Continuing on from the previous missive about the Queen's Speech where Labour try to elicit votes,
Crime and Security Bill. This assesses parenting for
ASBO'd children. The assumption is that the parents have absolute control over children. What is appropriate parenting? The idea there is a definition which is rigidly held can only be an outgrowth of the '
tickbox' mentality. Would adequate parenting allow for exceptional children? Should all children be treated identically? This is a furtherance of the 1960s education based system that the Labour Party is committed to, there shouldn't be Grammar schools because everyone is equal, equal in intelligence, despite there being an exclusive intelligence society called Mensa.
Although modern Labour '
tickbox' mentality has led to school league tables and 'grammar' school mentality of the parents has led to children attaining top performing schools, not based as before, on achievement and examinable ability, but parental ability to situate themselves in the schools catchment area. 'Money based' grammar schools vs 'Intelligence' based grammar schools, I know which I would prefer.
The more worrying aspect to this Bill is the Guilty and 'not-able-to-prove-yourself-innocent' aspect.
First, the Police have the power to bar suspected domestic violence offenders from the home. This is interesting when in the past I have come to know a police officer who lied about a situation and turned a vocal and '
slappy' dispute between a couple into a major trauma event episode of
Eastenders/
Holby City! The issues relating to this small section of the law is horrendous, and the resulting trauma to the innocent is diabolical.
Second, the DNA database, where the efforts are into obtaining 'innocent' DNA, not, analysing previous crimes and establishing a comprehensive database of unsolved crimes for future reference, which would negate the need to store the
innocent's DNA.
Third, what about
Contactpoint? An innocent remark at the age of 4 can haunt a person 20 years later? This does not allow a person to 'grow-up'. How many 20 year
olds (or even 10 year
olds) have you seen acting like a 4 year old? Naked nanny state philosophy!
Fourth, what about the Criminal Records Bureau where a police officer can allege some misdemeanour and no arrest is required, no proof, no investigation, no evidence, no chance to prove yourself innocent, and stands as a permanent record! Have you run a
CRB check on yourself to find out what is on there?
This Bill surreptitiously expands the Police State, by keeping DNA for 'only 6 years' there is a message that giving DNA is not a serious issue - so now there's no excuse for giving DNA to the police. Which will be the focus of police attention, rather than determining and entering the DNA associated with unsolved crimes making the need to store
everyone's DNA unnecessary!
Digital Economy Bill. This is interesting as this suggests that
Ofcom is going to regulate the Internet, and determine how the
Internet is to be used. The biggest problem with the
Internet is that it is a public service, with too many corporate interests in its growth and
capitalisation to allow a regulator to determine or infringe their activities on the
Internet. There is nothing about improving the communications architecture, creating an national
Internet architecture able to cope with the coming generations of
Internet technologies. We are falling behind (unsurprisingly), and the Government has decided to bring the Nanny State online! Next, another of those 'not-a-tax-at-all-taxes-it's-a-toll' on people's online usage, with online lectures about how your usage of the
Internet is not 'Labour Party approved'.
Energy Bill. This Bill is based in part on legislation that should have happened when the Energy Companies, British Gas and British Electric were privatised. Support for the poorer members of our society, this could easily be done by declaring that the surplus profits generated by effective monopolies will be taxed at 90%.
As for
Ofgem regulating the Energy companies, this has the potential to lead to a court clash with
MNE's on one side and a regulator with limited powers on the other, especially as the utilities companies are now foreigners, and do not feel any pressure to listen to the British prime minister but foreign investors, and can use British citizens as a closed economy with little choice, having entered monopolistic contracts for supply of utility.
As for the Carbon Capture issue, and new coal fired power generators. The alternative is nuclear power, the ultimate in clean energy, which is why the environmentalists hate nuclear power, it means we can continue to live 'electric' lives, and not return to a
pre-industrialised world. Strong of
IPCC chairman fame, argues that the way to save the world is to destroy the industrialised economies -
hmm! No anti-nuclear power agenda there then!
Equality Bill. This Bill makes it the 'public sector's duty' to 'narrow the gap between rich and poor'. To think this is the point of taxation - taking from the rich to cover social costs of an advanced civilisation that the poor can not be expected to afford. That the rich are getting richer, is due to Labour not concerning themselves with anything other than tax
receipts, so long as the tax
receipts do not cost anything to obtain. The poor on
PAYE is perfect fodder for easy taxation. Taxing
MNEs and chasing the banker bonus's offshore is just too much effort.
The employment
tribunals are interesting point of 'creating equality'. The loops that staff have to jump to prove that they have been unfairly dismissed is astronomical. In one case that I am aware of, the employer had no proof, no witnesses and supplied the evidence after the date set by the
tribunal, and on his say-so the court found against the
defendant who had evidence and witnesses.
