Just in case it wasn't entirely clear, YPP is a legit registered political party, what gives us credibility and the chance of a bit of media coverage is how many official members we have and how often we stand at elections. We're a long way off ever winning a seat, but everybody's got to start somewhere and being on the ballot papers and showing up in the official results is the best free advertising we can get (even if we're bottom of the list with half a dozen votes).
There are going to be elections for a lot of English (and one Welsh) county councils in May 2013 so we need as many of you as possible to sign up as members and stand as YPP candidates.
Putting yourself up as a candidate for local elections costs nothing, you just need to get ten signatures on a nomination form, fill in a few other boring forms and get Joe to sign one saying that you are authorised to stand as a YPP candidate and use the logo. A few of us have been through this mill and are ready to help you. Campaigning and leafletting are entirely at your own discretion (you make it up as you go along).
If you get properly involved in politics, you'll find it is expensive, time consuming, boring and can be quite humiliating at times. If you ever start to enjoy it, that's maybe the time to pack it in - but it is a bit of a buzz being able to vote for yourself (at local elections, you can basically only stand in the area where you live), it almost makes up for the inevitable disappointment of only getting those half a dozen votes.
Monday, 31 December 2012
Wednesday, 26 December 2012
RSI - Real Reform: Citizens own land and pay no tax. Slaves are tenant...
RSI - Real Reform: Citizens own and and pay no tax. Slaves are tenant...: In Rome taxes were never paid by citizens or higher, such as political leaders and money lenders for land assets. To be a Roman citizen one ...
Monday, 24 December 2012
RSI - Real Reform: Politicians are right. Even if they do answer the ...
RSI - Real Reform: Politicians are right. Even if they do answer the ...: I just remembered an important political lesson I learned at the Croydon College hustings. There was a young black guy with a lot to say a...
Monday, 17 December 2012
What's in a name?
I'm still getting objections to the name of our party. I've given the usual responses here. Where I try earnestly to lay it all out carefully.
The main one is that we are all old* candidates, or old people will never vote for you, so what's the point. There is a simpler answer to give ...
"Look at the Conservative party. I resigned my seat there because I could not find any Conservatives raising the earnings of enterprise as a first duty. So what's your point?"
Then look at Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP and the Green Party. The unwritten policy of them all is to keep rents, house prices and taxes high. In slightly varying degrees. Nevertheless that is it.
Yes, they have their historic ideologies. But these written ones are tiny compared to the one that really matters in terms of vote selling. You could run off similar responses for the other parties:
"Look at Labour. I resigned my seat there because I could not find anyone wanting to raise the wages of the working person, the mantra of Labour. So what's your point?"
The power controlling the political machine only selects candidates who support the hidden agenda. The ones who know it and can hide it well are dropped in close to the top. The clueless start at the bottom and learn slowly to do as they are told, never to rock the boat.
There may be many things wrong with this economically. But the deeper meaning is one of fundamental moral integrity for each individual politician to consider if they are truly there to represent the people as a servant first, leader second.
I'm now actively seeking members of the main parties, to make a stand and resign on this basis. Can anyone show me a more noble act for a politician?>
* over 40 in general
The main one is that we are all old* candidates, or old people will never vote for you, so what's the point. There is a simpler answer to give ...
"Look at the Conservative party. I resigned my seat there because I could not find any Conservatives raising the earnings of enterprise as a first duty. So what's your point?"
Then look at Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP and the Green Party. The unwritten policy of them all is to keep rents, house prices and taxes high. In slightly varying degrees. Nevertheless that is it.
Yes, they have their historic ideologies. But these written ones are tiny compared to the one that really matters in terms of vote selling. You could run off similar responses for the other parties:
"Look at Labour. I resigned my seat there because I could not find anyone wanting to raise the wages of the working person, the mantra of Labour. So what's your point?"
The power controlling the political machine only selects candidates who support the hidden agenda. The ones who know it and can hide it well are dropped in close to the top. The clueless start at the bottom and learn slowly to do as they are told, never to rock the boat.
There may be many things wrong with this economically. But the deeper meaning is one of fundamental moral integrity for each individual politician to consider if they are truly there to represent the people as a servant first, leader second.
I'm now actively seeking members of the main parties, to make a stand and resign on this basis. Can anyone show me a more noble act for a politician?>
* over 40 in general
Thursday, 13 December 2012
Meet-up, Friday after work
Robin Smith and I and a few others usually meet up on Fridays after work in central London at the Brewmaster pub near Leicester Sq Tube station, we'll be there tomorrow night.
If you fancy turning up to help plot the quiet revolution, send one of us an email so that we know how to recognise each other etc.
If you fancy turning up to help plot the quiet revolution, send one of us an email so that we know how to recognise each other etc.
