And the French Say… Non!

Well there we have it, the French people categorically rejected the new European constitution on Sunday and the shock waves are still being felt all over the EU.

Personally I’m glad the French voted Non. Not because I object to the concept of a European constitution but because I fear it is a waste of everyone’s time and effort.

To quote a Home Office minister a few years ago "no government can pass any legislation that restricts a future government in any way". This was the reply I got when asking about a British Constitution. Roughly translated it means that if you vote for and enact a constitution (be it British or European) there is nothing to stop a future government just taking the legislation and throwing it in the bin!

That is not to mention he fact that the British Government simply opt out of the bits of the legislation they don't like anyway!

Hopefully, the fact that the French said no will now save us from a referendum on the subject (together with the 6 week campaign that swallows up million of pounds of tax payers money, money that could be better spent elsewhere).

Long live democracy!

A political solution...

A friend of mine had a link on his blog yesterday advocating that we should have a “read the bills act” in this country (see http://b2fxxx.blogspot.com/2005/05/read-bills-act.html for the full posting).

For once something political I wholeheartedly support!

Did you know that since coming to power Heir Blair’s government have passed literally hundreds of pieces of legislation, creating thousands of new criminal offences, most of which are adequately covered by existing legislation? And is our country any safer as a result? (answers on the back of a fiver please).

The problem is most of these new pieces of legislation are passed by our MP’s simply voting according to the whim of the party. Most don’t attend the debate but simply come into the house when summonsed, stand with their mates and then file out again after!

In fact it has now gotten so bad that I can’t watch the BBC parliament channel without winding myself up, as it is ALWAYS the same story. There is a debate in the house attended by a handful of MPs, the majority of which speak out against the impending bill. The division Bell sounds and in they all trot, stand where they are told by the party whip and then file out again while the next part of the bill is debated!

It would be a nice idea to think that our MPs were actually voting on a subject they understand but alas no. And the excuse for this is simply the workload it imposes on them…

So here are a couple of alternative solutions to the problem…

Option 1… We debate legislation properly and have a free and democratic vote for EVERY piece of new legislation. In order to do this we ensure that every MP voting actually understands the issue they are voting on (by imposing a “read the bills act”). If workload is an issue here then why not simply debate less bills?

Alternatively option 2... we accept that the current system is the best we can possibly achieve given the quantity of legislation that is really required and we streamline the whole system. As most MPs simply vote along party lines, why not give each party a percentage vote based on their performance at the general election (killing two birds with one stone). The party can then use the vote as it sees fit, reducing the number of sitting MPs from around 640 to maybe 75. I estimate this would also save the country around £30 million at a stroke to boot.

Less MPs and a cash saving, now there’s a really good idea :o)

Hoodies and baseball caps just won't go away...

Further to my rant about the banning of Hoodies and baseball caps as a quick fix for a complex problem yesterday, it looks like this one isn’t going to go away quickly either.

This news is now over a week old and still it rumbles on…

I find it strangely satisfying that the government hasn’t managed to sweep this one under the carpet…

Now all we need to do is get EVERYONE to wear hoodies or baseball caps when they shop at Bluewater :o)

At last Banks are being forced to change something!

It is refreshing to see that at last the banks are to be forced to speed up the electronic transfer of funds (see http://waynehough.blogspot.com/2005/01/banks.html for my original rant on this subject).

My only question is ‘why can’t this change be bought in until 2007 at the earliest?’ Surely it can be implemented almost immediately?

And the answer… the banks are going to cling to their £50m pot of cash for as long as they possibly can!

Still, at least it’s a start I suppose.

Hoodies and caps...

An article in the news last week that caught my eye was the revelation that Bluewater shopping centre in Kent has decided to ban ‘hoodies’ and baseball caps in a bid to tackle antisocial behaviour in the centre…

I must admit that this decision took me somewhat by surprise as I would never have described Bluewater as anywhere I have ever felt uncomfortable or intimidated.

