What Does Michael Fallon Know?

I’ve been away from this blog for a few years now, not because I’ve had nothing to say. I just didn’t think anyone was reading it! I haven’t come back to it now because all of a sudden everybody is interested in what I think, I just want what I’m about to say over the next 28 days to be a matter of public record. So when it all goes Pete Tong three years from now, I can at least say I told you so!

The elections of 2015 started proper today at 16:00 hrs British Summer Time, the last point at which nominations to be a candidate could be submitted, but this morning Michael Fallon of the Conservative Party told us that Ed Milliband would stab us in the back over “the replacement of Trident submarines” in the same way “he stabbed his brother in the back over the leadership of the Labour Party”. By nine o’clock this morning that statement had set the agenda for the days’ debate, 

“Should we renew the Nuclear Deterrent?”

There are two things I would like to take issue with, and I will qualify this by saying, I’m no expert but; first, if the Labour Party had had any inkling back in 2010 that the poles prior to this election would have been so close, they would not have put Ed Milliband up as their sacrificial pig. His brother would be the party leader now.

Second, and more importantly is the matter of replacing the nuclear submarine fleet.

The conservatives have pledged to buy four new submarines to carry forward our nuclear capability, Labour (in true party political fashion) have gone one “better” and said they would only buy three! The SNP have declared war on any nation that holds dear the notion of a nuclear capacity, and the Lib Dems went away to think about it!

All day the airwaves have been full of the choice between food banks caused by austerity, or borrowing a further one hundred billion pounds over the next thirty years to pay for new nuclear weapons.

Let’s get this straight once and for all (and remember I qualified this earlier by saying I am no expert), but nobody is talking about buying a new nuclear weapons system! America won’t let us own our own nuclear weapons system. We are half way through a thirty year, boiler plated lease contract, to rent our nuclear weaponry from the USA. Much the same as Israel, Germany, France and Poland. In fact, we are little more than a forward base for America’s Trident Nuclear Strike Capability. No! What we are talking about is our contractual obligation to provide a stable delivery system of our own choosing. In this case submarines.

The four submarines we have left over from the Polaris weapons system are getting a bit worn out, so much so that we have to scavenge bits off the three in dock to keep the other one at sea. Where the confusion arises is the title “Nuclear Submarines”! They are not submarines that have a special nuclear weapons’ capacity, they are submarines that are powered by nuclear reactors. There is a very big difference. If we spend three billion pounds a year for the next thirty years to provide four new nuclear submarines, it will make not a jot of difference of our “nuclear weapons” capability or our expenditure on that capability.

And, with the filibuster of our main party politicians all day, I was starting to think they were not making the distinction between the two, for fear of being found out. But then at four o’clock Nick Clegg came on the radio and said that if the Lib Dems were in charge, they would do the obvious thing and choose a cheaper platform! “Planes for example”... At which point it became obvious to me that the people who are our political masters, know fuck all!

So Nick, here it is! As an ex-squaddie, with a hint of some life experience, let me explain to you why we don’t run around the Brecon Beacons with live rounds loose in your smock pocket, why we don’t carry explosives and detonators in the same Bergen, why we don’t put the triggers in our grenades before we go out on patrol, or prime our mortar rounds before we get to the target. They are ballistic, their nature is to go off when triggered or unexpectedly.

We don’t put America’s Nuclear Weapons in a submarine to prevent them from being detected, or to attempt surprise or to close on our enemies! We put them in submarines because we don’t trust our friends at Aldermaston, so that when we arm the bloody things to fire and they go off in the tube, we will only kill the crew of a submarine.

Now tell me it’s not worth three billion a year for subs that are sea worthy! My only stipulation would be, that they are built in British ship yards, with British apprentices.

09 Apr 2015   22:09

Newbury Charter Market

Victoria and Sophie on the Apolitical campaign trail in Newbury
Charter market today

I wrote the following letter to the Newbury Weekly News on 8^th April, the Editor didn’t publish it for reasons best known herself… but I thought I’d share it here.

Charter Market why wait?

Dear Editor,

The Charter Market is shrinking. Some traders will pack up soon for good and they do not want their children following them into third generation businesses. The supermarkets and on-line shopping have rendered the traditional market obsolete.

However, talking to the traders on Saturday, I was delighted to find that there is a great sense of buzz and hope which is being frustrated by excessive customer parking charges and a lack of acceptance by the Town Council that the dynamic of the town has shifted north away from the Market Square.

I talked to Michelle and Jessie. Michelle makes and sells handcrafted jewellery. She had been allocated a pitch facing the Hatchet. It was her second visit to Newbury and was very downhearted to have taken just £8 that morning.

Jessie has had her cupcake stall for about a year and a half. When her pitch was moved from Nat West to Bartholomew Street her takings doubled, and she was able to buy a shop in Swindon, but her Newbury stall is the powerhouse of her business.

Both enterprising young women are offering unique handmade products which sell themselves - if only the customer can see them! There is footfall at the top end of Bartholomew Street but Northbrook Street was positively awash with shoppers in the sunshine. There is already planning permission for 6 pitches in Northbrook Street – why are they not let?

I went back to tell Michelle of Jessie’s story and Michelle’s going to stick with it in the hopes that we can make Newbury Town Council wake up and make those pitches available – sooner rather than later.

