The Election Results

I'm not too unhappy with the election results (Mrs EP translation - I'm quite pleased, but not over the moon).
The Scot Nats won a majority in the Scottish Parliament, The vote on AV was a resounding "No", the LibDems got their comeuppance, and the Tories, by and large maintained their status quo. My only disappointment was that none of the UKIP candidates were elected, but as, in practical terms, there is absolutely nothing that they could do about their aims even if elected to local councils, it doesn't alter their position.

Firstly the Scot Nats. If they hold a referendum on leaving the Union as promised, one suspects that they would get huge support from the English, notwithstanding the fact that we wouldn't get a vote. Down south we are fed up with the continual winging of the Scottish politicians, in spite of the fact that Scotland gets a higher per capita proportion of the UK budget and has proportionately more MPs. The only problem is that Cameron might decide to give them an even bigger cut of the budget in order to encourage them to stay. Nevertheless, I feel it will force our Parliament to address the issue, not only of representation at Westminster but also the anomaly whereby Scots MPs can vote on purely English matters often reversing the position that would be reached by English MPs alone.

The LibDems in my view came unstuck because up to now, they have managed to be "all things to all men".
You can do this in local government, it is unlikely that anyone would notice if you have a totally different policy in, say, Yorkshire than your policy in Suffolk or Dorset. It can be tailored for a specific electorate, which is why they generally do quite well in local elections.
However, at Westminster, if you are in power, you have to have the same policy for Yorkshire as in Suffolk and Dorset. Suddenly they have discovered this is far more difficult and that policies which go down well in some parts of the country are not liked elsewhere. The University fees issue is part of this; telling the young voters that they would not increase fees, without explaining to the taxpayers where the money would come from would have been a loser with one group or the other when implemented.

And as for AV, most people saw this as what it was, a sop to the LibDems who believed that it could increase their representation in parliament. Yes, changes to the electoral system are needed, as I've blogged before (equalisation of constituency sizes and restriction of postal voting), but AV is not one for which there has been any sign of public demand. If parliament had responded to public demand, the referendum would have been on withdrawal from the EU, because unless we do that, our Westminster votes will soon become worthless as the EU imposes more laws of their own.

As I said, I'm not too unhappy with the results.

Does the Nationwide Building Society keep its Promises?

I've always been an enthusiast for the Building Society movement, accepting the premise that with no shareholders requiring dividends they should be able to give their customers a better deal.
I had my first mortgage with the forerunner of the Nationwide, the Co-operative Permanent Building Society, and I have had savings with the Society ever since. Until recently, I believed they invariably provided some of the best savings deals available.
However, looking back, I feel that, as far as their customers are concerned, things have slowly deteriorated over the past ten years or so. The ethos of a non-profit making Building Society, where customers come first, seems to have disappeared and there now seems very little to choose between them and the various banks.
What has brought my anger to the forefront is what has happened to my "TESSA Maturity ISA". When I was working, I invested the maximum annual sum in a TESSA because the interest was tax free. In due course, ISAs were introduced and on its maturity, I transferred the money to a maturity account in order to continue to take advantage of the tax relief.
Now, I know that I should have watched what was happening, but I was stupid enough to trust the Nationwide . Today I decided to review my savings prior to some major expenditure and found (with some difficulty) that my investment was giving a mere 0.5% interest.
Looking around, I can find a number of ordinary savings accounts where, after tax, I would still end up with a better rate of interest. The Yorkshire BS is offering 2.1% gross, 1.68% net on an instant access internet savings account, which would be more than three times what I'm getting form the Nationwide. No doubt I'll find others as I look around for the best buy. Clearly, there is no point in getting interest tax free if the interest is next to nothing and the tax that you are saving is 20% of that!
So to the Nationwide "Promises".
Their website lists "Our Seven Promises to Savers" - mostly they are waffle, and of course they don't apply to my particular account. However as far as I am concerned they have broken an implied promise which they always gave, and that is to treat their customers fairly.
At least I now know which of my savings will be withdrawn to go towards my new conservatory, where in the longer term I expect the value of the money will appreciate considerably faster than it would with the Nationwide.

