Budget is a promising start, nothing more

Wednesday, 23 June 2010 08:18

There are 13 years of Labour's squandering of public money to be reversed, so the first coalition budget can only be regarded as a promising start.

There is no reason whatsoever that ALL government departments should not feel the pain, health, defence and education are big spenders, so by allowing them to continue to wheelbarrow money into their own bottomless pits the cuts in other departments have to be deeper.

We need a fundamental review of all government spending. We did hear that yesterday when someone on the Today programme on Radio 4 said that it was no use simply cutting, we needed a long hard look at what government does and why it does it.

Take one glaring example, child benefits. Why should the state pay for everyone's children?

Some reasons why the state should pay . . .

  • Having children is expensive
  • Children are the future of our country
  • No-one would have children if the government didn't pay
  • Most children are unwanted accidents so the government has a duty to help people make the best of it
  • We need more people in our island

Some reasons why the state should not pay for children

  • Having children is a lifestyle choice, you make the choice then pay accordingly
  • With modern contraception (which is free) there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy
  • The UK is a crowded island, it does not need more people
  • Less people is better in the long term, it means there will be less demand for housing, education and every other service. There will be more jobs and much less unemployment. People will be gainfully employed so there will be less crime.
  • Why should anyone pay for the children of others - it's simply unfair
Dealing out benefits, tax credits and all the other benefits for children is a monsterous imposition on the rest of us. When people decide to produce children then they should be taking on the responsibilities, and that means paying. There would of course be howls of protest, but the government should invest in ear plugs and announce that there will be no child benefits of any kind for children born after 40 weeks from today. Unpopular it might be, but it would be a start on the road to sanity. Unfortunately, it's about as likely as taxes coming down.
Add comment (0)
 

Advice for the UK Chancellor

Thursday, 17 June 2010 12:44

Everyone is getting in on the act and telling George Osbourne what he should be doing, so here are our suggestions for saving money . . .

  • Cut public sector pay by 5 to 7% immediately
  • Cut ALL benefits and allowances by 5 to 7% immediately
  • With immediate effect change all new public sector staff onto money purchase pensions instead of final salary schemes
  • Get our troops out of Afghanistan immediately, and all other foreign deployments within 6 months
  • Stop ALL elective NHS procedures - 'gender re-alignment', fertility treatment and other similar things
  • Cut NHS funding by 3% for each of the next 5 years
  • Immediately stop child benefit for the first child
  • Scrap child benefit entirely in 10 months time
  • Cancel biometric passports
  • Stop ALL foreign aid immediately
  • Add a special tax to all CCTV cameras to be paid annually, initially £100

Common sense measures to save billions and share the pain around everyone, not just those who pay tax. So now we need a sweetener or two to make people feel better, so why not get rid of some of Gordon Brown's taxes on pleasures, so here's our list of taxes to cut . . .

  • Airport departure taxes - scrap these entirely for UK citizens, but keep them for foreigners
  • Cut the fuel duty on diesel fuel because diesel cars are much more efficient than petrol cars
  • Reduce the TV licence fee and cut BBC income, telling the BBC to concentrate more on public service broadcasting
Then add in a few measures to make sure our population does not expand un-necessarily . . .
  • Stop ALL immigration
  • Deport ALL failed asylum seekers immediately
  • Put all asylum seekers on the first transport back to where they came from if it was any 'safe' country

and something really controversial that would cut crime and bring in millions . . .

  • Legalise cannabis and many other so-called 'recreational drugs', that allows the government to control their use, tax them just like tobacco or alcohol and more importantly, it stops the criminal world dead in its tracks, just look at how the US changed after the prohibition era
Add comment (0)
 

Why are there so many Scots and Lords running the UK ?

Friday, 26 March 2010 16:21

One has to ask why there are so many Scots running the UK and why there are so many Labour toffs from the House of Lords too.

We have these Labour toffs lording it over us . . . check it here

Lord Adonis (unfortunately-name)

Lord Mandleson

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

Lord Drayson

Lord Davies of Abersoch

Young of Norwood Green

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin

Lord McKenzie of Luton

Hon Lord Drayson

Baroness Taylor of Bolton

Hon Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Lord Davies of Oldham

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead

Lord Davies of Abersoch

Hon Baroness Taylor of Bolton

Baroness Thornton

Lord West of Spithead

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Lord Myners

Lord McKenzie of Luton

Lord Bassam of Brighton

Lord Davies of Oldham

Lord Brett

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Lord Tunnicliffe

Lord Young of Norwood Green

Baronesses in Waiting Baroness Crawley

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

If the Labour party are so keen on getting rid of Lords why are there so many Labour Lords and Ladies, and why are they telling the rest of us what to do? The simple answer is 'one rule for you and a different rule for me, I'm a Labour Lord and you need to learn your place'. In reality the Labour party is power and status conscious, how else do you explain so many titled members of government?

 

Add comment (0)
   

More Articles...

Page 1 of 37