 20 years but the last 150 years.

I Can Dream

I can dream but I hope that if UKIP were to have a hand in government (part of a coalition maybe?), it will re-nationalise all of our beloved railway and return it to a public service for the good of the UK, instead of a profit-centre for the fat cats it is now. LibLabCon are happy for things to carry on as bad as they are now, and we can't rely on them to improve anything.

I used to love travelling by train but I find the fares today are just extortionate; I won't give the operators the satisfaction of lining their pockets.

So the truth will out. In my humble opinion it was always better for the railways to be nationalised and subsidised. What a pity it took us so many years and so many billions of wasted money to find out what we already knew. Bring back BR. Maybe follow Labour’s lead and call it ‘New-Rail’.

A Short Story for Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon

Once upon a time there was a sea turtle and a wolf who became friends. Now you might think that these are two animals who wouldn't have much to do with each other. And you'd be right. One was a plodding, oddly-shaped ocean dweller, while the other was a sleek predator who prowled the forests for unwary deer.

Their friendship began when the wolf was out hunting and saw the turtle sunning himself on the beach. The turtle looked rather unappetizing, so there was never any real thought of eating him. Nonetheless, the wolf was curious about this curious creature and vice versa. The two got to talking and the turtle told the wolf about an island not too far offshore that was filled with delicious animals just waiting to be eaten. Needless to say, the story got the wolf's attention. A deal was quickly struck in which the turtle would ferry the wolf to the island every day in exchange for a portion of whatever the wolf killed.

This arrangement worked out quite well. Many years went by and both animals got fat and happy. But there came a time when the wolf decided he didn't need the turtle anymore and could swim to the island on his own. After all, he'd been watching the turtle make the daily journey for a long time and it certainly didn't look very hard. But it was. Not long after the wolf jumped into the ocean, he was quickly overcome by the relentless waves and fierce undertow. He struggled and howled, but to no avail. The proud wolf sank to the floor of the sea where his body was quickly engulfed by a swarm of bottom-feeding crabs. His last thought was, "I wonder if it's too late to work with the turtle?"

The moral of the story?  Stick with the union or be stuck with bottom-feeding crabs.

Credit to Chuck Lorre for the story

#UKIP - Too Much Nostalgia, Not Enough Reinvention

Sometimes when you think about our country you have to rise above what the usual commentators present to us. Forget the petty party political point scoring arguments that consistently blight our politics.  You need to just forget politics and the traditional nature of ‘Right v Left’ ideals that we all know and love so much. My reason? Well sometimes there’s a bigger picture to be had.

Two Forces

This bigger picture is something that’s slowly dawned on me recently. What I’ve actually come to believe is that instead of the political parties dictating what we do, there are really two higher forces struggling to dominate this wonderful country of ours. I see these as quite simply ‘Reinvention’ and ‘Nostalgia’.

Reinvention seeks to imagine and work toward a better future by changing the status quo, whilst nostalgia insists that things were better in the past and works to undo change. Both Labour and the Tories are guilty of supporting both whilst being neither at the same time.

Master of Reinvention

It's no secret where my sympathies lie. I've always been a big fan of reinvention. My life and career is a testament to it. There is simply no way that a scared, sickly, simply educated kid from Stockport gets to live the life he's living now without working hard and being willing to scrap old, unworkable ideas and start over (Of course it helped that I didn't have a particularly rosy background to feel nostalgic towards). I was always determined to do better for myself than my parents ever did and I think I’ve succeeded.

UKIP - Nostalgists

Which brings me to the point of this blog. Whilst I agree and support UKIP with everything they’re trying to achieve with regards to the EU they have a part that worries me. It seems there’s an element to their membership which is not about reinvention at all and is purely about nostalgia. This element hates change and seems actively to support regression back to the Seventies and Eighties. It seems based on the wearing of rose-tinted spectacles and selective memory as from what I remember the country wasn’t in too good a nick back then either. It comes from the same people who insist summers were always nicer in their childhood – they weren’t of course, they were similar to now. So it just confuses me why people want seek to return to a life that wasn't really that great to begin with.

I get it if you used to be the ruling class. If your childhood memories include watching your grandparents sipping sherry on the veranda while being serviced by the upstairs maid, then sure, nostalgia makes sense. But, if you're like me and didn't know anyone who had a veranda, let alone a maid, (or even an upstairs for that matter), then why not consider reinvention?

