Don’t Ban Petrol and Diesel Cars You Morons

Another day, Another Green crap policy proposal that makes me consider my options of which British political party to give my vote to when needed.

I was already pissed off at the “Conservative” party for ruining my favourite fizzy drinks & fruit cordials with that stupid misguided sugar tax under the hopeless May woman.

In my previous blog post I was rolling my eyes at the proposal to ban cheap to run gas boilers in a country where it gets cold enough to freeze your nuts off.

When I got up today I saw in the news they were dusting off and toying with the stupid idea of bringing forward plans to ditch proper cars that actually work with stupid useless electric things so terrible they make even that old socialist sh*tbox the Trabant look partially decent. Continue reading “Don’t Ban Petrol and Diesel Cars You Morons”

Make British Tax Rules Simple Again – Post Brexit Policies

I distinctly recall that since at least prior to the 2010 General Election, experts were calling for the UK’s Tax Rule Book to be simplified.
There was definitely an article on the Daily Mail Website in September 2011 saying we should rip up the tax rule book and start again, and prior to that in April 2011 the Taxpayer’s Alliance released a video “World’s Fastest Speaker vs the UK Tax Code” to show how ridiculously large it had become at 11,000 pages.
The video seems to have long vanished from the interweb, but the TPA’s Blog post still appears to be there about it, and according to my records by the time the Conservative/LibDem coalition were done with it, the rule book instead of shrinking had increased by another 6000 pages of rules by February 2015.

Therefore as part of the policy review I blogged about earlier, I suggest creating a target of slashing the rule book to 7500 pages by 2025 and 3000 pages by 2030 if we aren’t prepared to take the easier route suggested 7-years ago and just re-write the damn things from scratch with a clean sheet of paper.

Basically, if using motoring references to describe the size of the tax rule book, with the New Labour Government (1997 to 2010) they’d increased from the size of a Ford Focus to the size of a Range Rover.

By the time the coalition government had finished with them, they’d expanded to the size of an armoured personnel carrier.

I’m not sure how bad they’ve gotten since, as I haven’t seen any reports giving an update, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d expanded to the size equivalent of an HGV or a Railway Locomotive.

If Britain is to succeed in a post-Brexit world, we need to strive to shrink them back down to the size of a light and nimble Aerial Atom or Caterham Super7 instead of being a lumbering dinosaur with a gammy leg.

Perhaps even take another look at Flat Taxes, maybe?

Conservatives Launch Post-Brexit Election Policy Study Thingy

Naturally, I’ll probably try come up with a few things to pitch-in via these blogs + social media accounts.

I’ve already got a couple of drafts sat in the folder ready to finish when I have time, and a few more forming in the other drafts folder known as my head waiting for me to quit procrastinating and just write the damn things down in a blog so I can throw ’em into the ring.

Planning for Brexit

Yes, well I’ve just (when I first drafted this blog post in March) seen this excellent piece of forward planning *sarcasm*……

So, let’s try come up with some plans ourselves, shall we?

The first thing, based on a Tweet from Daniel Hannan I remember seeing a few months back saying we could knock around 60% off Council Tax. Based on this, I’m thinking maybe phase the cut in by reducing it by around 2 – 5% a year while using the excess to play catch-up on the crapload of Infrastructure repairs & upgrades required in many places + regeneration projects and things like that until the 60% cut is achieved (or things are met part way).

The next thing I’m thinking of it to use it as an excuse to introduce Flat Taxes. Not only do they piss off lefties who can’t do maths or properly read about policies before jumping into attack mode, but they also get shot of loopholes that mean the better paid pay more from it being easier just to pay it than employ a decent accountant to find ways of wriggling out of paying more than necessary. The less well paid also pay less because of a threshold that lets them keep hold of more of their money.

Following this up by a Universal Income welfare system I’ve seen a handful of other countries decide to roll out… a number of other countries seem to also be having a crack at introducing them since I first spotted Telegraph articles about it, so why not?

Introduce something called “Agricultural Allowance” / “Farming Credits” to replace EU subsidies to British farmers. + maybe something similar for our tattered & torn fishing industry while it gets back on it’s feet from decades of EU interference?

Double the cancer drugs funding, think it’s currently about the same as what we’ve been paying the EU daily….

