Monday, 14 May 2018

Inequality of Vehicle Excise Duty

I'm currently looking to buy a replacement car. Note I don't say a new car, because I can't afford one.

Having a boat (therefore wanting a huge boot for lugging stuff around) and wanting a bit of comfort I was looking a at 15-year-old Lexus 4x4. The RX300 is a cut-price cruiser, it does everything and is available at the sort of year I'm looking at relatively cheaply. My budget being around £2000. It also is a 4x4 so has chunky tyres that ironically cope better with the potholes that our Vehicle Excise Duty fails to be spent on year-on-year.

Hoever, looking at Vehilce Excise Duty (VED) for the car, it's an eye-watering £582 a year. A whole quarter of the cost of buying the car. Every year.

Now my Volvop V70 2.4 litre Swedish tank, being made in 1999 and pre-emissions VED, means I onlt pay £180 a year for VED. My current car has 291,000 miles on the clock, is leaking oil into the bores and burning it in a haze of blue. You'd think I would be encouraged by the government to chop it in and avoid adding to the haze of hydrocarbons that surround Portsmouth.

£400 difference is a pretty big dissuader. But it got me thinking:

Why does VED no taper off after so many years? I can understand that a brand new Range Rover has a huge VED bill and because that bill is a fraction of the cost of the vehicle, most people would pay it.

But as the vehicle becomes older,. the VED cost becomes a substantial proportion of the cost of the vehicle. A big cooling factor when buying the vehicle.

The environmentalists would raise a cheer, because that means the vehicle become uneconomic and ends up on the scrapheap sooner. But hang on, that perfectly serviceable vehicle is being scrapped not because it is at the end of it's life, but because of some arbitrary ecomonic price attached to ownership.

That makes no environmental sense. Once the vehicle is scrapped, the envirionmental cost of making a new vehicle to replace it is several years worth of CO2 had the vehicle carried on running.

So why does VED not taper off as the vehicle becomes older? That way there's an acknowlegment that the environmental cost of changing the vehicle is higher than keeping it on the road.

It also recognises the fact that poorer people will buy older cars, people that cannot afford a brand new Range Rover, but would quite like to drive an older model and do what is necessary to keep it on the road.

VED is used as a tool of jealousy, milking the rich that can afford to pay the price, and keeping the poor people that can't afford to pay the price of running an older model once it becomes affordable.

Yet another way that the elite keep the poor down. The "I can afford it but you can't" mentality shoved right in your face coated in environmentalism.

Friday, 4 May 2018

Labour Lose compared to Expectations in Local Elections (trying hard not to laugh edition).

I'll say it until I'm blue in the face, a buch of Chealsea Trots at the head of the Labour party will not get them any traction other than within Severely Socialist areas like in London and Liverpool.

Now it seems the Chelsea Trot set's predictions of massive gains has backfired and they have failed to make the gains they predicted.

All this socialist worker guff they keep spouting needs to stop. It has no relevance and no traction with the wider Labour-voting electrorate.

On Question Time,. the usual Labour guff about building more affordable homes was trotted out. The problem with building homes on that sort of level has to be governemnt-funded, the private sector can't and won't do it on their own.

So who pays for all these affordable homes? They are not self-financing.

To be honest any future Labour government would be mired in lawsuits from the owner's of the utilities they plan to steal back according to John McDonnell that they wouldn't be able to do much of anything else.

The other think to square is the number of homes that would go into negative equity if house prices drop substantially.  That affects those paying mortgages over and above the value of their home and also the banks, that lose substantial assets in the form of all these mortgages and homes.

So how does the government intend to compenste the parties affected by a government entering a massive house building scheme and crashing house prices?

Anyhoo, back to Labour's piss-poor performance last night. And be under no illusion, it was piss-poor given the own-goal the apparently disfunctional Tories appeared to donate.

Of course it's not the trots that have lost Labour seats, it's Brexit... Yes, Corbyn's lack of leadership on Brexit is a factor, but his lack of leadership on ANYTHING from Brexit, Hamas, Israel, to anti-Semetism, to Russian Spies and every other thing a Labour leader should have an opinion and provide leadership on. I've not headr the word spineless used regarding Corbyn for some reason, I expct because of his vindictive streak. But for fuck's sake, when you watch him, you really want him to come down off that fucking fence he likes to sit on. Great policy for a back bencher, but he's there up front at the sharp end, supposedly stating policy in a clear an concise manner. He's not supposed to look like Mr Bean's dad mistakenly got promoted to lead a political party. Jesus, he even makes Boris Johnson, the arch-prevaricator look concise and focussed.

Anyway, I do like it when I'm proved right.