Yours 

Charlie Farrow

Apolitical Candidate for Victoria Ward

Berkeley Road

Newbury

(We like cupcakes!)

Newbury Town Council By-election Election Literature 2

The Market

The Council seem hellbent on getting rid of the market. They seem to want to turn the town into the next Basingstoke. Who has been consulted on this? The people we speak to don't want the town changed, they want us to stay as a nice little market town.

The traders and shopkeepers tell us they are frustrated by excessive customer parking charges and that the Council has shifted the dynamic of the town north away from the Market Square.Traders who have been allowed pitches in Bartholomew Street have doubled their takings. But most are forced to occupy the retail desert that the Market Square has become. There is planning permission already for six pitches in Northbrook Street.

We will:

Activate the 6 Northbrook Street pitches immediately to act as ‘breadcrumbs’ bringing footfall back to the market place.

Produce a proper marketing plan to attract a greater diversity of marketers and generate awareness among shoppers and visitors to ensure the long term prosperity of the Market and the small businesses in the town centre.

Victoria Park

The Coalition monopoly has presided complacently over significant loss of amenity in Victoria Park. The playing field and bowling green are out of action. We have cracked paths and cracks in houses. We have no toilets, no fence around the play park and a £24,000 bill for a report into the damage that we can’t see because it’s commercially sensitive!

We didn't need a hydrogeological report to tell us what's wrong with the park. We know it's the Parkway development that's caused it. For the amount of money they have squandered on reports and prevarication we could have fixed the damage and put up the railings around the toddler play area that parents wanted reinstating.

Charlie was one of the organisers of the 1500 strong petition to put the fence back around the toddler play area in Victoria Park. The petition was presented in October 2011 but rejected because it’s not current thinking in leisure planning. It would be reconsidered only if there were lots of incidents, due to a lack of a fence! So they’ll act only after preventable disaster has struck! Registered childminders tell us they are prohibited from using unfenced spaces for insurance reasons.There was a fence before the council removed it and installed new equipment, so we weren't asking for anything new, just to keep what we had!

• We will get started on remedying the damage to the Park without waiting to apportion blame or further prevarication.
  

We think it’s about time someone starts demanding answers for the people of Newbury:

• Investigating why the Town Council has been paying £50,000 annually to West Berks Council for market cleansing which is now being done at virtually no cost through self-cleansing.
• Looking at why the market hasn’t been managed and marketed more efficiently.

As Apoliticals we have no party political baggage to prevent us from demanding full and honest disclosure to the people regarding the fiasco in Victoria Park, the politically motivated offloading of services from West Berks onto Newbury Town Council to keep the headline Council Tax rate down, and the poor management of services.

Click for information on reverse of leaflet.

Newbury Town Council By-election Election Literature 1

Charlie Farrow

I am married to Dave Yates, have lived in Newbury for twenty five years and raised four children here. The two elder ones have good degrees and jobs, the third is still at Newbury College and the youngest at St Barts.

I’ve been a Marketing Manager in a school and a university and for some of the biggest brands. I’ve been a Governor of Park House and for several years I’ve been an active volunteer member of the Sustainable Newbury Group on Newbury Town Council.

I was asked by a group of young mums to help them campaign to get the fence put back round the toddler play area in Victoria Park. But we were refused - all 1500 of us!

I was among the first cohort of Chartered Marketers in the UK and if I can’t get the market thriving again, then nobody can.

I have a love of the history of Newbury and I’m concerned that its heritage is being squandered with the ever greater needs of 'vanity projects.

*******

Apolitical means ‘politically neutral, unbiased, non-aligned’.

'Apolitical' describes a convention of impartiality amongst people active in politics, like the Speaker of the Commons, the Cross-Benchers in the Lords or most parish councillors, who are not subject to the party 'whip' or told what to think by a political party.

Being Apolitical doesn't mean apathy or lack of interest in democracy or local affairs.

We believe we should be guided by our electors' wishes, considered evidence, our real world experience and expertise, and our consciences. 

In that order.

We don’t believe any of the main parties has OUR best interests at heart.

*******

Dave Yates

I joined the army age 16 and my role as a Military Surveyor brought me to the School of Military Survey at Hermitage in the early 1980's. I have been in Newbury ever since, first in York Road, and then Berkeley Road where I have lived for over twenty five years. A surveyor by profession and a builder by choice, I am a detail man with an eye for numbers.

I worked for many years in the piling industry, and have been involved on many
projects which utilised de-watering systems, similar to that used by Costains, in the construction of the Parkway Development. I, like many others, believe that the damage done to Victoria Park and the buildings around, is entirely the fault of Costains.

If Charlie and I are elected to the Town Council, I will not consider myself to be bound by the gagging order placed on the Lib-Dems and Conservatives by their masters at West Berkshire Council. I will make known the details of the report commissioned by the Town Council, which has been paid for by you.

Click for information on Reverse of Leaflet.

What's the plan?

I sometimes wonder if the first thing the members of the coalition do when they get up in the morning is head for the bathroom cabinet to reach for their stupid pills!

The idea that relaxing the planning laws (for a limited period only) to allow people to build bigger extensions will encourage people to get the builders in - is complete madness.

The reason people aren’t having extensions built at the moment are two fold. Firstly because they are unsure of what the future might hold, and second the cost!