Ditch V.A.T from 20% to around 10-17.5%… I’ve got an app on my iPhone called VAT Pro, which also gives the rates for equivalent sales taxes in other parts of the world, such as 6.5% in Illinois over in the United States.

At the same time we could put through my earlier plan of ditching 2 different taxes on road fuel (fuel duty + vat), and create a new single Fuel Sales Tax on it instead.

I’ll probably come up with a few more ideas later, perhaps?

Update:

Other stuff to do will probably include a bonfire of surplus regulations that’ve been foisted on us over the years

Pain in the arse travel tax on Argentina & Spain

Earlier on I noticed in the news that the Argies + the Spanish were at it again giving us s**t over the Falklands & Gibraltar with their total bollocks claims again.

This has since given me the idea that we should consider whacking an extra 25% Travel tax on journeys to Spain & Argentina in order to cover the costs of guarding our territories.

Some of the stuff that ConservativeChitChat Supports (UK Edition)

1) Brexit… Leaving the EU holds the key to being able to do alot of the stuff that many of the stuff I support likely depends on, like keeping proper tabs on immigration.

2) Flat Taxes… they’ve been yapping for too long about simplifying them, how about actually doing it? Introducing Flat Taxes would zap many loopholes, and encourage those with fat wallets to just cough-up what they owe, instead of paying accountants to find ways to wriggle out of paying more than they have to.

3) A £155 per week Minimum Citizens income…. originally touted by the Greens, and branded a bloody stupid idea because it would cost around £415billion a year at a time Britain is trying to get back on it’s feet after Gormless Gordon Brown ran up a national deficit of £156bn (and down to around £50-£90billion around the 2015 General Election), the writers of the Daily Telegraph seem to have started warming to the idea…………

… and Finland have decided to have a crack at it too….


So I reckon it would be do-able, but require some serious awkward maths on the budget to make it work properly, such as introducing Flat Taxes + merging Income Tax with National Insurance, and achieving Brexit to enable proper control of our borders, among other things.
Maybe make a range of grants available, possibly funded in a way similar to Zopa + Funding Circle (but through the government) for things like Home Repair + disabled equipment (among other things) to make sure no one is left in the lurch.

4) Expanding Airport capacity in the South-East of England… just not with a 3rd Runway at Heathrow

5) Expanding the UK Rail Network with Real Rail Improvement, and possibly also building cycle paths to the side of the new tracks too, to expand the National Cycle Network.

6) Ditching Fuel Duty + VAT on Petrol & Diesel, and replacing with a single Fuel Sales Tax (F.S.T)

7) Building a Wales-to-Ireland Tunnel + a Scotland to Ireland Tunnel to improve transport links across the Irish Sea, and zap issues caused by crap weather that can hold up the current journey. The Wales to Ireland Tunnel is estimated to cost around £15billion (not too far off what we pay for a year’s EU membership).

8) Building a new Northern Section of the East Coast Mainline… if you look at it on Google Earth / Google Maps, you’ll notice it’s a teensy bit too close to the edge of the cliffs just north of Berwick-Upon-Tweed, which is sure to cause massive problems sooner or later.
Also if you remember Top Gear (series13 Episode1) with the race between a Steam Train, an old Jaguar + an old motorbike, you may recall there seemed to be some bottlenecks caused by local rail traffic.

9) Kitting out the RAF with a new Generation of AVRO Vulcan / Rockwell B-1B / Tupolev TU-160 sized big bombers…. let’s face it, as good as the trusty old Tornado fighter-bomber is, the fleet is apparently getting a bit shagged-out, and new proper bombers would expand Britain’s capabilities (and after all the cutting to defence we’ve had to do since 2010 we could use some more positive additions on top of what was announced the other week)

If you want to improve education, why d’ya want to teach them about ****ing Russell Brand?

Something else I mean’t to blog about for a while, and only just not gotten around to it:

If you want to improve A-Levels + education in general, why do you want them being taught about an idiot with a beard who’s mostly famous for shagging American pop star Katy Perry + sending funny phone calls to Manuel from Fawlty Towers, as well as writing books described as being full of complete crap?

