The Unreactive Right

french_elections-1024x578As I write this, Macron has just been elected President of France. This wasn’t exactly the outcome the Brexiters were hoping for. But I do note a huge difference in the reaction between how the left and right behave in the face of defeat. In less than 12 months, I have had the pleasure of witnessing both.

In the case of Brexit, and as I’ve noted in a previous entry, the left were beside themselves at the result. I saw social media postings ranging from simmering anger to borderline murder ideation.

In the case of President Trump’s election, people really were getting beaten up for voting the wrong way.

In both of these cases, it was often said that, had the vote gone the other way, the reaction would have been nowhere near as vocal nor as violent. While I suspected this was most likely true, it remained unproven. Until now, that is.

Of course, there have been past elections where a “centrist” candidate won. However, this latest election comes so close to an opposite win elsewhere that the reactions of each side sit nicely in recent memory.

Sure, there has been some reaction to Macron’s win, but all I’m seeing are quotes from media figures, such as Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins. The actual “hate” seems to come from the left. It seems quite blatant now. I’m not seeing any organised marches, saying “Le Pen is my President”, as happened when Clinton lost. Has anyone heard of a campaign shouting about the ignored 34%? Somehow I doubt it.

So it seems the Right are more civil in accepting the outcome of a democratic election. The Left, on the other hand only appear to be able to hold it together when things go their way.

There’s an age-group I associate with this kind of behaviour. But that’s the only ad-hominem thing I’ll say.

It was a fair election.

Posted in Campaigns and Elections, Conservative, election, EU, Europe, Nigel Farage, Politicians, Politics, Uncategorized, voting | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

When you can’t say it with flowers……say it with a juggernaught.

That’s what’s been happening in London, Berlin, Paris and, most recently at this time of writing and until the next encounter with the religion of peace, Stockholm. For so peaceful are they, that they have to show their love for our culture in a really big way; something that can’t fail to make a massive impact. And what can make a bigger impact than a truck, lovingly wrapping itself around an unsuspecting bystander?

Sometimes I feel I’m missing something. It seems that only the liberal left are able to see how these acts are an expression of peace and love. Every time this subject comes up, they seem to be the only section of our society who can see this. The burden to explain between the lines that a peaceful religion has to mow down innocent bystanders to show how loving it is always falls to the libtards. It must be tiring and exhausting to have to reiterate this point over and over again, when those who protest and wish it would stop are stubbornly racist, fascist bigots.

We must become more self-loathing. This is key. Unless we do so, western civilisation and, by extension, our culture and way of life, might persist.

The libtards are gaining some ground, however. By holding candlelit vigils in which they ruthlessly do nothing, shockwaves get sent that can really change the way the world is run. And hashtags? They’re so powerful, I don’t know where to start. This is how to bring about change; do nothing. That ought to show ’em.

images.duckduckgo.comBut I’m confused about those crowds that make heart symbols with their hands and hold them up to the sky. Who’s side are they on? Are they showing they can stop a truck by adopting a special pose? It can’t be that, because then who would need traffic lights? Just have love-ins at every junction. Are they trying to show the religion of peace that they ‘get’ the love? It might be that. Perhaps they ‘feel loved’ as a result of these attacks? Possibly that too. Maybe a combination of the two. Maybe something I’ve not realised yet.

But I do know one thing: Until someone can explain this to me in words of one syllable, I don’t think I will ever understand the west’s reaction to this.

Posted in Death Cult, Diversity, EU, Europe, Great Britain, Immigration, Islam, Libertarianism, Murder, Progressive Politics, religion of peace, social, Tolerance, uk, uk government | Leave a comment

Aftermath of the EU Referendum

britain_outSo the results are in from the EU Referendum and I have to say I’m somewhat surprised. I was a ‘vote leave’, but I didn’t think it would really come to fruition. I got the result I wanted; I think the UK is strong enough to go it alone. But I also thought the remain camp would attract more votes. So, even though I got what I wanted, I was taken aback by it.

