My EU Opinions... Why I want to Remain!

I have posted quite a bit about tomorrow’s referendum, I'm sorry if this has annoyed any of you, however it is the biggest decision that has faced our country in our lifetimes and on a subject I feel very passionate about. I think the leave camp have been much loader and passionate in general than the remain, therefore I have felt compelled to add my voice as much as I can just to make the remain a little louder.

But that’s the problem for me, the way that this referendum is run, so much of the media coverage is focused on personalities and their campaigns (which are often allowed to spout mistruths and sometimes outright lies almost completely unchecked) rather than the actual substance and facts of the debate. There are so many issues out there and possible ramifications that it’s impossible for them all to be understood by everyone, and therefore just soundbites seem to get picked up, misinterpreted or twisted to fit whoever’s point of view that is speaking – how can you really expect the general public to make an actual objectively informed decision? Almost everyone speaking in it has a bias (I admit that I do, my company has lots of contracts directly with the EU) most of the voices that get heard are speaking out of self-interest.

Saying that it was great to hear John Barnes’s rebuttal to the Leave campaign misquoting him and his support of Remain being despite the fact that he felt it was in the best interest of British footballers to leave (http://www.independent.co.uk/…/eu-referendum-john-barnes-br…). I wish more people took a less selfish view and looked outside of their immediate area.

I could go on to talk about all the issues in depth, but here’s a summary:
> Cost of Membership: Less than Leave claims, would probably cost us the same to join the free market (as even Leave campaign would like to re-join).
> Immigration: Free movement is a cornerstone of the free market and it’s likely we’d have to agree to it if we wanted to re-join (as other countries have had to).
> Sovereignty: Around 7% of our laws come from the EU, of which there has only been 2% or so of that our representatives have been on the other side of the debate – and any major change each country (including us) has the right to veto. Also more democratic than the British Parliamentary system with it's unelected House of Lords.
> Working Conditions: It’s thanks to the EU that we initially had guaranteed holiday pay, paid maternity leave and increased workplace protection. I know nothing is stopping our own governments including these, however the Tories over the last few years have been doing their best to repeal as much of the legislation that is in place as possible to make it easier to fire people.
> Trade: Don’t even get me started on where these mythical new trading agreements are going to come from (at the moment we are a gateway point for many countries as part of a massive continental economy, we are just as likely to lose current partners as gain any more, on top of those EU ones we are bound to lose!)

There are so many more issues, and I could talk about the above for so much longer, however for me, the issue doesn’t really boil down to any of them, it’s one of personal freedoms. I consider myself a global citizen, and being in the EU has enabled me to interact with many other EU citizens that otherwise I may not have had the chance to do so, or at least not so easily. Today I ran into my Swedish friend, who moved here because she could work here and now has a beautiful daughter with her Welsh partner. This August I am going travelling with a friend of mine from Finland who was able to come over here to study. I have also met many French, Spanish, Italians, Germans, Irish, Dutch, Hungarian and Polish people who are here in part due to their ability to come here, and knowing each one has enriched my life greatly and I feel lucky to consider them my friends. I have also met many, many people through my travels in the EU, last year I was in Croatia, Serbia and Greece, I have to say it was harder being in Serbia with it not being an EU member state. I love how open it was and how easy it is to travel around Europe, and I hate the restrictions that are placed on you when you go elsewhere (like the expensive visas with time limits). As a global citizen I hate the fact that countries put up barriers to entry, and restrict how long you can stay. I have not ruled out one day living abroad, I think I would love to live in, work in and contribute to another country, this would be so much easier if I had the right to settle anywhere in Europe.

I feel nothing good can come from constructing (metaphorical or physical) borders, creating feelings of ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ and generally just disengaging with our neighbours. Humans are inherently social creatures, we all inhabit the same planet and our fate is common. The way I see it - the more alliances’ partnerships and agreements we create, the better. If nothing else I will vote remain tomorrow for LOVE, for peace, for freedom to travel, for shared knowledge and understanding, and for a dream of a world that can be more united for we have more in common than what divides us.

I don’t know if anyone has read this far but if you have and are still undecided I hope that you will consider what I’ve said and vote remain tomorrow for the hope of keeping a stronger, less divided world.

I have never been more scared...

I cannot believe that the Prime Minister, the most powerful person in our country has said:

Dave no longer wants us sticking together

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance. This Government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach."


I'm sorry Dave, but this approach is more likely to make people turn to extremism. Tolerance is one of those British values that we should be most proud.  Just a few days back in the job though, without Liberals holding his hand he is already back to preaching the politics of fear and using this to control the population how he sees fit.  We demonise Russia, China et al for the way that they try and control their citizens, yet somehow our Prime Minister thinks it's perfectly acceptable to do it here.  For the second time on this blog I'm going to quote Frank Turner.

"Cause a man who'd trade his liberty for a safe and dreamless sleep

Doesn't deserve the both of them and neither shall he keep"

At least they can't legally do some of the things that have been mentioned as the it is against peoples right to a private life as dictated by the Human Rights legislation that we have in place... oh... next blog for that I think.

I felt like I was in mourning...

So, one week on and it still hurts.  Five years ago I posted a lot to Facebook campaigning and lost at least one friend in the process.  This year I didn't do that, I just had one eve of election day post, then one after voting.  As such, despite pounding the streets delivering leaflets I feel that I didn't give enough.  Honestly, I don't think I was expecting us to lose in Bath, I thought the council might slip (despite their excellent record, 100% of promises kept and no council tax rises) but not the seat as well.  Therefore I feel that I've at least slightly let the party down (not that I think I could have made the difference with a massive 3,883 majority now in the Tories favour) but still, I don't want to ever feel like this again, let alone because of politics, therefore I am determined that for the next 5 years I will do whatever I can to spread the positive message of Liberalism and of the great work that Liberal Democrats did in power and I'm sure will still do even as 8 people in opposition.

