SALMOND HEADS FOR HIS OWN CULLODEN.

A couple of days ago, Alex Salmond's lot in the chilly wastes of Scotland published their plans for an independent nation. That these plans are peppered with so many assumptions and holes that are worthless has been missed by very few.

 

Salmond wants his 'country' to be independent and yet he also wants to keep almost everything it currently has - the Queen as Head of State, the pound sterling as its currency, membership of the European Union etc., etc. He seems to have a notion that Scotland is the most successful and productive part of the United Kingdom, based on a variety of past issues and the belief that North Sea oil will last forever. What he really seems to want is to turn the clock back some 300 years, to the days when Scotland was little more than a collection of fiefdoms, nominally under the overlordship of a king or queen.

 

Salmond is attempting to con the Scots into voting for independence by promising them that the only significant change they would see would be the cessation of control from Westminster. This is, of course, nonsense. His assertion that a newly independent Scotland would still be a member of the EU has been refuted by a raft of EU officials; they are united in saying that Scotland would have to make a fresh application for membership and take its place in the queue.

 

Whether or not the Queen would wish to remain as Head of State is another question; would she wish to be Head of State of a foreign country which had rejected the old Union ? Would, indeed, the people and government of England, Wales and Northern Ireland wish to share their monarch with a foreign country which had shown such antipathy to the Union ?

 

Regarding Salmond's stated intention of retaining sterling as the new nation's currency, he has again made a claim which ignores European rules. Any new nation wishing to join the EU is required to adopt the Euro as its currency; Scotland would be no different, whatever Salmond might want. Even if this were not the case, would the Government of the reduced United Kingdom wish to share its currency ? What would be the effects on both Scotland and the nation it had left ? Tying itself to a foreign currency would certainly have a significant impact on the ability of a Scottish government to manage its own monetary affairs independently and might well make many of Salmond's other plans for a future economy impossible to achieve. One has only to look at the mess of the Eurozone to see this.

 

Salmond is a fanatic and all fanatics are dangerous. In his case, he is dangerous to the stability and future of a country, the United Kingdom, which has endured since the Act of Union in 1707. Salmond is also dangerous to his homeland, Scotland which, by the way, has not really been a country in an international sense since that same Act; it is part of the United Kingdom in the same way that New South Wales is part of Australia and California is part of the USA.

 

If the Scots want to go their own way, so be it, but let it be for genuine and supportable reasons, not the hyperbole of a mad modern-day Jacobite.  The one good thing about this whole process is that it will all be over by the end of next year, at least for a generation or two.

ANTI-SMOKING FASCISTS AT IT AGAIN.

Now that the anti-smoking lobby has become all-powerful, one of the multitude of Government QUANGOs, "The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence", has decided that it's time to push the boundaries even further. They want to ban smoking in all hospital grounds in England, whether the 'offender' be patient, visitor or staff.

 

No one can deny that smoking is bad for you. It causes a raft of illnesses and it's smokey and smelly; its odours stick to your clothes in an unpleasant fashion. However, the constant barrage of criticism of smokers, regular excessive price rises, gory packaging and bans galore have surely gone far enough unless the Government intends a total ban on the sale and use of tobacco products. If this is what it wants to do, it should get on with it, otherwise, it should back off.

 

None of the measures introduced to date appear to have done much to prevent children from sampling and becoming addicted to the 'forbidden fruit' of cigarettes any more than has a plethora of sex education stopped them from becoming sexually active at ever-younger ages. The sad truth is that banning smokers from smoking is of little use; it is stopping the addiction from being developed that matters and no one is doing anything about this.

 

The imbeciles sitting in their comfortable offices at the Institute seem not to have thought about their latest pronouncement very carefully. People in hospital, whether patients, staff or visitors, are nearly all adults; their lifestyles have been developed and changing them is far from easy. Banning all smoking on hospital property would have a number of unwelcome consequences.

 

Firstly, the availability of staff would be reduced as many of them no doubt smoke; regardless of the known dangers, a habit caught in childhood proves very difficult to break and some may be unable, or not even want, to break it - are they to be sacked ?

 

Secondly, most patients are elderly with habits formed over lifetimes of many decades; for some, one of their few remaining pleasures may be a cigarette now and again - are these people to be denied a little pleasure at a time when they are already sick and, perhaps, dying ? My own grandfather gave up smoking on medical advice when it was already too late, and 'enjoyed' 5 years of increasing incapacity, which turned into a living hell, rather than 2 years of relative happiness. After smoking for 50, 60 or 70 years, can there be any justification for depriving such people of an occasional drag ?