To Hell with AV; Let's return to One Man, One Vote

I have long believed that the introduction of Postal Voting for all would be a disaster, and this morning my beliefs were confirmed by someone whom I would describe as "Being in the Know".
The nearby town (fortunately in a different constituency than the one in which I reside) has a large Asian community. I am assured that there are effectively two clans or tribes, and the leaders decide how the votes are to be cast. Families are expected to apply for postal votes, and the heads of each household are expected to show the completed forms to the clan leader before they are posted. I have no reason to doubt what I have been told, as this merely confirms what I learnt before I retired.
I had a young Asian lad working for me, living in digs locally although his parents lived up north. He told me that his father expected him to apply for a postal vote and that his father would tell him how to vote. He was also under pressure from locals, where he was in digs, to abide by the local decision on how to vote. He just wanted to do his own thing and was looking for a way out; I suggested that he "forgot" to apply for a postal vote, but he indicated that the clan would expect to see his application! He also believed that his father had applied for a vote in his name at their home up north, but didn't want to get his father into trouble.

It's been said before by others,  but its worth saying again:-
As a result of postal voting we now have a third world electoral system.
So,
TO HELL WITH AV,  JUST BRING BACK ONE MAN, ONE VOTE

Why can't the American's keep their mouths shut?

I rejoice in the fact that the Americans have killed Bin Laden and I would like to think that Cranmer's view of his fate is correct.

In general, I like Americans, but they have one big failing, they talk too much!
Why on earth do the various spokespersons keep on talking and altering the story.
Surely a simple statement that
"Following information from various sources our forces raided a compound in Pakistan where bin Laden was living. During the raid, he was killed, and his body was removed for positive identification, following which it was buried at sea"
Whilst, I am aware that we all like to know more about such events, nothing more actually needed to be said,
Whether people believed he was dead is immaterial, as long as those responsible for fighting the "war against terrorism" were satisfied it was so.
As it is, the Americans re now getting themselves deeper into the mire, with conflicting statements:- he was armed. no he wasn't armed; his wife was a human shield, no she wasn't! What are the chances that, if he was unarmed, some anti-war liberals will be wanting legal action taken for murder or war crimes?

Could it be that the President is looking for kudos and hoping for an improvement in his poll ratings? If so I suspect he is failing in his objective, because the more that is said, the more chaotic his administration seems to be.
Can you imagine the Israelis giving details like this of any of their activities? Or even the French. America still has lots of lessons to learn.

An afterthought. I wonder if British Intelligence knew this was about to happen, and that this was the reason William & Kate didn't go abroad for a honeymoon?

This could only happen in Britain

I'm sure that this would never happen anywhere else in the World.
Two or three rows of ordinary, unarmed, policeman, all smiling, walking slowly down the Mall followed by a huge crowd. No pushing and shoving, no linked arms, no batons at he ready, just ordinary bobbies slowly walking ahead of the crowd.
Amongst the many pictures taken on Friday, this shows the British people, and of course the police, at their best.

Denmark saves money by tightening up on Immigration

The favourite mantra of the left that immigrants help to boost the economy has been shown to be incorrect in the case of Denmark.
A Danish Government report shows that immigrants and descendants from non-western countries as costing Danish society 15.7 billion. (1.87 billion sterling) per year, while immigrants and descendants from Western countries contributing to the exchequer by 2.2 billion. DKK.
See here.
And remember that the population of Denmark is only 5.5 Million, about one eleventh of that of Great Britain. Think of the savings that we could make!

Opposition Priorities

John Redwood's brief blog today is worth reading.
Our country is still trying to work it's way out of the financial crisis, for which the last government, in part at least was responsible, we are at war in Afghanistan with our troops being killed almost on a daily basis, we are deeply involved in Libya, other middle-east countries are on the verge of war and local elections are pending, and the best that our Labour opposition can do is to complain about the political correctness of a catch-phrase from an insurance advertisement which Cameron used towards a female MP.

Personally, I prefer some of Churchill's "put-downs":
Bessie Braddock to Churchill (late one evening): "You're Drunk"
Churchill: "Yes, and you're fat and ugly. But in the morning, I'll be sober"
I can imagine the outrage if Cameron said something like that in this modern politically correct world.

The modern MP's are all wimps!