The future will always be there and does not need to be considered right at this very minute, but what’s happening in the present is interesting and revealing.

I started 24th June 2016, walking to the tube like any other day, but with a feeling of freedom. I felt de-shackled. I felt like my vote finally counted for something. The world was in colour. But then the first point at which I noticed something was wrong was when I stopped off for breakfast on the way to the office at around 07:00 that morning. Everything was normal until around 07:01 when someone stood next to me and proceeded to vocalise about how bad the result was and that the lunatics were now running the asylum. On the 15-minute walk from the station to my office I caught snippets from four more conversations, all of which were about the result. And not talking about it in a favourable light.

Throughout the day, I kept an eye on social media and that’s when the trend really became apparent. Those who voted to remain were not only complaining, but actually getting very angry indeed. Those who voted to leave were keeping pretty quiet. In my circle, I know more or less who voted which way, or can at least make a reasonable guess.

So where am I going with this?

I realise I’ve left it to paragraph 6 to make my point, but here it is. There’s been a lot of speculation about why the polls have been getting it wrong. In the 2015 election, the prediction was for a hung parliament. In this 2016 referendum, the general prediction was for a remain win. In both cases, the more conservative side won out. Are these voters lying to the polls? Are they refusing to respond? Either way, what I’m seeing is that the ‘liberal’ (and that word deserves its own post) viewpoint is the only one that’s now acceptable to declare. Those with more moderate and conservative views are choosing to keep quiet.

eu_break3Now the ‘liberal’ voters have been given an unmistakeable slap in the face (and I feel particularly good about that). They’re not used to being challenged, when they should be – regularly. And they certainly don’t like to be wrong. But they deserve the shock. Why? I’m tired of being told debate is healthy, only to be shut down when I try to have one. I’m tired of being told I’m racist when I express concerns about immigration. I’m tired of talking to ‘liberals’ who are not tolerant at all, but merely peddling a new form of intolerance (again, separate post probably required). From them, I hear just as much ‘hate speech’ as from those they seek to destroy. The Labour Youth has come of age and now they have to face Real Life.

At first I must admit I found the Facebook postings I was seeing a little threatening. Then, after lunch, I started to realise the liberal left were hurt and were being pretty bad losers about it. When I vote for the side that loses, I, and others like me, tend to take it on the chin. But look at the result when the other side lose! My Facebook feed looks like a room full of X-Factor rejects. Some of the language I’m seeing is incredible. I can’t believe much of it is making it past the moderators.

So we have a Leave result but the majority of the debate about how bad it is. It seems conservative voters keep to themselves. There’s no need for them to shout about everything. Every cross on a ballot paper is the same colour.

But the ‘liberal left’ now have some soul searching to do. This could mark the point at which it becomes apparent that all their bluster doesn’t really amount to anything when it comes to crunch time. It also shows that it doesn’t affect those with more moderate views. We’re quite happy to watch you blow off steam, content with the knowledge that steam is really just hot air. It should also now be apparent that threatening us (see Obama: going to the back of the queue) can backfire. [Actually, on that note, I’m quite happy to go to the back of the queue for trade with America as long as they’re happy to go to the back of our queue for war partners.] But shutting down the debate to force people to align with your narrow ideologies appears to be ineffective.

Try some British spirit instead. It won’t kill you. You’ll end up knowing your neighbours. You’ll learn how to change a tyre, catch a fish, sew on a button and think for yourself. You’ll be surprised at how independent you’ll feel.

Posted in Campaigns and Elections, Conservative, David Cameron, Democracy, Diversity, EEC, election, EU, Europe, Great Britain, House of Commons, House of Commons of the United Kingdom, Immigration, Libertarianism, Nigel Farage, Politicians, Politics, Progressive Politics, Racism, social, Tolerance, uk, uk government, UKIP, voting | Leave a comment

EU Referendum

BrexitSo we finally have a referendum in the pipeline and, in my view, it’s been a long time coming. Honestly, I didn’t really think we’d even get this far. I’ve become so used to seeing the big two parties promise one thing and deliver either something else or nothing at all.

