Thoughts on "Call Nick"

I didn't hear "Call Nick" this morning on LBC, I was on a train to work and reception is fairly bad at the best of times. I did follow along with Twitter though.

Granted most of my Twitter feed is made up of Liberal Democrats but the general feeling was that Nick did well.

When I first heard of the "Call Nick" scheme I couldn't help but think this was a horrendously bad idea. Let's be honest he is hardly one of the best loved people in the UK, the general feeling amongst the public, rightly or wrongly, is that the Party sold out and checked its' values at the door. Surely an open forum would lead to all kinds of abuse?

However, I'd forgotten about that Clegg magic.

Nick is an exceptionally charismatic guy, very down to earth and chatty. It is easy to forget he went to Westminster college and from a well off background. He doesn't have the Etonian twang that David Cameron has, an unfortunate impediment in the modern age of politics when you are immediately labelled a toff.

As I understand it Nick weathered the storm of an angry student and an ex Libdem councillor who was disgusted at what has happened to the party in his stride.

It is true that my faith in the Party at parliamentary party has been shaken in the past and even as recently as Tuesday with the benefits vote but the anger never lasts long. I think of the good things and the tough decisions etc etc and at the centre is Clegg.

Some days I find myself asking "What are you doing Nick?" other days I think he's doing an exceptionally difficult job exceptionally well. I know that a meeting over a pint would end in my complete rejuvenation (even if I couldn't place why) and it would be the same for many I believe.

Going on LBC was a similar move of crazy mixed with genius.
How many political leaders have gone on regular radio interviews? None.
How many times do activists complain that leadership don't know what we're up against? All the time.

What better way is there for a politician to open their ears to what the public want, fear, get angry about?

This was actually a good way to raise the party's profile and achievements in the public eye. It also provides campaign committees with an idea of public opinion and a little bit of Clegg magic helps to!

 

Rail fares, Political football and inevitability

One of the top policy debates that will come up in 2015, as it did in 2010 is the constant rise in Rail fares. It is a burning issue here in the Medway towns and it was definitely one of the things that cost Paul Clarke (a junior transport minister) his seat. Local Conservatives, who protested at the Railway stations are now being supplanted by Labourites waving the same banners.

Although local MPs have fought hard to keep the rise in tickets to RPI+1 and limit the rise a rise has occurred.

The usual tired old arguments have come out again ->

You botched up Privatisation

You Brought in RPI+ system

You lot haven't kept your election pledges

You lot left us a deficit

Omnishambles

Opportunists

Labour are now criticising the RPI+1 rise that has been brought in by the Coalition (after the hard work of local MPs) even though it is the amount their party proposed in an Opposition day motion.

Railfare has rapidly become a game of Political football.

OK, I know that I am a Liberal Democrat (boo hiss!) but primarily I am a husband and a father, a man who tries to earn an honest wage and support my family and I am seeing my wages slowly pouring down a black hole and it seems to me, as a consumer and voter that whomever wins - I still lose out.

It appears that successive Government legislation means that not much can be done.

Or is it?

To be honest, the local Tory MPs have done well to limit the rise having fought George Osborne's budget announcement (of RPI+3) and have lobbied the Ministers of transport on our behalf. Personally, Labour's calls seem a tad opportunistic.

But, if I was to carry on being honest - I'm starting to lose faith in the whole damn thing and am starting to feel pretty much defeated by the whole thing, resigned to paying more and more until I eventually can't afford to travel on the trains.

Here are the price rises from 2004-12 (thanks to John Ward's blog for 2004-11!!!)



Visual representation



Year	Amount	Percentage
2004	2260	2.73%
2005	2328	3.01%
2006	2400	3.09%
2007	2496	4.00%
2008	2740	9.78%
2009	3020	10.22%
2010	3068	1.59%
2011	3324	8.34%
2012	3672	10.47%

I don't know who to put my faith in on this come the next election and I'm sure that most commuters feel the same way. Although the Conservatives have a better track record on this since coming into power they also have not fixed the problem, merely steemed the bleeding.

The fact of the matter is the prices keep rising and no one has any real solutions and it seems to be a constant rise under both parties.

There are a lot of Pie in the sky ideas like renationalising the network or cooperatively run franchises - all well and good but Southeastern still have the franchise and the Government are still setting the permission to raise prices.