If the government wants to get the builders back at it, the thing to do is to make extensions and alterations subject to zero % VAT the same as new builds (for a limited period).

Making an extension bigger only makes it more costly. The result of this hair brain scheme, will be to cause more anxiety for people worried that their neighbours will encase the back garden in roughly thrown up breeze block shacks, in order to beat a deadline. The pikeys, cowboys, and Poles will have a field day.

Take the VAT off Mr Clegg, and give everyone a fare crack at the whip.

That will get the builders of this country back to work.

06 September 2012 16.38

Easy when you think about it!

Nick Clegg, what a fool!

His notion of taxing people’s savings to help the bail out, beggars belief!

Like the Lib Dem’s “mansion tax”, it is an ill conceived sound bite aimed at garnering support with left leaning voters.

If the Lib Dems had half a brain cell between them, the answer would be obvious.

I’ll put it out there to help them along.

• Part one:
  Profits from income on property bought with a buy to let mortgage, should be taxed at a rate of 120%.

Those of you with considerably more grey matter than the collective which is Lib Dem HQ, will be concerned that this will mean that all rental property will gravitate to the very wealthy.

• Part two:
  Inheritance of housing stock will be restricted to one per descendant! (Limited to surviving son, daughter, grandchild, niece or nephew). All other housing will pass to the state to be administered by local housing associations!

Simples!

29 August 2012 12:06

The Lion's Share

David Cameron tells us that the K2 Fund used by Jimmy Carr and others to avoid tax is morally dubious! But in his explanation of the scheme, he may have let slip the real horror of our plight and the true failing of the way government approaches the use of our money.

Davey told us how wrong it was that hard working people should have saved up “their post-tax pounds” to go and see Jimmy rip the piss, only for Jimmy then to use a loophole so as not to have to pay any more tax on those same pounds.

But Davey has got it wrong! The people going to see Jimmy Carr are not using post-tax “pounds” to go and see him, because “post-tax” their pounds are only worth 80p.

I am going to assume in this little ditty that no one uses their tax free pounds, (those seven thousand six hundred and forty five pounds that were deemed necessary for the basics in life, so were not subject to income tax last year, or indeed the eight and half thousand or so we are allowed this year), to go and watch comedians, be they stand-up or political.

So our entertainment seekers headed off to the O2 with a handful of their post-tax 80p’s, and handed them over to the man at the door.

A good many of those 80p’s were, in turn, handed over to the funny guy, Jimmy. It was after all his show!
Because Jimmy is such a popular fellow and had been working hard all year, the nice people at Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs think that Jimmy should have been paying 50% on these particular elements of his earnings, and so Jimmy should give them half of all the 80p’s, leaving him with a pocket full of 40p’s.
A bit fed up with the media intrusion into his private affairs, which now prevent him from being able to make any more “poor misjudgements” in his dealings with the tax man, Jimmy heads to the pub and hands over ninety of his 40p’s for ten pints of strong larger.

The duty and VAT imposed by HMRC (again) on said pints is close to 25%, and so Paddy the landlord only gets to keep 30p of each of the 40p’s that Jimmy puts across the bar.

Paddy uses the 30p’s to pay Sally the barmaid, who is working in the pub in the evenings as a second job to make ends meet, and as such is taxed at the full rate because her tax free allowance is apportioned to her day job working at the council offices. So Sally only gets to take home 24p of each of the 30p’s that Paddy is supposedly putting in her pay packet.

On her way home Sally stops at the petrol station to fill up the car, for her commute to work everyday, and hands over her entire week’s wages from the pub, to fill up the tank. The duty and VAT on the petrol represents a little over 70% of its total cost, and as such only about 7p of each of the 24p’s stays in the hands of Mario the petrol station owner.

So there we have it! Five transactions are all it takes for HMRC to convert a pre-tax pound into as little as seven pence of ongoing economic potential. Where will the growth come from that?

We are past the point of moral bankruptcy! We have a bankruptcy of ideas!

It’s time for a new way!

Suggestions on a post card please to:

59 Berkeley Road.
NEWBURY.
Berkshire.
RG14 5JG
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I regret that ideas (especially the good ones) cannot be returned, but if your idea makes it into the party’s manifesto you will receive all the credit it deserves!

Is It Only Alex Salmond Being Done Up Like A Kipper?

Davey Cameron, leader of The Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain is pressing for an early Referendum on the Independence of Scotland. His reasoning being, that the question of Independence, “hanging over” Scotland, is causing economic uncertainty, and turning away would-be investors.

Alex Salmond would like the referendum to be held in 2014, towards the end of this current term of the Scottish Parliament, at a time when he has had an opportunity to work more of his magic, and presumably when these uncertain economic times are behind us.

Many political commentators are saying this is a game of chess, and that Davey is merely trying to scare the Scottish people into believing that it would be a mistake to be set adrift in the world, especially in these times of financial turmoil.

Some are suggesting that this is a double bluff on the part of Mr Cameron, and that in truth he wishes to go against the Constitution of his own Party, and would be happy to see an Independent Scotland, because it would kill two birds with one stone. Firstly it would achieve at a stroke his idea of a reduction of the number of MP’s in The House of Commons, and secondly it will dead head the Labour Party.

Meanwhile the discussion behind the scenes is all about the legality of the Referendum: the Coalition Government claims that the Referendum will only be legal and binding if it is enacted by the Government in Westminster under the scrutiny of the Electoral Commission!

