Saturday, 27 November 2010

Legalise it!

If we are to treat Britain PLC as a business then we should see what Britain could do to increase its income. One of the most obvious ways to increase its income is to licence more activities and by this I mean legalising the sale of non-conventional and the provision of sexual services both activities to be taxed and taxed heavily and also provided solely under local licence the licence money going to the locality, in exactly the same way that pornography and alcohol are currently sold today.

Now I can hear the screams about the damage and harm that Heroin and crack cocaine do and harm and damage people they indeed do, of course outlawing them does not ameliorate this harm, indeed some would argue their illegality increases them harm, regardless of this it seems to quite clear that making them illegal has not effectively reduced there availability nor the harm they do and as evidence I point to the army of heroin and crack addicts which roams are streets daily.

This piece is not about the harm or otherwise of licencing new activities; it is about the government thinking of ways to increase its income. Let us take sexual services, licencing these particular activities will; no doubt increase the flow of sex slaves into the UK and probably increase the interlinked human trafficking and any increase in the levels of protects and living standards of those providing these service will no doubt be dwarfed by those who will suffer in the even darker and seedier corners of this nation this licencing will create.

We cannot look upon licencing as anything more than an income generating rouse and of course a way of reducing the cost of preventing accesses to the drugs and the services. In the past the forbidding and policing of these activates has been seen as the moral duty of the state and that is what it has remained, an empty moral statement declaring certain things to be moral and thus legally unacceptable and normally I would be all for upholding these rather empty moral statements but this is a different time.

I have no idea of the tax revenue or the income from licencing will bring in but I know that we spend over 3 billion on policing against them and I think from this we could expect at least a billion in additional revenue, adding to fewer cuts and also at last Britain could stop waste huge sums of money prevent activities already taking place free from tax and outside of the state’s sphere.

Dyslexic equality:

I am no expert on what is and is not considered a “learning disability”, all I am is a dyslexic person, now I am told I am also dyscaculate and dyspraxic and no doubts several more dis’s. What this really means is by no fault of my own, I suffer with problems with literacy, numeracy, remembering things. I of course lick my people with these issues deal with them the best I can and I do quite well but I still do not understand why are struggle to cope is not assisted but in fact made worse by the state, employers and society at large. In short I cannot understand why we are treated so unequally.

Let us take one of the main issue we face in are claims for equality the term “learning disabilities”. First let me make this clear only the most server dyslexics have any claim to being truly mentally disabled. I am not for one second comparing dyslexic with demtia or to people with very low mental ages. So, I do understand why the term “learning disability came about”.

My point is, however, that calling it a learning disability allows are future employees to pretend as if we are cured once education is ended. Indeed it allows are educators to delude themselves that are condition is curable via nothing more than additional learning and for a large section of the dyslexic population (the lesser end of the scale) this may in fact be true but for the moderate to server section this is nothing more than a sick joke.

Are second claim for equality is equality before the state: Given the fact that dyslexics suffer with issues regarding maths and English I am at a loss why the state is forever increasing the concentration upon them. Indeed all this talk of using them to evaluate schools or even think of make there achievement part of a grater GCSE replacement. I am at to a total loss why it is legal for universities and employers to make these GCSE’s compulsory for employment or entry. To out this in perspective making English and maths compulsory is like saying to wheelchair bound man that running is a required ability to go to university or gain employment.

In addition to equality before the state is the free provision of equipment, now most dyslexics receive free computers at university (strangely regardless of the severity of their condition) yet employers can freely deny dyslexics accesses to computers and poor dyslexics are not entitled to claim free equipment which is essential for dealing with their disability. I am not asking for free computers for all dyslexics just for moderate – sever dyslexics based upon means testing. This may seem an extravagant request but for a dyslexic a computer is as essential as any other piece of medical equipment is for those coping with physical disabilities.

Are third claim is equality before employers; No employer should dismiss any CV or another employee application procedure they choose to use due to English or grammatical errors as this is a debase and cowardly way of discriminating against dyslexics and not such mechanism would be tolerated with regards to other disabled candidates. Also, as with all disabled employers they should be more aware of are additional needs and respectful of are pride and abilities to manage our own conditions.

So let us start at first principles: Dyslexics and are ilk are disabled, are disability affects us for are entire life, computer technology has greatly ameliorated the negative effects of this condition but neither cured nor wholly removed the negative effects of dyslexia, we deserve to be treated equally and finally policy must be formed with dyslexic need kept in mind.

