Monday, February 19, 2007
Doctors starting to get it?
The Times gives us a report about disillusioned doctors. It certainly shows us the cracks appearing in our socialist health system, and perhaps at last, people such as doctors are starting to realise that taxation and socialism can't solve problems.
The opinions expressed read as a damning summation of the effectiveness of ZaNuLabour's health "policy":
More than half of respondents (56 per cent) said that there had been no improvement in the NHS since 2002.... Only 27 per cent thought there had been.
"...(72 per cent) did not believe that the extra money had been well spent, while 11 per cent said that it had. Similar views were held on the quality of care: 72 per cent said that there had been no improvement; 15 per cent said that there had been."
"...79 per cent of respondents doubted that the highest standards expected of the NHS could be sustained through taxation alone after 2008, when the huge annual increases in funding will drop off."
This last quote read as some sort of sick (pardon the pun) joke: "highest standards ... could be sustained" like we have the highest standards now?
There is also concern about: "... what will happen after 2008, when the rate of increased funding is due to end." Well of course in theory it shouldn't matter as the increase in funding hasn't prompted any improvement, but in reality, all those extra turkeys employed by the NHS with the funding increase will still need feeding, it won't be the turkeys that go after 2008, but patient care, hospital wards and beds.
Apparently doctors still support the NHS in principle, but what will it take for them to wake up and think a little? What private health care provider would have such a turkey army? What costs more? Profits to shareholders? Or people employed to remain off the unemployment figures?
Remember doctors, the turkey army is only possible: "Thanks to the unique way the NHS is funded." It's time to admit failure and move away from this outdated and ineffective socialist funding model. Let's be rid of this burden once and for all.
The opinions expressed read as a damning summation of the effectiveness of ZaNuLabour's health "policy":
More than half of respondents (56 per cent) said that there had been no improvement in the NHS since 2002.... Only 27 per cent thought there had been.
"...(72 per cent) did not believe that the extra money had been well spent, while 11 per cent said that it had. Similar views were held on the quality of care: 72 per cent said that there had been no improvement; 15 per cent said that there had been."
"...79 per cent of respondents doubted that the highest standards expected of the NHS could be sustained through taxation alone after 2008, when the huge annual increases in funding will drop off."
This last quote read as some sort of sick (pardon the pun) joke: "highest standards ... could be sustained" like we have the highest standards now?
There is also concern about: "... what will happen after 2008, when the rate of increased funding is due to end." Well of course in theory it shouldn't matter as the increase in funding hasn't prompted any improvement, but in reality, all those extra turkeys employed by the NHS with the funding increase will still need feeding, it won't be the turkeys that go after 2008, but patient care, hospital wards and beds.
Apparently doctors still support the NHS in principle, but what will it take for them to wake up and think a little? What private health care provider would have such a turkey army? What costs more? Profits to shareholders? Or people employed to remain off the unemployment figures?
Remember doctors, the turkey army is only possible: "Thanks to the unique way the NHS is funded." It's time to admit failure and move away from this outdated and ineffective socialist funding model. Let's be rid of this burden once and for all.
Tags: NHS, tax, socialism, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
"It's for the children!"
The Times brings us a story about unhappy UK children. They are the unhappiest in the Western World, according to the headline. A quick reading of the story reveals that it's based on a so called "well-being table". From my poor reading of the story, it seems that this has been compiled under the guidance, funding and direction of UNICEF.
The story tells us one of the authors is a "Jonathon Bradshaw"; further into the story, we're told that a "Professor Bradshaw" ("a leading authority on child poverty" - for which I read child poverty pays his wage) tells us how this report, shows us that the unhappiness is down to inequality.
There is clearly an obvious problem of self-interest for Bradshaw which isn't pointed out in the story. The UNICEF report appears embargoed until 10:00 am GMT Today so I can't confirm if the "two" Bradshaws are in fact the same person, but I'll go with my instincts (see I'm in touch with my feminine side) and assume they are.