Alex Salmond is saying he has a mandate to set the terms, and the nature of the way the question is asked when it comes, because he made it clear in the run-up to the Scottish Parliamentary elections that the Referendum will be towards the end of the parliamentary term, and he won the election.

Davey Cameron claimed yesterday at the first Prime Ministers questions of 2012, that he was full square behind the continued success of the Union of Crowns. Ed Milliband had little choice but to agree, and after a few more days of press speculation over who has been seen to be the better leader, this whole issue will be consigned to the back burner, other than for a few legal eagles  dotting the eyes and crossing the tees, for a clarification of “the Constitution”.

But hold on!

If David Cameron walks away from this as the victor, he will have succeeded in setting a very dangerous precedent regarding another referendum that many in this country are calling for.

If an individual “member state” (in this case Scotland) is shown not to have the legal authority to call a referendum on its continued participation in a “political union” (in this case the United Kingdom). Then Davey will have put to bed forever the possibility of the British People being given the opportunity to unilaterally decide on our continued involvement in the EU.

While the English Skin Heads are shouting “Go Home You Jocks”, the British Bull Dog is being taken to the vets in the back of a Volvo estate to be put down forever!

Rise Up! Rise Up!

Christmas Come Early for The Bankers!

John Thurso

The crisis in the euro zone deepens and Davey Cameron has gone to Brussels to see what he can do to help. The truth is that the euro was doomed at its inception because Gordon Brown kept Britain out, it wasn’t a vote winner, and the people of Britain would never surrender the Pound.

All the Europeans had to do at the time was to call the euro “The Pound” and they would have succeeded in their attempt to introduce a Europe wide system which would thwart the currency speculators.

But have the people of Britain been the winners in all this? It would seem not!

Gordon Brown didn’t keep Britain out of the euro to curry favour with the British voting public, he did it to please the British banking industry, and Davey Cameron is on that same mission today.

He is in Brussels not to help the besieged economies of Europe, but to ensure a banking transaction charge, the so called Tobin Tax, is not enforced on Britain’s financial sector.

During Prime Ministers Questions this week no less than thirteen questions were asked relating to the euro debt crisis, and among his answers Mr. Cameron pointed out that 70% of Europe’s banking transactions were conducted through companies operating out of the City of London.

In other addresses, Messer’s Cameron and Osborne have told us that the City Financiers account for 20% of the Corporation Tax paid to the Treasury, and as such are crucial to the success of Britain. But how crucial is 20%?

Government Spending is in the region of £890 billion per year. By far the greatest drain on the public purse is the Benefits Agency with an annual spend in the region of £132 billion.

Income to the treasury in all forms be it Income Tax, National Insurance, VAT, Business Rates, Corporation Tax, or Duty on Booze, Fags and Fuel, comes to around £740 billion, which leaves the government needing to borrow around £150 billion to cover the deficit each year with no real prospect of ever paying it back.

But the figure we need to look most closely at is Corporation Tax, which currently nets the treasury around £53 billion, meaning the city only contributes about £10 billion to the British economy. Hardly the cash cow the Tories would have us believe. Indeed every penny that the banks pay in tax is given back to them five fold, as interest that the government is forced to pay to borrow our own money.   

The one scary question that was asked of Mr. Cameron on Wednesday which seems to have slipped under the radar, was put to the Prime Minister by one of his own MPs, who asked if it was time to break up the now publicly owned banks in order to provide the British Tax Paying public with greater competition in the Banking Sector. Mr Cameron of course agreed.

Whose side are they on? To break up the bailed-out banks now, would be nothing less than a crime against the people of this country and John Thurso Lib Dem MP, should, in a week when the roll of lobbyists has been called into question, be ashamed of himself for being duped into reading out such a blatant piece of banking propaganda.

The perceived wisdom among those in power, and think they know about these things, is that the private banking system we have today, and its control over the creation of our money supply, is the correct and only viable system available to us.

That isn’t true!

The Government could take over control of the creation of our money supply tomorrow, and the ownership of the Nationalised Banks would provide the perfect vehicle to do so.

It doesn’t have to be like this! But until the people of this country rise up and throw of the shackles of our slavery to the banks, and deny them their unfettered right to create our money supply as interest bearing debt. Then we have no one to blame but ourselves. 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1331

Ed Bollocks

I can’t believe the stupidity of Ed Balls (Labour Shadow Chancellor) in the comments he made today to Radio 5Lives Dominic Laurie. I can only assume that Dominic was not in the same room as the wantwit Balls, otherwise he surely would have chinned the puttock!

Ed Balls’ assertion that the nation’s borrowing under the previous government was not troublesome, beggars belief. He told listeners (in response to Dominic’s very worthwhile questioning) that the only “real” way to assess national annual borrowing (the deficit), was as a percentage of the Nations “Gross Domestic Product”, and as such our historical borrowing was low compared to other leading economies.

Tosser!

The analogy he used too demonstrate the situation this Nation finds itself in today, was to suggest that an individual who had an annual income of £10,000 and found themselves at the end of the year with a credit card debt of £1,000 would be right in the ordure!

