Cllr. Gavin Ayling

The BBC and ITV have been accused of attempting to stymie political debate. They objected to part of the content of this video by the Christian Choice Mayoral candidate about a mosque in London:

Now, watch the first half of that video (and don’t get suckered in — religion and politics are separate things and I cannot condone the Christian parties that are united behind this candidate) and tell me whether you see anything offensive. I don’t.

Now, back on message:

Vote Boris in London
Vote Kennard in Buckingham Ward
Vote Conservative in Adur

The road to hell, says DK (of the excellent Devil’s Kitchen), is paved with good intentions. And he’s right. The NHS is a stinking tax vacuum which, if left in the hands of the socialists, will one-day become the largest employer in the world (rather than just in Europe).

But in a previous post I also criticised the US’s can’t-pay-then-die system which is, to put it simply, wrong. In a civilised country it is right that provision of healthcare for those who cannot afford to pay is made from general taxation. If that makes me an impure libertarian then so be it.

But this system does not have to be the NHS. It doesn’t even have to be in place somewhere else. So here’s what I propose:

The railways in the UK were privatised by the last government in the most awful way. Ticket prices are not set by individual operators and so if I buy a ticket from Brighton to London it effectively does not matter which company’s trains I use. This ruins the point of privatisation — competition.

Oops, I just lost some of my audience by talking about privatisation; well come back will you?

The NHS needs genuine competition. The way I propose to introduce that is to allow half of all hospitals in each area to be run privately. Whatever the state spends per patient, the private hospital in the same area would get the same money. The incentive, then, would be to attract patients to your private hospital in order to receive some of that funding. Money that is not required to provide patient care is then made available to the private hospital’s shareholders. The drive for efficiency to create profits would be balanced by the need to attract patients and so be better than the NHS hospital.

The private hospital would be free at the point of use (because it receives matching funding from the state) and would be heavily regulated in the same effective way the financial services sector in the UK is (and which is clearly not working in the US).

Alongside this revolutionary healthcare system would be a change in incentives for drugs companies. Currently there is a clear conflict of interests whereby drugs companies can make more money from treating illnesses than from curing them. So the drug companies need an incentive to attempt to cure ailments. This should be done by using a competitive prize system where prizes are larger than the likely profits from symptom-relievers. I challenge some philanthropist to start up a charitable foundation to fund these prizes — I would happily contribute to that fund!

And finally, let’s be clear, Sicko is not even as unbiased as the BBC; it is a propaganda work which sits on a body of fact and then changes aspects to suit the maker’s own ends. I enjoyed Sicko, I found aspects of it (that are true) disturbing and I found aspects of it laughable. The reactions of British patients and doctors was clearly genuine — Brits do tend to laugh at that sort of question in a way that Americans do not.

I have noticed a lot of things change about me recently. A friend tells me, for example, that our tastebuds and so our tastes change every seven years. Whether or not this is true — and if it is whether it is definitely seven years for everyone — my tastes have definitely changed recently.

Last year I started to like apples. Earlier (maybe two years ago) I started to like cabbage and this Christmas, for the first time ever, I liked brussel sprouts.

And it’s not just food, last week I slept much less than normal (and didn’t feel tired). Come Thursday I decided I must just not be noticing the tiredness and so went to bed early. The result? I woke up at 4am on Friday morning feeling fully refreshed!

It’s also extended to politics and religion. On this site in the past I have been strongly against religion. I continue to be frightened by people who will do things in the name of God that I hope normal people would not do in the absence of His influence. But I can also feel sympathy for those people who do believe. I can feel what Dawkins has described — a feeling that God exists — which can be explained by biological means.

So, like all things, religion is not black and white. There are fundamentalist nutters at one extreme, a violent version of Richard Dawkins at the other and myself sitting nearer Richard Dawkins than Bin Laden, closer to the Dalai Lama than the Archbishop of Canterbury and closer to a vicar than a priest.

Why am I telling you this? Well, at almost regular intervals (perhaps the seven-year thing), I have come to see another aspect of life as grey rather than black, or as grey rather than white.