If we assume that things have got that bad in Bluewater that the centre is now overrun with baseball cap wearing thugs and thugettes, perhaps the banning of items of clothing is not the best way to tackle the problem… In fact I would go as far as to say that whoever thought it was appears to have absolutely no idea how the mind of a teenager works…

If you tell a teenager not to do something, in most cases they will go out and do it just to be awkward. It’s a bit like the BBC banning a record is the surest way to ensure that they won’t be playing the number one record on Sunday…

But miracles do happen (apparently) and we may yet see the teenagers leaving the offending articles of clothing at home when they pop down the centre to meet their mates.

Obviously this won’t stop the gangs of teenagers congregating in the centre, intimidating all the old folks, but at least they won’t be wearing intimidating clothing... much!

To me, this policy is nothing more than someone trying to find a simple (and cheap) answer to a very complex problem! And as is always the case, the simple solution invariably causes more problems whilst failing to solve the problem it was initially bought in to tackle.

Banning hoodies and baseball caps will do nothing to deter the gangs of teenage kids congregating at Bluewater but it will cause a lot of aggravation to otherwise decent members of the public!

For example, I wear a baseball cap on a sunny day… to keep the sun out of my eyes! I would not describe myself as a thug but apparently I am to be viewed the same if I wear my cap to Bluewater. Similarly my son also wears a baseball cap when it’s sunny but I’m pretty damn sure that at 6 months old he doesn’t intimidate anyone either!

And what about those shops selling the offending items in the shopping centre itself… are they enticing us to break the rules? Or is the sale of baseball caps and hoodies banned too?

Finally, and possibly more seriously, what sort of message does this sort of policy actually send to the youth’s it is really aimed at?

You could argue that it says that ‘antisocial behaviour’ will not be tolerated in the shopping centre at all. Equally you could say this policy effectively tells everyone that discrimination is acceptable in this day and age.

After all, some thugs where baseball caps and hoodies, therefore it is acceptable to assume that everyone wearing a baseball cap or hoodie is a thug. Similarly some West Indians (or any other minority group for that matter) commit some fairly nasty crimes. Surely applying the same logic it is now acceptable to assume that everyone with a darker complexion is nothing more than a petty criminal?

What I did find surprising however was the government came wading into the argument too (apparently without thinking it through either). That’s it; hoodies and baseball caps will soon be banned on the streets of Britain too and hailed as the definitive answer to all of societies ills!!!

Another example of the nanny state in action!

Now where did I put my Frankie Goes to Hollywood CD?

He's back... Mr "do as I say, not as I do" Blunkett is back!

I see that with the return Mr Blunkett we see a return of his favourite method of public consultation…

i.e. Make an announcement, issue a consultation document and then if the response is not favourable ignore it and do what you originally announced anyway…

I am of course referring to his recent announcement that “Compulsory saving for private pensions is one way to address the huge pensions shortfall…”

From this statement I am guessing that it is now definite that before too long we will all be putting away yet more money in to ‘stakeholder’ schemes to save for our future. This is despite Mr Blare saying that this would not be the case just before the election…

Can we all say “Hypocrite”…

What I find incredibly galling however, is the fact that this recommendation came out of a report into the problem by former CBI head Adair Turner.

Now lets get this straight here, Mr Turner is the former head of an organisation that does not represent you and me, but rather big business. Big business being the same people who took “payment holidays” when funds had a surplus in them, presumably failing to realise that with less money going in, the fund will dry up eventually. People who, having taken a payment holiday until the fund was dry, were heard whinging a whining about having to start make payments into the fund as if it was all someone else’s fault there was no money in there. People who for years dibbed into pension funds when cash flow was tight, profits were down or debts started to mount up. In short the exact same people who created the mess we now find ourselves in in the first place!

But all the blame does not lie solely with big business. Oh no, more than a little of the blame also falls at the feet of the government (both the current regime and its predecessors). They have allowed this to go on for so long, turning a blind eye when it suits them. The have also helped out by dibbing into the funds themselves when there was an excess there for the taking.

And who do they expect to sort the mess out? You and me! Those of us who have seen our futures raided time and time again by businesses and the government are being expected to pick up the bits once more.