Here is my post on Facebook last Friday:

Genuinely devastated.
Feel for the hard working MPs who did great work as ministers and have lost their jobs, particularly gutted for:
• Lynne Featherstone, who spent the last Parliament pushing through equal marriage and promoting equal rights in the UK and throughout the world.
• Steve Webb, who's reforms as pension minister have been praised by pretty much everyone.
• Vince Cable, first senior politician to vocally stand up against Murdoch (even if he didn't mean to do it in public), prevented Tory culls on workers rights and removed exclusivity from zero hours contracts.
• Jo Swinson, who pushed through shared parental leave, childcare for 3 - 4 year olds and did so much work against the unrealistic photoshopped images that appear in the media. (I was hoping she'd be the next leader of the party)
• Stephen Gilbert, because I really liked the guy.

Only rays of light, Tim Farron holding on, as next party leader (it's going to happen), hopefully he can make his Left Liberal voice heard. Ed Balls losing (that would have made any Labour government much more tolerable for me).

I wonder how many people in Lib/Con marginals that voted Labour or Green are happy with their new Tory MP? It may not be right but we have a broken voting system and the rhetoric of the last five years seems to have reduced tactical voting, which in my opinion was a major reason why the Tories hadn't won a majority since 1992. I reckon in 2 - 3 years time lots of people will realise what a good job the 57 Liberal Democrat MPs did over the last 5 years.

In the cold light of day, I still think a majority Conservative government is possibly the worst of the potential outcomes for the country (though perhaps Tory/UKIP coalition could have been worse), but there are some reasons to be positive about the party's prospects in 5 years time.  Firstly, a Tory government straight after the coalition will help show exactly what the Liberal influence was in that coalition.  Already, one week on we are seeing the Tories talk about doing all of the things that Nick and his team obviously prevented over the last five years - this I think may turn a few heads back into our favour.  Secondly is of course the massive surge in membership over the past week.  At first I thought maybe it might just be members we lost returning, but it seems that only 12% of those fit this bill, instead I'm hoping that it's people who are as pissed off and determined as me to make sure that over the next 5 years we are heard.

Why I wont be signing Labour's contract...

Labour recently released a contract of what they will do in power immediately once they are in power, words taken directly from their statement, and my responses:

1. Freeze gas and electricity bills until 2017 and reform the energy market
   
   I do like the irony of the former Energy Secretary leading with this, as if his three years in the post weren't sufficient for reform... Obviously energy bills need to come down - or at least stop increasing so rapidly.  The irresponsibleness of this though is the prospect of frozen bills for 20 months will lead to companies increasing their price just before the next elections - meaning people are worse off to begin with,  In addition a freeze on bills could easily lead to a freeze in investment which is needed. 
   
2. Get 200,000 homes built a year by 2020
   
   Unfortunately home building is a slow process so it will be 2016/17 before we're seeing the full impact of the coalition on the number of homes being built.  If Labour do get the figure up to 200,000 that is very admirable (although they set a target of 240,000 back in 2007 and didn't get close - I will blame the credit crunch for that one though).  Last year more homes were started (122,590) than in anyn year since 2007, so this is moving in the right direction.  There is still a long way to go - if Labour get in I hope they succeed with this.
   
3. Stop families that rent being ripped off and help them plan for the future with new long term predictable tenancies
   
   I find this a little patronising but I can see the admirable aim.  I wonder if this is the correct way to go about it.  I do like the idea of letting fees being scrapped for tenants - although I'm sure then letting agents will want to cover this loss of income so will push the cost on to the lessor who'll want to recover this with higher rent.  This is probably preferable though than to have to pay out up front for fees.
   
   I am in favour of longer term contracts (as long as the tenant is free to request a shorter term) as long as any rent changes are clearly highlighted in the contract.  The problem with a longer term contract is that there would usually be steeper penalties for someone wishing to break the contract (particularly the tenant), this would also be a concern.
   
4. Cut income tax for hardworking people through a lower 10p starting tax rate and introduce a 50p top rate of tax as we pay off the deficit in a fair way.
   
   First of NO! Just NO!  Labour please go back and read that sentence, correcting it for something that can actually be done.  A deficit is not the same as debt!!!  In this country we currently are running a deficit due to spending more than is being received in taxes, this in turn increases our total level of debt.  A deficit is not something that can be paid off - it can be reduced until we reach a surplus, but we wont have paid it back just because the books become balanced!  I don't think in my lifetime we'll see the debt reduced at all - yes I expect the odd year of a surplus, but it will be a drop in the ocean compared with the level of debt (currently nearly £1.375 TRILLION) which obviously we finance resulting in money being spent on interest payments rather than on other things like schools and healthcare... anyway back to the actual point...
   
   During this Parliament the Personal Allowance has already increased to £10,000, which has massively reduced the amount of tax paid by the low paid.  Introducing a 10p rate of tax is not as progressive as increasing the allowance before people pay any tax (even if both thresholds were adjusted so the same amount of tax was being paid by a person in the 20% tax band, this is because those who are only just into the tax paying threshold will be paying 10p rather than 0p).  I realise he's trying to differentiate from the coalition and the Liberal Democrat's fantastic work in this area but it doesn't make this policy good.  (I wrote more about the 10p tax rate here - I actually do like a 10p rate, but not at the expense of an increased PA)
   
   Regarding the 50p rate, I am in favour as long as it increases tax revenues (and isn't just a populist measure to be seen to be effectively punishing people for being rich).  Unfortunately the richest in our society are also the ones able to obtain the best financial advice which is probably why when the 50p rate was introduced late in the last Labour Government's tenure we saw income declared to the tax man fall among those who were now eligible for this tax.
   
5. Ban Exploitative zero-hour contracts
   
   I am just against this on pure principle, again I find it patronising that Labour feel that zero-hour contracts don't work for anyone.  I'm sure there are many cases where they work for both the employee and the employer, Only 27% of those on a zero-hour contract state that they are dissatisfied with not having a minimum number of hours in their contracts.  Just because an employee is contracted doesn't always mean that the employee has to accept the work, with only 15% of employers saying that it is always mandatory, and 80% of employees saying that they aren't penalised for not working.  If Labour/Ed really feel strongly about these being exploitative then I personally would reform them in order to say that someone should only have to be available to work for the number of hours on their contract - which means for a zero hour contract there'd be no requirement from either the employer or the employee allowing flexibility on both parts.
   
