#EUref the latest scaremongering, on #Brexit , is that PGS will be removed from Cornish pasties. Will French Champagne loses its PGS.

June 6, 2016

The latest scaremongering from the BBC and the Remainers is a claim that #Brexit will hit sales of Cornish pasties.

Shops up here sell pasties. They taste no worse for lacking the protected geographical status (PGS) naming of Cornish. It’s merely a meaningless snob thing.

PGS began as a dog-in-the-manger invention of the French to capitalise on the celebrity of Champagne’s name.
It’s a white sparkling wine, whose sole purpose seems to be to spray it over crowds in a victory celebration.

It’s ironic that this conceit of PGS is the biggest obstacle to the signing of TTIP (a treaty to open up EU markets to Yankee Trader’s).

U.S. manufacturer’s have caught on to the fact that all their cheeses etc. will have to have name changes, whilst French and German politicians are poring over the (English only) wording of the treaty details of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).

If PGS persists in the EU, after signing TTIP, they’ll have to protect it here, also; lest our growing wine industry  starts selling its sparkling wine as Champagne (only fair, as it was a British invention)

“Labour together” sounds good but can you trust a Lothario?

June 3, 2016
Labour Together has come too late.
Around here, there were four Labour clubs, within walking distance.
Three have been closed and demolished in recent years , with one taken over by the local community, as its only venue for a social gathering.
My impression was that New Labour no longer felt it necessary to nurture its core vote, having decided to become “Centrist” and chase the Tory voters, whilst trying to entice donations from Big Business
(instead of relying on the meagre income offered by a diminishing workforce).
Labour doesn’t have the money to replace these Labour clubs, where Councillors and MP’s could mingle with their electorate and learn first hand what they thought, whilst offering a place that fostered community spirit and a nursery for activists.
All that Labour Together can do is to continue their incestuous meetings in Whitehall and Townhall’s, assuring each other that they are all working towards a common end (behind Jeremy? or maybe Hillary, or Yvette, or someone more Right wing.) and that they have the key to understanding how to get Labour voters to want to not only want to stay in the EU but to want to bother to vote (mainly by autodial badgering).

 

If Labour pushes its core voters to turn out for the EU Referendum could increase the #Brexit vote

June 3, 2016
Labour’s stated intent of chasing their core voters to ensure they vote in the EU referendum could be an own goal.
From my experience of canvassing in such an area, many would favour Brexit.
Those voters would probably avoid committing to a choice, rather than go against Labour’s official stance.
But, if pushed to vote, they might not see it as going against Labour but going against cheap immigrant Labour.
It’s unwise getting them to think about what loyalty they might owe Labour or what Labour has, or hasn’t, done for them, in recent decades.
In fact, what is the present Labour party to them, except an alternative to their present ally, Cameron and his Tories?

 

roads are often only just wide enough for a bus, fining motorists for driving too close to cyclists, is bad law.

June 3, 2016
The call to fine motorists, who drive too close to cyclists will only serve to antagonise both groups.
As with the use of mobile phones, most prosecutions will only occur after an accident, when it is too late to benefit anyone.
At least with mobile phones, the culprit has a choice, whereas, at times, the only choice possible with cyclists (and horses) is to sit behind them and wait for a chance to accelerate past them.
Of course I’m assuming that the cyclist is solo, hugging the verge and not having to dodge potholes etc.
I’d love to get on a bike and get some exercise but as a motorist I’m too aware of how dangerous it can be.
The correct action would be to build separate road networks, for bicycles, motorists and pedestrians.
The present mish-mash of pedestrian precincts, cycle lanes and now this threatened fine doesn’t even paper over the cracks.
Instead of spending £60Bn on HS2 to get a few VIP’s from London to Manchester in 1 hour, rather than 2 hours, why not examine the old footpaths, Beeching axed railway lines and canal towpaths to see if they can be utilised?
Separating different forms of traffic doesn’t have to be one-dimensional, either, major towns often have underground trains and overhead walkways.
If we are going to Victorianise Britain, let’s have politicians capable of taking Ministerial office and using it to achieve something more than the advancement of their own political career by enacting poorly thought out stop-gap laws.

 

@jeremycorbyn I would like to see Tuition fee’s scrapped, certainly not allowed to rise freely.

