Sinister Moves Afoot Regarding Legislation Changes.

The recent announcement that the government had just repealed the Vagrancy act has got my Spider Senses tingling.

I've blogged before that despite protestations from the lefties, people who claim asylum have rights given to then by the UN charter on refugees. 

The government of the country they claim asylum in has a statutory duty to provide housing , etc. The things we're already seeing like hotels, HMOs, etc.

As I have blogged previously, there is no such statutory obligation when it comes to housing people that already live here. So who do you think gets the home and who gets made homeless? 

One of the big failings of government was the failure to introduce legislation to make the statutory legislation apply to all. I assume no-one thought that the amount of immigration would impact the availability of social housing and that there would be plenty of housing supply for all. How Naive.

Removing the vagrancy act removes the pressure on councils to house homeless people. Those homeless people being the people with no statutory rights granted to them regarding housing, i.e. you and me. 

Now, add to the mix the rumour that a government led by Andy Burnham is looking at a land tax, that is taxing you a percentage of the value of your house instead of council tax. While it may make it cheaper for some people, for others it makes it a damn sight more expensive. 

It kills charities like Omaze overnight, because winning a million pound mansion will instantly incur a tax liability higher than the average wage.

At the moment, if you don't pay council tax, you get the bailiffs knocking at the door to take goods. But your home is relatively safe. It would take years to rack up a debt large enough to require the sale of your dwelling to pay off.

What's the chances that any new legislation that introduces the land tax changes the way the government claim the money back for non-payment? What are the chances that the changes the rules to say if the new tax is on your property, rather than payment for services, the remedy for non-payment would be seizure of your property? 

You see where this is going? Yep, more people homeless and less pressure on councils to house them. They're getting ahead of the game.

And don't get me started on how the government can charge a tax on an asset you don't own. If you have a mortgage, the house is not yours until it's paid off. The bank or building society hold the deeds. So technically the owner is the bank. 

I bet if the bank got charged the property tax, you'd get it lumped on your lap with a nice administration fee stuck on top...

This is the WEF plan writ large. The government is now making a move to make land grab, a grab for property, YOUR property. 

Remember the outcome has always been, you will own nothing, forget the bit about you will be happy, they don't care.. Happiness has nothing to do with it. You will become a slave, a cash-cow. You will work for board and food and you will be grateful in the new socialist utopia. No foreign holiday, in fact no travel outside your 15-minute city. That would be a bourgeois idea.

The unproductive will be culled. The government are well on the way to introducing that assisted dying legislation. Once it's in place, it won't take much to make it mandatory for the unproductive in society. 

I've a feeling someone has already done the maths on what happens when A.I. takes 90% of the jobs and what you do with the masses of unemployed. 

And if you don't think that's the way the road is leading, you're worse than an idiot, you are a grade A moron.

The 50-Year Doom Spiral.

It started in the 40s. We were so poor after the war, that we were effectively broke. The good news was that we produced products the world still wanted. Cars, aircraft, ships, etc. We made big, expensive items. 

We manufactured our way out of the debt caused by the war. 

But just as we were doing that, at the same time we were losing our Empire. The Empire had supplied us with revenue, enough to keep us the superpower we had been up until the 40s. 

The loss of Empire meant we had to generate wealth from the UK alone. Sadly, there just wasn't enough real estate to generate that sort of wealth.

The Sixties were the last golden times. We still had all the huge manufacturing facilities that allowed us to manufacture the expensive items we needed to at least keep the country alive.

Although during the Sixties, we had the warning signs. Beeching's railway cuts, Duncan Sandys' Defence white Paper. These were the first trimmings and the first indications that the supply of money could not keep up with expenditure. 

Interestingly, we also disbanded the Civil Defence force in the late sixties. Yet the Cold War was still raging. 

Then the Seventies arrived, and with it a rabidly Socialist Labour party and a wet Tory party. Things got rapidly worse. Four day weeks, strikes, the Unions saw weak government and went for the jugular. 

Money supply went haywire. We can't get money through revenue, so let's just print it. And so inflation went through the roof. 

Heath's wet Tories just made things worse. They were an irrelevance that did untold damage by joining the Common Market, in an attempt to use Europe as a liferaft. Tying that liferaft to Germany's economy would, for a while, keep us afloat. 