 

Thirdly, if there is to be nowhere that people can smoke, some may decide that going to hospital is not for them; they'd rather put on a brave face and hope for the best, while sitting at home and getting out a packet of their favourite brand. The result of such a move would be, inevitably, that such people would not be admitted to hospital until they are very ill and require much more intensive care than would otherwise have been the case.  

 

Fourthly, have the Institute's experts given any thought to the calming effects that a little nicotine can have on an otherwise stressed smoker ? Do they actually have any understanding of the ways in which smoking acts, not scientifically but in real, everyday life ? While many smokers smoke because they enjoy it, for many it is an essential part of their lives; it is, after all, a narcotic addiction. To tell a prospective patient that they need hospitalisation for a week or two and, by the way, you won't be able to smoke, may be impossible to accept or, even if it is accepted, impossible to stick to. The result could be dangerously aggressive patients with nowhere to go.

 

Finally, there is universal acceptance that visitors can play an important role in the recovery of patients. However, knowing that there will be nowhere close by where they can nip off to have a quick smoke might easily deter many from bothering to visit. Smoking is not something that can be turned on and off like a tap; when the urge strikes, it has to be satisfied. Fewer visitors (and car park revenues) and longer recoveries could easily result.

 

I'm not a smoker and never have been. I don't particularly like others smoking, but this constant banging on about bans annoys me intensely. If the Government thinks it's wrong, BAN IT ALTOGETHER; stop picking away at it and do the deed. Stop the supply of cigarettes at source and make them prescription only for existing registered smokers. Yes, such a move would cause a few problems but it would be a clean and simple break with past behaviour, unlike the entirely ridiculous mess we currently have and that some want to make even more difficult, confused and unmanageable. 

PHILLIPINES STORM DWARFS BRITAIN'S LITTLE BLOW.

A couple of weeks ago, Britain experienced a storm; from the media coverage, anyone would have thought that it was a major event of cataclysmic effect which, of course, it was not. It was actually a pretty minor affair bringing a bit of wind and rain but little else.

 

Over the last couple of days a storm of an altogether different nature has ripped through the Phillipines, bringing death and destruction to thousands. Winds of extraordinary force, torrential rain and massive tides have virtually wiped out one city and brought chaos across the country. At least 10,000 people are believed to have been killed and many, many more have been made homeless; the devastation is enormous.

 

One can only wonder how the people who have lost friends and family, in addition to everything they owned, will manage. One can also wonder how the people of Britain would cope should such a real storm strike these islands. It hardly bears thinking about. 

EU MADNESS CARRIES ON UNABATED - VOTE UKIP !

Today it's being reported that the CBI, the organisation that represents the views of many of the bigger companies in the UK, is in favour of continued membership of the European Union. This is hardly surprising as the CBI membership includes many multi-national companies which want the least possible obstruction to their trading arrangements; many of these companies are also in favour of the UK joining the catastrophe that is the 'Euro', indicating just how 'European' their managements are.

 

While this stance of the CBI is merely a reiteration of their longstanding position, their report comes on the same day that it's also reported that EU lunatics want to standardize the power of vacuum cleaners and a few days after it was announced that they want to standardize the water volume of toilet flushes.

 

This may all sound completely mad, but these measures have been reported on the jolly old pro-EU BBC, so it seems highly likely that they're true. What will we have next ? An EU standard for the amount of water we can use to shower or bathe ? Perhaps a standard for the cutting power of lawn mowers ?

 

When will this idiocy end ? We can start the process in next May's European elections - VOTE UKIP !

LIVING WAGE MEANS CUTS IN BENEFITS.

Miliband minor, reputed leader of something called "The Labour Party", has come up with another vote-winning wheeze; he's promising to introduce the "living wage" should his mob be elected to power in 2015.

 

Notwithstanding the nonsense of the "living wage", what Miliband has not exactly dwelt upon is that every penny extra which an employee would receive in their wage packets would be taken away by the benefits' system. The total paid to families in tax credits, housing and council tax benefits would be reduced to compensate for the extra employment income and, overall, the vast majority of recipients would be no better off. The one lasting effect of Miliband's proposal would be a significant additional burden on businesses, not to mention public services such as health, education and local government.