May 27, 2016
Letter to Daily Mirror 17/5/16
If you agree that College Students should be charged for tuition fee’s, then allowing annual rises seems logical.
I question the need for tuition fee’s at all.
As a Baby Boomer, I was fortunate enough to be born at a time, when the common people were considered worthy of equality of opportunity; hence, the Welfare State.
I, like many of the politicians, who brought in tuition fees, was able to, not only, have those costs paid by the State but also given a grant to pay for my living expenses, away from home.
The case given, at the time, was that the Nation relied on an educated workforce to provide its wealth.
The more Engineer’s, Scientists, Innovator’s etc, that we produced, the greater our ability to pay our way in The World.
That argument doesn’t fail just because Thatcher decided that we should rely on The City and its modern day “adventurer’s”.
It doesn’t fail because Tony Blair’s “education x 3” meant that you, now, needed qualifications just to drive a fork lift truck.
The Nation still needs skilled people in certain area’s and it should be investing in them.
This sort of investment fits in with both Socialism and Capitalism and is one of those area’s that points up the whole idiocy of the ideology of the State shedding its responsibilities onto the Private sector.
Let the Private Sector run its own private education system, where it’s prepared to invest its own money.
If a company wants to run a Clown College (Homer Simpson), that’s not a problem, although company turning out fake architects would be.
Why have another company trying to keep track of whether graduates have reached a salary level, whereby they can begin repaying these fee’s?
We already have a mechanism to recoup the costs of the fee’s: It’s called Income Tax.
If your degree or diploma has any value, then you will be remunerated at a level, whereby you will be paying more tax, anyway.
If Labour were to get in power and remove this burden, they’d earn the gratitude of a generation facing huge debts, on all sides.
They’d also earn the gratitude of their parents.
They might even earn the gratitude of businessmen, who’d appreciate interviewing graduates whose qualifications were reliable.

#EUref #LeaveEU @UKLabour I just sent off my postal vote for #Brexit. This is partly my reason

May 27, 2016

trade 2015

We import more from EU than we export, so just on basic sums they need our trade more than we need theirs but the French will still buy our lamb and we’ll still buy their wine.

Then, again, we’ll probably sell them less lamb, because they’ll be slapping VAT on it. So rich, large farmer’s will have to sell more to us, at a lower price and Peta should be pleased that sheep won’t suffer long journey’s to French abattoir’s.

Wine should be cheaper, with no VAT, but I daresay The Chancellor will put another tax on “to help reduce boozing”.

There’ll be lots of swings and roundabouts, although overall, if sales stayed constant (Unlikely) , then theoretically, we the plebs, should find EU goods cheaper, because there’ll be no VAT.

Problem is, in reality, our Government will want to slap taxes on some imports, such as wine, and the EU won’t like that (hence lengthy trade negotiations).  Also, the EU will put VAT on our exports to them, which may impact jobs.  This complex. Consider Nissan making cars here for export to the continent. Their cars will be hit by VAT and sales may drop. Part of the EU deal was that Nissan use crap French components. This may no longer apply, meaning Nissan will regain its reputation and sales could rise.

There are lots of IF’s and BUT’s, which is why no-one can make an accurate prediction of what will happen.

Businesses with good management will make good decisions and lay out contingency plans during any transition. Bad ones will merely moan, give money to the Remain campaign and cross their finger’s.

Note also that we not only export more to non-EU than to EU but we also import less from non-EU.

We won’t be charging VAT on these imports, so they’ll be cheaper, so we may buy more from them, which could encourage them to buy more from us.

The only downside, I see here is where we buy things from the EU, add value and sell them on. They’ll carry some VAT, so will be pricier.

One other aspect of leaving the EU, is that we won’t have to accept subsidised tenders from their businesses, which should mean more jobs kept at home. E.g. trains not being built in Spain using Chinese steel.

It’s all complicated and for every swing, you can point at a roundabout but on the whole, those crude figures at the top of the page imply that we’ll be better off, or, at least, hardly any worse off than we are now.