The full title of the report shows the study is limited to rich countries, which is all well and good especially as it can then avoid any embarrassing revelations such as children in some poorer countries being happier than some in rich countries; after all where would the child poverty industry be then professor?
The professor of course cites inequality as the reason, but is it really, I cannot believe that children in say Italy, Switzerland and Ireland (all well above the UK) live in a less unequal society, if anything I'd say their societies are more unequal.
The report seems a damming indictment and I imagine it's conclusions are probably correct, but we wont even start to address the issues by looking at irrelevancies like so called poverty. It would be different if children were being forced to go out to work to earn money to live, but that's clearly not the case.
Our attitude in the UK has changed considerably over the years, primarily no child can ever undertake any activity with a modicum of risk, ironically the main reason cited being to "protect them", but I think it's having the effect of making the world dull and boring for them, no wonder they're unhappy. It may be prefect preparation for being a subject of the nanny state, but it's hardly going to make for happy well-rounded citizens. The lesson here is if you want happiness you must set them free, you cannot have happiness without freedom. It's a powerful lesson which our government will have to take to heart sooner or later.
The story tells us one of the authors is a "Jonathon Bradshaw"; further into the story, we're told that a "Professor Bradshaw" ("a leading authority on child poverty" - for which I read child poverty pays his wage) tells us how this report, shows us that the unhappiness is down to inequality.
There is clearly an obvious problem of self-interest for Bradshaw which isn't pointed out in the story. The UNICEF report appears embargoed until 10:00 am GMT Today so I can't confirm if the "two" Bradshaws are in fact the same person, but I'll go with my instincts (see I'm in touch with my feminine side) and assume they are.
The full title of the report shows the study is limited to rich countries, which is all well and good especially as it can then avoid any embarrassing revelations such as children in some poorer countries being happier than some in rich countries; after all where would the child poverty industry be then professor?
The professor of course cites inequality as the reason, but is it really, I cannot believe that children in say Italy, Switzerland and Ireland (all well above the UK) live in a less unequal society, if anything I'd say their societies are more unequal.
The report seems a damming indictment and I imagine it's conclusions are probably correct, but we wont even start to address the issues by looking at irrelevancies like so called poverty. It would be different if children were being forced to go out to work to earn money to live, but that's clearly not the case.
Our attitude in the UK has changed considerably over the years, primarily no child can ever undertake any activity with a modicum of risk, ironically the main reason cited being to "protect them", but I think it's having the effect of making the world dull and boring for them, no wonder they're unhappy. It may be prefect preparation for being a subject of the nanny state, but it's hardly going to make for happy well-rounded citizens. The lesson here is if you want happiness you must set them free, you cannot have happiness without freedom. It's a powerful lesson which our government will have to take to heart sooner or later.
Tags: media, government, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: freedom, government, media
Thursday, February 08, 2007
"... deriving their powers from the consent of the governed ..."
The title quote comes of course from the American Declaration of Independance, and I find it highly appropriate as today The Times reports on the latest in the letter bombs which have been afflicting the afflicters as it were.
Now of course this is criminal behaviour and I cannot condone it, if the culprit is convicted, it will be interesting to see what kind of sentence they get. If it's their first conviction for violence, perhaps a course in addressing offending behaviour will be appropriate? What's the betting that for crimes against the government, the book will be thrown at them? But what's the point? After all we all know that long and tough prison sentences are no deterrent don't we? Still it'll make a nice comparison, crimes against an individual as a private person, slap on the wrist, crimes against the government tough prison sentence even though prison doesn't work at all.
Whilst I cannot condone the behaviour, I find it very difficult to have any sympathy with some of the bodies' targeted. Take Capita for example, they administer the TV tax and send me a monthly harassment as I have no television and refuse to allow: "... an official to visit to confirm the situation...". The people who work for Capita know how the group operates, and how it harasses people that it shouldn't be concerned with, but they choose to get paid for working in that way - they have no excuse of starvation as with our generous benefit system the state won't let them starve. If they happen to get targeted by someone harassed into criminal behaviour well it's just part of the territory, they take the payment so cannot complain of the risk. The fact they happen to be at work cannot morally absolve them of their actions.