If UKIP (or for the matter the Tories if we get that referendum) are successful in taking us out of Europe then nostalgia will definitely get us nowhere when we have to plough our own furrow in the World again. It was reinvention that built the Empire and our World trade routes and it’ll be an innovative reinventive approach that will bring us success in the future.

Maybe we can make this country a better place to live. But to do that, we need to stop looking back thinking it was better in my day. It's certainly a more exciting way to go. You know, an uncertain future, filled with mystery and adventure. I hope nostalgia doesn’t win the day, and that we don’t attempt to reverse the course of history, this country would never have a hope in Hell of being ‘Great’ Britain ever again.

Move Forward Not Back

What all the political parties need to be doing as we approach next year’s General Election is getting rid of their nostalgia policies (and people). Yes you can learn from history, but that’s it, learn from it, don’t go back to it. Move forward - in new ways. 

#MH17. Political Grandstanding Needs To Stop

So the wet limpet that is David Cameron has supposedly warned Vladimir Putin that his billionaire ‘cronies’ will have their assets frozen in London unless he co-operates with the probe into Flight MH17. If you read the Sunday papers, ‘Call Me Dave’ apparently ‘vented his fury’ at what he sees as Russia’s obstruction in a 30-minute phone call to Mr Putin. By all accounts he effectively blamed Russia directly, telling Mr Putin that he had ‘contributed to an appalling tragedy’.

Well I’m sure President Putin won't sleep at night after Dave’s outrage! More likely he’s thinking "Little man from a little country". For goodness sake, save your breath, Cameron! Do you really think for one minute that Putin was listening to a word you said? Admittedly, I’d loved to have heard that telephone conversation, bet all Putin did during the call was utter "Yah! Yah!" in the right places, and burst into gales of laughter afterwards. We know that all the real posturing by world leaders is done for the media. What’s worse though is Cameron’s already decided its Putin’s’ fault and is trying to glean publicity off the back of it. 

So Who’s Really Responsible?

Quite simply, no one knows for certain yet, in actual fact we may never really find out who pulled the trigger, but don’t let that simple fact stop the likes of Cameron and Obama blaming Putin.

We keep getting told by western politicians that it’s all down to the Pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine. That may be true, it also may not - nothing has been proven. Even if they are linked and funded by Russia, it still doesn’t mean Putin is responsible. Don’t forget, there is another theory that somebody on the Ukraine side was trying to hit Putin's plane which was due shortly after the MH17, it also has a similar paint scheme, so that theory has some credibility. And the Ukraine has form too; they’ve also been known to tell lies in order to start a war.

In the bigger picture, ultimate responsibility sits uncomfortably with the EU. If they hadn't vowed to extend the EU eastwards, conflict in the Ukraine would never have escalated to the level it now has. There was no trouble in Ukraine until, quite simply the EU encouraged Ukraine to look to the west. This lead to the overthrow of a democratically elected President and his government, only to be replaced with an unelected, EU stooge. The country became split, the rest is history.

Media is Shaping This Tragedy

This tragedy is now being shaped by the media, but as Peter Hitchens in the Sunday papers observed and I said above, the conflict that has contributed to this, was shaped by the EU and the West. We are back to the Cold War. The West believes its views must be adhered to or else, but it is perfectly happy to meddle in other countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya etc. 

The media likes quick wins and sound bites, they like to act as judge and jury whether there’s evidence or not. This suits our politicians as they too are good at acting without evidence; we all remember the warmonger, Bliar and his made-up WMD document.

So for the media and the west’s own agenda, they’ve already decided it’s the rebels who need to be held to account. As the Australian Prime Minister said, Putin has said all the right things so far, but needs to bring pressure on the separatists to yield to international norms when dealing with airplane crashes.

People's anger is understandable but there is too much emotion in pointing blame and demonising Putin without having the full facts, especially Cameron and Obama, and let’s not forget the American’s themselves have form in things like this too. Wasn’t it the yanks that brought down an Iranian Airbus with similar amounts of people on board in 1988?

In conflict zones tragedies can happen. What we should be asking is what was MH17 and others thinking in overflying this area in the first place?