So where does that leave us?

To be frank - I've almost given up and I'm walking out of the stands of this game, I tire of watching it and am resigned to paying more until the day I have to resign because I can't afford to travel.

It is issues like this and the petty squabbling and point scoring that has left many people disenchanted with politics as nothing seems to change.

Party failed us (except Sarah Teather et. al)

Sarah Teather stood against the BUB

Last night the headsman's axe fell missed the target and hacked at the body rather than a clean slice through the neck. This Government has taken a step to far in freezing benefit rise.

Don't get me wrong, there are elements of this bill that I think are just and fair. For example drawing a line where income exceeds a certain point and then scaling back child allowance, tax credits etc.

Boris Johnson was quoted as saying that he could have spent his child allowance etc on expensive holidays and champagne and estimated that his wife had received around £50k over the years for their children. Although a flippant remark, it is illustrative of the point that certain incomes don't require assistance. The level the government have is using is £50k PA which seems a fair amount to begin scaling back but it is also arbitrary in the fact that if ONE parent is earning 50K then they are eligible but two parents earning £49K each are not eligible - this is madness!

Although I do not subscribe to the scroungers vs. Strivers point that Iain Duncan Smith has put out on the whole, I do agree that such a "Scrounger" culture exists - just not in the scale that the Government and especially the DWP are suggesting. Moreover I think that the Government should go through an extended process of reform and legislation to combat this culture, the minority of people, and get them in work. Instead of cutting out the tumour with careful incisions they have attacked the whole damn system like Leather face in Texas Chainsaw massacre and everyone has been hit.

It seemed fair to us to distribute some of the pain in a more equitable way.

I agree, I also agree that the welfare bill cannot be insulated and should not be insulated. The problem is the way this bill seems to go about it.

Statutory Paternity/Maternity pay, Sick pay, Jobseeker's allowance, income support, family tax credits, adoption leave pay, couple and loan parent allowances - all frozen at a 1% rate in line with the public sector pay freeze of 1%.

Sounds fair... it isn't.

Inflation is still higher than 1% a year which means, before you get out of the blocks you are already losing when prices go up by inflation. You are then penalised if enterprising companies decide to make a little extra ON TOP of inflation. Look at train fare rise for example at RPI +1 or Sophie's nursery bill which went up by 5% and yet my pay stays at going up by 1% a year and now, the Child tax credits that low income families like mine rely on to help pay the way are also getting frozen at a 1% PA.

According to the IFS if the groups were sorted all of the groups were equal in size the averages work out thusly:
The lowest earning 10% will see 1.6% of their income lost,
Those on £9k a year will lose 1.67% (£150s a year)
The richest 10% will only see 0.03% of their income lost --> This percentage isn't entirely clear as the richest 10%, the Rio Ferdinand and Boris Johnson's of the UK earn so much that they aren't always eligible for certain benefits like income support and earn so much that the 0.03% is lost in a sea of other income.

Low income families are dependent on these little wavers of help from the government - it gives freedom to live and do things, spend money on other goods that generate VAT like days out, more expensive food stuff, alcohol or Cigarettes, electronics etc. The Government need the people to spend money to help the economy. Our family put the child tax credits straight into the nursery fund which alleviates the pressure from our wages and gives us financial freedom to take the children out, buy things for their education like books and educational toys, or to treat ourselves and for both of us to WORK. I don't remember the last time Sam and I went out to dinner, just the two of us because we simply can't afford it.

Those at the bottom are getting crushed by those who do not know what it is like to live at the bottom, £150s a year doesn't sound like much but that extra £10 is a lot when you don't have it. People are going to find themselves priced out of simple things and the only winners will be budget supermarkets and charity shops as people tighten their belts even further into a Warlike rationing or Victorian lifestyle of wage slavery, working under the lash of our betters until we fall into the dust.
It also further gets up my nose that some MPs are still working the expenses system (Helen Grant is an example) and getting away Scot free yet those of us who go to work and have always worked are getting screwed over by having our much needed support held back.

I'm also further disappointed that my party didn't stand up on this, other than Sarah Teather,(Read her comments as to why here) Julian Huppert, John Leech and David Ward with abstentions from Andrew George, Charles Kennedy and Adrian Saunders. We are supposed to be the listening party and this time the pleas of countless people across the UK and in communities such as Gillingham and Chatham where the average wage is well below £20K people are getting forgotten and ignored. Hard workers have been whitewashed as "Scroungers." In a very Victorian discipline;

The Innocent will suffer with the guilty.