 

The additional wages, without additional productivity, mean rising costs, higher prices and inflation; people will not be better off. Miliband's policy in this direction is nothing but a cynical attempt to con voters into voting for his misbegotten bunch of hypocrites. Don't be fooled. 

US ADMITS SPYING ON ALL OF US, ALL OF THE TIME.

Listening to the self-righteous self-justification of US spymasters really does make one want to throw up. One of these egregious individuals actually had the temerity to claim that the activities of his agency had been entirely legal and that no laws had been broken - presumably, he meant that no US laws had been transgressed.

 

The astonishing arrogance of these paranoid maniacs has to be seen to be believed. It appears that ANYTHING goes when it comes to serving the interests of the USA and the laws of foreign nations, as well as all concepts of decency and friendship are ignored. Simply put, the US will ride rough-shod over anyone and everyone in order to achieve its own ends.

 

In the UK, we continue to mutter about our 'Special Relationship' with this nation of madmen, while the rest of the world becomes increasingly anxious about their activities. Our political masters might do well to heed the words of Longfellow's 'Prometheus': "Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad" 

USA BUGS MERKEL AND WHO ELSE ?

SHOCK ! HORROR !!

 

Mrs Merkel, the dumpy German Chancellor, seems to have discovered that those friendly Americans from across the 'pond' aren't so friendly after all. In fact, it appears that they've been systematically bugging her telephone.

 

Unsurprisingly, Mrs Merkel is not happy about this and has been making some very pointed remarks about the supposed loss of trust that the revelations have caused. The extent of the American surveillance of foreign leaders is now a major question on the news wires and people are asking who else is being bugged.

 

The answer, of course, is EVERYONE. Mrs Merkel and her colleagues in the club reserved for heads of state and government are all being bugged by the Americans and are most probably all responsible for the bugging of most of their 'friends' too. 'Friendship' in the murky world of international politics is not what ordinary people understand the word to mean. From a government perspective, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' is about as close as any of them ever get to true 'friendship'.

 

We all know that the Americans are the most paranoid nation on earth and that they have the biggest and most sophisticated surveillance network; they habitually spy on anyone whom their paranoia sees as a potential threat to them, and that means they spy on almost everyone. America has one aim and one aim only - the protection of itself by any means deemed necessary and at any cost. Their is no room for international friendships in such a nation. 

 

However, this is not to say that other countries don't do the same, though most simply don't have the resources or technical ability to carry out their espionage activities on the same scale as does the USA. The simple fact is that they're all at it, all of the time and they all know it; why we have a sudden upsurge of indignation from the Germans now is an open question.

ENERGY PRICES SOAR AGAIN.

The near 10% price rise announced today by British Gas will come as a nasty shock to their millions of customers. How it can be justified is a question that will be much-debated in the coming weeks and months, as the other major suppliers of gas and electricity also increase their prices.

 

With wages rising at little more than 1% and general inflation at around 2.7%, a 10% increase in energy bills is unwelcome. British Gas, and no doubt all of the other major companies, will claim that much of the rise is out of their control as it's a consequence of the wholesale cost of gas, increased transport costs for both gas and electricity and the effective surcharges demanded by Government for the introduction of 'smart meters', better insulation and 'green' energy schemes.

 

Whatever the truth, many people will be looking for ways to make savings. 'Shopping around' is one avenue, but it's always best to wait until all of the companies have announced their latest price rises before acting; otherwise, one may easily go from bad to worse. Secondly, ensuring your property is well insulated can be a huge saver as can the installation of a modern boiler; double glazing and loft insulation added to changing boiler can easily cut hundreds of pounds from an average bill. Don't leave electrical appliances on standby or even plugged in; if your washing machine is programmable, run it overnight on a lower tariff plan and do the same for any tumble drying. Switch lights off when they're not needed and be prepared to wear thicker clothing rather than sit in shirtsleeves in a sweltering house.

 

There must be many more ways of keeping costs down and we all need to use them because, whatever Miliband minor says, prices are going only way and that's up, not down.

 

 

DIANE ABBOTT : WOMAN OF THE PEOPLE.

Ed Miliband's shuffle (I refuse to say reshuffle for obvious reasons of English usage) of his shadow cabinet have included the sacking of Diane Abbott, formerly his shadow Minister for Public Health. I have rather mixed feelings about this.