Transparency from Russia and the Rebels

Where Putin and the rebels are failing is in the PR/media stakes. They’re acting guilty without it having been proven, this is playing directly into the west and the media’s hands. The way the bodies are dealt with; removing evidence from the scene; obstructing investigators; allowing the scene to be ‘contaminated’; the disappearance of the black box recorder etc.

Don't think for a second that Putin could not control those people - even if they were out of control. He is Russia's President with more leverage behind his words’ than any other world leader can dream of, he is ruthless and people know that reputation. If he has lost control over those rebels, believe me he could get it back just like that!

If Putin and the rebels played the media game properly and was completely transparent then sympathies and blame may shift. But then again, maybe they are guilty and are trying to lessen the backlash. Whichever way, it’s not working.

The problem with the Russians is we’re constantly dealing with a regime who care about and value life so little. Remember the shooting down of the Korean Airlines’ 747 by the Russians in the 80’s, they denied responsibility for that for some time afterwards until it was finally proved that it was them. That may ultimately be the case here, but we’re not there yet.

Sanctions and Boycotts

The west are shit scared of Putin and Russia and won’t take him on militarily, which is probably a good thing as none of us know what the outcome of that maybe. So the best they can come up with are sanctions and boycotts.

That is all well and good, but firstly these shouldn’t be applied until any Russian guilt in this tragedy has been proven. If it is proven then we need to do it properly. The west needs to not just talk about it, but do it! Freeze their accounts; confiscate their London properties; impound their yachts when they enter European ports; shut them out of the world economy. The Russians already own half of London so it should be imposed that can never be allowed to buy property in the UK again.

And what about boycotts? If you’re going to boycott something then actually do it. There was a so called world boycott on the Russian Olympic Games many years ago but some countries still turned up. Where is the next World Cup? Oh yeah, Russia!  Doesn’t Russia have some teams in European Cup? These are places where Russia can be isolated now.

The problem is these sanctions and boycotts become ineffectual when countries break promises to apply them if it might affect them.  Angela Merkel has promised tougher sanctions, what? Like she promised not to back Herr Juncker's Presidency? At the end of the day, neither Germany nor France will stop their lucrative trade links with Russia so sanctions are a waste of time. I suppose it would have been a completely different story though if it had been a Lufthansa plane!

Cameron playing the media but doing nothing

The events over the weekend with Cameron playing to the cameras again; demonstrating his outrage on behalf of the victims and laying into Putin already having decided who is responsible. It’s all so predictable and laughable. It was all a media show. Let’s not forget, in this country we are all now too reliable on the Russians for our gas.

I wish we had a politician that was not so self-conscious that he felt the need to demonstrate what he thinks is the politically correct response; such personal weakness last year nearly got us into yet another war in Syria. Remember when Cameron was going to stop it all by himself, well no with British troops actually? Cameron must spend his entire day worrying about how he should be seen to respond on every issue. Politicians like that end up like Nick Clegg, trying - and failing - to be all things to everyone.

I've become totally sick of David Cameron talking but effectively doing nothing.  But given the way Cameron has been behaving over this, if it is proven that it was NOT the so called Russian separatists who were responsible then I think his political career may be over and he will become as popular as Tony Blair. Cameron needs to learn to be a statesman, not a petulant schoolboy.

So let’s stop playing up to the USA who do not depend on Russia for its oil and gas. Cameron should wait until there is more evidence before trying to throw his weight around. Russia can beat us by simply turning the gas valve off and ultimately Obama cannot be trusted.

Political Grandstanding Needs To Stop

This tragedy is one of the saddest things ever. Can you try and imagine, losing a loved one on this plane, going about their lives only to be shot down in an act of unbelievable horror, then being told there personal things are being stolen and not knowing if you will ever get there body back home?

I suspect it was all a big mistake. Putin couldn't possibly have ordered the downing of MH17. Yes, Russia is responsible for Ukraine having horrible weapons, just like the US is responsible for Iraq having horrible weapons. Britain, France, China, etc all sell or supply horrible weapons too! Whoever fired that missile probably thought it was a Ukrainian aircraft. It was a horrible mistake! There a war going on and it was flying through a warzone.