When you can't run you walk, when you can't walk you limp and when you can't do that you need someone to carry you and that is where the Welfare system should come and help - those who can't keep up (though not those who won't).

Falkland islands - Let the islanders decide

Some thirty years after the war in the Falklands ended there is still diplomatic tension over the small islands with Argentina demanding the islands and Great Britain argues that it should be up to the islands in a self-determining vote, one is due to be held in three months time.

 The argument goes back to the early Nineteenth century when the British used strong arm tactic to remove an Argentine Garrison from the islands in January 1833. It is true that the British Empire has used hard line tactics and even bullied in its’ bid to dominate Trade routes and territory however did Britain have the right?

Well, the first sighting of the island was by a passing Dutch ship in 1600 and an English vessel under Captain Strong  sailed through the islands in 1690. The French were the first to land a colony in 1764 on  East Falkland and in a coincidence the following year the English landed the following year on Saunders Island but claimed the island group in the name of King George. Both colonies were in complete ignorance of each other.

This is where Argentina come in, teniously. In 1767 the French colony was ceded to the Spanish Empire who put it under their local governor in Beunos Aires. Spain then decided to make things nice and neat and evicted the British from their colony in Port Egmont in 1770. Negotiations were held to avert a full blown war and the Spanish promised to restore the fort and all it's stores but retained the nature of sovereignty still remained unanswered.

War did tear the world assunder some six years later with the American War of Independence, which rapidly turned into a world wide conflict. The British government were forced to reannalyse how they used their resources and where they were scattered, even prior to the conflict. In 1774 the isles were abandonned with a plaque claiming sovereignty was left behind.

Spain, likewise maintained a governor until 1808 and a colony until 1811 before similiarly leaving a plaque stating their sovereignty.

Following the collapse of the Spanish Empire and the establishment of the United Provinces of the River Plate, a privateer captain David Jewett landed in 1820 and claimed them in the name of the latter. Luis Vermet was set up a settlement for the Provinces in 1828. He requested protection from Beunos Aires (who made him the military and Civil commander of the islands) and from Britain, should they ever return.

1831 saw Vermet fall out with the United States causing an incident by holding several fishing and Whaling vessels before the USN Lexington came down and carried out some gunboat diplomacy to free their citizens.

1832 the Royal Navy arrived and orderred the Argentine garrison to leave the islands, although the senior Argentine officer protested he failed to act and the islands passed peacefully to Britain. The islands did not fall under British jurisdiction so the perpetrators of the Gaucho murders could not be tried for killing British citizens. The Royal Navy set up a waystation and ran the islands as a Squadron base until 1840 whence it became an official colony.

It is a strange historical story as to who has right if any. Ultimatly though Britain has been in posession for almost two hundred years. Generations of islanders have grown up and descending from British citizens. It is completely different to contested land such as Alsace-Lorraine which changed between Germany and France on a generational time scale.

I know, as an Englishman my international view on this will be bias, indeed if I was Argentinean I'd probably be writing about the Malvinas belonging under Buenos Aires. However I'm only arguing that the islanders themselves should be given the voice, after all it is their home and their way of life.

Sean Penn may have said that the British are rattling the Imperialist sabre over the islands but the simple point of the matter is the Islands are British overseas territory until such time as the islanders say No. If after the referendum they do decide to become an Argentine province then I'm sure a timely hand back, like Hong Kong's will be carried out.

The question is, if the Islanders vote to stay British - will Argentina leave them alone?

Attack on the Scroungers maybe misplaced

After a debate on Twitter the other evening followed by some time to reflect I came up with this.

There are two stereotypes that are hyped up by Politicians and the Media at the moment and are two of the biggest scourges of today’s society.

They are:

The Multi-national Rich who hide their money to avoid paying tax – be they company or individual

The Benefit Scrounger

The former clearly exist and quite notable cases have been named and shamed.

The latter is a harder subject.

There are benefits cheats, undeniably so. Many of us low paid peons know of someone or a friend of a friend of a friend who is a clamant. There is also an almost urban mythology sprung up about the benefit scrounger and the amounts they are claiming.

