Author: johnredwood

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.
The stockings were hung in the chamber with care,
In hopes that Britannia soon would be there…

The Brexiters were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of free trade deals danced in their heads.
And the angry Remoaners stalked the hallowed hall
Waiting to use Parliamentary procedure to make Brexit fall…

Then along came Queen Theresa, so lively and quick
‘We are leaving the EU’ she said, ‘the referendum will not be unpicked’
With a chariot racing out the Number 10 bunker
‘To Brussels I will go’ she said and ‘take on that Mr Junker’…

Away Queen Theresa went to the court of Brussels,
‘I want a free trade deal’ she said or ‘there will be a tussle’,
She told Mr Junker that ‘if we don’t get the deal that Britain seeks’
‘Tariffs to French wine and German cars will be applied in weeks’…

Mr Junker suddenly balked at the strength of his guest,
He confirmed the EU didn’t want its trade to be depressed.
So Queen Theresa went home a victorious warrior,
Ensuring that trade wouldn’t be subject to a barrier…

Across all the land, loud cheers could be heard,
Once everyone knew that trade barriers hadn’t occurred…
The only people who were silent were the Remoaners at court,
Who wept and cried as they realised they had lost all support…

(I was sent this version of a well known Christmas poem by the contributor, Mr M Larrington.  I now share it with you.)

Christmas begins for me with the opening chords at the Loddon Valley Carol concert. It is a pleasure to hear the massed choirs of our local primary schools, and a joy to listen to the fine musicians of the Berkshire Maestros youth orchestra. The songs, carols and music they provide reminds us of the joy of giving at the heart of the Christmas message.  Christmas is a time for wonder, for the warmth of hearth and home, for  the magic of Santa. It is a time for children,  whose excitement  is infectious. Their enthusiasm makes the work in shopping, decorating, cooking and preparing so worthwhile.

Nor is Christmas limited to the young. All of us who remain young at heart still get a thrill from the sounds, smells, tastes and delights of the festive season.

It is also a time for all of us to say thank you to those who do so  much to provide the services which help our community thrive, to thank those who work for charity, who help those in need, who ensure the lonely and the elderly are not neglected.  The Christian message behind our festival embraces a wider  feeling for everyone. It rests on the simple idea that love and community, giving and helping others, enriches the giver as well as the receiver.

I wish you and yours every happiness at Christmas. I hope you all have a great break and enjoy the comfort of your homes, friends and families. I also know that many of you will make sure our relatives and neighbours do not end up lonely over the holiday period

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utvAsBKp7FI   (Video version)

 

Many years ago – forty four to be precise – the United Kingdom came under the dreaded power of the one ring that rules all rings. It was easy at first, as they said it would be.

After all, we had given up the power of our ring willingly. We were told the one ring would be used sparingly. We still had control. The ring that controls all rings was used but lightly. It was as if the wizards had been right all along.

The one ring that controls all rings had lost much of its power.

It was possible to believe it was just a fairy tale that the ring of Brussels could do no wrong, brook no rivals, was under the spell of an unfriendly power.

Maybe the ring had been lost. Maybe hobbits as some had told had cast it into the furnace of Mordor after all.

Those who repeatedly claimed that the one ring was still out there, exerting its bad and increasingly powerful influence, were told they were mistaken.

They were scaremongers. They needed to get out more. They should read their Tolkein and understand the message. The ring had gone.

The rulers of the UK still wore the UK ring proudly. When rulers changed there was the same ancient ceremony to transfer the ring of power from one to the other.

It was true some rulers were distracted or overwhelmed by the ring’s power.

King Heath had fallen when he thought the power of our ring could allow him to stop people working five days a week according to our customs. King Callaghan was removed when he used the power of the ring to try to crush public service workers who wanted more money.

When King Blair used it to unleash war on middle kingdoms far away a mighty protest movement grew to oust him.

When he was replaced by King Brown the people were alert to the danger of misuse. They did not believe he had taken upon himself the power to end all booms and busts. He lost his right to the ring when the towers of UK banking came crashing down around him.