Ms Abbott is a committed socialist and I'm not; indeed, I am fairly opposed to most of her views as to how our society should be organised, managed and run. However, I do respect her opinions. She comes across as an honest politician, one of the few, and does not appear to be a glory-seeker. As such, I do have to wonder why she has been sacked; it seems that she committed a cardinal sin and spoke against Party Policy on the subject of bombing Syria, Libya or some such place.

Diane's appearances on the superb "This Week" on BBC 1, were a joy; sat beside Michael Portillo she said what she believed, as does "Polly", and it was impossible not to like both her and the wonderful relationship between the two of them. That they have known each other since their school days was, perhaps, not a surprise given their obvious camaraderie.

Abbott's departure from the Labour frontline may well signal her return to "This Week" and a few injudicious revelations about what goes on in the Miliband inner circle.

Whoopee Doo !

PS I was at the same all boys' school and in the same class as Portillo, while Diane was down the road at the local girls' school; both state, but both a little bit 'elitist', too !

TRISTRAM HUNT : MAN OF THE PEOPLE ?

I may well be incredibly stupid, but how can the likes of Tristram Hunt, a privileged boy of of the Blairite school, be any sort of socialist representative for the parents of todays' schoolchildren ?

As the newly appointed shadow Secretary of State for Education, Hunt is the man to whom parents unhappy with the current state of our education system are expected to look. Given that he is the son of a Labour Peer who went to Westminster School and himself went to an independent (= private) school, how can he be expected to have a clue about ordinary people and their educational needs ? Today, he's been making statements about various things to do with education but it's all smoke and mirrors to say the least; at worst it's a load of total bollocks.

Why is it that so many of the Labour hierarchy, who claim to be so connected with "the people" are from such privileged backgrounds ? Could it be that there is a load of money to be made from being a politician, whether it is local or national ? Socialism is a wonderful thing as long as you only profess
it for others; God forfend that you don't practice it for yourself.

BOAT PEOPLE HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME.

Various political figures and organisations are getting their rather nanny-like knickers in a right old twist about people drowning in the Mediterranean. Recent events in which numerous boat passengers have perished while attempting to cross from North Africa to Italy have caused such a stir that demands for 'something to be done' are issuing from every quarter.

 

If I chose to walk across Dartmoor without a compass and in inadequate clothing, it would be no one's fault but my own if I got lost, fell down a hole and died; certainly, no one would start shouting that 'something must be done' in order to prevent such 'tragedies' in the future. However, when hordes of assorted asylum seekers make a similar choice by embarking in large numbers on barely serviceable boats, and end up sinking to the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea, the world gets all weepy.

 

It may well be that the people in question have endured difficult, even horrible, times but taking ship was their idea; the consequences are on their own heads. There can be no justification for the vast amount of hand-wringing that's going on and certainly no justification for governments and international organisations to be expected to provide hugely enhanced search and rescue services. If anything needs to be done, it's in the countries from which the escapees are fleeing, not by the ones to which they are travelling.

 

Oh what a crazy world we live in.

YELLEN APPOINTMENT MEANS MORE OF THE SAME.

While the appointment of Janet Yellen as head of the US Federal Reserve appears to be a foregone conclusion and stock markets have welcomed the news, the long term outcome for the real world may well be more pain.

 

Yellen comes from a coterie of 'born again Keynesians' who all believe that the answer to our recent woes is to borrow and spend still more. They are believers in state intervention in every aspect of our financial lives and believe that simply making the money revolve around the system ever-faster is the way to ever-greater prosperity. More recently, they've discovered a new wheeze which is the creation of large amounts of money for injection into the economy via the mechanism of 'Quantitative Easing'; what the ultimate effects of this will be are wholly unknown.

 

I don't claim to be an economist of any sort, and I know a lot less than the likes of Yellen and her Keynesian colleagues (2 of whom are Nobel Prize winners) but I still think they're wrong. When the major western economies, not least the USA, are labouring under vast mountains of debt, the way to salvation cannot be to borrow more. If I, as a private citizen, get into debt, I may try to borrow my way out of trouble but I'll eventually go bankrupt; so it is with countries. The current crisis over the existing 'Debt Ceiling' in the US tells us that there are many who are already very unhappy with the state of play and Yellen is unlikely to tighten any belts for a long time yet. It's even reported that her stance may be even more lax than that of her predecessor, Ben Bernanke.