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
"Executives who masterminded £1 trillion deception of young and vulnerable people jailed for land banking fraud"
From The Daily Mail:
The directors of Britain's largest home building companies have become the first in Britain to be jailed for land banking fraud today after being convicted of conspiring with mortgage lenders to trick young and vulnerable people out of up to £1 trillion over the past twenty years.
They masterminded the deception, conning people into buying badly built homes on plots of land that were either worthless or massively over-priced. Investors were promised a stream of future capital gains that failed to materialise.
The Office of Fair Trading is also looking into claims that the companies control up to half a million plots of land with planning permission but are deliberately withholding these from the market in order to ramp up prices.
Following a separate investigation, the Financial Services Authority has set up an enquiry to establish whether senior figures in the City of London were aware of the scheme, as they also stood to benefit if the victims could be persuaded to borrow money secured on the over-priced land.
A source close to the investigation added: "The LIBOR-fixing scandal was nothing compared to this."
The Tory party treasurer confirmed that all donations the party had received from home builders or the financial services sector in the past ten years would be forfeited and paid over to the Electoral Commission, but denied any knowledge of the sleazy practices of their donors. A spokesman from the Serious Fraud Office refused to comment on rumours that several million NIMBYs were about to be charged with aiding and abetting.
The directors of Britain's largest home building companies have become the first in Britain to be jailed for land banking fraud today after being convicted of conspiring with mortgage lenders to trick young and vulnerable people out of up to £1 trillion over the past twenty years.
They masterminded the deception, conning people into buying badly built homes on plots of land that were either worthless or massively over-priced. Investors were promised a stream of future capital gains that failed to materialise.
The Office of Fair Trading is also looking into claims that the companies control up to half a million plots of land with planning permission but are deliberately withholding these from the market in order to ramp up prices.
Following a separate investigation, the Financial Services Authority has set up an enquiry to establish whether senior figures in the City of London were aware of the scheme, as they also stood to benefit if the victims could be persuaded to borrow money secured on the over-priced land.
A source close to the investigation added: "The LIBOR-fixing scandal was nothing compared to this."
The Tory party treasurer confirmed that all donations the party had received from home builders or the financial services sector in the past ten years would be forfeited and paid over to the Electoral Commission, but denied any knowledge of the sleazy practices of their donors. A spokesman from the Serious Fraud Office refused to comment on rumours that several million NIMBYs were about to be charged with aiding and abetting.
Sunday, 9 December 2012
RSI - Real Reform: The National Wealth Service
RSI - Real Reform: The National Wealth Service: "Do you own any land? OK, here is some money!" "Are you a tenant, or mortgaged? OK, here are more taxes for you to pay!" "How old are yo...
Friday, 7 December 2012
We can have anything we like if we can be bothered to vote for it
From the BBC:
All working age benefits, including tax credits and child benefit, will go up by 1% a year, less than the rate of inflation, for the next three years... Pensioners have been protected with pensions going up by 2.5%.
Most pensioners vote, so we have at least four "pensioners' parties" in the UK. Only half of under-40s vote, and those that do vote mainly for one of the pensioners' parties.
From Mortgage Strategy:
Borrowers [who] have been unemployed for [more than] 13 weeks are currently eligible for the support, which replaced the 39-week qualifying period in 2009, and the qualifying loan size increased to £200,000 from £100,000. Both were due to revert back in January 2013...?
This is just another "we own land, give us money" scheme to keep the bankers happy, of course...
CML director general Paul Smee says: “We welcome the extension of the current arrangements for the support for mortgage Interest scheme until March 2015. These had been due to expire in January 2013 but today’s announcement provides a welcome extension of support for homeowners currently receiving income related benefits, as well as helping lenders to extend forbearance to those waiting to qualify.”
£200,000 @ 3.63% eligible interest = £7,260 a year, councils could easily build and maintain a new council home for that money; if they can get £140 a week rent for it, it doesn't actually cost the taxpayer (i.e. you) anything. Would you rather hava a council house for £140 a week with no further hassle or pay an extra £140 in tax a week to pay off somebody else' mortgage?
As we've said before: Don't waste your protest vote!
All working age benefits, including tax credits and child benefit, will go up by 1% a year, less than the rate of inflation, for the next three years... Pensioners have been protected with pensions going up by 2.5%.
Most pensioners vote, so we have at least four "pensioners' parties" in the UK. Only half of under-40s vote, and those that do vote mainly for one of the pensioners' parties.
From Mortgage Strategy:
Borrowers [who] have been unemployed for [more than] 13 weeks are currently eligible for the support, which replaced the 39-week qualifying period in 2009, and the qualifying loan size increased to £200,000 from £100,000. Both were due to revert back in January 2013...?
This is just another "we own land, give us money" scheme to keep the bankers happy, of course...