I have a much better idea – teach them about Jeremy Clarkson instead. He may often get slagged off as being an idiot, but just like Boris Johnson is actually way cleverer than many people give him credit for as you may have observed when he’s gone moonlighting from Top Gear and made documentaries on The Victoria Cross, the raid on St. Nazaire, the PQ17 Arctic Convoy + on Isambard Kingdom Brunel. His writings are equally as good, and I should know because I’ve been reading them since I was about 11 years old (and I’m now weeks away from my 36th Birthday), and much of it beats the crap out of reading Shakespeare as he goes on about all kinds of stuff from Wine to Socks to Music to what goes on on Britain’s roads, before he eventually gets around to writing about the car he was supposed to be reviewing…. previews of hisbooks are available via Amazon’s KINDLE service if you want to find out for yourselves.

In addition to the writings of the Clarkson, I believe they should also make the writings of Breitbart London gaffer James Delingpole (also a Clarkson fan from what I can tell) part of the curriculum with his blog posts + books “Watermelons” + “The Little Green Book of Eco-Fascism” top reads.

Thirdly they should include the writings of Daniel Hannan, the Conservative MEP who’s written books including “How We Invented Freedom & Why it Matters” as well while they’re at it.

Maybe then kids might actually learn something, and it’d maybe also save the Police a bloody fortune in riot control equipment.

And instead of teaching them about Dizzee Rascal (who?), I’m developping a hunch it may actually be a better idea to teach them about American country/pop star Taylor Swift instead, as the 25-yr old creator of songs including Love Story, Never Grow Up, We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together, Shake it Off + many others (including 100’s more she hasn’t even published) as she’d be a way better influence + is also more up to date in terms of popularity with the kids (and I’ve also noticed it looks like Madonna + other stars young & old are becoming big fans too).

Europe said our unemployment benefit is crap – what to do about it?

Back at the end of January, there was news that Europe says we must DOUBLE the amount Britain pays out to the unemployed. The news story kinda got the amount wrong (no longer £67 a week, but actually £70.71 a week, rising to £72.40 a week for over-25’s from 8th of April 2014).

A review of of Britain’s compliance to the European Social Charter found the country’s level of jobseeker’s allowance, pensions and incapacity benefit falls below 40 per cent of the median income of European states.

To comply, Jobseeker’s Allowance would have to be hiked by £71, from £67 to £138 a week.

The Council of Europe said the UK was legally bound to meet the requirements in the same way they are by the European Convention on Human Rights.

What to do about this? (apart from leaving the EU, for which there are plenty of other reasons to do so long before this came up).

Around the time the story came out (and I first mean’t to get round to writing this thing) I came up with the idea of encouraging more people to take out private unemployment insurance while they have a job, so they can use that to start off with if/when they lose their job (then go onto to the government provided JSA that Europe says is crap once that has run out), and dabbled with a quote HERE, where I seem to recall getting a quote along the lines of £46 a week / month (can’t remember which now) for £1,000 a month cover.

I also found the Wikipedia article for how other countries deal with unemployment benefits, what d’ya think of the Canadian way of doing it?

In Canada, the system now known as Employment Insurance was formerly called Unemployment Insurance. The name was changed in 1996, in order to alleviate perceived negative connotations. In 2011, Canadian workers pay premiums of 1.78%[4] of insured earnings in return for benefits if they lose their jobs. Employers contribute 1.4 times the amount of employee premiums. Since 1990, there is no government contribution to this fund. The amount a person receives and how long they can stay on EI varies with their previous salary, how long they were working, and the unemployment rate in their area. The EI system is managed by Service Canada, a service delivery network reporting to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development Canada.

A bit over half of EI benefits are paid in Ontario and the Western provinces but EI is especially important in the Atlantic provinces, which have higher rates of unemployment. Many Atlantic workers are also employed in seasonal work such as fishing, forestry or tourism and go on EI over the winter when there is no work. There are special rules for fishermen making it easier for them to collect EI. EI also pays for maternity and parental leave, compassionate care leave, and illness coverage. The programme also pays for retraining programmes (EI Part II) through labour market agreements with the Canadian provinces.

The Employment and Social Insurance Act was passed in 1935 during the Great Depression by the government of R.B. Bennett as an attempted Canadian unemployment insurance programme. It was, however, ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada as unemployment was judged to be an insurance matter falling under provincial responsibility. After a constitutional amendment was agreed to by the provinces, a reference to “Unemployment Insurance” was added to the matters falling under federal authority under the Constitution Act, 1867, and the first Canadian system was adopted in 1940. Because of these problems Canada was the last major Western country to bring in an employment insurance system. It was extended dramatically by Pierre Trudeau in 1971 making it much easier to get. The system was sometimes called the 10/42, because one had to work for 10 weeks to get benefits for the other 42 weeks of the year. It was also in 1971 that the UI program was first opened up to maternity and sickness benefits, for 15 weeks in each case.