But, this time, we appear to actually be getting a delivered promise, which feels unprecedented in British politics, since the time of Thatcher. She may not have been popular, but at least she delivered on what she said.

Personally, I decided on which way to vote when Blair was still in power and that’s because the foremost issue that I hope to resolve with this referendum is that of immigration. I’m not ashamed to say it. Cameron might have been able to negotiate some reforms, but I look at what he came home with and, quite frankly, find it to be an insult to my intelligence. He hasn’t managed to close the borders, many of the proposals were diluted and we’re still going to be paying for the dependents of immigrants! I really don’t understand why we should have to pay for the life choices of someone in a foreign country.

Furthermore, the levels of immigration are, and have been, simply too high. I can’t drive down the street as easily as I used to, or access public services without having to endure a wait because there are either too many people competing with me, or the person serving can’t speak English. Why should I have to simplify what I’m saying in the very country where English should be the mainstream? Don’t talk to me about diversity being great, because it isn’t so great if it comes at the expense of not being able to function as a native. If the one country you call home is starting to feel alien, where’s the advantage? If you can’t speak English to a high standard, you’re not native and don’t tell me that you are.

150511_BrexitI’m actually a little surprised we weren’t offered a more hardline concession on the immigration front when Cameron went on his jolly. With the influx of refugees flooding the continent, the nations to which we are appealing can finally know what it feels like to have your culture diluted and people threatened and intimidated. Surely now, they know we weren’t kidding. No longer can we be told to do our bit, when countries like Germany raise the drawbridge within a few days of lowering it. If there’s one thing I’ve learned about immigration, it’s that there is a correlation between excessive numbers of immigrants and a disregard for the host culture.

Secondly, I’ve always thought we were never really welcome in the EU, anyway. Coverage of EU summits and meetings of leaders always seemed to leave me with the impression that the UK wasn’t really regarded as a real member. We never joined the Euro. Or Schengen. And we’ve already had a crack at negotiating our way out of certain policies. We might as well be on the way out. Saying that the EU is better with us is like deluding yourself that you’re really welcome at a party where everyone secretly thinks you’re a bit weird.

Furthermore, I don’t believe we voted for what we’ve been given. As I understand it, we voted to join a trading bloc. But instead we’ve ended up with the beginnings of a super-state. How did this happen? I don’t think enough people are talking about this.

So let’s get the hell out of Europe and stop the continuation of this degeneration. If you’re worried about how the country will fare after we leave, I wouldn’t be. Take a step back. It’s not exactly faring particularly well right now. We can only improve. There will always be jobs to be done and people to trade with. If you think a split would represent a step back, remember the country was a whole lot more pleasant before mass immigration. Being able to speak good English to anyone is now something of a luxury. If you’re too young to remember such a time, I pity your lack of life experience (and maybe this vote isn’t for you), as being in possession of the big picture is a great thing when it comes to casting an important vote like this.

Posted in Campaigns and Elections, David Cameron, Democracy, Diversity, EEC, election, EU, Europe, Immigration, Libertarianism, Nigel Farage, Politicians, Politics, social, uk, UKIP, voting | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Four million to one

proportional_representationSo the dust has settled from the General Travesty Election 2015. Let’s take a quick look at how things panned out. We have the Conservatives in power, with Labour trailing surprisingly far behind. That’s what “neck and neck in the polls” means, apparently. Not that I’m too bothered, since, personally, I’d rather be rear-ended by the Conservatives than by Labour. This is mainly down to a personal preference; I just felt that Labour were more inclined to bring in laws (at an alarming rate) that made criminals of ordinary people (for example, trainspotters being viewed with suspicion of being terrorists – not that I am one, but trainspotters are pretty harmless, surely), whereas the Conservatives are less inclined to do this, which is my preferred person-to-government relationship style. Life became a bit of an eggshell-walk under the last Labour regime.

Anyway, I digress. I wanted to talk about the numerics of the results.

The Conservatives managed to get 331 seats with 11,334,576 votes in an election that had (on average) a 66.1% turnout. That works out to be about 34,250 votes per Conservative MP.

