Ant’s Economic Plan – Part One.

Now that the labour party has been, some would say, bullied into finally giving out some policies. I have to admit that I have some misgivings as to their current direction.

Sometimes it’s difficult to see the woods for the trees. And I think that both Ed’s are having this problem.

I think it’s a universally agreed fact that we need to get the debt of this country down. For the average Joe like myself, the complexities of the debt itself is something that is difficult to understand – The coalition is bragging that they’ve managed to get the deficit down by a third. Which is great, but then suddenly we have massive borrowing. Very strange.

So let us try and un-complicate things.

First, people need to spend, they need the confidence to spend and the only way they can do this is if they have a little more money. But we all know that money doesn’t grow on trees (which is unfortunate) so we need  find a different way.

The argument for a “living wage” is a great one, However not in a million years will it happen. It was recently announced that minimum wage would rise by 12p. Which by the time it comes into effect will not make a shred of difference to low income families.

so, what we need to do is this:

 

1. We need to cap the profit margins of energy companies. After privatisation, everything got out of control. Companies do not care about service, they care about PROFIT. They have a single goal and that is too keep their shareholder happy. Do you honestly think that BP gave a shit about the spill in the Caribbean? Don’t be so naïve, they did however care very much about the share price and the billions of dollars’ worth of oil that was lost.

 

Every year the price of electricity and gas is going up, and since the war in Iraq it’s been going up at an extortionate rate. Apparently this is because the wholesale price is higher – however, when the wholesale price goes down, this is not reflected in our bills and in recent years, the energy companies have been recording record profits and recently it was discovered that Npower hasn’t even been playing it’s fair share of corporation tax. (tut tut);

David Cameron has decided that the best way to ensure that people stop fighting over the price is to ensure that people are put on the best available tariff. Now this is something that I don’t get. Say for example, I want a pint of milk , I have a choice of stores where I can get milk from. The milk is the same, but the price differs from store to store. However, I do not expect to go into Tesco and find that the price of my milk will differ depending of where in the store I purchased it. Do you see what I’m getting at. There should be a single price of energy – perhaps they want to have day and evening/weekend prices, however I don’t agree with this as it penalises pensioners and the vulnerable who are at home during the daytime.

Anyway, back to this retarded idea of David Cameron, if you force the energy companies to give people their lowest tariff; they are just going to increase their bottom line. The truth as I mentioned before is that these Companies have only 1 purpose – to protect their profit margins.

You want to be on the side of the consumer Mr Cameron and if Ed Milliband has an ounce of common sense, he will follow the model that has been used in Ireland – Cap the profit margin of the energy companies at 2.5% – should the wholesale price fluctuate, so will our bills in tune with this. We spend too much money on energy at the VAT is only 5%. How about you put some of that money back into the pockets of consumers where they can spend it in stores where VAT is higher. It will help the high street and help the economy.

 

2.     Scrap the 10p tax band idea; and raise the tax free threshold to £13,000

Another way to get money into the pockets of people so they can go out and SPEND it, is to raise the tax-free allowance. Currently (2013-14) the tax free allowance (the amount a person can earn before they start paying income tax) is £9440 and next year the government will increase this to £10,000. Brilliant stuff, However, labour intend on reintroducing the 10p tax rate. That’s a silly idea – just as the coalition has taken people out of tax; labour come a long and throw them back into it.

 

Also, people equate the 10p tax rate with deception. Gordon Brown when he announced that he was getting rid of it, along with rising costs proved that he was not on the side of the working man; The labour party has always been about the working classes coming together, supporting one another and Brown threw all that away during his time in Number 10. Ed Milliband needs to put money into the pockets of people who are going to spend it.

 I would suggest that raising the threshold to £13,000

For example, if a person is earning £20,000 a year in 2013/14 they take home £1,368.22 – raise the threshold to £13k and suddenly they net pay rises to £1467.33 – The government would put an extra £99.11 a MONTH into people’s pockets – and in to the pockets of people who will actually SPEND it.

 It’s important to understand that growth isn’t something that will happen overnight, however, it’s not going to happen either is the public is being strangled and the division between the wealthy and the poor just keeps getting wider.