But someone with an income of £50,000 a year with a similar £1,000 on their credit card would only be ankle deep!
And there we have it! Those two simple sentences, spoken by a man who has for fifteen years skulked in the corridors of power, shaping this country’s fiscal policy, acting as an adviser on all matters monetary, with a voice in the ears of Tony, Gordon and Alistair, demonstrated his total lack of comprehension of the people’s horror at our economic situation.

His assertion is this: Greece as a country with an income of a modest nature, can not be trusted to borrow money; whereas Britain, with our more affluent resources, can.

If someone has an annual income of fifty thousand pounds, but spends all of it, plus a thousand pounds each year, they are no different to the man who has an income of ten thousand pounds and spends eleven thousand!

(However, if you were to ask someone in the city to bet on which of the two is most likely to pay back the £1,000 borrowing, then you’re into derivatives! That is a topic for another day)

There is a major fault in Ed’s argument!

His comparison of this Nation’s annual deficit, to that of a credit card bill, has to be qualified by a simple statement of fact. In the last fifty years this country has not been able to pay off any of its “credit card” debt.

We have for fifty years only ever paid the monthly interest on our national credit card bill.

Each government in turn over the last fifty years has been forced to acknowledge that our credit card borrowing has been unaffordable, and has had to resort to transferring it onto the country’s mortgage account, and as each year passes the interest on that debt increases to a point when one day the interest payments alone will be the whole amount of government borrowing!

There is one further horror that should not be overlooked in Ed’s bold accounting procedures. His claim that “national borrowing is low by comparison to the country’s GDP” needs to be examined.
Figures that he quoted in his interview gave the GDP as £1.533 trillion. Government borrowing over recent years has been in the region of £150 billion - 10%.

However government predictions of borrowing levels are usually quoted as being in the region of 5% of GDP because the Treasury does not include government annual spending of £890 billion in its calculation of GDP.
But GDP is the combined economic activity of the country and works like this.

A council worker has a take home pay of £1,000. He decides to have his bathroom improved with the addition of a shower, and so gives me the £1,000. I go to the bathroom shop and buy £600 of shower screen and fittings. Steve in the bathroom shop sends £450 of this to his suppliers, and uses the remainder to buy his weekly shopping in Tesco. Tesco use that money to pay the wages of the girl on the till who served Steve, and she spends some of it having her hair done, some on a new outfit and the rest on a night out in town.

For my part I use the £400 I have left to fill up the van for £60, similarly go to Tesco for the big food shop and part with £180, get a few other bits and pieces from Jewsons for the job, at the ridiculous cost of £60, and squander the rest on a good night out in the pub on Saturday.

Dave the Publiican  uses the hundred quid I put over the bar, to buy the crisps and peanuts from the crisp man, and puts what’s left towards Becky the barmaid’s, wages.

So £1,000 of government borrowed spending, (which is not included in the GDP calculation) is responsible for a total of £3,000 of the GDP figures without looking beyond Steve’s suppliers, the crisp man, Becky the barmaid, the girl who served me in Tesco, Jewsons paying for the things I had from them, the petrol station paying its suppliers and so on.
If any of us went into a bank and asked to take out a mortgage and tried to use such a system of calculate the monthly cost of the repayments as a proportion of our disposable income we would be laughed out of the place.

But this is how economists see the world we all have to pay to live in.

The United Kingdom's debt currently stands at £1.4 trillion, or £1,400,000,000,000.

According to George Osborn, the yield on UK Gilts is 3.6% costing us an annual “interest only” bill of £50.4 Billion


[Owing to Dave’s Tourettes, expletives in this blogpost have been customised by Charlie without Dave’s express consent. However, she considers the word bollocks to have had its case proven in court by John Mortimer QC on behalf of the Sex Pistols.]

Gromit's "Grafting" Gaffe

Some half-wit in the Labour party has today fondly imagined that it might be A Good Move to get poor old Gromit to declare that the party shall henceforth be the party of "grafters".

Clearly the posh intern who came up with this gem, imagined that he/she was employing a solid working class expression, which was same in sentiment, but groovily different from the hackneyed "hardworking families" phrase, tarnished by overuse in the Brown years.

While we all know that graft can mean hard work, with an etymology derived from the work involved in creating defensive earthworks, moats etc; hence the grafting tool which is a form of spade used by groundworkers to this day - and damned hard work wielding one of those is too by all accounts - it is a shame these fools didn't have a little residual knowledge or failing that - check the dictionary:

graft, n.⁵
colloq. (orig. U.S.).

The obtaining of profit or advantage by dishonest or shady means; the means by which such gains are made, esp. bribery, blackmail, or the abuse of a position of power or influence; the profits so obtained.

While it would be bad enough if it were only mere foreigners who understood the word to have negative connotations, unfortunately, it's not as though this usage is so American that it's unknown in this country.

A documentary about crack houses a couple of years ago, incensed my husband on many levels but no more so than when, the female announced she was off out "grafting".

Ironically her use of English was astonishingly precise and while immoral, it was not hypocritical. Better than Gromit! She was using the word quite correctly to mean that she was going out to rob, steal, con or otherwise obtain money by dishonest means, for her next hit.

Is there really no communications professional, speech-writer, or political advisor currently employed by the Labour Party, who has access to a dictionary? Or someone with more than a rudimentary grasp of the speech patterns of the lumpenproletariat?

Cross posted to Charlie's Blog.