Now, take Scotland. They have 59 constituencies at this time of writing. That’s 59 seats in parliament to represent 5,313,600 people, according to the 2011 census. The SNP have 56 of those seats. Assuming an even distribution of people (for the sake of making this calculation easier), that’s about 90,000 people per constituency. So the SNP represent 5 million people (the population of the UK is about 63.1 million) and yet they have 8.6% of the say in the House of Commons. And it only took 1,454,436 votes to achieve that. That’s 26,000 per seat for them.

And what about UKIP? 3,881,099 votes and only one seat? So 6% of the population is represented by 0.15% of the seats in the House of Commons. That doesn’t sound fair to me. Given that 30.6 million votes were cast, UKIP should now have about 82 seats. That would be a lot fairer, I think.

So, many people cast votes that ended up not counting towards the final outcome. I wrote this because I was really lamenting the UKIP representation issue, but it does apply to all parties, whether it works in their favour or not. The SNP have more representation than they deserve and UKIP have less.

So UKIP require 4 million votes to get one MP? Whereas the Scots get 53 MPs with only 1.5 million votes.

flying_pigSurely, this conclusively proves we need to overhaul the voting system? If we moved to proportional representation, no vote would be wasted. And we might even see higher turnout because the public could come to appreciate that.

But let’s not forget that the Conservatives, and probably Labour, would not table a motion to effect such a radical change. They would want to continue with a system that allowed them to retain their majority and the current two-party system. But the House of Commons now, and for the next five years, does not accurately reflect the will of the British people.

As a side note, it’s worth pointing out that the Conservatives are trying to push through a Bill that will make strikes illegal unless 50% of union members turn up to vote for it. So they’re quite happy to reform one voting system, but not another – because taking these actions helps them and only them. Clearly, we have not quite grasped fairness in our democracy. The concept of electoral reform is, therefore, clearly on their radar, but it remains to be seen whether they will reform the one system most people care about.

So what can we do? Well, ‘nothing’ is probably not an option. But any action taken might take some effort to amount to anything. We can sign petitions all day and get it debated in the House of Commons, but the problem is that there are not enough voices in parties that would support something like Proportional Representation to get something like that through. We are faced with a catch-22 situation in which we need to elect enough MPs from parties like UKIP, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens to speak up for it first, and then go mad on petitions. In other words, we need to swing a cat before we can have a vote on swinging a cat.

So it looks like we’re stuck. Unless someone has any other ideas. But personally, I find first past the post intolerable and the best I can do, at least for now, is write this post.

Posted in Campaigns and Elections, Conservative, David Cameron, Democracy, election, Great Britain, House of Commons, House of Commons of the United Kingdom, Nigel Farage, Proportional Representation, SNP, Terrorism, uk government, UKIP | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


In 1990, a schoolmulticulturalism_thumb exercise was put in front of me that carried the words: “Today we live in a multicultural society”, and I wondered where it came from and how it sneaked its way into the mainstream, with the majority of the population apparently accepting it with little resistance. It would be another decade or two before it dawned on me that this was simply what everyone was being told and not necessarily what was true. Surely, to live in a multicultural society, everyone has to get along well and be reasonably happy about it, right? But the evidence around me was pointing in another direction.

Then one day I learned of something that happened in the general election of 1964. The residents of a place called Smethwick were getting pretty fed up with excessive immigration and voted in a Conservative MP who had pledged to support them. To be fair, the win was pretty narrow and the seat was re-taken by Labour in another election shortly after. But what it told me was that multiculturalism was something that had, albeit in the past, been thrust upon us. Is this really an acceptable situation in a society that calls itself democratic? This does sound like a gross disrespect of peoples’ wishes.