 

There is one difference between a private bankruptcy and a state one; the state bankruptcy takes longer to arrive but is ultimately much worse. Keynesians of the world should all take note - when you're in a hole, stop digging.

USA INVADES LIBYA AND SOMALIA : WHERE IS THE UN ?

So here we go again. The peace loving Yanks have invaded more countries and claim that it's all perfectly legal.

 

Today, American forces have carried out two operations which involved landing troops in Libya and Somalia for the purposes of capturing supposed terrorist suspects. While I have no problem with catching terrorists, I have to wonder what right the Americans have to do it in foreign countries from which they've received no agreement to act.

 

The Libyan government has apparently asked for an explanation of the US action while there's been no published comment from Somalia as yet which, given the state of that country's government, is hardly surprising. Nonetheless, what US troops were doing in Somalia, uninvited, is a question that needs answering.

 

In Libya, the invaders captured a claimed Al Qaeda 'leader' whom they now say is 'lawfully detained outside of Libya'; whose law they are applying would be nice to know, though I doubt that anyone actually has the balls to ask. That this arrogant and overbearing action by the USA is wrong is self-evident but, given the current western paranoia about Islamic terrorists it's unlikely that anyone in the West will complain - it may be a bit different in more eastern parts.

 

The USA has set itself up as the self-appointed arbiter of what is right and wrong in the world. As such, it makes arbitrary decisions, entirely based on what is perceived to be good or bad for the USA, and acts on these; some will recall that it actually invaded the British territory of Grenada in the 1980s on some spurious grounds of defending itself. For no known reason, the rest of the world, as represented by the United Nations, simply stands by and accepts this utterly Imperialistic attitude and, apart from occasional comments from Russia, China and one or two others of rather inconsequential standing, does nothing.

 

The problems in the world today are many but the USA is one of them. It is a nation run by fanatics; they still believe in the law of the 'wild west' and many are fundamentalist Christians who are just as insane as the fundamentalist Muslims whom they despise; the only difference is that the US has much more powerful weapons and surveillance systems. Once the other lot catch up, all hell will be let loose, and that's why the Americans loonies don't want the Islamic loonies to have access to an atomic bomb.

 

Why doesn't the United Nations do anything about it ? Answer - because the UN is run  by the US and is nothing but a useless waste of money, time and space. We, the majority of the people of the world, are on our own.

MILIBAND v THE 'MAIL' : A LOVE - HATE RELATIONSHIP !

The spat between the Milibands and the 'Daily Mail' and 'Sunday Mail' newspapers really is a bit of a storm in a teacup as well as being a politically inspired piece of largely irrelevant bilge. The real issue is one of perceived right-wing newspapers being pilloried by wealthy, yet supposedly committed, socialists.

 

Journalists have frequently dug up dirt on public figures and splashed it across their front pages. When the subjects of such abuse have been figures from the right wing, little has been said; one needs only to recall the abuse heaped on Margaret Thatcher throughout her time as Prime Minister, during her retirement and even at the time of her death, to see this. The left wing of political thought was cruel and inhuman in much of its coverage of Thatcher's life, notwithstanding that she did more to save this country from disaster than any Labour politician ever has. As far as the socialist left is concerned, anyone espousing right wing views is fair game and can be abused in the most grotesque fashion.

 

When it comes to making comments about left wing figures, matters are somewhat different. The left flies into high dudgeon at any suggestion that their heroes may have had feet of clay. That Ralph Miliband was a Marxist is a simple fact, and that Marxists are the enemies of freedom and democracy follows from any minor consideration of the modern histories of the Soviet Union, China and numerous other totalitarian states. Whatever is claimed by his devotees, Karl Marx was no supporter of traditional British values or society. If Ralph Miliband was a supporter of Marx, then his support for British values and society must also be open to question.

 

The left scream that this is all wrong and that Adolphe Miliband, who later changed his name to the more politically acceptable Ralph, was a man who truly loved 'his country'; the fact that he was actually a Belgian, of Polish extraction, who only came to England in order to escape the NAZIs in 1940 is generally glossed over. Another piece of manipulation by the left is the claim that Miliband must have loved this country because he fought for it in World War 2; yes, he joined the Royal Navy but he served in what was then a 'Belgian section', raising possible questions about which country he actually believed he was fighting for. Additionally, for a committed communist to be fighting against the NAZIs was hardly something unusual or deserving of particular praise in either case.