To return to the "consent of the governed", we have seen considerable expansion of the government, and a huge increase in administrative crimes. You know the kind of thing, failure to fill out a form £80.00p fine, failure to tell the government something another fine and so on ad infinitum. All this has been done with the active consent of the House of Commons in which are supposed to sit our representatives, but there's no way it's been done with the consent of the people. What party would stand and include in its manifesto a commitment to creating the SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) with a strict liability fine for non-compliance? None of them would. They know when they pass this legislation that they have no mandate or consent of the people for it, but that doesn't stop them.
In the main these oppressive appratchikisms have been tolerated, but and let's be clear, tolerated doesn't mean some kind of implied consent. It's also true that many people have been actively withdrawing from the system as demonstrated by the DVLA computer fiasco. Where these letter bombs are concerned, those involved have undergone a similar process, but perhaps haven't thought about avoiding the forms, and are now demonstrating their intolerance of oppressive government by criminal action.
What's the prognosis? Will the government start to think hang on a minute maybe we're going too far? Or will we see more government interference in turn, feeding intolerance of government? Well this other report from The Times perhaps gives us a clue: "Motorists are to be forced to change the way they drive to help car manufacturers to meet strict new emission targets, the European Union announced yesterday. All new cars will be fitted with devices that tell drivers when to change gear, what speeds to drive at and even when to pump up their tyres."
Oh yes a step in the right direction.
Now of course this is criminal behaviour and I cannot condone it, if the culprit is convicted, it will be interesting to see what kind of sentence they get. If it's their first conviction for violence, perhaps a course in addressing offending behaviour will be appropriate? What's the betting that for crimes against the government, the book will be thrown at them? But what's the point? After all we all know that long and tough prison sentences are no deterrent don't we? Still it'll make a nice comparison, crimes against an individual as a private person, slap on the wrist, crimes against the government tough prison sentence even though prison doesn't work at all.
Whilst I cannot condone the behaviour, I find it very difficult to have any sympathy with some of the bodies' targeted. Take Capita for example, they administer the TV tax and send me a monthly harassment as I have no television and refuse to allow: "... an official to visit to confirm the situation...". The people who work for Capita know how the group operates, and how it harasses people that it shouldn't be concerned with, but they choose to get paid for working in that way - they have no excuse of starvation as with our generous benefit system the state won't let them starve. If they happen to get targeted by someone harassed into criminal behaviour well it's just part of the territory, they take the payment so cannot complain of the risk. The fact they happen to be at work cannot morally absolve them of their actions.
To return to the "consent of the governed", we have seen considerable expansion of the government, and a huge increase in administrative crimes. You know the kind of thing, failure to fill out a form £80.00p fine, failure to tell the government something another fine and so on ad infinitum. All this has been done with the active consent of the House of Commons in which are supposed to sit our representatives, but there's no way it's been done with the consent of the people. What party would stand and include in its manifesto a commitment to creating the SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) with a strict liability fine for non-compliance? None of them would. They know when they pass this legislation that they have no mandate or consent of the people for it, but that doesn't stop them.
In the main these oppressive appratchikisms have been tolerated, but and let's be clear, tolerated doesn't mean some kind of implied consent. It's also true that many people have been actively withdrawing from the system as demonstrated by the DVLA computer fiasco. Where these letter bombs are concerned, those involved have undergone a similar process, but perhaps haven't thought about avoiding the forms, and are now demonstrating their intolerance of oppressive government by criminal action.
What's the prognosis? Will the government start to think hang on a minute maybe we're going too far? Or will we see more government interference in turn, feeding intolerance of government? Well this other report from The Times perhaps gives us a clue: "Motorists are to be forced to change the way they drive to help car manufacturers to meet strict new emission targets, the European Union announced yesterday. All new cars will be fitted with devices that tell drivers when to change gear, what speeds to drive at and even when to pump up their tyres."
Oh yes a step in the right direction.