Since 2002, schools have been teaching citizenship classes. The supposed goal of these classes is to provide a generation of well-rounded individuals who can make positive contributions to society. I’m fairly sure I included the right amount of meaningless buzz-words there. This is all well and good, but my digging is making me wonder whether they are actually a conduit of government indoctrination. Seriously, this sort of thing goes on in North Korea, but at least their government admits it. Here, in the UK, our government seems more given to say that it’s for our own good and we seem more content to swallow this sort of brainwashing, sometimes to the point of defending it. It seems that the goal here is to effect conformity and obedience, rather than education, so that future generations blindly support the government’s agenda. I have, for some time, seen teachers as little more than the extremities of the civil service; the hands of the government itself, if you will. And these hands are currently tasked with effecting a politically correct agenda, where “correct” is, of course, a point of view. Perhaps if we didn’t have such a problem with political correctness, we wouldn’t have such a problem with immigration.

UK-immigrationOne could argue that attitudes are shifting, but this does not sit well with me. I think it’s more political than that. Both sides of the political argument have reason to effect high immigration. The left like immigration because it dilutes patriotism. More immigrants leads to a lower percentage of the native population, which translates to fewer people voting against it and more in favour of the party that welcomed them. The right, on the other hand, like immigration because it lowers the wage bill – assuming most of the newcomers are willing to work for low pay. And this is my beef. I’m all for competition, but this is getting extreme. I work very hard, but my hard work has got me no pay rises in the last four or five years. That equates to an effective pay cut if you factor in inflation. Therefore I’m working as hard as I can to stay exactly where I am. So I would appreciate it if whoever is in power could kindly reign in immigration. Failing that, I’d settle for those present to stop undercutting me because, you know what, I need pay rises not just to keep on top of expenses, but to raise my standard of living as well. Yes, that’s right, I want some extra cash for myself. But as things stand, the government has made it very difficult for me to settle down and start a family and it has replaced the kids, I’ve not been able to have, with immigrants. So unlike the current doctrine, I do not believe “this country needs immigration”, because, for every immigrant that sets foot on our soil, the chances of me being able to continue my own flesh and blood decreases.

Immigration also changes the character of an area. We can celebrate “diversity” all you like, but it’s not much good if “diversity” means not “every culture represented” but instead “every culture represented apart from mine”. This is not an exaggeration. There is a school, not far from me, which, aside from being proud of having an excessive number of languages under its roof, is also proud of representing every religion apart from Christianity. Like I said – every culture apart from mine. Why should I be content to live in the shadow of such bigotry? I could move out of London of course, but why should I? I was born here and I call this place my home. But I didn’t ask for ethnic groups to swarm the place and lord it over the high streets, making it too intimidating for me to walk into certain areas and then have the audacity to call me a racist for either pointing it out or questioning it. Or should I just walk through as though nothing is wrong? There is no such thing as racism when it comes to my personal safety.

As well as showing disdain for our way of life, immigration crowds this country. We are a relatively small island and have limited land area. Our infrastructure can only take so much. By having unchecked immigration, we swamp our own ability to keep pace. People need houses, roads, supermarkets, doctors, etc, but we can’t build these things quickly enough to keep up with the demand. I’m not going to get into a digression on how this pushes up house prices, but I am going to point out that it’s getting a bit wearing having to wait so long to get a GP appointment because their books are so full and that the three people in front of me have decided to let the surgery know they’re cancelling their appointments, not by phoning ahead a few days in advance, but by simply not showing up on the day. Don’t get me wrong, I salute them for clearly being able to live like divas, but I have to take half a day off work just to be there, from a job that I keep, not, it seems, to advance my own standard of living, but to pay for theirs. So show some consideration.

On some level, I do take it as a compliment that anyone would want to come to the UK to improve their way of life, but please, not at the expense of mine. We are not a charity for the rest of the planet. I was here first and see no reason why I shouldn’t get either the lion’s share of the spoils of living here or why I should be second in line to get it.