Friday, 19 November 2010

No to AV

It is wholly unnecessary to write this piece, even without a single leaflet, the anti AV conglomeration have won the battle. AV, which has never been popular nor chosen as government policy by force of electorate; is now deathly tied to the 2nd party of the collation, who have managed the distinguished achievement of being even less well received then their own voting reforms.

I believe, however in also wining the intellectual argument; which we have left behind due to the ease of actual victory. Let us first look at the weaknesses of AV the first and most disturbing is its corrosive effect on the meaning of “voting for”.

Whatever the sins of FPTP it is concretely based on the idea of actively voting for something or some one, I mean by this in FPTP one is forced to make a choice for a single candidate or idea. AV on the other hand no one actually votes for a candidate they merely register vague sympathy for them. In FPTP everyone has a single vote that they give wholly to there chosen option but in AV you are allowed to diminish your choice among many thus eroding the very idea of choosing or voting for anything.

The second issue is it fatally attacks the ideal of one man one vote: I will not labour how many lives have been lost and how many bones broke to achieve the democratic ideal that within the democratic sphere and in particular in the voting booth all men have the right for a vote and each man has the same number of votes and that is one. Under AV those who vote for smaller parties (as the votes are redistributed upward) are allowed to votes at least twice and in some cases several times. Now those who support AV will say those who vote for the winning party (once) have the enjoyment of seeing that party returned on the basis of there one vote but it can not be compensation for those who vote for smaller parties have tow or three votes to your one.

Another crime for which it is guilty is it drives votes toward the least disliked. Think of the labour leadership election, it was not the most popular or the most controversial; it was the least offensive to both sides. They where not selected by first or even second preference votes but by fourth and fifth, they were elected by the “there okay I suppose” preference. As we know candidates follow and are pushed by electoral trends and if moving toward blandness and indecisiveness if the key to win on the great surge of “there okay I suppose” votes then this is exactly what they will do.

Added to this the fact that I very much doubt that AV will alter the electoral landscape, indeed I believe it will reinforce the dominance of the two party system. Let us use the Ed Balls seat as an example. Labour where only defeated by UKIP votes from the Tories, had AV been used those preferences would have transferred to the Tories. Indeed safe in the knowledge that a first preference vote for a smaller party is little more than a “I support them” vote there proliferation will increase and there 1str pref vote share will as well but the winners are the larger catch all parties which these used to harm

Thursday, 18 November 2010

An honest offer

The isle of Britain is a long forgotten and imperial term; yet it denotes something true in the heart of every loyal Brit. It denotes the true shape and nature of this nation; the true greater kingdom of the Isles, a true union of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales a union of free peoples and free states united by a shared currency and a shared language and a shares history.

Now this dream of greater union did briefly exist. Irish MP sat in Westminster and the greater unions military and economic might dominated to world but there was an elephant in the room, the anti catholic laws which dominated Britain and divided the two largest kingdoms of these Islands

All nations waged blood war on each other, from the various principalities of Germany to the city states of Italy. Some of these where religious in nature and some of them a result of nation building; the wars that divide the Islands of where both and have shamefully dominated these Islands history but they are a thing of the past. Indeed the lesser union, the UK, was born not out of these wars but through enlightened self interest and a recognition that we are all brothers of these Islands.

Now are prodigal brother Ireland is in terrible danger not just economic failure but of a irrevocable loss of sovereignty; for all the sins of union rule from Westminster (where Irish MPs held some sway) it is infinitely preferable to rule from at best Brussels, where Irelands voice is barely audible or worse still Frankfurt where the voice of Ireland is never heard above the self aggrandising voice of the German economic machine.

It is our duty to save are brother from the domination of distant foreign control, epically one so set against are national independence (by which I refer to both the French and Germans and there diplomatic arm the EU). It is are brotherly duty to save them from economic collapse and are debt to them to assist them regain there power and strength within the arms of the greater union.

What the lesser union can offer. Well firstly economic aid, as brother nations your debt is our debt and your people are people, secondly we will encourage are firms to move into your lands and allow your people to find jobs here, to return when time are better. Along with this the reintroduction of sterling would reduce your debts and new markets would open.

Along this of course your independence, you would join as a federal state (even retaining a catholic nature to your wholly independent federal constitution), your federal MP would sit in the new federal house and your standard MP elected would sit in the lower house, newly relocates to Liverpool to reflect the new grander union of the nations. You would retain your nationhood but freed from borders or import barriers with Britain. You could even remain a republic within the greater union.