Knowing Putin’s reputation, I do suspect that if it WAS a Pro-Russian Separatist who fired the missile, he is now in an unmarked grave somewhere as he would now be a serious embarrassment to his side.

A problem that needs addressing immediately though, is the flying of commercial aircraft through warzones, and we’re not just talking Ukraine here. This is simple to achieve and is something our politicians should be sprouting on about instead of applying unsubstantiated blame.

Putin wasn’t directly to blame Mr Cameron, he never ordered it! Some idiot did send the plane through an active warzone though, and that wasn’t Putin. Then we have the reason this whole conflict started, that sits right at the feet of an expansionist EU that our politicians love but the public hates!

At the moment though, all this political grandstanding on the bodies of the dead by Cameron and Obama quite simply disgusts me!

Equality and Diversity; Can We Really Have Our Cake & Eat It?

I was struck this week by yet another ‘equality’ story which pitted gay rights against religious beliefs. We saw the case a few years ago of the bed and breakfast that refused a gay couple a room because it was against their Christian values, in that case the Christians lost. This week’s case has similar overtones, though I think there’s an element of entrapment going on here.

The story this week involved a Christian family business in Northern Ireland being threatened with legal action for refusing to bake a cake in support of gay rights. Ashers Bakery (incidentally, they’re named after a verse in the Bible) turned down an order for a cake featuring Sesame Street puppets Bert and Ernie and the slogan ‘Support gay marriage’. They’ve now been threatened with legal action after the gay rights activist who placed the order complained that equality laws had been breached.

The bakery owner is quoted as saying “I would like the outcome of this to be that any Christians running a business could be allowed to follow their Christian beliefs and principles in the day-to-day running of the business and that they are allowed to make decisions based on that”. - Sounds a reasonable view to me.

It’s interesting that the cake was to have the slogan ‘Support gay marriage’ on it. Interesting in the fact that Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where it has not been made legal. It was also to have the logo of the activist’ campaign group, QueerSpace. After the bakery rejected the order and offered a refund, the activists complained to the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland, which has written to Ashers warning of legal for breaching the law by discriminating against the customer on the grounds of his sexual orientation.

 

Equality v Diversity

As I have written previously, I’m an atheist so have no cut either way regarding religions, what is interesting though is the fact that in this case they’re pitting equality against diversity. The lefty’s heads must be in a spin over this one. Who’s right? Who’s wrong?

In the last few decades, we in this Christian country have been forced to respect others, particularly gay and Muslims. But this case seems to prove that while we respect them, they don’t respect the views of others. There are many bakers in Northern Ireland, why go to this one? If you were tolerant you’d find another baker, why make it a thing?

While I support gay marriage, each to their own I say, at the moment not everyone has that view. It seems the activists have deliberately targeted this business which is silly. It's like me asking a Jewish or Muslim bakery to bake an "Eat More Pork" cake. They wouldn't want to. I wouldn't be offended, but then again I wouldn't ask them in the first place.

Entrapment

I would like to see these activists go into a Muslim cake shop with the same cake order; they’re obviously not brave enough to try this blackmail and coercion on them. They knew the owner was going to say no and break the law, so is that not entrapment?

Conversely, if I walked into a halal butchers and asked for meat slaughtered according to my religious beliefs, would I get it? I doubt it somewhat. You cannot do for one what you will not do for another.

If you're going to let other religions follow their beliefs in their work life i.e. Islam then you have to do the same for all. Unfortunately white Christians are an easy target when you live in a lefty society.

It seems, as we’ve seen many times before with the left, that activists use threats to force people to agree with their position. I'm sure the fact they are actually demonstrating dogmatic intolerance is lost on them.

Freedom

Personally like I’ve said, my opinion is to live and let live. I support everyone’s right to choose and that has to include this bakery. Surely serving a customer should be at the discretion of the business owner? If you run a business you should have an absolute right to decline any order you don’t want to service.  If you choose, you should be able to run your business in line with your religious beliefs.

We may not believe in the same ethical principles whether they be religious or sexual preference as one another, it’s still important to respect people’s right to hold their opinion or beliefs.

Many many people in this land have fought, suffered and died fighting for our right to live in a democratic society. Today we generally live in times where we can express our religious, political and ethical opinions freely; it’s called freedom of speech! To take that right away from just one person makes us just as bad as the dictators and fascists our predecessors fought against over all those years.