 

In later years, Miliband maintained a steadfast Marxist approach to politics, finding the Labour Party of Harold Wilson far too moderate; he supported a revolutionary socialist philosophy which he maintained to the end of his life and which was surely something unfriendly to traditional British ways. Along the way, he followed the traditional approach of high-profile left wingers by becoming rather wealthy.

 

The 'Daily Mail' has written that Ralph Miliband did not love Britain and this has caused an uproar from the left and from Ed Miliband in particular. Does anyone really care and does it matter in any context other than a purely political one ? I think not. 'Miliband Minor' is simply using this as a tool in his campaign to become our next Prime Minister and the sooner the manufactured row is consigned to the dustbin of history, the better.

ED MILIBAND : "LET'S ALL GO BACK TO THE '70s !"

Ed Miliband appears determined to turn the clock back and to make the country relive the disasters of the past.

 

Immediately after the Second World War, the Labour government of Clement Attlee introduced a range of measures, some of which laid the foundations for the mess in which we find ourselves today. Nationalisation of a variety of industries led to the eventual destruction of some and to the weak markets which exist today in energy supply and rail transport. The great institution that was the NHS was poorly understood; naively, it was believed that costs would fall as the health of the nation improved, and there was no understanding of the increased demand that would arise from an increasingly aging population, or from medical advances. Far from costs falling over the years, they have risen almost exponentially, and another great socialist ideal has proved to be unsustainable in the long term.

 

In the 1960s and 1970s, the governments of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan took us further down the road of industrial collapse and public sector profligacy and inefficiency. We had state control of prices and incomes, vast government borrowing and regular strikes by workers of all types. The vast swathe of nationalised industries was in a state of constant agitation and their outputs were shambolic in every respect. Inflation was rampant, interest rates high and everyone ended the 1970s much poorer than they'd been a few years earlier. 

 

By 1979, the country was in a state of turmoil with rubbish piled high on the streets and industries such as car making, ship building and aircraft manufacture in terminal decline. It took the strong will of the Conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, plus a certain amount of luck, to turn things around and recreate a strong economy. When Labour came back into power under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in 1997, the economy was growing strongly and the 'public finances' were in robust good health.

 

Blair and Brown then set about destroying things. With typical left wing abandon, they threw money around and showered it on anyone they considered to be 'poor', at the cost of major industry and those they considered to be 'rich'. They introduced measures such as a 'minimum wage' which is, itself, a ludicrous concept; it does not make anyone better off, it actually makes more people worse off. They invented the shockingly expensive and counter-productive system of 'tax credits' with which we are now saddled, a system which actively encourages people not to work, or to work only limited hours.

Nonetheless, their followers simply saw extra money in their pay packets or benefit cheques, and thought it was wonderful. They tinkered with the education system and ruined it; they poured billions of pounds into the NHS, money which appears to have disappeared without trace, and they played around with the railways to such extent that they, too, are now a mess. They also interfered in many other areas, introducing state controls which have proved anything but beneficial. While doing all of this in the name of 'the people' and 'the poor', Blair became a multi-millionaire, demonstrating beyond any doubt that his overriding interest was in enriching himself rather than in improving the lot of the people he purported to represent.

 

In 2010, the people finally decided that they'd had enough of the Labour government, helped in this decision by the appalling events of the banking crisis and credit crunch. Labour, of course, claimed that this was all the fault of the banks though there is no doubt that much of what affected the UK was a consequence of government action over the preceding 13 years. Since 2010, the coalition government of Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties has striven to bring some sanity back into our lives and the signs are that they may now be beginning to succeed. Inevitably, Labour doesn't agree.

 

Instead of welcoming the signs of improvement in our economy, Miliband seems to be hell-bent on taking us back to the grim old days of state intervention in everything. He proposes to introduce a mandatory 'living wage' in place of the 'minimum wage' something which would increase costs for all companies and, therefore, prices; he wants to introduce state controls over the prices of gas and electricity, further remove children from their parents by bringing about even more state-sponsored childcare. He wants to restore the inequality that existed between private and public sector tenants. In short, he wants to go back to the disastrous days of the 1970s, when Britain suffered the ignominy of being shored up by the International Monetary Fund.

 

The epithet of 'Red Ed' to described Miliband is well deserved. A vote for him and his party in 2015 will be a vote for a return to old-style socialist state control and the associated mess that always develops from such government. Don't be conned, don't do it.