How will this be paid for? Well good question; first of all I think Vodafone, Amazon, nPower and all those organisations that are using tax avoidance should have their tax bill backdated 3 years. Every penny that is owed should be paid; if they were able to use legal loopholes, then some boffins in government need to close those loopholes and ensure companies who owe it pay their fair share. They have been avoiding paying tax for years – well, we can thank they for funding a large-scale income tax cut.

Once this money has run out the economy should get moving again.

 

The only way to get this country moving is to put money back into the pockets of the people

 

 

Iron Man 3 [REVIEW]

Last year I loved The Avengers (Assemble) and I’ve seen it about half a dozen times since it came out and it’s brilliant. Unlike The Dark Knight Trilogy, which for me is a different type of superhero film, more rooted in realism, rather than fantasy, The Avengers set the bar high for future comic book adaptations.

I was very lucky, thanks to Sky Rewards, to get a couple of tickets to a screening which was simultaneous to the London Premier yesterday. The screening itself was interesting, Mobile phones were checked twice to ensure they were off, and there were people in the screening with night-vision goggles on (like in Silence of the Lambs). Personally, I think that all cinema screening should be like that. Even this kids were well behaved.

Iron Man 3 is set after the events of The Avengers, and from a characters perspective this is interesting; How does a character, like Tony Stark, who’s adversaries have always been strong thanks to technology and whose stage is rooted (much like Batman) in realism, rather than the fantastical, get over events as mental as in The Avengers, (I’m talking, aliens, worm holes, and Thor “Doth mother know, you weareth her drapes?”) surely it would mess with your head. Well, yes of course it would – and Iron Man 3, manages to strip the character of Stark brilliantly and delicately down to his most vulnerable whilst still able to keep the humour from which Downey Jr is so brilliant at delivering.

You can’t have a good superhero without a decent villain and we have both the yin and the yang of villains with great performances from both Guy Pearce and Sir Ben Kingsley, and their army of.. well.. I’m not going to spoil that. 

The film carries on the theme of a terrorism over from the first two films, and Kingsley’s “Mandarin” is great, though unexpected, he proves why he is “Oscar winner, Sir Ben”. The premise here is that there are bombings which have been orchestrated by The Mandarin, however there is little evidence of an actual bomb. Send in Iron Man.

It’s really difficult to make this review spoiler free whilst giving the villains a decent description, as (and unlike the previous Iron Man films), this third outing is full of twists and turns. Some may be more obvious that others, but in a film like this when you suspend disbelief the moment you purchase your ticket, you have to go with it.. and let yourself go, because it’s a better ride for it. What Iron Man 3 has taken from the Avengers, is to bring a little more of the fantastical into the narrative, and the film is better for it.

The action is just awesome. It’s spectacular really, there’s a moment involving a plane where I thought it was taken a bit far, but on the whole. the action is what you would expect.

[SPOILER ALERT]

There is always trouble when you get to chapter 3 in a franchise where you are pushing the relationships of characters who clearly work better separately. This is what I hated about The X Files: I want to believe – Why of earth were Mulder and Scully shacking up?! The characters where stronger when the sexual tension wasn’t broken by actually shagging. And this for me is a big problem for Iron Man 3. Pepper Potts, who I’ve always liked Gwyneth Paltrow’s portrayal of, is now shacking up with our Iron Man and becomes less of a strong female character and more of a whiny girlfriend. I think they do try to undo some of this as the film draws to a close, however it’s a case of too little, too late.

As a film which strips back Stark, the colour pallet of the film is much darker matching the tone of the film, so when you put on your 3D glasses and loose another 30% of the light, it’s really really dark. There are some action sequences which do really benefit from the extra dimension, but I’m really bored of 3D now, the glasses bothered me and I’m finding that I have to taken them off every half an hour or so for a few seconds – the person that I went with also said that after a while he’d forgotten the film was actually in 3D!!