But rather than be self-limiting, this starts to spill over into a disdain for British culture. Rather than integrate, as we are told to do with them, they form their own communities and disrespect our laws and culture. By disrespecting our laws, I refer to activities such as fly tipping (to name one). Why would I want to see a discarded TV or sofa on the street in my suburb? I had to opportunity to ask about this when I was once in an eastern European household. The answer was, and I quote: “in case someone else wants to take it”. No! You can’t do that. You can’t turn up in someone else’s country and impose your sensibilities. When in Rome, do as the Romans. Again, this isn’t racism, it’s common decency. And on a practical level, you’d have to be pretty desperate to want a TV or sofa that’s been sitting in British weather for a week. Call the council to collect it, or take it to the tip in one of those expensive cars that you mysteriously seem to be able to afford. Actually, while you’re at it, and I’m being really serious here, grab a copy of the Highway Code and damn well read it. I have had just about enough of you bringing your aggressive driving techniques to our shores. Not only does it scare the hell out of me, it borders on dangerous and is most certainly illegal. Just over a decade ago, it was a pleasure to drive. Now it’s so cut and thrust, I think twice before driving around even my own neighbourhood. Stop overtaking me on the inside, be a little more patient and please drive significantly more than 2cm away from my rear bumper.

racist-brain-adIn the 1990s there was a campaign aimed at forcing the native population to accept immigration. I’m referring to a certain poster that depicted four brains. Three of them were of equal size. The fourth was of smaller size and was labelled “racist”. I guess the surface-level message there was that, if you’re a racist, you’re narrow-minded. But the effect it had on me was really just to leave me feeling accused; as though I’m just a closet or undiscovered racist, who should just keep quiet and accept the status quo. I just have to keep my mouth shut, or be shouted down (or shut down). Now, even kids at school can get a record for a playground slur. How is that fair treatment of the native population, particularly from such a young age? I’m glad I never got caught out of all that. Well my reaction to that is to say that it’s fine for the political elite to endorse such campaigns; they don’t have to live in these ‘diverse’ and ‘progressive’ communities. They live on another plane and seem to be largely unaware of what ‘diversity’ means on the ground. Having a school with 30 languages under its roof is not an achievement. What good is it if you can’t learn our history, or grasp advanced mathematics because you’re distracted by having to learn how to say ‘hello’ in Urdu?

Actually, I just remembered that, in the late 1990s, possibly around 2000, there was a TV advertising campaign about milk. It featured a very British backing tune and ended with a shot of a pint of milk and the slogan: “The white stuff. Are you made of it?”. There were also billboard advertisements to the same effect. I thought, and still do, that this was some kind of tester to see if anyone would cry foul. To my knowledge, no-one did. Admittedly, I’m not sure what ultimately became of that campaign. But I don’t think any of the indigenous population rose to the occasion and I’m wondering if this was taken, by the establishment, to be a vote of confidence for immigration. But it was probably a bit too subtle for anyone to see it as some sort of call to arms.

So now what situation do we have? There is a large section of disconnected and ignored indigenous Britons who don’t feel any political party speaks for them, particularly since it was the Labour party who opened the door so wide and that the Conservatives have basically copied them because they’re still so in awe of Labour’s 1997 victory after moving from left to centre. So we have two virtually identical mainstream parties. Since nature abhors a vacuum, that leaves the prospect of a new party forming and occupying the space that has been vacated. The left looks pretty crowded right now, with elements of Labour, SNP, Greens and elements (or remains) of the LibDems. The centre is occupied by elements of Labour and most of the Conservatives. So who is on the right? It seems UKIP is about all there is to go for. They won’t get in (or indeed secure many seats), but they’ll get a good share of the vote.

This will leave us with a problem. With so much share of the vote and so few seats to show for it, thanks to our First Past The Post voting system, some may start to feel there isn’t any real representation for their views. And soon, without representation, we could end up seeing a radicalised movement of indigenous Britons, seeking to address the unanswered mandate from Westminster. You see, those who care about immigration don’t want the problem sorted out in five years’ time, they want it sorted out now and Westminster is playing a dangerous game, highlighting the contempt they have for our democratic right to representation.