The media, especially the Daily Mail and The Sun publish sensationalist stories of extreme cases, the former is often quick to bring up Foreign Nationals who are draining our resources and tax payers money. Yes, there are genuine cases of this happening that need to be addressed but how many cases like this actually like this?

It is something common in history, usually minority groups used as scapegoats by a state: Kulak landlords in Soviet Russia, communists in Fascist European states and an idea of “them” and “us” could be developed. The core parallel is the Russian example. Kulak landlords were demonised as taking the wealth from the poor farmers and economy. The Agricultural and working classes became so incensed that a class war was waged and the state was able to appropriate the land for its communised lands.

In the UK, tighter controls on benefit and an attack on working tax credits is being moved under the banner of tackling Benefit scroungers.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that tightening the loop holes is a good thing to an extent. I, like the majority of people get out of bed, go to work, pay my taxes and exist on the remainder, I too am angered by those who don’t want to play the same rules, who cheat the system and make the rest of us look stupid.

However, I do not believe the number of scroungers is as high as is being suggested. It seems like the DWP is making a sweeping generalisation to save money and wielding the axe like a drunk headsman to reach a target and worse yet it will gain support for going after the banner of “Scroungers” and catch lots of innocents in the process without the proper assessments being done first.

What is needed is a gradual cut with Liberal empathy and understanding is needed and the deft hand of a surgeon.

Working tax credits are vital for many families, including mine, and help pay for child care so both parents can go back to work.

My wife and I had already been balancing our days off with childcare – one at home, one at work and Sophie at nursery three days a week so we could squeeze more hours in and live outside of work rather than just subsist and only spend our time toiling away to pay for our mortgage, train fares, utilities.

The accusation that elements of this government seem to be aiming for a return to Victorian lifestyles looks like it is gradually gaining substance.

Liberal Democrats in Parliament need to be careful to review the legislation coming out of the DWP and to make sure that sweeping and potentially harmful policies are not just being carried along under the hyperbole and demonization of a social “evil” that will also persecute those in need.

January Southeastern Fare rise

With the new year comes a fresh fare increase to Southeastern train's customers. Hard pressed commuters will be asked to fork out RPI +1 % on their tickets.

Indeed my ticket, a monthly season ticket from Gillingham to London not valid on the tube or HS1 will rise to something like £352s or roughly £4200 PA which is 20% of my £20.000 PA wage.

As a commuter and someone on a low to medium income with a mortgage and two children it is more money that I can ill afford and something I have consistently campaigned and written about on these very pages. I've also written to my MP, Rehman Chisthi who passed it to Theresa Villiers as well as Medway's other MPs Mark Reckless and Tracey Crouch.

RPI+1 is not a great outcome but it is an acceptable outcome. I've got a 2% breathing room which is better than a kick in the proverbials.

I'm not a Tory (no really!) but I know that the current incumbents fought hard over the last year to lower the fare increases that had been announced at the budget as RPI+3 to a more affordable RPI+1 and for that I give thanks.

Despite the other debacles that rocked the Department of Transport, such as the West Coast line franchise and blooper and with the state of the economy RPI+1 was the best we could hope for on the grand scale of things however much I, and many others on low to medium income prayed for a freeze or just an RPI rise!

RPI+1 was the position that the MPs in the Coalition (Both Conservative and Liberal Democrat) agreed upon and something that the Labour party put forward at an Opposition day motion and one that was very hotly debated and watched by commuters like myself with great interest!

Although I am confused as why the current PPC for Labour in Chatham and Aylesford whose press release stated:

Regular commuter and Parliamentary candidate Tristan Osborne has attacked the SouthEastern fare rise as a another Tory tax rise on low and middle income working people, and calls on Conservative MPs to stop the constant lip-service and call for the Department of Transport to sort out the fare and franchise mess

Even though it is by the amount that Labour wanted - I -

Y'know, bugger it, I'm not making any political point here, partially because I don't need to, words have failed me so I'm just going to skip on by.

What I am saying is, that RPI+1 was the best I guess we could have hoped for, not the best solution for people like myself but the best the Government and the companies were willing to offer and I would like to thank my representatives for fighting as hard as they did just to secure this little victory.