As a sequel, it feels more like a spin off of The Avengers, than a direct sequel to Iron Man 2, and that’s no bad thing. I think that Shane Black’s direction is great and it’s clear that the ante has been officially upped thanks for the success of The Avengers, and that’s exactly what the franchise needed. Will their be Iron Man 4? Well, I’m not sure If I want one. I actually think that the character of Tony Stark is so large in personality that having him as part of an ensemble piece works better – Just how Jack Black is (in my opinion) far better actor in a supporting role, like in High Fidelity, Stark need someone who he can banter with on an equal level and that’s what I think was missing from Iron Man and Iron Man 2, I just didn’t realise it until I saw The Avengers and now that this is done, I can’t wait for The Avengers 2.

A solid 4 star film.

Try to understand my Thatcher. I’ll try to understand yours.

Reblogged from sturdyblog:

I am most definitely not a child of Thatcher. Perhaps few people can claim that, but, through a strange combination of timing and circumstance, I can. When I first came to the UK in 1990, the bulk of the debate on her central policies of privatisation and deregulation, had already taken place here.  It was very much in its infancy back home and didn’t really become the vogue on the rest of the continent until the following decade.

Read more… 934 more words

I think that the Government has more to apologise for than just Section 28.

Don’t speak ill of the (Evil) Dead.

So the time has come, I never knew it would actually happen, but one of my favourite songs “Ding Dong The Witch is Dead” has finally made it into the top ten. There is something about a midget on helium, which for me, is simply the foundation of a timeless pop record.

Are we allowed to say “midget”, I’m not sure if that’s taboo – It was such an 80s thing to refer to those who were challenged by height.

Speaking of the 80s, Margaret Thatcher died this week at the tender of age of 87. She had a stroke after a decade of serious illness and died around 11.30 in the morning at the Ritz hotel in London where she had been living for the past few months. Apparently, at the Ritz, she would be able to receive the additional care and support she required.

It’s been a really challenging and divisive week for me, which is in parallel to the general feeling across the UK. Many people have come out in support of Thatcher as a person, but not Thatcherism as a ideology; Apart from those who benefited financially from the reforms of the 80s. Glenda Jackson was correct in Parliament yesterday when she said that what we regard as vices, under Thatcherism are seen as virtues, “greed, selfishness, no care for the weaker, sharp elbows, sharp knees. They were the way forward”. This is why the Conservatives were dubbed “The Nasty Party”.

For me, the Thatcher legacy was one that favoured the rich; or those who wanted to become rich. It was a time where circumstances were ignored and share price was a religion. I remember when BT was privatised, and our home phone was blocked to “incoming calls only”, as a house with a single mother working part time and 4 brothers with an age gap spanning 13 years, we were not the sort of people that Thatcher would want in “her club”. Even though my mum insisted on working, we took in French exchange students we still relied on additional benefits though to ensure that we had a basic standard of living. These were the days when work didn’t pay, in fact the truth of the matter was that without family credit, and housing benefit support we would have been out on the streets – but my mother wanted to work, a proud woman, she wanted to provide We didn’t have much, and any extra we had was welcome and for the most of it, my childhood was great. However, it is important to note, that with the policies of the Thatcher years and the new “Poll Tax”, you were better off NOT working. In those days, mums Housing Benefit was reassessed every 6 months, and for this assessment we needed 3 months of payslips, which meant that for 6 months of the year my mum could not take on any overtime, because reduction is benefit would actually amount to MORE that the increase in net pay. This is the welfare state that was created by Thatcher and continued by John Major. IDS is responding to this “welfare culture” by cutting welfare. However, In the 80s and 90s what was needed was an increase in minimum wage, workers rights and job security. However this support was not one that Thatcher would give. In fact is wasn’t until Blair in 1997 that the rights of works were really brought into consideration. Those pesky unions – Say what you want about Arthur Scargill, but the truth is that there are more “working men”, or “plebs” as some put it, as there are managers. Something to think about.

Those experiences of me as a child living in Bedford were not important to me at the time, all I cared about was my sega megadrive and completing Sonic the hedgehog 2 in record time.