What I’m communicating is a viewpoint and that viewpoint has just as much right to be heard as the Green party’s right to spell out the top 5 methods for hugging a tree. With all the bloat we hear from a party as left as the Greens about how they champion “tolerance” and their beloved “diversity”, I don’t see much tolerance for my views. It’s the left that shuts people like me down, as much as they claim to be “inclusive”. I wonder who the hypocrites are. Furthermore, with an Australian leader, the Greens curiously don’t have much time to discuss the possibility of an Australian-style points based immigration system in the UK. I think this is what’s known as irony. Oh, and hypocrisy.

So now I’ve had my say. And, while I suspect most people will silently agree with me on many of the points I’ve raised, there will be some; and there are always some; who will call me all manner of names for having an opinion. These insecure types don’t like people to hold opinions; they’d rather I simply be quiet and obedient. But I will not. I will continue to raise issues, as I believe it is my right to do so. So if you want to call me a racist, go right ahead, because it does not shut down the debate. It simply emboldens me to continue. And it’s very politically incorrect to call me a racist, because the correct term is “ethnically concerned”.

Posted in Democracy, Diversity, election, EU, Europe, Great Britain, Immigration, Libertarianism, Politicians, Politics, Progressive Politics, Racism, social, Tolerance, uk, uk government | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

My definition of a modern tax system

Salary-planning2These days, not a week goes by without hearing something about how we pay too much in taxes or how too much of what we do pay is spent on X. Occasionally, we hear someone say that they’re happy to pay their dues, as long as none of it goes towards Y. I’m quite self-determined. I believe that what I earn should be mine to keep. But I also see the merits of paying my taxes. I never truly understood why until I attended a lecture by Will Hutton in the early 2010s on our place within the system and how it interacts with us.

I wasn’t expecting any major revelations on this particular evening. However, he did say something that more or less crystallised my view of paying tax. I can’t quote him word for word, but it more or less went as follows: “In this room there are 300 people. 100 of you will get cancer. But we don’t know which 100. So, everyone puts money into a pot and, when the 100 of you, who are destined to get cancer, get it, there is money available to treat you.”

At the time I liked this. But later it occurred to me that the argument only holds water if the thing you’re putting money into a pot for is a just cause and is agreed upon by everyone paying into it. If he’d said: “In this room there are 300 people. 100 of you will die from an enemy strike. So, everyone puts money in a pot and, when 100 of you die, we’ll have enough money to chuck a nuclear warhead back,” some may not have been so content.

But we live in a technologically advanced age. We don’t (necessarily) need politicians deciding how to spend our money. We could say so ourselves. Here is my proposal.

Let’s say we all pay a constant rate of tax. This is just to make writing it down easy. Let’s say 30% of anything earned over GBP 10,000. This ensures everyone pays an amount, assuming they’re earning enough. Forget about special considerations and sources of income for a moment – those are fine details and not the thrust of what I’m about to get at.

hi-tax-reform-852-is5407438Now give everyone online access to their account at the tax office and let them see how much of their individual tax contribution goes towards the various categories of public spending. This shouldn’t be too hard, given that we already do internet banking and are getting comfortable with online security. Next, present slider controls, like you see on, so each taxpayer can adjust their taxation spending preferences according to their beliefs. This shouldn’t be too hard either, given that price comparison websites have been doing it for years.

Do you want more money to be put into education? Push that slider up to 70%. Don’t like war? Push the military slider down to 5%.

The government can calculate how much money is available in each spending category after aggregating across all the accounts. Again – not hard. A simple database query can take care of that.

Of course, not everyone will be engaged enough with such an idea to ever bother logging on. For these accounts, let the politicians haggle between each other as they’ve always done. But, for the taxpayers who want to have a say, their slider control preferences can’t be overridden by the treasury.

powerfist_355900You want more power to the people? Surely this idea has got to be a step in the right direction.

Whether such an idea ever becomes reality is another matter. So far, I’ve not seen a great track record when it comes to governments and IT. “They” will most likely see this idea as threatening. Or think we’re too stupid to think for ourselves. But every journey has to start with a first step. Any takers?

Posted in Democracy, Libertarianism, Politicians, Politics, social, uk, uk government | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment