EUROPEAN ELECTIONS – VOTE UKIP FOR FREE TRADE

Leave a reply

“The UK is still the sixth biggest economy in the world, larger than Russia or India.” Roger Bootle, Managing Director,Capital Economics

So, the political class and mainstream media started by ignoring public opinion as reflected in UKIP’s stance on Europe. When that didn’t work and safe constituency voters started jumping ship, the next step was to adopt the never-fail ridicule and smear tactic. And still UKIP is gaining support.

Why? Because the escalating power grab by Brussels is unacceptable to the British people. The Europe Britain joined was a free trade association made up of nations with similar income per capita – the electorate was never asked to agree to becoming part of the United States of Europe incorporating a growing number of low income countries and a bloated expensive administration. It costs Britain billions to be a member of this disparate Eurozone driven club which increasingly controls our lives.

Why not just trade with it like the rest of the world does? A landslide victory for UKIP in the European Parliament elections would give traction to the prospect of an orderly and planned exit from the European Union. Britain as an unencumbered global free trade country would be able to accelerate growth in GDP and despite illogical scaremongering to the contrary, would be in a position  to increase employment significantly – definitely a vote winner.

CLIMATE CHANGE – THE MISSING LINK

Leave a reply

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented…the atmosphere and the ocean have warmed…snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gas have increased… Human influence on the climate system is clear…” Climate Change 2013 published by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

So what is the link between between the proportion of total CO2 emissions that is man-made and global/ocean warming? The IPCC scientists say it is “evident” from the increasing greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere. Other scientists (variously described as realists or deniers) say the human contribution to the overall amount of emissions is minimal. But even if there is a direct link, however tenuous, what can be done without causing disproportionate hardship in a society that is now totally dependent on mobility and the availability of affordable energy?

First of all, it’s important not to confuse the undisputed need to reduce pollution with the ramifications of changing weather patterns. Pollution reduction as an urgent objective is beyond debate but what seriously irks open-minded people is the Global Warming Industry’s habit of claiming every weather event as evidence of the need to reduce living standards and raise taxes.

Apart from a vastly improved strategy for waste reduction and pollution control, what’s needed is a realistic transition from the out-dated creators of energy to a new generation of efficient low pollution technology (unsightly and inefficient wind generators and solar panels are clearly not the answer). The majority of people will support a move to alternatively powered vehicles or the replacement of old coal-fired power stations with state-of-the-art low emission electricity generators – provided they are not confronted with punitive cost hikes in essential commodities or the impact of levies geared to arbitrary, unachievable targets.

Massive increases in the cost of energy and the prospect of power cuts caused by the seemingly shambolic management and communication of this issue (combined with deliberately alarmist predictions) have inclined open-minded people to view the link between climate change and their everyday lives as nebulous at best and probably a political sham – definitely not a vote winner.

MPs’ PAY REVIEW – GOOD IDEA

Leave a reply

IPSA is independent and in everything we do, we focus on our main duty: to serve the interests of the public. (IPSA website home page)

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is said to be advocating an 11% increase in [non-executive] MPs’ basic salary to £74000 a year. This can be compared to the average pay of £64000 which non-executive directors of FTSE 100 companies receive (thereby accepting collective responsibility for the actions of their boards).

Apparently, IPSA hopes that by increasing their package by such a large sum, MPs will be less inclined to abuse their generous expenses system. What an interesting message to send to the electorate. “If you’re not happy with your pay, follow the Westminster precedent and fiddle your expenses!” A further argument put forward in support of higher pay for MPs is “if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys”. Well, given the woeful performance of the last administration and the failure of the Coalition to respond to so many concerns of the electorate, monkeys could well be an improvement.

If anything, there’s mounting justification for a reduction in MPs’ pay. A large amount of legislation now emanates from the European Commission and the government just goes through a rubber stamping exercise. Also, MPs with constituencies in Scotland and Wales have a large amount of their representational functions duplicated or directly undertaken by members of the national legislatures. Shouldn’t less work and less responsibility mean less pay?

These issues and others raise a number of questions including do we really need 650 MPs? With modern communications and reduced empowerment of MPs , the rules of the Boundary Commissions should be changed to limit the number to say, 500. A reduction in the number of MPs as part of a pay and fixed expenses review might just be a vote winner.

HS2 – speedy alienation of the electorate

Leave a reply

David Cameron says those who oppose HS2 lack vision. The Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin says the strongest argument for the new line is freeing up capacity on the existing network. Labour’s current rhetoric is it will only support HS2 if its costs are contained (with no hint as to what it would do once the the inevitable massive cost overshoot occurs).

Yet there is still no convincing case for HS2. There are overseas investors willing to finance all manner of projects in the UK (nuclear power stations, shale gas exploration, etc.,) but HS2 has already achieved white elephant status with the international investment fraternity because it simply doesn’t stack up. The latest increased capacity justification seems somewhat lightweight compared to the previous “it’s about changing the economic geography of the country”. Well, if it’s serious about reducing network capacity problems in the south-east, why doesn’t the government look at relocating the Commons to somewhere north of Birmingham? It would certainly be a lot cheaper.

As the STOP HS2 campaign slogan says: No business case, no environmental case, no money to pay for it. What else is there to say? Based on the inability of the government to stay within spending targets on major projects, a final bill of well over £100 billion must be on the cards. MPs need to be made aware that in supporting HS2, they will be held accountable by the electorate.

For more information on STOP HS2 go to http://stophs2.org/