It’s a shame, with these newly discovered shades of grey, that we no longer have the diversity of political parties we once had. SDP, Liberals, Whigs, Radicals, Tories and Independents have now been replaced, to all intents and purposes by the Conservatives and Labour. And neither of these parties, for all their minor differences, reflects the opinion of more than (at a guess) 5% of the population. The so-called centre-ground, is actually the swing vote — a part of the population which has a particular opinion but has not bothered to make a firm decision about whether people should be taxed a lot or a little, and whether people should work hard or have a ‘right’ to the dole.

There’s another problem with the party system. I know Libertarians who would never vote UKIP or Tory even though they ought to be their natural home; and I know socialists who could never vote for Labour or the Liberal Democrats because of other policies.

In France, as I was discussing with a colleague the other day, the president must be elected, eventually, by more than 50% of the population through run-offs resulting in just two candidates. But why couldn’t this work when electing a parliament too? It would guarantee a working majority for a particular party (which I believe is important) while not disenfranchising the 66%-ish who do not vote for the eventual winner in most English elections (assuming the FPTP system we currently have provides a reasonable impression of the intentions of the electorate; which is doesn’t).

He may not be a nice man, he may even be a terrorist. But if he is, lets prove it in court. And if we won’t prove it in court, bloody release him.

I feel sick just thinking about how complacent the British have become.

So a police officer has been banned from driving for forty-two days for driving at 90mph.

This, depending upon how you look at it, is an extremely soft penalty or an extremely harsh one. I would err on the harsh side.

No-one was hurt by his driving and if he’d been in an accident speed would statistically have been unlikely to be a contributing factor. Even if it were a contributing factor, that same argument could be made all the way down to not allowing the car to move at all.

When the police flout blatantly foolish and draconian laws (as does almost every commuter on my 84-mile round trip each day), it must surely say something about the validity of the law. If it was so dangerous to drive at a speed over 70mph, surely there would be at least one crash on the M23 each day?

Let’s make the speed limits sensible and consider no speed limits on some straight, flat motorways.

Some of my friends tell me that the incremental steps towards a facist state that V for Vendetta so excellently illustrated, is my imagination run away with me.

So why does the law now stop Chris Eubank from behaving as he wishes (harming no-one) and resulting in a warrant issue for his arrest?

When will it be time to resist these steady erosions of our… Well, I was going to say liberty, but that is now definitely gone.

Like most people I try to avoid public transport wherever possible. Not only is a car normally, cheaper, but it’s more comfortable and quicker too.

But to be fair to the services available, I had not yet tried the journey from my new home to my old work. My new home is only a two minute walk from the railway station and Legal & General in Hove is a pacy fifteen minutes walk. So the combined journey time, with the fifteen minutes on the train itself, is about half an hour. This compares very favourably with the rush hour journey time by car (because, of course, of the lack of public investment in viable roads from Shoreham past Chichester).

So, in future, if it weren’t for the frankly bizarre prohibitive cost, I would be more than keen on using this alternative. Actually, I’ll have to again tomorrow as my car remains at the garage.

On the cost, I still need to have it explained to me. How can it possibly cost more to transport many passengers than to transport one? And if you can share your car not only is the cost halved instantly, but it also becomes even more competitive. The do-gooder socialist environmentalists wish to correct this imbalance by charging car drivers more for the privilege of moving about their own country by private means (where do-gooder socialist environmentalists could, without too much squinting, be replaced with the single word “facists”).

As a short exercise, here is a comparison of the costs:

1. Private car: 13 pence per mile (if through town) or 10 pence per mile (if using the A27 trunk road which I do). This is a total of £1.20 for the 9.2 mile journey.
2. Train: £3.10 in each direction (ignoring spurious discounts if you choose to use the train every day)

Even if we add the 48 pence per day of road tax (which presumably exceeds expenditure on roads these days) the car remains a cheaper option. And if we removed the imbalance caused by fuel duty the car would be nearly a half cheaper again.

But why? How do economies of scale not come into play here? The train was full and the train in front of it was full too (I had to watch it pass as it does not stop here in Lancing) so the passengers on the train were not subsidising empty seats. The train uses electricity which everyone knows is created relatively efficiently (much more efficiently than burning a small amount of petroleum under the bonnet of several hundred vehicles) and, to cap it all, the train companies are largely subsidised by Her Majesty’s wealth-suppressor (sorry, the tax man).

So, someone, tell me why!