6. Make work pay by strengthening the Minimum Wage and providing tax breaks to firms that boost pay through the Living Wage
   
   The Lib Dem's current policy of linking the Minimum Wage to the personal allowance would help to strengthen it.  In order for the boosting pay to work the tax breaks would have to be sufficient enough that it is more beneficial for the business, which could be rather costly indeed.
   
7. Back small businesses by cutting business rates and reforming the banks
   
   Business rates fine (assuming it's just for small businesses), I'd like to see them all revalued though since I believe it's still based on data from 1990 - i.e. 24 years ago!  Not sure what specific banking reform we are supposed to be expecting here - particularly vague promise.
   
8. Help working parents with 25 hours of free childcare for three- and four- year olds
   
   Can't argue with this promise, the Liberal Democrats/Coalition have already made childcare effectively tax free as well as increasing the number of free hours for 3/4 year olds to 15 per week, but obviously more can be done, and should be done as it increases the participation of women in the workforce.
   
9. Tackle the abuse of migrant labour to undercut wages by banning recruitment agencies that only hire foreign workers and pressing for stronger controls in Europe.
   
   I know there have been instances of jobs only advertised in Polish, but I haven't heard of many cases.  Without knowing how much of an issue this is (as it doesn't appear prevalent in my area) I can't really comment, but the fact it is in here just sounds like pandering to the UKIP crowd.  I worry that it's stirring up even more xenophobia.  
   
10. Back the next generation with a job guarantee for the young unemployed and more apprenticeships.
    
    I don't think anyone can argue with the aim of getting more people into work, and I whole heartedly agree that apprenticeships are good - which is why I'm pleased that there were around 510,000 starters on apprenticeship courses in 2012/13 compared with just 279,000 in 2009/10.  I know from my personal experience that the government schemes are helping as my employer is looking to take on an apprentice starting in the 2014/15 academic year.
    
    The jobs guarantee however worries me.  It's all about how these jobs are guaranteed - i.e. what the jobs are and how the arose.  For instance, ensuring that someone who has been unemployed for 2 years can have 6 months stacking shelves in say Tesco, means that Tesco will need an incentive to take them on, replacing a job that would have already existed.  This means that a Labour government would therefore end up subsidising Tesco - providing them with cheaper employment rather than giving the job to someone else who's currently say short-term, meaning that these people will now be claiming benefits.  If on the other hand the jobs are created as public programmes then this might work - although would be costly. 

So there you have what Labour promise to do, my thoughts on each issue.  As much as I'd like to think otherwise I'm sure they'll win the next election - if they don't (considering the fall off in the left vote from the Lib Dems and the split in the right vote between Tories and UKIP) then Labour will have had a disastrous campaign.  

Overall it seems very populist with a lot of give-aways - I understand these are their tempters/hooks to try and reel in voters but I have to wonder how they can afford this whilst "paying off the deficit" as they put it since very few if any of these will increase revenue.

Lets see how they do with these in Government, assuming Ed doesn't mess it up. 

One thing I hate about politics is...

...Scheming/infighting/plots.  Years of watching Tony Blair's government it seemed that people were only there for their own advantage - trying to get themselves to a higher position and not for the good of their country or even their party.  You only needed to look at Gordon Brown to see him eyeing up the job that he really wanted.

As much as I hate the confrontational nature of the different parties - always fighting and rarely working together, opposing for oppositions sake to seem populist/trying to paint everything that the opposition does in a bad light, I find this even uglier when it comes from within a party.  

Now I'm not saying that Lord Oakeshott shouldn't have commissioned a poll at all, but doing so in constituencies without the knowledge of their MPs, then sitting on the results and releasing them at the time that could be deemed most damaging to the leader just screams at putting his own interests ahead of his parties.

Apparently that poll cost in the region of £20,000.  I'm also definitely not saying what Lord Oakeshott should be spending his money on (I'm sure he's been very generous where the party is concerned), but I bet there are a few former counsellors/MEPs that could have put that money to use benefiting the party.  Personally I'm gutted to see Graham Watson no longer an MEP.  

I am of the opinion that only positive campaigning can win back support towards our party, positive messages being put out about what we have manage to achieve, even as the junior partner in the coalition and what we want to achieve from 2015:

• Income tax threshold increased to £10,000 (basically changing the way people think about income tax for the low paid).
• Restoring the Earnings link with Pensions.
• Introducing the Pupil Premium (£1,300 per eligible pupil in primary schools and £935 per eligible pupil in secondary schools in 2014-15)
• Ended Child Detention.
• Equal Marriage.

We should be screaming these and everything else from the roof tops!

Yes people find us untrustworthy after the tuition fees debacle but we should be pointing out our positive influence still - that even part time students don't now have to pay fees up front, that effectively they'll be paying off their maintenance loans first  - which are larger than they would be if there were no fees, meaning students themselves are better off unless they become successful in which case they are making a larger contribution than previously to their education that made them successful.  (I am not saying that this is the exact policy I would have, but it's better than when my parents had to pay over £1,000 up front each year in order for me to attend University!) 

We should be shouting out what a future parliament including the Liberal Democrats would mean for people in this country, not shouting at each other.  If we don't have a message of what we believe in and what we hope to achieve from 2015 why would people vote for us?  Ed Miliband may be putting forward a lot of barely thought through populist nonsense, but at least he is trying to carve an identity for his party.  

The Liberal Democrats are a democratic party, we win together, we lose together, this in fighting is doing nobody any favours and making us look as bad, if not worse than the rest when what we've always campaigned on is being different. 

Sophie's legacy

In a perfect world we wouldn't need "hate crime" legislation, if a crime is committed then people should be punished for the crime almost irrespective of motive or who they victim is, otherwise wouldn't you be treating people differently under the law?  'Hate crimes' are usually of a violent nature, but surely most violent crimes derive from some form of hatred for the victim and some underlying prejudice against that person and hence be considered a hate crime?  This labelling could also be self fulfilling, when attributed too commonly it could lead to groups feeling persecuted even if there isn't an underlying bias against them.