On each occasion power has passed peacefully from one to the next. The ring was taken easily from the hand of he who ruled, and passed to the legitimate heir.

Despite all this outward sign of order, the hobbits of Middle Britain persisted with their alternative history. Tolkien’s happy ending had been forced upon the writer by the custodians of the one ring.

When Gollum had plunged into the fires of Mordor with the ring a large eagle had mysteriously appeared and plucked the ring from him as he fell. The ring had been safely returned to the powers of Brussels. Only a few knew of its presence.

All were sworn to denial. This time around, reunited with their ultimate power, the controlling forces decided to get savvy.

They would not show off the ring in public for many years following its recapture. They would use its powers sparingly at first.

They would work towards a world where the holders of all the other rings thought they still had their powers, and wanted Brussels to control them more. Next time the one ring had to appear to be legitimately worn and wielded.

It was a nuisance to the dark forces that the United Kingdom was particularly sceptical about the missing ring. More and more Tolkien books were put into the misty isle.

Tolkien was made a hero. Films were made in English to get across the message. The whole panoply of government was tailored to reassure.

Everytime more power passed from our ring to the centre, we were told the opposite was happening. We were assured no power had passed.

We were given subsidiarity and opt outs. We were led to believe we did not have to join parts of the Union we did not like.

Whenever UK hobbits challenged the idea that Brussels did not hold sway, they were told pointedly that any day we could abolish the legal powers Brussels had over our ring. We could do it for ourselves by changing our laws.

There was no one ring dictating behind the scenes. Yet it seemed to a growing number of UK people that there was a dangerous power above us.

Told we could always settle our own taxes, Brussels made us impose VAT on things we did not want to tax. Brussels came along and awarded large backpayments of money into rich companies, claiming we had wrongly taxed them.

The UK voters chose a government dedicated to reducing the number of people we welcomed each year to join us in our communities. Brussels told the government that they could not do this.
They had to accept anyone who wanted to come from the rest of Europe.

Many voters wanted the UK to run its own fishing grounds.Brussels told us we had to allow huge industrial trawlers from Spain and Denmark, France and the Netherlands if they wished to come. The UK wanted to allow reasonable freedom to financial businesses. Brussels took over the task of controlling them, and set various rules we did not approve.

The hobbits kept up their pressure, claiming the one ring must still exist. They could feel its ever growing power. In a fit of pique and desperation the UK ruler laid down a challenge.

He said to all his critics there would be a great vote. The vote would show us we were still self-governing. If the critics could win, we would leave the Union and so show there was no all-powerful one ring above us. He assumed that with the power of the rings behind him, the hobbits would have no chance.

With all his fine and powerful friends they would be able to ridicule the very idea that the one ring was working its evil magic still.

As we now know, he lost his vote. The UK ring passed easily from him to another.
The new Queen showed early resolution to wrestle back our power from Brussels and to break the hold of the one ring that rules all rings over us. As soon as she did so mighty armies were unleashed.

Far from it proving the easy and willing transfer of power we had always been told would happen if we so chose, the Brussels forces unleashed legions of experts, business people, foreign governments, international institutions and others to say the UK had made a mistake, the UK would be punished, the UK would have to change her mind. If proof were needed, dear reader, that the one ring must still exist, that was it.

The dark wizards had let loose thunderbolts of forecasts, predicting every conceivable calamity for poor Britain.

As the overwhelming majority of these proved to be wrong after the vote, so the wizards made their forecasts worse and longer term. As things went well for Britain, so they plotted better ways to make them go bad.

The next few months will be crucial. Can the White Queen unite with the hobbits and the White Wizard, and destroy the power of the one ring over us?

In the process, how will the power of the one ring be wielded over the power of all the other European rings? Is it as they now say, you cannot break the power of the one ring?

Will the one ring be successfully wielded to forge a full political union? Can the one ring wearer make his universal money succeed?

I will keep you posted. Meanwhile, a very happy Christmas to you all. We are living through a gripping battle for our freedom.