Tags: freedom, liberty, government, statism
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: freedom, government, liberty, statism
Monday, February 05, 2007
Bi-centenary of the abolition of the slave trade
The local "newspaper" informs us of a "walk-tribute" to William Wilberforce, who of course was instrumental in the abolition of the slave trade.
I couldn't help noticing that William Wilberforce was also MP for Hull in his day and I wonder what his views would be on the present incumbent.
Anyway I digress, when discussing the slave trade, it is all too easy to forget the part played by England and Britain in the abolition of the same. Whilst it is true that the abolition doesn't cancel out all that was done, it is also true that the actions taken for abolition shouldn't be ignored.
It was in England that indignation about this trade caused people to campaign against it and ultimately outlaw it. It will be interesting to see just how widely this anniversary is marked. The actions of William Wilberforce and his contemporaries should be a source of pride and honour for the whole nation, I hope to see this reflected in the breadth of the commemorations of this event.
I couldn't help noticing that William Wilberforce was also MP for Hull in his day and I wonder what his views would be on the present incumbent.
Anyway I digress, when discussing the slave trade, it is all too easy to forget the part played by England and Britain in the abolition of the same. Whilst it is true that the abolition doesn't cancel out all that was done, it is also true that the actions taken for abolition shouldn't be ignored.
It was in England that indignation about this trade caused people to campaign against it and ultimately outlaw it. It will be interesting to see just how widely this anniversary is marked. The actions of William Wilberforce and his contemporaries should be a source of pride and honour for the whole nation, I hope to see this reflected in the breadth of the commemorations of this event.
Tags: justice, liberty, rights, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Bias in The Times?
Following on from the well publicised defeat for the Catholic Church and it's failure to secure an opt out from the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs), we have the not so well publicised unintended consequences.
Yesterday in The Times page 14 (not apparently online oddly enough) we have a report that "Gay tourist hotels fear equality law". Contrast this approach with a story on the 10th of January "Church group challenges new law banning discrimination of gays" online here. The two stories are virtually identical, the only difference being who is complaining. So The Times are happy to report about objections to a "liberal" law when they come from the usual suspects, but downgrade a story if a "favoured group" is objecting. Clearly they're employing too many ex-BBC types.
Anyway the story tells us there are hotels who cater for an "exclusively gay" market, odd that this wasn't reflected in the stories about the Scots hotelier who wouldn't give a gay "couple" a double bed. These gay hotels (and let me be quite clear I have no objection to them at all, and fully support the stance they're taking) are concerned over likely loss of business: "... a ban on "gay only" advertising could put them out of business" also: "... some heterosexual couples might be unhappy if they unwittingly booked into a gay hotel...". Best quote comes from a John Bellamy who runs a Hamilton Hall in Bournemouth: "... This so-called anti-discrimination law is actually discriminatory as it discriminates against gays."
Another hotelier points out: "When we had a mixed environment, with gay, bi and heterosexual customers, people didn't behave as naturally as they would." I might on another occasion take issue with his wording, but with the concept I'm sure he's right.
Another quote, which could have come from the Franco handbook on property: "At the end of the day this is our home and as a landlord we have the right to refuse entry to anyone without giving a reason." Well mate it might come as a surprise to you and the rest of the country, but not any more you don't!
Stonewall the "gay rights group" is quick to disassociate itself from (by side-stepping and ignoring) these nasty views: "What gay people gain through having an equality law is much more than whether we can just run gay hotels." Yes well the point is you won't be able to run "gay only" hotels anymore.
Personally, I don't think you'll find you gain anything, but I'll leave you happy with your law. As regards Catholic adoption agencies, well there's 21 months in which anything can happen. In the worst-case scenario if they transfer abroad they might be able to circumvent the law anyway.
Yesterday in The Times page 14 (not apparently online oddly enough) we have a report that "Gay tourist hotels fear equality law". Contrast this approach with a story on the 10th of January "Church group challenges new law banning discrimination of gays" online here. The two stories are virtually identical, the only difference being who is complaining. So The Times are happy to report about objections to a "liberal" law when they come from the usual suspects, but downgrade a story if a "favoured group" is objecting. Clearly they're employing too many ex-BBC types.
Anyway the story tells us there are hotels who cater for an "exclusively gay" market, odd that this wasn't reflected in the stories about the Scots hotelier who wouldn't give a gay "couple" a double bed. These gay hotels (and let me be quite clear I have no objection to them at all, and fully support the stance they're taking) are concerned over likely loss of business: "... a ban on "gay only" advertising could put them out of business" also: "... some heterosexual couples might be unhappy if they unwittingly booked into a gay hotel...". Best quote comes from a John Bellamy who runs a Hamilton Hall in Bournemouth: "... This so-called anti-discrimination law is actually discriminatory as it discriminates against gays."
Another hotelier points out: "When we had a mixed environment, with gay, bi and heterosexual customers, people didn't behave as naturally as they would." I might on another occasion take issue with his wording, but with the concept I'm sure he's right.
Another quote, which could have come from the Franco handbook on property: "At the end of the day this is our home and as a landlord we have the right to refuse entry to anyone without giving a reason." Well mate it might come as a surprise to you and the rest of the country, but not any more you don't!
Stonewall the "gay rights group" is quick to disassociate itself from (by side-stepping and ignoring) these nasty views: "What gay people gain through having an equality law is much more than whether we can just run gay hotels." Yes well the point is you won't be able to run "gay only" hotels anymore.
Personally, I don't think you'll find you gain anything, but I'll leave you happy with your law. As regards Catholic adoption agencies, well there's 21 months in which anything can happen. In the worst-case scenario if they transfer abroad they might be able to circumvent the law anyway.
Tags: liberty, rights, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Monday, January 22, 2007
I warn you ... do not grow old ...
The Daily Mail informs us of our "envy of the world" care for the elderly program.
You should read it yourselves, but some "highlights" include: "... some are given just a single scoop of mash as a meal"
"Other bedridden pensioners are 'tortured' with trays of food placed just out of their reach."
Whilst I have a great deal of sympathy for the suffering of those concerned, I regard this as an inevitable consequence of state run care and socialism. Take the system of National Insurance, people pay in, not for money for themselves, but to provide care for others; the idea being that when their turn comes, they get care from the payments of other people are making. This is so wrong in many ways (aside from being ultimately unsustainable), people should be responsible for providing for themselves and the state should be out of it. Everyone who stops to think about National Insurance would soon come to realise the problems, but people have accepted this system without question and without thought. The easy wide road, let the state worry about it, spare me from responsibility. Now the system they supported and accepted is starving them; well you should have known better.
You shouldn't have been fooled by the empty promises of socialism, you should have examined the system harder, kept it in check, ensured there was enough to pay you out.
All debts, have to be paid, and virtue is it's own reward. You have no entitlement to a reward merely for having lived to a point requiring care, if you haven't made provision (no National Insurance despite its name doesn't count) then that is what you should expect - starvation.
Of course there's no choice we all have to pay into this corrupt and stupid pot, but that doesn't mean we have to be fooled by it, or that we shouldn't demand its abolition.
Well my readers this is how the state treats you, you pay in money, and when you want to collect, well, you can starve to death for the privilege. Look how much freer people in the third world are, there you can starve without having to pay.
You should read it yourselves, but some "highlights" include: "... some are given just a single scoop of mash as a meal"
"Other bedridden pensioners are 'tortured' with trays of food placed just out of their reach."
Whilst I have a great deal of sympathy for the suffering of those concerned, I regard this as an inevitable consequence of state run care and socialism. Take the system of National Insurance, people pay in, not for money for themselves, but to provide care for others; the idea being that when their turn comes, they get care from the payments of other people are making. This is so wrong in many ways (aside from being ultimately unsustainable), people should be responsible for providing for themselves and the state should be out of it. Everyone who stops to think about National Insurance would soon come to realise the problems, but people have accepted this system without question and without thought. The easy wide road, let the state worry about it, spare me from responsibility. Now the system they supported and accepted is starving them; well you should have known better.