Freedom of conscience must take precedence over state legislated "equality" provisions. The state should not be forcing people to do something that in their conscience they morally oppose. And at the end of the day is gay marriage really anti-Christian? Shouldn't we all 'love our neighbours' no matter what?

Border Control - It’s Not Racism, It’s Simple Maths !

Firstly apologies for no blog posts recently, I’ve just changed jobs so the blog hasn’t been my number one priority, anyway back on track now with a subject I’m surprised I’ve never tackled before, immigration control !

It’s All About the Numbers

For me, immigration is quite simply about the numbers. This is the basic, simple, fundamental point that our politicians seem to continually fail to grasp. I suspect the vast majority of the British people aren’t currently overly worried about EU citizens coming to the UK and sponging off our welfare state though this liberal view is changing by the day as we see a general unwillingness of politicians to value the indigenous population of the UK.

  

I think, in general we understand that most immigrants work very hard. We see it every day of our lives and we appreciate their contribution to a successful economy in the UK.

We’re only Small

The concerns that many of us have, is about the size of the country in proportion to our continually growing population. We’re concerned how our little, overcrowded country can possibly sustain, literally limitless numbers of people coming in from the rest of the European Union. How can that growth be open-ended? How can it just go on forever?

It’s about our infrastructure which isn’t designed for a population of the current proportions let alone a growing one. It’s about places in schools; it’s about houses and flats; it’s about our overcrowded roads and transport infrastructure. It’s about the NHS, about hospital beds, A&E waiting times and how long we have to wait to see our GP.

Quite simply it’s all about the numbers!

Government Doesn’t Get It

The Government has been boasting that it has got non-EU immigration down. Well done, it’s a start. But why is that really something to be proud of? All it means is that it is far harder to work in the UK, and thats for the doctor from India, the teacher from New Zealand or the engineer from Canada. These are the people we should be welcoming with open arms.

The bigger problem is the numbers coming from the EU, in particular the Eastern Europeans, the benefit tourists, the ones that come here to use our free NHS and contribute nothing. At the end of the day though, benefit tourism isn’t the main issue and it never will be. Uncontrolled, infinite, limitless immigration is the real problem. The simple fact that anyone with an EU passport can come to the UK is the problem.

Recently the Prime Minister spelled it out to us in the clearest possible terms that as part of the UK’s ‘renegotiation’ with the EU he’s planning, he won’t even be attempting to negotiate controlling EU immigration. His actual words were “It is right that people should be able to move across Europe to work”. So he can’t make his position any clearer. Call Me Dave needs to wake up and smell the coffee, this one issue could easily lose him next year’s General Election.

So What Do We Do?

What can we do really? If immigration continues at the current level we could massively increase our infrastructure maybe? Nope, that one’s dead in the water, we haven’t got the space and can’t afford it anyway.

Personally I think we need to go back to basics, back to the simple things. Like getting an understanding as a nation of what we want from immigration. For that we first need to separate immigration and asylum seekers (which are another issue entirely). Immigration should be about what newcomers can do for us, not simply what we can do for them, the unaffordability of our welfare state, the NHS and our job market dictates this. As a model, the Australian one works for me.

This doesn’t sort the bigger issue of EU migrants and I’m sorry, but the only ways that one will be solved would be to blatantly disobey the EU rules and say “No, UK not EU rules take precedent”, this would be a legal minefield. In the interim though we should put some limits on our services in place, examples being you can only claim benefits after you have been a UK taxpayer for say two years, similarly, you can only utilise the NHS for free when you’ve paid National Insurance contributions for over a year. These are measures that show the immigrant is committed to living in and supporting the UK. These are simple things that I think most people would support.

Alternatively we simply leave the EU, Government’s willingness to avoid the issue means this is actually looking like the main option, especially after the results of recent EU and local elections where UKIP took significant votes from all the main parties showing the strength of feeling the people of this country have over the issue.

One thing I could guarantee, is that an in/out referendum on EU membership before the General Election would remove UKIP from the election frame; it would probably get David Cameron re-elected and it might actually sort the issue once and for all, as I suspect the result would be ‘OUT’.