 

SAFER ROADS WITH LESS CONGESTION

Low Cost and No cost options for government to improve UK productivity and ease the jams

1. Rephase traffic lights. Where there is a main road and side roads, the main road should have green  priority with traffic sensors for traffic from side roads.
2. Remove all red phases for traffic at traffic lights
3. Allow turn left on red, treating the red light as a Stop sign
4. Require utilities to place new and replacement pipes and cables under pavements in prepared ducts with access points
5. Require more off road parking for new housing estates and all commercial development
6. Require state schools to put in pull off areas or reserved parts of car parks for drop off and pick up away from the highway
7. Create right turning lanes at busy junctions where space permits
8. Replace light controlled junctions with roundabouts
9. Remove traffic lights from roundabouts, or make signals part time for peak only

Higher cost options

1. Create segregated cycle lanes away from the highway where possible on main routes
2. More bridges over railway lines, including replacing level crossings where possible
3. More bridges over rivers in main towns and cities
4. Pedestrian bridges/underpasses to allow crossing main routes safely and quickly

I will be writing at greater length about some of these ideas after Christmas.

 

Yesterday evening I was invited by Sky to discuss the current wave of strikes in baggage handling, aviation, on the railways and at the Post Office. I naturally urged management and employees to sit down to sort it out. People do not want their Christmas arrangements messed up by strikes. It shows a singular lack of seasonal goodwill that so many groups of workers want to take it out on their customers at this time of year.

Some say the transport strikes should  be made more difficult by legislation. This government has recently changed the law in the Trade Union Act 2016. This now requires half of those eligible to vote to vote in a valid strike ballot, and for 40% of those eligible to vote for strike action, as well as a majority of those voting. It also requires the Union to hold the strike within six months of the mandate, and to seek renewal of the mandate if the strike drags on.  The strike ballot has to provide a clear statement of what is at issue in the dispute.  Do you think this is fair? Does it go far enough in seeking to ensure that there is proper support for a strike and that the workforce does know what is at stake?

The Southern Rail dispute has become embroiled in politics, with a Union leader saying he wants to use the strike to undermine capitalism and the Conservative government. It is a strange dispute, as the employees are being guaranteed jobs at no less pay from the changes the management wish to make. The Union accepts driver operated doors on trains on other routes, but will not accept them on Southern routes.

Who do you blame for the dispute? What if anything should the government do to make settlement more likely?

If I went  to an auction with a business partner we would not spend our time at the auction bidding against each other.  We would agree the best course of action for buying the item at the lowest price, and stick to that. Only one of us would bid. We would not advertise in advance how much we wanted the item or what our bidding strategy would  be.

Many in the UK think we do need to negotiate a settlement over trade and residual financial matters with the EU when we leave. Yet there are businesses, senior officials past and present, many Opposition MPs and others who ought to know better, trying to tell the other side in advance how generous our offers might be, and trying to bid us up all the time to make better and better offers!

There is no point in making any offer until the negotiations begin. Nor should we offer to pay for things that are properly ours without paying. We have every right to leave the EU, under our own laws and under the Treaty we signed. We have every right to take back control of our laws, our money and our borders without having to pay for the privilege, and without having to dilute that control.

 

The only thing we need to discuss with our former partners is what new relationship we will have on departure. The main part of that is trade. I see no need to offer money or EU control of our borders in order to carry on importing from the continent. I think they will  be all too relieved to be able to carry on exporting to us after Brexit. Some people in the UK need to wake up to the reality of how you do well in an auction or a negotiation. They also need to understand that no deal is better than a bad deal, as there is little we awnt from the EU. Our trade is not at risk, and can be pursued successfully one way or another as soon as the rest of the EU decides whether they want to pay tariffs on their exports to us or not.

 

 

Western media have given plenty of coverage to the loss of life and great damage  in Aleppo, as the Syrian government forces aided by Russia drives out rebel fighters. Heart rending pictures of civilian children caught up in the war, of fleeing non combatants and bombed medical facilities has made many ask what can the West do  to help bring the violence to an end and to assist with humanitarian  aid.