According to most decent non-anarchist, non-trotskyite Labour voter, "Labour can go fuck themselves if they think I'm going to vote for them with that lot in charge""

And so the wounded, weak Conservative party get to limp on, with no-one around to on the opposition side able to deliver the coup-de-grace.

Makes you weep.

Wednesday, 25 April 2018

A Common Purpose.

The phrase in the title of this piece is quite innocuous... "a common purpose" It could be a beneficial thing, as in people working together towards a common goal or purpose, doing something for the common good.

But the phrase Common Purpose has been hijacked. It has bee hijacked by Marxists who use the phrase Common Purpose to define an organisation that has infiltrated the top layers of government, the health service, councils and the military.

Common Purpose identifies individuals in high-ranking positions to partake in their "training courses" (essentially indoctrination) and help form a common governance across layers and departments of organisations that have control over many aspects of our lives. Common Purpose themselves describe it as leading across boundaries, i.e. promoting the same style of management seamlessly across different organisations.

Any organisation that offers high ranking "leaders" of organisations places training courses really needs to be investigated.

But when the people invited covers the whole upper eschelons of governance then alarm bells need to be ringing.

If an organisation takes leaders from Government, Councils, Social Services, Education, The NHS, The Police, The Fire Service, The Ambulance Service, the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, the Legal profession...... and "trains" them, or at the very least brings them all to think and act as one with a common purpose without publicly defining what that common purpose is, you begin to feel a more sinister side to what they are doing, rather than something more innocuous. You would think that what they do and why they do it would be out in the public domain, but it isn't. You would think that an organisation that affects so many of our public services would be higher profile. But they are not.

More importantly our tax money is going towards putting people on these courses and the money is going to this organisation without any oversight. Most people would not have heard of it, but there it is, creeping through the upper layers of our most influential organisation. With no accountability, no information of why this money is being spent or what exactly it is being spent. on.

Just who does this private organisation called "Common Purpose" that influences the top echelons of governance report to? Certainly not the taxpayer.

I just happened to be at an event for one of my Grandkids last night. The amount of subliminal messaging around the event was untrue. The phrases used were innocuous: "Teamwork" "community" that sort of thing. But when everyone was chiming the same song, kids were given cue cards to read out to the audience with the same words on them. Over and over. What does that sound like? Brainwashing. Cultural Marxism.

Of course the teachers lapped it up, they being Common Purpose types themselves.

Once upon a time Education was about er, education. Making yourself fit mentally for life after school. You were an individual and treated as such. Some excelled and were creamed off and went to Grammar School and groomed for a University education.

Some of us at 11 decided we weren't performing ponies and stuck two fingers up to the 11-plus. We took what deliberately underfunded Secondary Modern  education gave us and still excelled. On our own terms. The people that become entrepreneurs and innovators. Because they have not had individuality educated out of them.

Nowadays we have the Homogenous Comprehensive Education system that supplies drones into the world. They act and think as one. They all win at sports because no-one loses, they hide in the "team" and refrain from excelling, they know how to perform well to pass tests, but stick one in a tricky real-world situation and they would crumble. Or cry. Or post on Facebook how unfair the world is. Or not bother and sit at home on benefits.

This is the world that Common Purpose is giving us. A homogenous, Marxist world, where innovation and individualism actual thinking are to be avoided and the herd mentality rules.

Common Purpose trains leaders to lead as a pack, with homogenous rules, all the same. But there is no leadership. When things go wrong (and they will with a Common Purpose leader at the helm because they are too busy following rules about equality, the environment,  etc. rather than actually leading and doing things that actively improve those things.). It's passive management, passive leadership, sleepwalking, you know the type. Full of talk from the Common Purpose Hymn book, but very little in actual leadership. Failure with no consequences, their Common Purpose buddies will save them if they fuck up...

Next time you watch a senior someone on the TV, just listen to the words they are saying. See if you can spot the patterns that identify a Common Purpose Drone. Lessons Learned (but no action taken), going forward (with the same old plan), teamwork (because being an individual is unacceptable).....

Wednesday, 18 April 2018

Windrush debacle.

It seems very clear that the people caught up in the Windrush problem, or their parents should accept some level of blame for the issues coming home to roost this week.

You'd think the parents of the children coming to settle in the UK would at some point ensure their children were able to stay in the UK legally, rather than leaving it up to chance and whimsy...

But then the children themselves: If someone choses to live in the UK for 50 years or so, why the heck haven't they gone through the process of applying for a UK passport? That simple task would have solved all of the issues now appearing.

50 years, so several Jamaican passports would have had to be renewed in that time. maybe 5 opportunities to think "maybe it's time I actually put down roots here and got a UK passport".  Maybe 5 opportunities where they were told "you really need to get naturalised you know....".