However, we don't live in a perfect world.  The argument is that a 'hate crime' causes greater personal and social harm.  By attacking a person for who they are (rather than say using something that they've done as a motive) you are effectively attacking their identity and if such crimes become common place it can really lead to a feeling of disempowerment by that group.  Often, just the recognition that crimes towards a group are caused by underlying prejudices is the first step to showing that the group are being discriminated against.

If I were legislators I wouldn't be putting boundaries on what can or can't be described as a 'hate crime', as long as the motive was just some underlying prejudice there then the legislation should apply.  However boundaries have been put in place, in the UK these are membership (or assumed membership of):

• A religious group,
• A racial group, or:
• Sexual orientation,
• Disability.

Sophie (R.I.P)

There is a reason I am writing this blog now, Greater Manchester Police have started recording attacks on 'subcultures' as hate crimes.  I can't put into words how happy I am to see this.  I briefly alluded to this in my HMV post, this is the one area where I have been the victim of discrimination and in fact, one area where I have received abuse for nothing other than the way I look/dress etc.  

For those of you who are unaware this has probably stemmed as a result of campaigning by the Sophie Lancaster Foundation. This is a charity that was set up after Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend Robert Maltby were attacked whilst walking through a park in 2007 because they were wearing goth clothing.  Unfortunately Sophie ended up in a coma from which she never woke up, basically she was kicked to death because she looked different.

This issue isn't something that gets much attention at all, but it is very real, below are a few of the instances I've personally experienced:

• When I was 16/17, walking home from college with a friend who had green hair (we were both probably dressed as moshers - baggy jeans and a band hoodie, that was our usual dress for college) a car slowed, wound down it's windows and threw an empty bottle in our direction whilst shouting abuse. 
• When I was 17 I'd been on a night out with a few friends, 2 of us got the bus back together (same person as above actually) and as we got off the bus 2 other guys started following us and ended up chasing us, I seem to remember he took a punch before we got away (he was always the unlucky one).  I can't say that this was just due to how we looked but it felt that way.
• When I was 18/19 and walking home from a night out (so the early hours of the morning) I was followed for about a mile by three guys about my own age (who stayed about 20 - 30 yards behind me) who kept shouting different derogatory comments about me being a goth.  (I was wearing a long leather coat and had long hair).  I assume they were trying to draw me into confrontation or just intimidate me.
• When I was 19 I was sat on a bus with a friend who also had long hair and the 3 guys behind us kept pulling on his hair (I think they knew him), talking about how they were going to shave it off and were being generally intimidating, fortunately though they got off before us and not at the same time.

I know these aren't the worst examples of discrimination/intimidation in the world but they are the ones that spring to mind that I personally experienced.  In general in school and college, once I started dressing differently (wearing band hoodies etc) I lost count of the number of times people used to use it as a basis for derogatory terms.  (The style wasn't common amongst people in my area, there were very few of us). Some were much more vocal than others, and I did escape the worst of it but a few of my friends were quite badly bullied because of it.

Without a change in legislation all the force can do is record this as an element of the crime, but I think it is a huge starting point.  Hopefully this will help to illustrate that it is something that exists and by acknowledging it it will make a difference, make people feel safer and be the starting point into making it socially unacceptable.

One day maybe we will live in a world where people treat others with respect irrespective of how they look or what they believe in.  I can't see this ever happening but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try and shouldn't celebrate each improvement.  Hopefully Sophie's family's awesome work will have a lasting legacy.

Thoughts on 10p tax rate (I like) and mansion taxes (I don't)...

Okay, so Labour's announcement regarding some actual policies that I posted about earlier has made me want to analyse the actual policies, irrespective of party involvement (given half of the announcement was stealing a Lib Dem policy that I'm not overly sold on).  Anyway, here are my comments about each:

10p Tax Rate

The potential reintroduction of this depends on what your objectives are for a tax system.  If you are looking for a simple system that as many people as possible can understand then adding another band makes for added complications.  If you are looking to make it as progressive as possible then adding a lower band above the level of the personal allowance makes the system more progressive.

In a mutually exclusive case, increasing the personal allowance or introducing a new lower tax band, the former benefits lower earners more than the latter.  However, if you do both at the same time or if they are just being compared to sticking with the status quo then each change would be progressive.  This is one criticism that is being thrown at it, that it doesn't benefit people as much as a personal allowance increase would, however my personal opinion is that it doesn't go far enough.  My ideal tax system would have 10p, 20p, 30p, 40p and 50p rates.  

The thing with tax simplification is that tax bands don't really add too much additional complications, especially when most people are earning through the PAYE system.  The complications come in with all of the exemptions and special cases - it is there that governments should be looking to simplify the system, not with the rates.  In addition, they should scrap the other confusing complication - National Insurance contributions, rolling them into the income tax rates.  It is crazy that the basic rate "20%" tax payer effectively pays 32% tax whilst the higher rate "40%" tax payer effectively pays 42%, the money just goes into the same pot anyway.  I know not everyone or every transaction that is taxed includes NIC's, however this could be adjusted.  

The key of course is to make sure that nobody is paying more tax than they can afford to pay, whilst those who earn the most contribute the most.  

It was Gordon Brown who, in 2007, scrapped the 10p tax to help pay for the reduction in the basic rate from 22p to 20p per pound from April 2008.  This was regressive at the time and rightly he faced a backlash, however he corrected it in September 2008 for the 2008/09 tax year meaning that nobody actually lost out from this change.   This change did therefore simplify the system, but as discussed it probably wasn't the area that needed simplifying.  If this comes in, as long as it's not at the expense of increasing the personal allowance, then I'll be for it, if it doesn't correspond with a raise in the personal allowance as suggested by the Lib Dems, well it's a poorer alternative.

Mansion Tax

I've said a few times now that I'm yet to be convinced about a mansion tax.  I can see the potential desirability of a wealth tax, there is even worse equality with wealth than income in the country and it is desirable to strive for less inequality but I am not sure that this is a one size fits all, or even a good solution.  I have reasons...

Firstly, there is the practical aspect, how often will properties be reassessed?  The current Council Tax bandings are totally out of date where as this will be much more specific than that so much harder to keep up to date (Council Tax doesn't claim to be an exact science, this is an exact calculation).  Granted the complexity of implementation shouldn't be the major consideration but it should be taken into account.  Prices fluctuate, and you know any assessment will be open to debate and appeal - which will probably be lost.  Also, if a house is worth £2.1m without the tax, simply adding a tax to it will reduce it's value.  Also, every single house in the country will need to be revalued and this will have to happen regularly!

Secondly, and for me more importantly, houses are very illiquid assets.  There are many people who buy a house and expect to live it all of their lives.  Now I know we are talking about really high value houses so one assumes that the owners were well off enough to buy it, but that doesn't mean that they'll necessarily have the disposable cash/income to cover an increase in their annual tax bill just because their house's value has risen in such a way.  I've heard a lot of comments saying that if they don't have the cash then they could downsize, but how is that fair?  Forcing someone to leave the home that they purchased is hardly what I'd call a fairer tax.

I think the main reason I struggle with it is that it is effectively a double tax.  Basically any tax such as this is saying, we don't think we taxed you enough when you earned your money, so we are coming back for another crack at it.  I also don't like the way that the discussion is framed, it always seems to imply that those who live in expensive houses don't deserve to be there, they lucked into it and didn't work hard to get there. 

My final criticism is though that it only looks at one asset a person (or persons) owns.  If you want to target the wealthiest in society how does this help?  A rich person could own 10 houses all worth around £1.9million each and avoid the tax all together, where as if this was all tied up on one £19m property they'd be paying an annual tax of £170,000.  I feel that it penalises a person for a particular lifestyle choice/the way that they chose to use money that they had previously had left over from their income after already paying tax, for me the discussion in favour of this always seems to sound like it stems from jealousy.

I am fully aware that I am in the minority of my party (and probably now the Labour party) here when I say this, but the arguments for it just haven't sold me - after all, personally I'd replace council tax with a small local income tax and multiple property taxes, maybe in time though I'll come round to the idea.

So Labour finally have a policy...

I had a laugh to myself yesterday when on my Twitter feed someone had sent a tweet that mentioned that Ed Miliband has a "policy chief" - surely this must have been the easiest job in the world for the past 2 years?  (Incidentally, on further investigation the tweet was referring to Jon Cruddas, an MP, so one would assume he had other responsibilities). Yet amazingly today, Labour have announced a policy! Huzzah!  Now after all of this time to think I'm sure it's a very unique and revolutionary policy, so what is it?  Ah yes - fairer taxes... 

Well, I guess we should be happy that they too believe in Fair taxes, maybe they have a different definition of fair, or come up with a new system that they feel is fairer, lets analyse.  From the announcement this is in two parts:

1. A Mansion Tax

Now this sounds new, it's not like it's been in the news recently: here (August 2012), here (September 2012), here (November 2012), and here (February 2013).  It's not like this is a commonly acknowledge policy of another major party - that was even in a manifesto 3 years ago.

Page 14 Lib Dem Manifesto 2010.

Now personally, I'm not sold on 'Mansion taxes' (that's for another post some other time however), it would depend on how and when they are paid, but at least Labour are suggesting something unique [/sarcasm].

2. Introduction of 10p Tax Rate

Now I admit, it takes a big man to say he was wrong, at least Ed is just had to say the last guy was wrong, well, and himself as after Labour scrapped the 10p tax rate in 2008 to introduce a flat 20p tax he said:

"When you make a big set of changes in the tax system, some people do lose out. That is a matter of regret. Of course it is. But overall these changes make the tax system fairer."

This is a unique policy but is it necessarily the fairest option on the table?  Contrast this with the Liberal Democrats policy of increasing the Personal Allowance so that nobody on a standard set of hours on minimum wage would pay a penny in Income Tax you get two sets of results, both of which result in the lowest earners paying less tax.  

The comparison is hard to make as they haven't specified the end limit to the tax band (as it would depend on how much the mansion tax would raise) but what is clear is that those who earn between the current personal allowance threshold and the Liberal Democrat proposed threshold would be worse off as they would be paying an additional 10p per pound tax on their income earned in this band.


It's good to see Labour are finally getting some policies together, at least this way it can be pointed out that they offer no real new ideas of substance to contrast with their own politically motivated attacks on every single measure the coalition proposes.  As long as they can come up with a catchy label for it they will attack it (for instance "Bedroom Tax" sounds a lot worse than "Reduction in benefits that are deemed excessive to the persons needs").  

So yes, anyway, if you fancy supporting fairer taxes you can always sign up here, as you've been able to since the Liberal Democrats launched the site 3 months ago... a cynic would say that perhaps they only thought of the ideas after the Liberal Democrat's action day regarding this on Saturday.


-- Edit --

I've just seen the Lib Dem Voice article on the subject which has the nice graph to illustrate point 2:

Brace yourself, I'm going to praise a Labour legacy...

I don't do this often, I'm going to praise a Labour legacy...

Today, there is going to be an historic vote in the House of Commons, which I'm certain will lead to an end to discrimination in marriage laws on the grounds of sexuality.  I am more than confident that this will pass and which will be a great achievement for equality campaigners everywhere. 

I've blogged previously about how ridiculous I think that there's even a debate about it.  It's worth remembering that same sex couples basically have the same legal rights under civil partnerships as they will under full marriage so why is there all the fuss about them being able to say that they are the same as everyone else?  For most of the opponents it's just one of those cases (which happens a lot more than you'd think, you do it, everyone does it), just because they don't see it as a problem, they don't realise how other people are negatively effected by it.  The best analogy I've read for this is the guy leaving the toilet seat up - he's perfectly happy with it like that so why isn't everyone else (thank you www.cracked.com - who said comedy websites can't add to serious debate).  They don't realise that they were the ones with power and that they are suppressing the rights of other people.


Opponents often state that marriage is about raising a family, children, fostering the next generation etc, but then why have I never heard the word "children" mentioned in the vows I've heard in any of the ceremonies I've been to?  Also what if the hetro couple can't have/don't want children?  Tell you what I do remember hearing a lot about, love. I genuinely feel sorry for people who think that their own marriage will be less special because a gay couple have also been able to call their union a marriage, straight marriage will still be special as will same sex marriage - they will be equally special!  The continuing separation of different forms of union helps fuel discrimination, still indicating that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people are somehow still not the same.  Breaking down this separation will help reinforce the great progression that has been achieved.

Anyway, as I do so often I've digressed. I wanted to praise Labour.  They obviously could have introduced this in their 13 years in Government, which would have been nice, they didn't go this far but they did help frame the debate.  If it wasn't for the changes that they did make: 

• Abolished Section 28, 
• Made the age of consent 16 - equalising it with heterosexual sex,
• Repealed the ban on homosexuals serving in the military, 
• Outlawed discrimination in the workplace and in the provision of goods and services, 
• Made it possible for people in same sex relationships to adopt,
• The creation of civil partnerships,

then I don't think we'd be having this vote now, and so confident of it passing (if it doesn't I'll look foolish!) This is one area where they were liberal, and helped to stop discrimination which is allowing us to push for full equality - sometimes you need to take baby steps to reach your destination rather than risk a huge jump only to fall short of the ultimate aim.  I think Labour did a lot wrong in their 13 years, but in all of those aspects I think they can be proud.

If you're good enough then that's all that should matter...

I was really pleased to read today that some women could appear in the Second XI of Sussex cricket club - particularly Sarah Taylor.  The article is under a title with a quote from Mark Lane, who coaches England's women's cricket team stating that they could one day play the county game.  My response is why not! I'm glad someone's finally saying this to start the discussion.  I've long thought that there should be no reason for team sports to force segregation, surely all teams want the best players - irrespective of age, race or gender, if you're good enough why should being born the wrong sex get in the way?

I guess the major objection would be that it would reduce the relevance of the female only game - at a time when it's improving massively (and in another team sport - football, England's women have secured a large - though in my opinion not sufficient, pay rise).  I don't think this should really be an issue, all that should matter is letting each person fulfil their potential and each team becoming the best they can be.  The only people who will lose out should Sarah, or another woman play in the county game would be the one man they replaced from the team - someone who presumably the selectors feel isn't as good as them so obviously needs to improve their own game.

I don't think it would be easy for a woman to make the step up.  You see the fastest female bowlers bowling in the high 70 miles per hour, where most male seam bowlers reach a minimum of 80, with the fastest getting into the 90s.  I know from personal experience that going from facing 70mph bowling to 80mph is almost a completely different game.  If she can do it though, there should be no problem, I for one am hoping that she does represent Sussex Second XI this year, then who knows.

Why I'm not sad about HMV...

I started this blog a while ago, but didn't finish it, I had the title of "Why I'll no longer be shopping at HMV" - so I've now rewritten it.

People who know me should be surprised by this, given just how much I'm an advocate of owning the physical version of things (i.e. CD's rather than downloading music).  I wrote a blog post on the issue back in 2011 when it was rumoured record companies would stop issuing CD's.  So the news that HMV has appointed an administrator should sadden me... however I haven't shopped there for a few months and had no plans to go back.

You see, as a white, heterosexual  middle class male, I don't face discrimination often... however I do in one issue, I admit it's no where near as extreme as other people face discrimination but it is discrimination none the less.  You see, I'm a metal head.  I like metal music and like many people who listen to metal music I like to fit with a particular image.  I'm not the most extreme, I can comfortably fit into most social scenarios and wear a suit to work, wear fairly trendy clothes when I'm out with certain people, but also baggy jeans and band shirts or even cyber goth attire for industrial nights out.  The main point though is, like many of my friends and social peers I have long hair.  Even though my job is a professional one I've had long hair for about 11 or 12 years and it's never been a problem - I just tie it back.  

How does this relate to HMV?  Well they banned it.  Very rock and roll.  The country's major music shop banning long hair and extreme tattoos and piercings.  In response to criticism a spokesperson said:

"It goes without saying that we want our work colleagues to feel valued as individuals who can express their personalities, but it's also important that we balance this against the needs and expectations of our customers, who, ultimately, have to be at the heart of everything we do."

Well, as a customer my expectation was that they would hire the best person for the job, which at HMV is the person who's most knowledgeable about their area (films, music, games etc) whilst being comfortable talking to the customer.  I don't know about anyone else, but if I see someone and it looks like they eats, sleeps and breathes music/a lifestyle similar to that then I'd be more likely to listen to their opinion on music in comparison with someone who was just a well turned out sales person.

To sell me music that I wasn't going to buy anyway you have to live music!

Anyway, I know it may sound petty and it's probably shooting myself in the foot but I wont be shedding a tear for HMV's problems, even if that means it'll be harder for me to buy music in person at least when I do see a shop selling music I wont be offended by the fact I'd know that they wouldn't employ me.

Almost as good as the Ashes

England can't play cricket in the subcontinent.  They just can't. Last year they proved that by being basically humiliated in the UAE by Pakistan, then only scraping a drawn series in Sri Lanka thanks to a magnificent innings by Kevin Pietersen. 

India don't lose home test series. It rarely happens. Their last home series defeat was in 2004, by the all conquering Australian side containing Gilchrist, Warne, McGrath, Langer and co.

India also don't let teams off the hook, last time they lost a series lead at home was in 1984/85 when David Gower's England won there.

England have had a terrible year in Test cricket:

• 0-3 vs Pakistan in the UAE.
• 1-1 vs Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka
• 2-0 vs West Indies in England
• 0-2 vs South Africa in England

That's just 3 test wins from 11 with 6 defeats, when they started that spell as world number 1.

So of course the writing was on the wall when England were caught in a spin in their first innings in Ahmedabad, all out for 191 and forced to follow on.  However, it seems like this England side has learned from it's mistakes and is possibly turning over a new leaf thanks to the magnificent Captain Cook.  It was in a losing effort but the 176 in the second innings by the Captain swung the momentum around and showed the rest of the team that it was possible to bat in these conditions.