At the same time as we watch this tragedy, we see and hear little of the battle for Mosul in Iraq. There the Iraqi government forces, assisted by Kurdish troops and western planes and intelligence are seeking to recapture this large city from Isil and other rebel forces. It is said that around 6000 ISIL fighters are resisting far larger forces, led by the Iraqi Golden division of 10,000 well trained and armed professionals. The battle has been raging for three months now, and forecasts that the city would be back in government hands by the year end look optimistic. More than a million civilians are still living in the city, with reports of ISIL using some as human shields, and other reports of considerable death and damage being wrought by the war. There are especial problems with water supply leaving people at risk of disease from unclean water.

In October the UN warned that “There are real fears that the offensive to retake Mosul could produce a humanitarian catastrophe resulting in one of the largest man made displacement crises in recent years. ” It is I trust good news that there have been no further such reports, though the limited news from the battlefields implies there is still a lot of destruction and loss of life as a great city is fought over intensely. Could our news organisations bring us up to date?  How will the great tensions between Sunni and Shia be contained in the city, as the Iraqi Army aided by Shia forces advances?

Giving the cold shoulder to the Prime Minister was juvenile. Refusing to reassure all EU citizens living in each other’s countries that they can stay after Brexit was morally repulsive.

I assume even the EU would not stoop so low as to demand the departure of UK citizens from othe EU countries once we leave. It would be against decency,morality and probably international law. So why don’t they just say so? Their refusal shows the PM was wise not to assume they would.

The UK has made clear it is happy for all legally settled EU migrants in the UK to stay. So why can’t the others say the same about British migrants?

At the same time, why can’t the rest of the EU reassure business that they have no wish to damage their trade with us?Again they put their own institution above the needs and wishes of businesses, employees and customers around their Union.

It certainly strengthens the case for leaving. These people clearly do not want the best for their citizens. They use them as pawns in their macabre political game. I thought the EU’s idea was to  take our money in order to give us some service. Once again it looks as if the opposite is true.

Most people agree the  UK needs to do better at providing social care. Some think it is just a case of increasing the money to pay for it by more than it has been increased in recent years. Others say there needs to be reform of the way public sector care is organised and provided. Underlying the debate are two major issues which need discussion.

The first is how much should the state pay and how much should the individual pay? The tripartisan approach for many years has been to say  healthcare should be free, but living costs are down to the individual. If the individual has little capital or private pension income, then the state will pay the living costs as well.

Some say the state should take care of more of the living costs of more people. This would require substantial tax rises to meet the bills. It would mean that instead of selling the old person’s home when they move into residential care to pay the living cost bills, the money from the estate would be preserved and pass to the children. People ask why is it fair that someone who has saved and been careful all their active lives has to pay their own living costs, whereas someone who has lived beyond their means will be paid for?

Others say the current system is fine in this respect. If someone is well off, why shouldn’t they use their own assets and income to pay for their living costs? If someone cannot afford a reasonable standard of accommodation and food, don’t we have a duty to be good neighbours and to help pay?  This is a cheaper solution for taxpayers.

The second issue is internal to government. At the moment central government pays for and runs the NHS, whilst local government pays for and runs much of the social service provision. It is true local government relies heavily on national government grants paid for out of national taxes, but local taxes have a part to play in financing social care. Many people like the idea of devolution of power over policy and spending to Councils from Whitehall, yet when problems emerge in a local service the cry often goes up for government intervention. Quite often it is easier to blame the government for alleged underfunding, than to blame individual Councils for poor or unduly expensive provision.

The public is generally  not much exercised over who runs the service. They want a good outcome. The main problem with Councils running care and the NHS running health treatments comes at the borders. An elderly person who has been treated in a hospital often needs improved care services in order to be able to return home. Some Councils are reluctant to commit in a timely and sufficient way to the need to provide social care. The elderly person then remains in a very expensive hospital bed. This costs the state more overall. Someone no longer needing treatment occupies a bed needed for someone who does  require  treatment. It is often  against the wishes and interests of the patient, who wants to get home.

Any thoughts on what reforms are needed?