Things declined rapidly through the seventies, to the winter of discontent in '78.

Then came Saint Margaret of Thatcher. Well, most on the right would class her as a saint, or a saviour of the country. 

She did turn the country around and things did seemingly improve. As a young adult at the time she came to power, the difference between Maggie's government and Calaghan's preceding Labour government was night and day.

It's hard to encapsulate what Maggie did in the first half of the Eighties to transform the country, but here goes. 

She cut all the dross, the waste, the overspend. She was ruthless in her application of cuts. 

The public sector, the tail that had wagged the dog during the seventies got sharp shrift: there would be no more automatic pay rises. 

Defence spending was already scaled back (leading to the Falklands War) which then required some "adjustment" after the Falklands was won back. 

The money supply, printing of money was curtailed. We call it quantative easing today, but it's still printing money you don't have. It was slowed or in fact stopped under Maggie. 

"The market" became the phrase de jour. The market would, with a little help from government generate the wealth needed to keep the country going. The government relaxed controls to help grease the wheels.

And the market helped, but didn't provide the necessary wealth. Maggie had to resorts to steep cuts in public spending and selling off assets like publicly owned utility companies in order to keep things afloat. Basically public owned companies were firesaled. Just get rid of them to stop any further spending. Whether they swam or sank wasn't an issue for the government.

The era of the "Yuppie" came along in the mid-eighties, as the deregulated stock market became a money-making giant. It made money, but very little of that money trickled down to the poorest in society. 

It still wasn't enough though. Services continued to decline and a way of offsetting that was the Poll Tax: making people pay slightly more for the services provided by local councils. It went down like a lead balloon with the population. 

The poll tax riots ushered in the 1990s. Sadly for Maggie, the smoke and mirrors of her tenure had run out of tricks. 

1990 also ushered in the Grey Man, John Major. 

I've already mentioned John Major on my blog, but safe to say, his tenure was the start of the professional management class and the job-creation scheme that was the NVQ system. 

Financially clueless, under Major we had Black Wednesday as he kept the pound nailed to the ERM for way too long as the Likes of George Soros hammered it and the government threw billions into propping it up. 

The Major premiership felt like freewheeling a bicycle downhill after the furious pedalling of the Thatcher era. 

But at least we did the right thing and successfully freed Kuwait under Major. However, I suspect the success was set up and virtually guaranteed by Thatcher's regime.

Major continued to sell off assets, famously British Rail under his tenure. 

Then came Tony Blair...

Tony the traitor, Tony the War criminal to a not insignificant minority. 

Tony took us into war in the Balkans, took us into war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Tony borrowed billions and his policies inflated house prices in order for people to feel richer. 

All the while, the country still declined. He opened the floodgates for Eastern Europeans to come into the UK and provide cheap labour, so people could feel richer. And to rub the noses of the right in diversity, apparently.

Tony also changed the law. Double jeopardy went, so the authorities could keep prosecuting you for the same crime. They could effectively bankrupt you with lawfare. Rather than do it right, he allowed the Police to become sloppy, inefficient and politicised.

He introduced the supreme court. A court that had supremacy over a democratically elected government. Basically killing democracy, because then what's the point of s democratically elected government, if it can't enforce the will of the people?

As I said, Blair took us into Afghanistan and Iraq, decades-long armed forces commitments that cost billions. 

People felt richer for a while. But it wouldn't last. The rate of borrowing couldn't last, the rate of spending couldn't last. We couldn't maintain an armed conflict on two fronts.

The writing was eventually on the wall, so Blair handed over to Brown. 

Gordon Brown, who sold the gold reserves at the bottom of the market. 

Gordon Brown, who bailed out the banks in 2008, with our money. 

Gordon Brown, who thought we were all bigots.

Yeah, a disastrous premiership.

Then we had the Tory/LibDem coalition. 

Oh, my God. Yet more decline, marked by the rise of political correctness, the idea of green policies and basically giving up on any idea of saving the nation.

And this is probably the time of the rise of luxury beliefs, like climate change and Trans ideology. 

And there we stayed for 14 years, under the Tories for the most part.