And at least we know who our politicians are and where they live.

women’s pension theft

May 27, 2016
Letter to Daily Mirror 18/ 5/16 aqnd published version added beneath
Stephen Crabb’s description of a woman, born in the early 50’s, as “breezing through life not thinking” creates an image of a young, noodle-head girl skipping merrily down a country lane.
The reality is one of a woman growing up as rationing was just coming to an end.
Starting her working life in the sure and certain knowledge that The Welfare State would use a share of her Taxes and N.I. contributions to ensure that she would always have a financial safety net.
The Tories changed her pension age in 2011.
Assuming she was born in 1955 and began paying taxes at 18, she would have had 38 years paying in with 4 years to go, before retirement.
That’s not “breezing through life not thinking”.
That’s running 23.7 of the 26.2 miles of a marathon, then being told you must run another 3.1 miles and, in this particular case having another 1.2 miles added on, at the last minute.
This is neither fair, nor reasonable.
It’s certainly not practicable.
For the majority of ordinary people to be expected to find sufficient “spare” cash from their weekly wage, in a 5 year period, to pay for another 6 years of lost pension, is sick and all MP’s should feel ashamed of their callousness.
Published:
PENSIONS RATIONED
# Stephen Crabb’s description of a woman born in the early 50s as
“breezing through life not thinking” creates an image of a young,
noodle-headed girl skipping merrily along.
The reality is one of a woman growing up as rationing was just coming
to an end. She would start her working life safe in the knowledge that
the welfare state would use a share of her taxes and NI contributions to
ensure she would always have a financial safety net.
The Government changed her pension age in 2011. This is neither fair,
nor reasonable, and all MPs should feel ashamed of their callousness.

Do we need a Police Force now it’s been cut to a point where it is no longer able to function properly.

May 27, 2016
Letter to Daily Mirror 20/5/16
Theresa May is ultimately responsible for policing, regardless of the imposition of PCC’s to distance herself from cuts. Cuts, which are a consequence of George Osborne’s fictitious Austerity.
When people like Paul Smart, report a crime being actively committed, it is imperative that police respond and promptly.
It is not good enough shifting responsibility around, or appointing Counsellor’s and Press Officer’s to attempt to placate the victims.

Theresa May has three options: Ignore the Treasury and start signing off on police budgets, resign, or sack everyone in the line of command, down to the cop who told Mr. Smart that they were too busy.
Sorry, there is a fourth possibility. Scrap all pretence of running a police force, scrap all courts and scrap all prisons.

At present our Society is running on Inertia, with Government’s main concern being to poke into the intimate details of the lives of law abiding citizens, whilst protecting the privacy of those with money and paddling pools.

Time to scrap UN and its committee’s.

May 27, 2016
Letter to Daily Mirro 24/5/16
Your article on “smacking” begins with the statement that a panel of experts have called on the UN to ban smacking.
The use of the word “expert” gives their views added weight but what are they experts in?
Parenting? Smacking? Violence?
Degree’s and Diploma’s merely mean that you have absorbed the knowledge and views of someone else with similar qualifications.
They do not necessarily mean that you are right or even that you know what you are talking about.
By their very actions, of appealing for legislation, they have admitted that violence works.
How else would the UN implement that Law?
As a parent I adminstered a slap on the legs three times, only, but I was fortunate in that my children were of a suitable nature to accept that correction.
Not everyone will conform to acceptable Law, else we wouldn’t need prisons and there’d be no Wars.
We have to accept that we can’t make Law that prevents violence.
We can only punish and/or restrain those who cross a line.
The question is the whereabouts of that line.
Our present Law has it right in avoiding criminalisation of decent people.
It allows “reasonable” chastisement and that works for the vast majority.
I suspect that these “experts” only deal with the minority; those who use excessive violence and have emotional problems.
The only real concern is that Judges and Police be capable of deciding what’s reasonable in each case brought to them.

#EUref Politicians who despise populism and those voting for Trump need to re-evaluate their own attitudes.

May 27, 2016
Letter sent to Daily Mirror 27/5/16:
It is a sign of our times that Jean-Claude Juncker’s aide, Martin Selmayr, felt free to comment on the emergence of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Trump and Marine Le Pen as
“a horror scenario that shows well why it is worth fighting populism”.
It reveals an ignorance of the political scene shared by the people around him.
It also suggests that he and they despise the concerns of ordinary people.
Essentially, they oppose Democracy and believe themselves an aristocracy with a superior understanding of what’s best for the people over whom they have been given power.
It is worrying that such people do not realise that it is their contempt for voters, which has led to the emergence of these three clownish figures.
It is not these three, about whom they should be concerned, but their own arrogance and its potential consequences.
It’s as if the riots in Italy, Greece, Spain and France were mere irritations, rather than portents of a future that ill fits their European dream.
Taking an analogy; it wasn’t Fletcher Christian, who caused the Mutiny, aboard the Bounty, but Captain Bligh’s arrogance and his treatment of those who actually sailed the ship both before and after he lost command.
.

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 517 other followers