The generosity of the Canadian UI programme was progressively reduced after the adoption of the 1971 UI Act. At the same time, the federal government gradually reduced its financial contribution, eliminating it entirely by 1990. The EI system was again cut by the Progressive Conservatives in 1990 and 1993, then by the Liberals in 1994 and 1996. Amendments made it harder to qualify by increasing the time needed to be worked, although seasonal claimants (who work long hours over short periods) turned out to gain from the replacement, in 1996, of weeks by hours to qualify. The ratio of beneficiaries to unemployed, after having stood at around 40 percent for many years, rose somewhat during the 2009 recession but then fell back again to the low 40s.[5] Many unemployed persons are not covered for benefits (e.g. the self-employed), while others may have exhausted their benefits or did not work long enough to qualify. However, it is noted that about 80 percent of insured job-losers would initially qualify to receive EI benefits in Canada. The length of time one could take EI has also been cut repeatedly. The 1994 and 1996 changes contributed to a sharp fall in Liberal support in the Atlantic provinces in the 1997 election.

In 2001, the federal government increased parental leave from 10 to 35 weeks, which was added to preexisting maternity benefits of 15 weeks. In 2004, it allowed workers to take EI for compassionate care leave while caring for a dying relative, although the strict conditions imposed make this a little used benefit. In 2006, the Province of Quebec opted out of the federal EI scheme in respect of maternity, parental and adoption benefits, in order to provide more generous benefits for all workers in that province, including self-employed workers. Total EI spending was $19.677 billion for 2011-2012 (figures in Canadian dollars).[6]

A significant part of the federal fiscal surplus of the Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin years came from the EI system. Premiums were reduced much less than falling expenditures – producing, from 1994 onwards, EI surpluses of several billion dollars per year, which were added to general government revenue.[7] The cumulative EI surplus stood at $57 billion at March 31, 2008,[8] nearly four times the amount needed to cover the extra costs paid during a recession.[9] This drew criticism from Opposition parties and from business and labour groups, and has remained a recurring issue of the public debate. The Conservative Party, after voicing much the same criticism while in opposition,[10] chose not to recognize those EI surpluses after being elected in 2006. Instead, the Conservative government cancelled the EI surpluses entirely in 2010, and required EI contributors to make up the 2009, 2010 and 2011 annual deficits by increasing EI premiums. On December 11, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected a court challenge launched against the federal government by two Quebec unions, who argued that EI funds had been misappropriated by the government.[11]

Anyone got any better ideas?

Told you so: When discussing replacing the Human Rights Act with Sanity, be careful how you phrase it

I seem to remember in the not too distant past mentioning below an article on ConservativeHome or somewhere that we needed to be careful how we phrase it when discussing replacing the Human Rights act with something that has a bit more sanity to it (though I can’t currently find it).

I knew this because I’d previously seen on Yahoo Answers (part of Yahoo, the 4th most popular website in the world) leftie idiots asking why UKIP want to revoke Human rights, after they’d had pretty much the same idea, which I got the best answer for correcting them with:

They don’t want to revoke human rights……… they just want to replace the ECHR’s screwed-up interpretation of Human Rights with a better version that hasn’t been written & administered by unelected complete retards who put Criminals & Terrorist’s rights above those of their victims, as some of the decisions coming from the ECHR lot in the past decade or so have started getting bloody ridiculous.

It seems my recommendation that we needed to be careful phrasing replacing Human Rights act with a British Bill of Rights, or similar sane replacements, has fallen on deaf ears, and now lefties on Facebook groups with memberships the size of a small town are posting crap like this about Conservative policies as a result (seen earlier tonight):

 

An idea for cutting excessive UK spending on Foreign Aid

I had an idea recently (that I forgot to put down until just now with this blog shortly after reading something else) about placing limits on amounts spent on foreign aid….. think it was something along the lines of taking an average figure based on what the USA, Canada, Australia, France & Germany spend… then place a limit on our foreign aid levels not exceeding this average by £250-£500million.