Labour Leader Proposes Apolitical Approach to Social Care

The FT this morning flagged up the Labour leader's call for all the main parties to hold talks on how to resolve the thorny issue of social care, which has come to a head in the last week over the crisis at Southern Cross.

"Mr Miliband will now ask the Tories and Lib Dems to come to the table for apolitical discussions; the time has come for the parties to stop “playing party politics” with the issue."

The BBC confirms that the PM is all for it:

David Cameron welcomed Mr Miliband's call for cooperation on the issue.

He said: "This is a very difficult issue to get right as a country - the long-term costs of social care, how we share those costs, how we pay for them.

"If there is an opportunity for cross-party work on that, I thoroughly welcome it.

This is gratifying news indeed for those of us who have been banging this apolitical drum; and it is a rebuke to a certain Conservative local government leader who at the election count a month ago derided apolitical democracy as a foolish contradiction in terms.

The time for this movement is a-coming in.

Cross posted to Charlie Farrow's blog.

Voting Without Polling Card

The Lib Dem tellers have been refusing voters entry to the Newbury Waterside Centre polling station without their polling card.

They are NOT allowed to do this.

Voters have an absolute right to turn up at the polling station and state their name and address inside the polling station. A complaint from the Apolitical Democrats has been logged with the Returning Officer and the Lib Dem agent.

Also, you do NOT have to even speak to the Lib Dem activist on the door let alone tell them your name or polling number!

Standing here and only here

All Apolitical - Newbury Town Council, Northcroft Ward

The Conservatives have abandoned the town centre.
The Lib Dems have abandoned their principles.

All eight Apolitical candidates are standing in just two wards Northcroft and Victoria. Each voter can choose two councillors for West Berks District Council and four councillors for Newbury Town Council.

We believe it's important for a councillor who sits on both the District and Town Councils to represent the people of only one ward.

All Apolitical - West Berks District Council, Northcroft Ward

This may sound obvious, yet the Lib Dems are blatantly fielding candidates who are standing in two different wards.

This piece of vanity flies in the face of the work of the Boundary Commission which seeks to define the size of each ward in order to allow equality of access of the people to those who represent them.

Those Lib Dem candidates standing in two wards at once (one is standing for Northcroft in the District election and Falkland in the Town election; another is standing for Speen in the District and Northcroft in the Town) are showing arrogance and lack of respect for the electorate. In the unlikely event that they win, they will create a democratic deficit for those in all three wards.

Or it may be that yet again they are showing their disrepect for the electorate by merely making up the numbers on the party candidate lists in seats they don't believe they will win and do not wish to win.

Opposition for opposition's sake.

We are being asked why the Apolitical candidates are targeting the Town Centre wards. For the plain and simple reason that we all live here!

All Apolitical - Newbury Town Council, Victoria Ward

We're standing here and only here. We think it's important to be fair and local in local government.

All Apolitical - West Berks Council, Victoria Ward

Vote All Apolitical in Newbury Town Centre.

Representation not Confrontation

No more White Elephants!

The Lib Dems are claiming to be the only worthwhile choice of opposition to the Conservatives on West Berkshire District Council. We as Apoliticals don’t believe that the task of our councillors is to support or oppose the big name tribal parties just for the sake of it. We believe that our elected representatives should be exactly that - the representatives of the wishes of the people.

Lib Dem claims in this election:

• They claim to have ‘negotiated’ the works on the new skate park and play equipment in Victoria Park.
  But these are enabling works to make space for the new Arts Pavilion that the Conservatives want to build! And why start works at the beginning of the school holidays?
  
  
• They claim to be ‘investigating’ the installation of a new Hydro electric scheme on the tow path adjacent to the Lock Stock and Barrel and claim it will part-power the Library.
  It will never be connected directly to the Library, and it is not likely ever to provide enough electricity to keep the lights on in there. And it will take decades to recoup its own carbon footprint in green power generated.
  
  
• They claim ‘to oppose’ green field development in favour brown field sites.
  Yet they brag about scuppering the redevelopment of the eyesore that is Sterling Mill.
  
  
• They have ‘overseen’ a flood survey which identifies large flood danger Zones in Newbury.
  Yet requests direct to our elected representative for the roadside drains to be cleared in those High Risk areas have fallen on deaf ears. Another four years have passed and still some are untouched.
  
  
• They’ve ‘identified’ that the roads are in a terrible state!
  As our elected representatives, why haven’t they done something about it before now?
  
  
• They ‘claim’ to be pressing for more community wardens then show pictures of real policemen!
  We want to see more real police out from behind their desks and in our Town Centre.
  
  
• They are about to ‘spend’ £5,000 “of our money” putting up signs on a ‘walk’ round the fields to the West of Northcroft.
  We are yet to find anyone who thinks this is a good idea!
  
  
• They claim to be ‘fighting’ for ‘us’ here in the town centre!
  Yet on their watch they allowed the £750,000 of developers contributions, earmarked for the building of a new nursery at Shaw to be given to the Thatcham Nature Discovery Centre.
  

What we Apoliticals want for the Town:

We want the Council to understand that we are sick of living in a building site. The overwhelming concern of the people we have spoken to, is that Newbury is losing its identity as a small market town. People in the town centre want to stop the continual development; to see more market traders encouraged to the town; for conditions to be put in place that support small independent shops, and to have access to a diverse and vibrant social life.