As I got older though, One of her policies whilst she run the country with “little consensus” was that of Section 28. Referred to at the time by some as “Clause 28″, there are many gay people living in their 30s/40s/50s now who still cannot stomach watching Michael Portillo, or Michael Howard or any of those cronies, who are attempting to make a television career whilst they stood up in the midst of the AIDS epidemic and declared that homosexuality was a choice, that gay men are predatory, which ultimately led to many gay people being branded paedophiles. The fight for the repeal of section 28 lasted years and was painful for many, and for me the debate brought out the worst in people. Even though David Cameron has apologised, and quite rightly too, I would rather it had come from Michael Howard, or Thatcher herself. But she never apologises.

When it comes to the closing of the coal mines I don’t have any personal experience apart from watching Billy Elliot; However, I was reading some comments on Digital Spy recently and I feel I would like to share one – Credit to Ryan Wood -

My village, once the largest coal-mining village in Europe, has been utterly destroyed as a community by what she did. It continues to decay and is plagued by enormous unemployment, drug problems and hoplessness. Social clubs, once the many hearts of the community, have all but closed down. I see the hopelessness of the youth every day – I’m a secondary school teacher. It’s easy for people who do not live in such areas to accuse the young of being lazy and not wanting to work. It is far from the case – there simply are no longer any jobs for them to go to. The vast majority of people here are desperate to work – it is simply not there to find.

By destroying the industries, this woman not only removed Britain’s ability to be self-sufficient (which is why we now pay a fortune for energy from France and Germany) but she also removed the ability for anyone to find employment. I’ve read several ignorant people say things such as “well why didn’t labour re-open the mines?” It’s pretty obvious – many mines went up to four miles out to sea, meaning that they were left to flood once the mines were closed and the pumps that kept the sea out subsequently turned off. A flooded mine is impossible to re-open. How could it be made stable when its supports have been left to rust? It would be physically and financially impossible.

Margaret Thatcher embodied everything that the rich want – to get richer and make the poor poorer. This woman was NOT a great woman. She obliterated the industries, and with them, Britain’s self-sufficiency and communities. She was a woman who went for tea with Pinochet yet labelled Nelson Mandela a ‘terrorist’. She was a woman who believed that being gay was a choice and that all gay people were ‘predators’, a repulsive view which translates as ‘all gay people are paedophiles’. 

My entire family were miners, and every single one of them was made redundant when all they wanted to do was work and work hard. When they tried to fight to keep their jobs, they were greeted by grinning police who waved £20 notes at them and thanked them for the overtime payments they’d be getting. Margaret Thatcher caused the suicides of many whose lives were destroyed by her ‘policies’. She showed zero respect and even less compassion to others. Why then should she be shown any, simply because she’s dead? Why should she be shown any simply because she has a family? She didn’t care about the families she crushed even further into poverty. When someone divides people so much and is so reviled by so many, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that she did something (or, more realistically) many, many things very, very wrong.

So this is just one tribute to Margaret Thatcher I would like to give. I don’t think it’s right to speak ill of the dead, I do think that may of the evils in the world are done with the best intentions; and this is her problem – whilst she saved the country from economic ruin, by selling off everything apart from the NHS. The Austerity we feel now is because we have nothing left to sell! We don’t manufacture anything, we rely on offshore and energy bought from abroad. So we will feel Thatcher for many years.

Some though bought and sold their council houses for a nice profit, whilst the miner were starving, living off nothing and people were loosing their jobs left right and centre, she did make it comfortable for those who did do well professionally, If you were lucky to be in a safe secure marriage, from a decent background – a “white collar” then you’re probably going to think a lot of Thatcher, because she loved you. You, with your brick of a mobile phone and sports car that made your cock look smaller; you were what she wanted and you bought it.. whilst the other half starved.

Best intentions, as I said.

Anyway, which takes me back to Judy Garland – and this Friend of Dorothy will be buying the single this week, not as a protest, not because of Thatcher, because I find helium singing midgets really really really funny.