But no, for some reason during 5 decades of residence they decided to stick with a Jamaican passport despite as they have stated having no ties to Jamaica.

The mind boggles.

And although I'm not entirely devoid of sympathy (after all being hauled away at the crack of dawn under the threat of being deported is no fun), at the back of my brain something is saying come on, accept some responsibility yourself.

Post-Winter Potholes

There is much debate at the moment about the state of Britain's Roads.

After the winter, quite a few roads have been affected by quite deep potholes. Of course it's been said that the fault is the lack of maintenence. It is in a way, but it isn't a lack of maintenance, but the wrong type of maintenance that has caused the problem.

Across the country in previous years, tarmac roads have been resurfaced using a method of spraying tar on the road surface and then a layer of chippings laid into the tar.

I've seen it up and down the country, usually afterwards there's a 20 or 20 mph speed limit until the road sweepers come through and hoover up the piles of chippings that line the road. Councils have been conned by contractors into thinking this will extend the life of the road by decades. It won't.

So there has been maintenance, but only to the surface of the road. It's cosmetic and doesn't repair the deeper fabric of the road surface.

Water is able to get into the deeper layers of tarmac and over time and a few winters frost will start to push the stones apart. Eventually you have a patch of loose stones just waiting for another frost to push them out and onto the road surface. You can see it on roads everywhere: a pothole surrounded by loose tar covered chippings. Eventually the frost recedes, the loose chippings fall back into the hole and then traffic starts to erode the edges of the pothole, adding more loose chippings to the area surrounding the hole and in the process enlarging the hole.

Eventually the surface around the hole crumbles away, producing a full-blown pothole.

So, the cosmetic resurfacing over the past few decades has come home to roost with a patchwork of deeper potholes in roads this Spring.

Filling the potholes with tarmac is only a temporary mesure because the fabric of the road surrounding the hole is weakened and eventually the patch is expelled as the area around it loosens.

The only way to fix it permanently is to dig the road up and start again. Very costly and probably more costly than doing proper meaintenance in the first place rather than the cosmetic tart-up job that's been going on. Not quick and not cheap. But done by the same people that promoted the cosmetic resurfacing as a permanent solution. Win-Win for them.

Maybe we'll be good in time for next winter....

Tuesday, 17 April 2018

Captain Picard would Piss on Poor People

It seems that the actor patrick Stewart who played Captain picard in Star trek and Professor Xavier in X-Men (not gender neutral) says his charatcters would have voted for Remain.

Just like he would.

Stewart, a labour supporter typifies the sort middle or upper-middle class "sticking with Labour for virtue-signalling purposes" sort of Labour supporter that I'm coming to hate more and more.

Their fame gains them a mouthpiece for Labour, but what comes out of their moths has absolutely nothing to do with, or has any chance of improving the lot of the working man or woman.

We get lots of plattitudes about social conciousness, helping the sick (usually in other countries) helping immigrants (in or from other countries) nad bugger all about helping those low-paid and exploited working class people in this country.

Zero hours contracts? Not a peep.

In-work benefits? Nope.

Nope, lots of virtue signalling though: save everyone and everything else other than working class people. Import lots of immigrants, have open borders to depress wages. Lets make more money for fat-cat managers thanks to depressed costs.


Thursday, 5 April 2018

I. Don't. Care.

One of my bugbears is when people start spouting off that government should care about something, about ethnic minorities, about gender, pay equality, the list of things the government should care about is aparrently endless.

I think entirely the opposite. Goverenment shouldn't care. It is not in the business of caring, it's in the business of governing.

It's Parliament's job to go about the business of running the country. Without (one of my favourite phrases) fear or favour. It should not care what colour you are, it should not care what class you are, it should not care what background you come from, it should not care what religion, neither should it care what race, its shouldn't care what sex you are or what gender you identify as.

It should govern in the name of all people equally. It should govern to the benefit of all people equally.

There is an arm of government that is all about caring and that's the NHS, but they don't control policy, Parliament does. They care for the nation in so far as health both physical and mental and they only advise on policy. It is up to government to take or reject that advice after careful consideration.

Of course politics doesn't allow impartiality. From the get-go, we have left and right, Labour and Conservative. The system is adversarial and polarises the country against each other, rather than unites them.

We have seen this very recently in the Brexit debates, and the last election. We're now seeing it in the Labour party and their anti-semetism.

What is need ed is a new force in politics, one that unites rather than divides, one that doesn't reward priviledge or benefaction.

The more I see of modern politics, the less I like about it.

There needs to be change and that change is to care less and to govern more.