To be fair, after that I thought India were really pretty poor, this was supposed to be a revenge series after the 4-0 whitewash England inflicted on them last year on their way to becoming number 1 in the world.  The mighty Sachin Tendulkar didn't look like he could buy a run, with only one score of note.  Dhoni seemed uninspiring in the middle when the team needed a boost and they haven't really replaced Rahul Dravid who was one of their all time greats, though Pujara was one of their plus points.

I don't want to take anything away from England though, this was a remarkable turn around that after the first test I didn't see happening.  The selectors though got most of the calls for the next few tests spot on, Monty had to play, and picking Root at 6 for the final test was definitely the correct decision. They out batted India - 4 of the top 5 run scorers in the series were English, Swann and Panesar took more wickets in fewer overs at a better economy rate than the leading Indian spinners and Jimmy Anderson was comfortable the best seamer.

Reintergration looks complete
if Prior's tweet is anything
to go by.

The best quote I've read was by Analyst Ayaz Memon who said India "were outplayed in all departments of the game - even more so in two that are not reflected in stats and figures: fitness and planning".  I think this really summed it up.  England also seemed like a team and look to have put the Pietersen issue behind them.

For me, it'd take a lot to top the 2005 Ashes series, the first win against what was clearly the best team in the world at basically full strength.  This though, has to be up there with the Ashes of two winters ago when we dominated Australia in their own back yard.  The cricket wasn't always scintillating but the result is what counts.  Congratulations to the team, and hopefully they can use this for what will be a very big 12 months, with 10 tests against the old enemy - I for one can't wait!

How's your War on Drugs working out for you?

It seems to me that the trend is quite clearly more drugs coming on to the market, if the 'war' was working you'd expect fewer not more.  I know these are only supply figures but I think they indicate that if people want to take drugs then they will.

The problem here though is that there are 57 new substances that people will be taking where the effects on their bodies (particularly long term) are probably unknown.  If we had a legalised, regulated drugs market then the quality of the substances could be ensured, protecting the public from unnecessary harm whilst also educating them on the dangers of their chosen drug.  I despair at the people who still believe this war is working and isn't, like all wars, just creating unnecessary suffering.

Thoughts on the PCC elections

I don't think we should be having PCC elections, mainly because the public is in no way informed enough as to whom the best candidate for the role is, nor do enough of them care.  I read today they they are predicting a turnout of around 15%, I reckon it'll actually be higher than this, but in no way high enough for that person to truly have a mandate.

I think my main problem with it though, is that I feel the police is becoming politicised.  I feel that the police force should be independent from politics whilst remaining accountable.  Having a person linked with a party in a major position could result in decisions that are better politically than actually.  My personal preference given that there were to be elections was for each candidate to be independent. 

Obviously that isn't the case.  I was pleased to find out that there would be an independent person on my ballot paper.  So unlike many people I'm trying to do my best to find out as much as I can about the candidates, despite my disagreement with the system I still think it's important that I do cast an informed vote and not just due to party allegiances.  Unfortunately, I've not received any information through the post and only 2 of my 4 candidates appear to be on Twitter.  The My PCC site is a good tool, but I was disappointed by the level of detail most candidates went into, even on their own website.  Basically I felt like they were all saying they wanted to:

1. Cut Crime
2. Listen
3. Give value for money.

I thought the Labour and Tory candidates were particularly guilty of this, just wishy washy no brainer statements that nobody could argue with and didn't say anything different.  I was hopeful with the independent until I read her points 4 and 5 on her aims:

• I will respond vigorously to your concerns about *****.
• Your worries about *****, will be a specific focus.

Now, listening to the public is a good thing.  However stating that the public's worries will given specific focus is not always the best policy in practice.  The main reason for this is that the candidate doesn't state whether the public should be concerned or worried about these things.  My main hope for an independent candidate would be that they wouldn't focus on party political issues and instead focus on points that really matter.  However as even these independent candidates have to persuade the public to elect them and keep them elected and in doing so this may result in pandering to the public's potentially unfounded fears.

I starred out the two items that she was focusing on because for my point these are irrelevant.  Police Commissioners should be focusing on cutting the crimes the DO happen, not what people are worried/concerned MIGHT happen as I reckon people tend to focus on crimes that if they happened would have the greatest impact on them personally, irrespective of the odds of them happening.

Maybe I'm just being cynical, I'm sure all candidates in all regions are qualified for the jobs and those who are appointed will do their best, I just personally don't feel that a popularity contest - or a Political Party popularity contest (given the lack of exposure each candidate has had - at least in my region) is the best way to be selecting people for such important jobs.

Jon Stewart rips into Fox!

I normally can't stand American current affairs news coverage, but the following clip I think is outstanding:

The ugly face of football and I agree with Brian Moore.

I'm fed up.  After a wonderful Olympic summer, just 3 months into the Premiership season and I'm fed up.  The football itself has been top quality, Chelsea have looked fabulous at times with Oscar, Hazard and Mata,  United look frightening going forward whilst must be giving Fergie nightmares about their defending and other teams have been performing well above expectations.  I think the league this year is going to be just as close, with a three way battle rather than last year's two.

However like I said, I'm fed up.  Every single week there seems to be a different controversy, whether it's the many players 'diving' (you know who you are... Phil), trying to gain an advantage from unsporting behaviour, whether it's the R word, one or the other of them - Respect or Race, or whether it's the fans themselves.  

Racism has no place in either modern society, or the prehistoric society that seems to exist on the football field.  I'm pleased to see that the Ferdinands are getting back on board with the Kick it Out campaign, this is one thing that players are better united, they should air their grievances within the body itself.  

Suarez showing the coin

The latest things that have caused me despair of course come from the weekend.  It was a footballing treat, first Everton come from two goals down against Liverpool, then United win the battle of the top two (at the start of the weekend) in a dramatic 3 - 2 victory.  I've already mentioned Phil Neville's dive, there was also a bad tackle from Suarez that could have been red, the immature celebration following the first goal and the terrible decision costing Liverpool all 3 points (which followed from the very soft award of a free kick).  But what angered me the most in this game was players being targeted with missiles.  This happened in both games in fact, firstly Suarez had a coin thrown at him, he tucks it into his shoe for safe keeping. Secondly after Hernandez' controversial winner Chelsea fans apparently showered the pitch with missiles and then in the commotion a steward was injured. 