My predictions for the 85th Academy Awards

I’ve seen quite a few of the films that have been nominated and my predictions for the winners are as follows:

Best Picture – Argo

Best Director – Steven Spielberg ‘Lincoln’

Best Actor in a Leading Role – Daniel Day-Lewis ‘Lincoln’

Best Actor in a Supporting Role – Tommy Lee Jones ‘Lincoln’

Best Actress – Jessica Chastain ‘Zero Dark Thirty’

Best Actress in a Supporting Role – Anne Hathaway ‘Les Miserables’

Best Animated Feature Film – Frankenweenie

Best Film not in the English Language – Amour

Best Original Screenplay – Django Unchained

Best Adapted Screenplay – Life of Pi

Best Costume Design – Les Miserables

Best Original Song – Skyfall from ‘Skyfall’

Best Orginal Score – Argo

Best Make up and Hairstyling – Les Miserables

Best Production Design – Les Miserables

Best Film Editing – Argo

Best Cinematography – Skyfall

Best Sound Editing – Skyfall

Best Sound Mixing – Les Miserables

Best Visual Effects – Life of Pi

 

I haven’t predicted in the categories where I’ve not seen any of the films – I will be up all night on Sunday – follow me on twitter @WellMax81

Response from Richard Fuller MP for Bedford on his abstaining from the Equal Marriage Vote

I was pleased as punch yesterday, when I received an email from Richard Fuller, MP for my home town of Bedford after I told him that I was “bitterly disappointed” by his decision to abstain from the vote. You can read my full letter to him here.

I can respect that the bill in itself does have areas where vast improvement is needed. I personally feel that Civil Partnerships should be made available to heterosexuals. However, during the consultation period is was noted by Maria Miller, the author of the bill, that there was no real demand for this. It can be argued that some are using the fact that this was omitted that attempt to halt the development of the bill. However, there is an argument here. From a personal point of view, I am aware of some heterosexual couples who would welcome a Civil Partnership as they feel that religion (for whatever reason) does not apply to them.

The other areas of the bill that need attention are the ‘consummation of marriage’ and ‘adultery’. A good friend of mine has made recent jokes that on Gaydar the term “open marriage” may become a relationship status choice. I feel that even though some may laugh, this cynical view is not what marriage is about. Marriage is a commitment, a union between two people and that that commitment should stand. If people cheat, it’s ground for divorce. Adultery should apply in this case.

However, there is a stipulation in the bill that “unreasonable behaviour” is ground for divorce. Cheating on your partner, most would agree, would fall under this point. However, I feel the bill needs some clairification.

I said to Richard Fuller in my original letter that I felt that the religious argument was moot. Due to the fact that marriage pre-dates Christianity and that the bible is hypocritcal throughout. My personal feeling is that a relationship with god does not need a book. Whereas he agrees that faith, a personal relationship with god, is important, he does not address the points I made about this. I think that many of his constituents, who even though can’t argue with the facts, choose to ignore this. And it’s a political trick, but they need to be appeased.

I will soon return to London to speak with Richard in person once a date has been set and as the bill progresses, I will keep you updated.

In the mean time – here is a copy of his response in full:

Hi Anthony

I am very sorry that I have not be so effectively in touch with you these past weeks; and in particular that we were not able to meet ahead of the debate and vote on Tuesday.  Please accept my apologies and I hope we will still be able to meet as the Bill progresses through the House of Commons (and then Lords)

Equally, I am sorry that you are bitterly disappointed in my decision to abstain.  From our earlier dialogue and the speech I gave, I had hoped that I might have laid out a coherent basis for why I had taken that position.  Clearly I failed to communicate that effectively.  An abstention, but its very nature, is unlikely to please people, but I would have hoped to have avoided creating any bitterness.  My objective was to balance the imperative to enable everyone to marry regardless of their sexuality with a recognition that this would entail very considerable, and deep, anxieties for many people for whom marriage is between a man and a woman.  That dispute – over the meaning of a word – is irreconcilable on a societal basis. It has to mean one thing or another. I believe that as that change is made, it is important to be very attentive to the concerns, apprehensions of those uncertain or opposed to that change.  My vote was an expression, from someone who believes in the ambitions of the Bill, of that importance.

Thanks for your comments about your experience of religion and, like you, I believe that the personal relationship with God is the one that is most important.  I am not a devotee of Polly Toynbee, however !