In the face of cuts we need services, not more capital vanity projects.
We need local people to fight for our rights here in our Town Centre.

Bank holiday Parking Scam!

Cross posted from Charlie Farrow

I've just passed words (not very polite ones in my case) with a Parking Warden who is ticketing cars in the residents parking bay in Berkeley Road. I did the same with the Wardeness on Good Friday too!

Quite apart from the iniquity of paying this bloke £30 an hour (yes that's right!) to do this task on a Bank Holiday, who for heavens' sake do his council masters think they are serving by ticketing today in this quiet residential street?

Certainly not us residents. The only possible benefit to us from this unwanted scheme is to deter shopppers and office workers from hogging the spaces so that we can park near our homes.

But it's Easter Sunday! All offices are shut. Even that temple to capitalism, Tesco, is shut today! The only cars in Berkeley Road belong to the people who live here and to our friends and loved ones who have come to share a festival / holy day with us.

The scheme was introduced against the wishes of Berkeley Roaders who held a public meeting at the Library attended by Council Officers. We agreed unanimously to reject the project. But it was imposed on us anyway!

It's not hard to see why. From the Council's point of view it's a top idea. It is not about easing congestion or making life better for the residents. It is a straight forward revenue earner. It forces the office workers and shoppers into paying in the Town Centre Car Parks, thereby paying for itself. On top of this the penalty tickets are extra earners and the punitive late payement levies and collection charges are obscene.

So today we're paying extortionate overtime to a man to do something we didn't want in the first place, and that is totally inappropriate today, in particular, since there is no congestion to be eased!

Craven Road

It is a fallacy to call it a Residents Parking Scheme, since permits are being sold to people who are not even resident in the ward, as evidenced by the painting out of the word RESIDENT. So clearly even the Council sees that the scheme is not for the residents' benefit.

As the permit scheme is not applied to all roads in the ward, it can be therefore nothing other a local tax selectively and unfairly applied to some resident car users but not to all.

As Apolitical candidates we are pledging:

• to issue all qualifying residents with two free car permits, as the scheme is self-liquifying from car park revenues;
  
  
• to put a stop to the blatant revenue grabbing persecution of our guests on Sundays and Bank Holidays;
  
  
• and to end this shameful squandering of over-time money on an inappropriate task.

And if Berkeley Roaders decide again to scrap the scheme we promise to abide by their wishes.

Any way, back to my Easter turkey-lurkey, I need to get the veg on!

Vote Apolitical in Newbury Town Centre because...

The Conservatives have abandoned the town centre.
The Lib Dems have abandoned their principles.

Genuinely Local - Genuinely Different

Eight Apolitical candidates are standing for election in Victoria and Northcroft - the Town Centre wards.
We are the only party whose candidates all live here, and are all only standing here!

The Tories are in power on the District Council, but until now it has been the Lib Dems who have control in the Town Centre. On May the 5th you have a chance to make a real difference for change.

What the Liberals have done to the Town Centre:

• They’ve sat back & allowed the Primary Health Care Trust in Reading to send its addicts to be housed in Newbury as respite from ‘their’ dealers.
  
  
• They’ve actively encouraged housing associations to destroy family homes & gardens, replacing them with blocks of so-called ‘affordable’ housing. These are then allocated, not to families, but to single people whose “disability qualification” for social housing is merely their drug or alcohol addiction.
  
  
• On their watch, we’ve had a drop-in centre and needle exchange sited beside St. Nick’s primary school so addicts can get easy access!
  
  
• They imposed a selective car tax on some of us, under the guise of resident permit parking. A scheme which was not designed to make parking easier for us, but to force people working in Newbury into the town centre car parks.

Over the last four years the residents of Northcroft and Victoria collectively have paid £20million in Council Tax, and in return we have been given cycleways used by smackheads on our kids’ stolen bikes!

In the twelve months since the formation of the coalition, the Liberals have not called in a single useful item for scrutiny at the Council. Their election manifesto does not contain the word Crime!

What we Apoliticals want for the Town:

• A commitment to encourage Market trading in the Town by reducing stall holders rents.
  
  
• The damage to Victoria park to be made good by the Parkway developers at no extra cost to us.
  
  
• A proper commitment by the police to remove drug dealers from the Town, and to clamp down on anti-social behaviour and vandalism caused by users.
  
  
• Residents who qualify for parking permits to be issued with two free badges for cars.
  
  
• A reduction of traffic on the dual carriageway through town, by the simple alteration of the road sign at the Swan Inn roundabout on the A339, so it directs M4 and North bound traffic from Basingstoke to the A34 by-pass at Tot Hill. Wasn’t that the point of the by-pass?

In the face of cuts we need services, not more capital vanity projects. We need local people to fight for our rights here in our Town Centre.

We are local people standing on local issues of real importance to our community.


'Apolitical' describes a convention of impartiality amongst people active in politics, like the Speaker of the Commons, the Cross-Benchers in the Lords or most parish councillors, who are not subject to the party 'whip' or told what to think by a political party.

Being Apolitical doesn't mean apathy or lack of interest in democracy or local affairs.


We believe we should be guided by our electors' wishes, considered evidence, our real world experience and expertise, and our consciences.

In that order.