CML director general Paul Smee says: “We welcome the extension of the current arrangements for the support for mortgage Interest scheme until March 2015. These had been due to expire in January 2013 but today’s announcement provides a welcome extension of support for homeowners currently receiving income related benefits, as well as helping lenders to extend forbearance to those waiting to qualify.”
£200,000 @ 3.63% eligible interest = £7,260 a year, councils could easily build and maintain a new council home for that money; if they can get £140 a week rent for it, it doesn't actually cost the taxpayer (i.e. you) anything. Would you rather hava a council house for £140 a week with no further hassle or pay an extra £140 in tax a week to pay off somebody else' mortgage?
As we've said before: Don't waste your protest vote!
Monday, 3 December 2012
Nick Boles can shove his "moral right" up his arse
From The Daily Express (why not?):
Nick Boles said owning a decent home was a "moral right", and people had to realise that good developments could be as attractive as open countryside.
Yes, towns can be attractive, that's why 80% or 90% of people live in towns. The convenience far outweighs the lack of a view over trees and grass.
But his view of "morals" and "rights" are shaky at best. What he really means is "we like the idea of future generations taking out crippling mortgages, over half of which goes to pay for the land-location value".
The way we see it, land-location values are created by the whole of society; you need stable government and peace (try buying or renting land in Somalia or Afghanistan); you need a healthy economy (higher earnings mean higher rental values); you need infrastructure; you need people using that infrastructure; you need law and order, refuse collection, utilities and sewage disposal; you need schools and hospitals; places of work, places for leisure and shopping; and so on.
So if we are all doing our little bit to create the land-location values, then that belongs to all of us collectively. Anybody, i.e. Nick Boles, who wants us to pay taxes on our earnings (to fund the government, the law and order etc) and then to spend half the rest on paying all over again just to be able to enjoy our 1/62 millionth share of UK land-location values is basically justifying theft on at least two levels.
How about scrapping taxes on output and employment and collecting the land-location values from landowners or homeowners instead, and then giving every single UK citizen a rebate/refund of 1/62 millionth of what is collected*? The average household in the average home - whether they have paid off their mortgage or are first time buyers - would pay net nothing to occupy an average residential plot.
That's moral, and that's right.
* It's like the right to vote. Democracy is a collective thing, just like land-location values. Although that right is very valuable in itself, you get given it for free but you cannot sell it or leave it to your heirs (when you are dead, you don't need it any more). The flip-side of that inalienable right is that you have to abide by everybody else's vote. Why should we treat collectively-created land-location values any differently? What Nick Boles is saying is tantamount to saying "Everybody had the moral right to buy somebody else's vote".
Nick Boles said owning a decent home was a "moral right", and people had to realise that good developments could be as attractive as open countryside.
Yes, towns can be attractive, that's why 80% or 90% of people live in towns. The convenience far outweighs the lack of a view over trees and grass.
But his view of "morals" and "rights" are shaky at best. What he really means is "we like the idea of future generations taking out crippling mortgages, over half of which goes to pay for the land-location value".
The way we see it, land-location values are created by the whole of society; you need stable government and peace (try buying or renting land in Somalia or Afghanistan); you need a healthy economy (higher earnings mean higher rental values); you need infrastructure; you need people using that infrastructure; you need law and order, refuse collection, utilities and sewage disposal; you need schools and hospitals; places of work, places for leisure and shopping; and so on.
So if we are all doing our little bit to create the land-location values, then that belongs to all of us collectively. Anybody, i.e. Nick Boles, who wants us to pay taxes on our earnings (to fund the government, the law and order etc) and then to spend half the rest on paying all over again just to be able to enjoy our 1/62 millionth share of UK land-location values is basically justifying theft on at least two levels.
How about scrapping taxes on output and employment and collecting the land-location values from landowners or homeowners instead, and then giving every single UK citizen a rebate/refund of 1/62 millionth of what is collected*? The average household in the average home - whether they have paid off their mortgage or are first time buyers - would pay net nothing to occupy an average residential plot.
That's moral, and that's right.
* It's like the right to vote. Democracy is a collective thing, just like land-location values. Although that right is very valuable in itself, you get given it for free but you cannot sell it or leave it to your heirs (when you are dead, you don't need it any more). The flip-side of that inalienable right is that you have to abide by everybody else's vote. Why should we treat collectively-created land-location values any differently? What Nick Boles is saying is tantamount to saying "Everybody had the moral right to buy somebody else's vote".
Sunday, 2 December 2012
RSI - Real Reform: Croydon, Costa Blanca? Whatever...
RSI - Real Reform: Croydon, Costa Blanca? Whatever...: I'm still getting correspondence from Croydon constituents, who really want to know. Trouble is I'm in sunny Spain taking a break. What a ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)