Many moons ago I worked for a large multinational company called Lucas Industries. When I joined Lucas, the pension fund had a surplus in it and as a result the company was in the middle of a payment holiday! Then things started to g a bit Pete Tong for the Lucas Empire so they dibbed into the fund to a tune of about £10 million. Their justification for this raid was that if the fund members didn’t let them have the money the government would take it as tax anyway! Strangely enough the last I heard the fund had a shortfall… I wonder what the situation would be like if the fund hadn’t been raided.

And when these ‘Stake Holder' funds run dry, what then?…

Child trust fund dilemmas…

As anyone who knows me will know, a few months ago my girlfriend and I were blessed with our first son… Joshua James.

Like all good parents, we opened a savings account in his name as soon as we could. We get his tax credits paid directly into this account and put as much in there as we can afford so that he has a good start in life when he is older.

Unfortunately last night I got a letter from the bank whom the account is with, telling us that in 2 months time they are going to SLASH the interest paid on this account from the current 5.25% to a lowly 3.65%.

As a result of this, I now have all the fun of looking for another account for the little man, one that gives a reasonable return on his money. I do accept that whatever we get, it’s still likely to be two thirds of bugger all!

This has got me thinking about his £250 gift from the government…

As many of you will know, the government have given every child born since the 1st September 2002 (I think) a gift of £250 to kick-start their savings. This gift can only be used to open a ‘Child Trust Fund’ account that, once opened then locks the £250 away, together with any additional funds deposited, until the child’s 18th Birthday when only they can withdrawal it (and presumably go an almighty bender with it).

Now anyone who has read this blog will probably realise that I don’t hold financial institutions in particularly high esteem. I have an endowment policy that is failing to perform as promised. I have had numerous bank accounts which have had the interest rate inexplicably reduced (without warning in most cases). I have watched pension funds I’ve been in plundered by companies and the government and then I’ve been asked to make up the deficit! And all the while the financial industry posts greater and greater profits.

So what is my beef here? Well I am more than a little concerned with the whole child trust fund thing. I don’t have a problem with saving for my son’s future but I do feel that the trust fund approach is deeply flawed given the financial services track record to date (or that track record I’ve experienced at least). As said above, once opened, the fund locks the money away for a long while. Once deposited you can’t get the money out, so what happens if the financial institution you have entrusted with your child’s future suddenly decides to cut interest rates by 30% to boost profits?

They have you over a barrel and they know it. Once they have your money there is nothing you can do about it. But they won’t actually promise you anything in return, as this would be too risky!

The really annoying thing about it all is that you have no choice in the matter. The money has to go into one of these accounts and the rules are the rules. A very one-way street really!

And the government presumably know all this too!!!!

Hurray... Its election time...

First of all, let me wish all my readers(??) a belated Happy Star Wars Day for Yesterday…

Well it’s general election day today again. That 5 yearly(ish) celebration of democracy at its best…

The only trouble with the general election is that the Government always wins!!

I haven’t put much on my blogg about the general election campaign as I haven’t felt it’s been a particularly awe inspiring one worthy of comment, but I will sum it up here if you want.

Labour: Vote for us as the Tories will take money out of public services.

Conservative: Vote for us as we’re going to save 35 Billion WITHOUT taking any money out of public services.

Lib. Dem. : Vote for us as the other two parties can’t be trusted (possibly the only party actually telling the truth).

UKIP: Vote for us and return Britain to greatness by excluding everyone else!

Veritas: Vote for us or Killroy-Silk will kick your head in!

Green: Vote for us… please…

Personally I’m not sure if I’ll bother to vote…

I appear to have a choice of a ‘nanny state’ party that is lead by a pathological liar, a party that ignores public opinion if it happens to disagree with their vision. Then there’s a party who will be no better and who’s leader has proven time and again that he does not care two hoots about peoples rights, just as long as he can get re-elected. Alternatively there is a party who appear to be telling the truth… so they don’t have a chance. Or a part who appear to have more than the odd overtone of racism and finally, a part who would really like you to vote for them as it would be a jolly nice thing to do (see if you can work out which party is which).

So I guess I am going to exercise my democratic right to cast my vote as I see fit and NOT vote for any of them!

Oh and for everyone out there tutting at the moment and saying how disgusting it is etc. etc. I say this…

If you want to increase the turn out at the polls, why not actually give people a choice of candidate that they actually want to vote for and a system that reflects their choice?