You shouldn't have been fooled by the empty promises of socialism, you should have examined the system harder, kept it in check, ensured there was enough to pay you out.
All debts, have to be paid, and virtue is it's own reward. You have no entitlement to a reward merely for having lived to a point requiring care, if you haven't made provision (no National Insurance despite its name doesn't count) then that is what you should expect - starvation.
Of course there's no choice we all have to pay into this corrupt and stupid pot, but that doesn't mean we have to be fooled by it, or that we shouldn't demand its abolition.
Well my readers this is how the state treats you, you pay in money, and when you want to collect, well, you can starve to death for the privilege. Look how much freer people in the third world are, there you can starve without having to pay.
Tags: tax, socialism, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Do as we say!
The Times reports on some North British council leader flouting his country's smoking ban. He was smoking in his own office, but the law is the law. When it was pointed out to him that he was breaking the law: "he shrugged and carried on".
Now when it comes to banning smoking, like most bans it is ridiculous, of course there shouldn't be any law against smoking in an office and the person concerned has the smallest modicum of my sympathy. Why so little? Well they are a Labour leader, and they are in charge of implementing the smoking ban in their area; I've never heard of any resignations over the issue, or of any council showing some guts and refusing to enforce this stupid law. If this had happened in a pub or private club, they'd have sent the apparatchiks round faster than you could say it, with fines and fixed penalty notices all round. I don't expect any enforcement action here.
The "leader" has apologised, but is that really good enough? I know the law is rubbish as much as the next person, but I wouldn't enforce it at all, but he can't not enforce it, he has no choice, unless he intends to go head to head with the North British executive. So his only honourable choice is to resign, he has to say: "I can't enforce this stupid law or be part of a structure that does; so I must resign".
The chances of this happening are remote, he'll give up smoking first, but it shows us the mindset of our "leaders" - they know the laws are a load of rubbish, they know it's all stupid unwarranted interference, but instead of fighting against those laws and ensuring they never happen, they kow-tow before the legislation and then expect it not to apply to them. In this case he'll probably be right, there'll be no enforcement, no nothing, but what of others who are denied their right to smoke? What of a private club of smokers and people who don't mind smoking? Or an office staffed by smokers?
Some people oppress believing it to be for a greater good or higher purpose, some know that the professed greater good or higher purpose is a load of rubbish, but "go with the flow" anyway. Which is the greater evil?
Now when it comes to banning smoking, like most bans it is ridiculous, of course there shouldn't be any law against smoking in an office and the person concerned has the smallest modicum of my sympathy. Why so little? Well they are a Labour leader, and they are in charge of implementing the smoking ban in their area; I've never heard of any resignations over the issue, or of any council showing some guts and refusing to enforce this stupid law. If this had happened in a pub or private club, they'd have sent the apparatchiks round faster than you could say it, with fines and fixed penalty notices all round. I don't expect any enforcement action here.
The "leader" has apologised, but is that really good enough? I know the law is rubbish as much as the next person, but I wouldn't enforce it at all, but he can't not enforce it, he has no choice, unless he intends to go head to head with the North British executive. So his only honourable choice is to resign, he has to say: "I can't enforce this stupid law or be part of a structure that does; so I must resign".
The chances of this happening are remote, he'll give up smoking first, but it shows us the mindset of our "leaders" - they know the laws are a load of rubbish, they know it's all stupid unwarranted interference, but instead of fighting against those laws and ensuring they never happen, they kow-tow before the legislation and then expect it not to apply to them. In this case he'll probably be right, there'll be no enforcement, no nothing, but what of others who are denied their right to smoke? What of a private club of smokers and people who don't mind smoking? Or an office staffed by smokers?
Some people oppress believing it to be for a greater good or higher purpose, some know that the professed greater good or higher purpose is a load of rubbish, but "go with the flow" anyway. Which is the greater evil?
Tags: liberty, rights, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