I echo Cllr Osborne's call for the Franchise to be sorted out, many suffering commuters will agree with me that Southeastern are far from perfect and that there are certainly big gaping holes in their customer service and state of their trains. stations and facilities which do not offer value for money and I would like to encourage local representatives of ALL parties to work together in our interest and try and sort this mess out.

I agree that the railways could end up becoming a rich man's transport and this is something that needs to be reversed before those on low incomes who commute to the capital find themselves forced to give up work because they simply cannot afford the price of transport.

My response to US Conservative Outpost on the Second Amendment

Gillingham,

Kent,

United Kingdom,

1st January 2013

Dear Sir,

         I am writing to you in response to your open letter to Senator Rubio that was posted on the Conservative Outpost website.

As an Englishman, I do not presume to be familiar with your politics or systems, however I'd like  to maker a few suggestions and observations in response to your letter.

Firstly and foremost, the Second amendment says a little more than The right to bare arms.

For the benefit of other readers please allow me to quote the text;

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The historical context is buried in an older document, the English constitution which was written in reaction to a period of state oppression by James II. It was felt that the protestant populace should be ready to fight for their freedom and be ready to mobilise against an invasion from the Catholic continent.

The Redcoats are certainly not coming

Similarly in the fledgling United States, and at the insistence of George Washington, who was against the foundation of a National army (which could be used as the British Colonial Army was) to suppress rights. A militia was seen as a more local and representative force.

Your fore-fathers also had many other problems to deal with. Law enforcement was limited and everyone had to defend themselves and community. There was also a threat on the frontiers from Native Raiding parties and the possibility of a British incursion from Canada. Communities would need to be mobilised quickly.

Times have indeed changed.

After the massacre of Wounded Knee in 1890 there has been no threat from the native population. There is a police system, federal, state and city based, in place to deal with crime, Britain no longer has an Empire nor designs on marching south and the United States military exists for your defence and the National guard representing the militia somewhat loosely.

Also weapons have evolved. The weapon the Founding fathers had in mind were flint lock muskets like the English "Brown Bess" which in the hands of an expert (A British Grenadier guard, the World's best in the 1770s) could be discharged three times in a minute. In the hands of a novice it could manage one shot maybe two.

Today's semi-automatic weapons can fire many times that. Even in the hands of a novice who no longer has to contend with complicated reloading procedure. Careful aim at a target can be replaced with spray fire which, in an enclosed space like a cinema or school room can cause many casualties by sheer amount of fire.

I suppose our middle ground would be that Semi-automatic weapons should only be issued to people who know how to use them and kept secured where any Tom, Dick or Harry could not reach them. However as a former service man I'm sure you will have seen perfectly sane, well trained men crack under pressure. Who is to say that someone who is well adjusted and knows how to use such weapons may not snap and go on a killing rampage with a semi-automatic one day. After all Timothy McVeigh was considered safe and had served his country in the military. Private William Jones RA who had served at Rorke's and received this country's highest honour also became unstable with Post traumatic stress syndrome but it was kept hushed with in the family until his suicide.

There are countless people with Mental illness that spans from paranoid Schizophrenia to depression, most are not reported. If such a move was to become mandatory you would be impinging upon their civil liberties. Who's liberty is more important? Would they have to carry identification papers, make themselves known to communities all because they have an illness?

With the US military and the Law enforcement agencies carrying the most up to date weaponry would it not be prudent to leave those weapons in the hands of an expert and have civilian grade weapons for home use? Then you would have your Arms and defend yourselves but it would also make communities safer as someone armed with a 9mm pistol can be disarmed quicker by an unarmed person than someone with an M-16 or Uzi. I would also consider a hand gun, rifle or shotgun more than adequate to defend yourself against a;

a deranged lunatic created by their secular progressive humanist agenda to take my only defense against their miscreant bastard offspring

After all, it only takes one bullet to kill or seriously wound.

As I say, I'm an Englishman with a centrist political standpoint but you must be aware that the whole world is watching and judging. The USA sets itself up as a paragon of freedom and democracy but is being seen as a place where children can be murdered at anytime in their schools, where cinema goers can be mowed down in their very seats, where street corners are just not safe. This is what your liberty to bear arms has bought sir, for the freedoms and liberties of the many you should cede the right to bear Semi-automatic weapons.

Yours Faithfully

Chris Sams

Ps. You may be interested to read my other work on the subject here.