The mention of equality in the mouth of Labour though is really an attack on the 'white working male'. For some reason Labour think that 'white working males' are the enemy in the employment market. Unequal pay, based on disreputable statistics. Example, man and woman, both get identical education,
GCSE, 'A' Levels and degree. If the man works a 40 hour week collecting £26,000pa and the woman marries a multi-millionaire. The statistics record the £26,000pa for the man, and £0 for the woman (all money being unearned). The man is obviously earning more than the woman, what with him living in a rented
accommodation because he can't afford to buy a house, and she living in one of several houses around the globe. We need some honesty when entering this debate, Harriot Harmon is pathologically incapable of doing that. So the 'white male worker' is under attack again. Yippee!
Noting that this is the same Labour Party who brought
Heterophobia (the hatred of
heterosexuals) to the state pensions. What is the minimum pension - repeat after Labour, it is £115 a week. Repeat after the 800,000 married women (
i.e. heterosexual) victimised it is £25 a week!
Financial Services Bill - or 'Shut the door, the horse has bolted!'. The outcry over bankers getting bonus's is nothing compared to those without pensions looking
incredulously at the governments gilt lined ones, the same government who bankrupted the pension schemes! (and now cry no reward for failure for the bankers - ahem!). The thoughts behind this is transparent - there needs to be a bogeyman for the people to take their frustration out on - and it cannot be the people responsible, the
MPs, so the easy target is bankers and financial institutions. I am of the opinion that MP pensions should be used to pay for the bankrupt pensions across the country - by retrospective law, making the labour pensions as worthless as they made everybody
else's. Wonder which of the Labour sycophants will stand up and state that G. Brown is a wonderful chancellor then, when his policies hit their pocket!
Flood and Water Management Bill.
Hmm, following the floods of 2007... this Bill
should've appeared in 2007 Queen's Speech, or 2008 at the latest! Interesting that the Conservatives have been fighting rural developments in housing on Flood Plains, which I assume is the 'Sustainable' drainage systems have to be considered for new building developments. I suffer from some degree of pride - I think I am intelligent, so why does the expression 'Sustainable' drainage systems come across as meaningless? Is the alternative a drainage system which a does not drain water, or b is a one use system? An interesting proposal that would be of value is that the drainage system has electricity generators built in, so that when flooding knocks out the grid electricity, the local population is not affected, but that means using Britain's Engineering ability, most of which can be found on the various flights out of the country to the rest of the world, for reasons of getting jobs, with decent pay, and garnering respect. I suspect 'sustainable drainage systems' is 'political gibberish' often blogged as 'Nu Labour speak'. Communities near reservoirs should be worried about, via risk-based regulation, which is clear, but this interestingly does not cover the issue of river 'flood plain' development, I guess that the Conservatives will eventually wind up spotting this.
As for the 'Water Companies more power to control customers' usage during droughts'. This is not matched by 'Water Companies more responsible for lack of supply of water after heavy rainstorms/floods'. The last real drought we had in Britain was 1976. Water companies should accept they are responsible for the supply of water, which includes water capture during heavy rainstorms. Labour penalising the people it can attack, not the companies responsible. A cowardly response to an important issue.
Personal Care at Home Bill. I have a bad feeling that this is intended to give Labour the leverage to stop 'carers allowance'. Too much money is being given out by the treasury (
up to £50 a week per carer for at least 40 hours a week work - so much for minimum pay.) which could otherwise be syphoned off into Labour party pockets. Why pay for someone to care for the sick full-time when a social worker can do this for a couple of hours a day. As for the people with highest needs, that by the very expression 'highest needs' should mean being put into a nursing facility with 24hours medical attention. With contacts in the 'home carer' community, the needs of the incapacitated and sick are being ignored and the Bill looks good, with the hope that no-one notices that the exact opposite is required.
As for protecting the savings of 166,000 people, having deliberately destroyed the savings of people entering a nursing home and then selling their homes. This, cynically, is a shot at obtaining the
OAP vote in the hope that their dementia means they have forgotten it was Labour who deliberately plundered and bankrupted their Pensions, because the pensions were earning too much!, and then attacked their savings.
Preventing 130,000 people who need to enter a care home, well that expression says it all, the very thing that these people do not need is independence, what they need is nursing care! The offer of adaptations does not mention the suggestion that there will be the needed full time carer.
This Bill is Labour at its purest and most despicable, attacking the poorest and most vulnerable in society, with a hope that no-one notices.
Author: Dr. Stephen Lathwell, BSc(Hons), MSc(Optoelectronics), PhD.
Independent Candidate Luton South
THE QUEEN'S SPEECH, PART II