Where do we go from here ?  The Committee stage in the Commons will likely make some amendments and, in turn, these will come back for votes in the Commons.  Some of these votes may be controversial and close.  However, there is every chance that Mrs Miller, as she has often before on this and other issues, will be adroit in her efforts to ensure the bill is improved and sensible arrangements made if they need to be. If this is the outcome, then I believe that a larger majority of MPs, myself included, will vote to pass the Bill, and it will then be very difficult for the Lords to unfairly disrupt the will of the people as expressed in the Commons.

With best wishes

Richard

A second Open Letter to Richard Fuller MP for Bedford on the Subject of Equal Marriage

Hi Richard,

I’ve written to you on several occasions on this subject and I was bitterly disappointed to see that you have abstained from the vote. Even though the bill was passed though to the committee stage, by a large majority. I understand that you voted with the programme and the money side of things, but not on the bill in principal.

I saw your speech in the Commons this week, and after watching it several times over, I wanted to address your comments on faith.

I think Polly Toynbee put it correctly when she wrote in The Guardian this week:

“As to the Bible, why the cherry-picking? Moses brought detailed rules down from the mountain. In Leviticus and Deuteronomy, God banned homosexuality: “you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female: it is an abomination”. So why don’t Christians observe his other rules – banning haircuts, tattoos, eating pigs and shellfish or wearing a garment of two kinds of material mixed together? As for transgender people, “a man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of God”. In the same list of rules, if a wife goes to the aid of her husband in a fight by seizing his foe’s testicles “then you shall cut off her hand”. From those prehistoric times comes that atavistic distaste for homosexuality, wrapped in religion. But that war was lost when gay sex was legalised, and now civil partnership confers equal inheritance rights. In parliament today the old guard rallies for one last stand, but the fight is only over a word.”

I believe the organised religion is fully of hypocrisy and as Christian who attended St. Mary’s Church in Bedford and later The Kings Arms I have a full understanding and appreciation of scripture. If I were to ever have children, I would want them to attend Sunday school. A private relationship with god is for me important in life, however – preaching and telling people “you can’t do this, you can’t do that because the bible says so” is wrong. The bible condones slavery, violence and it is widely recognised that religion is responsible for most of the wars in the world. 

 

On this issue of the evolution of marriage, I think it’s also important to recognise that marriage does not belong to religion. It pre-dates Christianity by thousands of years and there is evidence of same sex marriage in Ancient Egypt (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Egypt)

 

I would like you to consider these points and also there are a few additional things I would also like you to consider before you are asked to vote again:

 

There has been a time when interracial marriage was illegal.

There was a time when it was accepted that women could be raped by their husbands.

I am aware of many gay couple who want to be married and refuse a civil partnership. This bill could boost the economy.

 

I heard many heartfelt and passionate speeches in the commons this week (I saw the entire debate) and many of your conservative colleagues would use the argument “I support civil partnerships, it gives all the legal rights and there is no mandate  for this bill”

However, the names below are of the conservative MPs who voted against Civil Partnership and against the Equal Marriage bill. I can only come the conclusion that they do not feel that gay, lesbian and bisexual people do not deserve the same rights that they as heterosexuals are afforded. I will be writing to each of them in term and to LGBT organisations in their constituencies to demand an explanation. Because as I have Polly Toynbee pointed out, there are many parts of the bible that they most likely don’t adhere to – therefore deeming the religious argument moot.

 

Those conservatives are:

 

David Amess (Southend West)
James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire)
Julian Brazier (Canterbury)
William Cash (Stone)
Christopher Chope (Christchurch)
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks)
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)
Gerald Howath (Aldershot)
Greg Knight (East Yorkshire)
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)
David Lidlington (Aylesbury)
Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden)
Anne McIntosh (formerly Vale of York, now Thirsk and Malton)
Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)
Andrew Robathan (formerly Blaby, now South Leicestershire)
Andrew Rosindell (Romford)
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire)
Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight)

I hope you’ve got time to read the emails that I’ve been sending, even though I’ve not had a reply since the article in the Times and Citizen. 

 

A copy of this email has been published on my blog http://anthonyjohnmaxwell.wordpress.com and circulated via twitter, facebook and LinkedIn.

 

Regards,

 

Anthony Maxwell