14 years of increasing immigration and reducing spending. Austerity caused by the Bank Bailout and the repayments required to pay back the sum we borrowed to achieve it, coupled with now accepting the whole world into the UK to offset the hideous GDP figures that we would have seen without it. A disastrous cocktail that was bound to end up in the morass we have now, where people expect a government to at least attempt to fix the country, or make it better.

We're now in the position fewer and fewer taxpayers are being asked to pay a larger and larger share of their earnings to prop up an unsustainable situation going forward.

The thing is, politicians haven't been honest with us for 50 years or more, haven't been able to make it better for 50 years or more. We don't have an Empire that props up the mother country, the EU is as badly in the hole after Germany spent all it's treasure on reunification.

We are in a doom spiral, and have been for 50 years. It was managed well for probably the first 20 years, but the seventies halted that and the Thatcher years only stayed positive thanks to asset-stripping the country.

This is the result of 50 years of managed decline. 

We will eventually hit rock bottom, but I don't think it will be long now. I have visions of the end of this country. It's a civil war, with the country split into various factions: haves, have-nots, Christians, Muslims, 

Those wealthy enough will leave, those that are not will be left to fight over the scraps. 

Victory depends on factors, not least of which would be what external sponsors get involved. For instance if the militant Islamic countries sponsor the Islamic faction in the UK, then without the support of the rest of the West and a determination and stomach to eradicate the Islamic extremists with extreme prejudice, the UK will become an Islamic country.

Nothing of what I've seen of the "Liberal" West fills me with the confidence that the UK will be saved, come the great upheaval. 

Government needs to be honest with people. It needs to let us know what went on in the past, where we are now and from there, with an honest basis, we can build a robust plan for the future.

Otherwise we have more of the same until it all come crashing down into a morass, a pit of chaos, where the country splits into warring factions.

I'm nearly dead, so most likely it won't affect me. Dying a couple of years early? Meh. 

To teh rest of you: Good luck. You'll need it. 

Burnham launches manifesto. Sort of.

A pressure group backing Andy Burnham for the Premiership has launched a document, essential handing out it's wishlist of items for a new PM to address.

Top of the pile is the nationalisation of water and power companies. 

Now the water companies, I'd nationalise in a heartbeat. I'd also make legislation so that they could never be again sold into private hands.

I'd go one further and start criminal investigations into the boards of these companies and make than personally liable for the damage caused to the environment by their actions. Let's claw back some of those bonuses by fining the shit out of them.

The power companies I'm a bit more ambiguous about. They've just maximised profit in the best way they can. By screwing the paying customer, with a side serving of government ideology. 

Sure, a few grannies have died of hypothermia, we have poor baseline energy generation and energy costs are at the very least twice or even three times what they should be because the energy companies and government ideology made it so, but you can't fault the energy companies for just following the ideals of the government.

In true Communist fashion, the group also advocate more caps on more things, because they have no idea of the concept of unintended consequences, or the extra cost to the government of setting up yet another watchdog organisation to oversee (badly) yet another facet of our lives. 

I mean, they could just start building more homes, to bring the cost of rent and purchase down, but oooh no, rent caps are what we need. 

Then once all of these new expensive bodies have been created, keep them off the books somehow, so that they don't show up on the national balance sheet. Or more likely we won't see the massive extra drain on resources they will create.

The thing is with Burnham's policies, is it's a build it now, pay for it later sort of regime, like the new bee network in Manchester is financed in such a way that the pigeons don't come home to roost for a few years. But they do eventually. By which time, Burnham has moved on and someone else is left picking up the pieces. It's forecast that the local authorities in Greater Manchester will have to pay an ever-larger chunk of change to allow the bee network to keep running.

I predict the usual socialist fuck up, by which in 5 years time the bee network faces collapse without a big government bailout. 

And Andy Burnham wants to use this model to national infrastructure.

I mean lets apply it to defence: Imagine all our tanks being franchised and rented from BAE or whatever, the same for our aircraft too. Our ships rented out from Scottish shipyards. All all of the above rented from some huge corporate. 

Assets that could be withdrawn at any minute, especially if there was a threat to the safety of the asset. No more entering war zones or fighting wars. Too dangerous. Those Tanks, planes and ships might get damaged and would affect the bottom line of the leasing company. 

It's nonsensical. 

But when have Socialists ever been sensical?