Printed, published and promoted by C Farrow on behalf of Apolitical Democrat candidates, all at 59 Berkeley Rd, Newbury RG14 5JG

Apolitical Candidates for Northcroft Ward

You have 2 votes in Northcroft ward
for West Berks District Council
Vote APOLITICAL ~ Vote Yates and Farrow

David Yates stood as Apolitical candidate in the General Election 2010.

He joined the army as an apprentice at age 16, and has lived locally since he first came to Newbury with the army in 1981. Army-trained as a land surveyor, he currently works as a builder.

David is turning 49 the day before polling day. He is married with 4 children, 2 of whom still go to school locally. David is an active parent governor at their school.

He is keen to get away from the kind of knee jerk tribal politics that can see a donkey elected simply for sporting a particular colour of rosette. He believes that a councillor should represent the wishes of the voters, rather than their own or their party's interests.

David's aim is to provide a counter balance to discredited, big-party tribal politics and a credible alternative to the usual out-of-touch politicians.



Charlie Farrow has a background as a marketing professional specialising in the Education sector and has worked in local government.

She has lived in Northcroft ward for twenty years. She is married to David Yates and they have four children, two of whom are still at St Barts School. She is a former Governor of Park House School, and is an active member of the Sustainable Newbury group on Newbury Town Council, for whom she is currently overhauling the website.

She has a love of the history of Newbury and is concerned that its heritage is being squandered with the ever greater needs of 'vanity projects'. She wishes to stop daft capital projects, while maintaining a sound level of service in the face of imposed cuts.

...and 4 votes for Newbury Town Council
Vote APOLITICAL ~ Vote Yates, Farrow, Dennis & Page

John Dennis (40) has lived and worked in the area for 15 years, where his daughter is currently at secondary school. He is a professional Chef currently working as Catering Manager for BUPA.

He is a keen allotment gardener and is passionate about locally sourced, grown and produced food. He cares deeply about the impact of 'food miles' on the economy and the environment, and is keen to see more edible crops planted on and harvested from municipal land. He would like to help promote the education of young people, regarding healthy eating, growing their own food, and to encourage the foraging and wildcrafting of food and herbs.

He has always had a lively interest in political issues but has before now found nothing that appealed to him in the existing parties. He is keen to bring a fresh, new view to the Town Council.



James Page (21) is from Newbury and lives in the town centre.

He achieved good grades from Park House in his GCSEs but chose to enter the world of work at the age of 16 rather than go on to further education.
He completed an
apprenticeship with Malone Roofing and now works full time as a roofing
contractor.

He is concerned about there being enough opportunities for young people to learn a trade as he has been fortunate enough to do and then for them to be able to find worthwhile employment opportunities locally.

Apolitical Candidates for Victoria Ward.

You have 2 votes in Victoria ward for
West Berks District Council
Vote APOLITICAL ~ Vote Reid and Wallace

Dave Reid (61) has run a variety of pubs around the country. He was based in Cheltenham before moving to Newbury in August 2000 to take over the Coopers Arms. As a Town Centre business man he is well placed to understand trading conditions and issues affecting the town.

"I feel that the standards that I encountered when I first came to Newbury have been allowed to slip and I would like to think that I could help to restore some of these if I'm elected as a Councillor.

Behind my bar I am always accessible to people in the town centre and I have been listening for years to people's ideas and opinions, gripes and moans. I feel it's time for me to try and help to implement or put to rights issues that I have been made aware of."

Iain Wallace (27) has lived in Newbury for sixteen years where he grew up and went to school from the age of eleven. Currently he is Functions Manager at Newbury Rugby Club, prior to which, he managed several local pubs and a local taxi service.

From this highly customer-facing view-point, Iain has been well placed to have seen a lot of change in Newbury - and believes that much of that change has not been in a good way.

He's never got involved in politics before but he believes it's time for a change for the better. And he would like to think he can help with that by standing as an Apolitical candidate for both the District and Town Councils in Victoria ward.

...and 4 votes for Newbury Town Council
Vote APOLITICAL ~ Vote Reid, Wallace, Bell & Farrow

My name is Aaron Bell. I am 19 years old and have always held an interest in politics. I am currently attending Newbury College and am just completing my third year in Carpentry. I attended St Barts School for five years and did well in my GCSEs.

I have always lived and now work part time in Newbury and my main aim is to be a voice for the young people in this town.

Their views and experiences will mould Newbury in the future and it is vitally important that they are heard in order that the policies made for everyone benefit every age range.

Today's youth is tomorrow's parents and Newbury's future.


Alex Farrow is 23.

He has lived in Newbury almost all of his life. He went to St. Bartholomew's School where he was House Captain of Patterson and played an active role in school life. He graduated in Philosophy from King's College London in 2005.

He is now a secondary school teacher but will be familiar to many in the Town Centre as a recent Manager of the Farmers Market where he was frequently to be seen actively promoting the market and local produce on a tri-shaw or dressed as a free-range chicken!

Victoria Park playground shut for Easter hols

Today's Newbury Weekly News reports that the children's play area in Victoria Park will be closed from Monday for six weeks to install new equipment. Newbury Town Council services manager apologised for the inconvenience.

It would be a darn sight less inconvenient if he'd realised that the schools break up for the Easter holidays tomorrow.

Why on earth isn't this being scheduled for term time? It's not rocket science.

Cross posted to Charlie's blog.