Chelsea fans in fact proved to me throughout the game that (some) football fans lack class, every time Rio touched the ball he seemed to be booed... I don't think they understand how being the victim works.  (I'm not going to mention the punishment received by John Terry for the incident with Rio's brother).  This of course brings me to the main talking point... the referee.  Mark Clattenburg is accused of making racist comments to Chelsea's John Obi Mikel.  Now if Mr Clattenburg did make the comments that Chelsea allege then he will probably never referee again, and that is quite right.  But I find it a complete double standard as players effectively abuse referees all game long.  Watching on TV you know this to be true, when decisions go against them they always complain and if you can lip read you know it's not always the most pleasant conversation.  I find myself completely agreeing with Brian Moore who was apparently on BBC Radio 5 Live this morning:

Former England rugby player Brian Moore tells BBC Radio 5 live being able to hear referees' microphones would rid football of bad language within six weeks.

He said: "Not only do you record these things you put them on the ref link so the crowd and sponsors can hear it. The pressure to change would be so great it would be carnage for six weeks but it would change within six weeks."

If Mark Clattenburg's mic had been linked to broadcasters then there'd be no doubt what he said, any punishment could be handled quickly and effectively.  Not only that but what players say to the referee could also be used against them much more often.  I think six weeks is being optimistic, but I do agree that eventually you'll see football player's attitudes improving remarkably which in turn could feed into the behaviour of the crowds - and if this happened I might not be so fed up.  

(Also, if Hartlepool could get off the bottom of the table that might help!)

"All in it together"... As long as it's in first class...

Twitter is a marvellous website and often allows you to see news happening first hand.  Well I say news, sometimes it's only newsworthy because of the person involved:

Obviously George Osborne still believes we are all in it together, just as long as he doesn't have to sit with the rest of us.  I hope that £160 came from his own pocket!

No matter how bad, nobody should be arrested for a joke.

I think it goes without saying that pretty much everyone agrees that what's happened to April is tragic, my thoughts are with her family.  I really hope she is found soon, although it is inconceivable that she'd still be with us.  How anyone could do that to her is completely beyond me, I hope that the truth comes out, the correct person is found and sentenced accordingly (I always believe in innocence before proven guilty but it sounds like the police are confident that it's Mark Bridger).   

However, I don't want this post to be about this horrible story, I instead want to talk about Matthew Woods, who has been jailed for 12 weeks for posts made on his Facebook account.  The link of course is that these posts were 'jokes' about both April and Madeleine McCann.   He pleaded to sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive.

"Chairman of the bench, magistrate Bill Hudson, said his comments were so serious and "abhorrent" that he deserved the longest sentence they could pass, less a third to give credit for his early guilty plea."
 "The reason for the sentence is the seriousness of the offence, the public outrage that has been caused and we felt there was no other sentence this court could have passed which conveys to you the abhorrence that many in society feel this crime should receive."

My main question is is this offence serious? As far as I'm concerned, nobody has the right not to be offended.  The charge itself - "grossly offensive" - is such a subjective opinion that I don't feel it has a place in a court of law.  From what I've read (I shan't repeat them) the jokes were definitely insensitive, in bad taste and crass, basically Matthew was stupid.  However I'm sure hundreds of other teenagers/young adults will have made similar 'sick' jokes over the past week - Matthew certainly wasn't the first, otherwise there wouldn't have been one on Sikipedia for him to basically copy.  If you don't think there are many out there just type Madeleine McCann into Google:

The third auto-fill suggestion is jokes regarding her.  This is sad but a true fact of society, when bad things happen, some people make jokes about it. I remember when Princess Diana died, a week or so later I started secondary school (in year 7) and I was already hearing jokes that would offend some people.  With the Twin Towers (9/11) it took a little longer, but it wasn't long before there were plenty of jokes doing the rounds.  Then with Madeleine McCann, I was doing pub quizzes where every week for a few months there'd be at least one team name that referred to her (in an attempt at comedy).  Some people even make money from it, the likes of Frankie Boyle have never shied away from this type of subject matter - in fact they are somewhat famous for offending certain people and sections of society.  

At the end of the day, people can usually chose to avoid such 'jokes', for instance, I could have not attended the same pub quiz where I knew the names might have included references to Madeleine, I could unfollow Frankie Boyle from Twitter, but I don't because I don't feel grossly offended by the 'jokes', even if they are not to my taste.  In the same vein, anyone of Matthew Woods' friends could have unfriended him of Facebook, or even just stopped his updates appearing on their news feed.  It's not like you don't have a choice.

I agree with Dan Falchikov on Living on Words Alone:

"In a liberal democracy the state is not there to bolster the will of the majority - it is there to protect the minority - however unpopular and however moronic."

Apparently Matthew Woods had 50 people going to his home about the posts that he made, this sounds like almost a lynch mob.  The state should not be there to enforce the will of the mob, but to provide rational calm in such circumstances.  At the end of the day, who has been actually hurt by Matthew Woods' specific posts?  Only himself and his own future chances in life because of these charges.  The family may have been upset to read them, but they are only words (which pale into insignificance in the scheme of their passed week or so), and would they have even seen them if these charges hadn't been brought?

This advert really annoys me...

I'm sorry but as an England (and Team GB) manager I don't feel that Stuart Pearce should be intentionally causing pain to someone else.  Imagine what would happen on the football pitch?  As a manager I'm sure there are many times he disagrees with refereeing decisions there are probably plenty of footballs around there, would he kick one at the official?  Of course he wouldn't - well if he did there'd be huge repercussions   for him.  

It's not even supposed to be slapstick comedy, it's set up as genuine hatred that he's showing.  It sends the message that if somebody annoys you (and bear in mind the guy isn't even singing to Stuart) then it is acceptable to be violent towards them.  Following the Olympics there has been a lot of talk about sportsmen and women being positive role models and in this case I think he is far from that.