Sunday, 14 November 2010

Hand up not hand out

This phrase is the epitaph of the post war welfare state or it is supposed to be. As I discussed in my blog on the welfare state ( Beveridge himself did not want people to become dependent upon the state but merely be saved from the five giants.

Hayek reminds us that anyone depend upon the state (or indeed upon another) is not free but enslaved to his provider; an argument so strong and compelling that I have never doubted it and have sought to use it in life and policy.

It is not true, however, that no man would choose to live enslaved to the state. Indeed capitalist theory is predicated upon the concept that all men work in their own self-interest; alone. If it is in the direct interest of a man to become reliant on the state then that is what will occur. It is odd that when dealing with hand outs, we often forget about this central idea and except high ideas of duty and honour.

If we allow anyone to live of the state(and you be surprised how little man can life off) they will somehow managed to live of the state. We must always make the non-state route more attractive than the state rout. We must offer the much fabled hand up approach, rather than, the suffering approach (forcing people to do X via punitive sanctions).

If you ask me to flesh out what a hand up not a hand out look like I would say look at tuition fees, yes the much reviled tuition fees. A scheme where a person receives hand up in the form of additional education but are expected to re-pay until after education thus this is not a hand out. This scheme is ideal because it continues to make education free at the point of use but still ensures that the receivers of the benefit pay for what they have received.

The central ideas of the hand out are as follows. Firstly they must be free at the point of use, secondly they must be limited, either in the number of time you can apply or the length they can last, thirdly they must add to the person, either emotionally or mentally, fourthly the hand up should not be used to save the state money. lastly they must always be structured so it is never in anyone’s best interest to become reliant upon them but not so structured that it is not in there interest to use them.

It is too easy to think of the hand up as simply a cheaper or harsher version of the hand out or as a way of pretending to be assisting with people needs whilst doing very little. All too often the hand up not and hand out has been the epitaph not of the state centric model but of the entire concept of a caring state at all, this is why people have become cynical and bitter toward it.

I still believe in this concept. I still believe that state can and should offer and hand up to all its citizens, often funded by those more fortunate in this life but more often funded from those who have received the hand up. I believe if we embraced the ideals of a hand up not only would we improved the lot of our nation but also improve the competitiveness and flexibility of are citizens.

Friday, 12 November 2010

Remembrance day

Britain has been dominated by conservative though since the mess of the civil war, during the civil war town waged war against town, brother against brother and what did it achieve, nine years of dictatorship by a military junta and an extremist religious clique which ruthlessly imposed its will on the people of Britain. All of this suffering would have been justifiable had a new political paradigm been born from all this suffering but no the tyrants death marked a shift back toward the old order with the reinstatement of the monarchy and the rule of law.

I mention this as it was the mess of the civil war that left Britain’s constitution in the mess it has been in ever since and the civil war also ensured almost four hundred years of conservative instinct to dominate British politics.
This piece is not, however, a vitriolic spew about the various virtues of conservative though or a list of times it saved Britain from revolution, anarchy and disaster. This piece is about the greatest failing of conservative though, ever. It is about the unforgivable event and leadership surrounding the First World War.

There have of course been bloody wars, more wasteful war but the First World War must take the biscuit for the most insanely ruinous, badly run and utterly pointless war ever waged. This war marked a shift from conservative pragmatism to conservative nationalist ideology when Generals who put national lust before the eternal covenant.

The eternal covenant is the concept of a contract between the ruled and the ruler but it is also a contract between the past the present and the future and above all it is the history of the nation full of its traditions and norms and most important historical lesions.

One lesion is that no piece of land is worth a man’s life, in the grand narrative of history no one will recall the man who gave his life for four inches of some muddy French field, no one will recall his general for his great victory but more his bloody single mindedness and no country is made powerful exchanging one inch of ground for every life lost (a statistic the WW1 never even came close to emulating).

It was our failing in the promotion of duty and hour not to take a step back from the war to count the cost. It is not that war is not honourable and glorious it is just that the cost of war must be balanced by some value, some real gain. It is insane to think that lives where given away by British generals to gain no French ground.

Indeed if the generals had kept in mind the eternal covenant they may have stayed there hand and saved a few good British live and had the Germans throwing themselves against our lines rather than visa versa.

In the end it was WW1 that marked the end of conservative Britain (finally killed off by WW2). The elite had proven themselves to be susceptible to insane lust and dehumanised warfare which serve no purpose then to kill their own forces. The conservative high ideals of duty and honour were felled by mechanised war fair and the eternal covenant proven unable to protect the nation from a corrupt elite.

So what can we do, well brother was can wait, wait for the liberal lies and myths to bring this great nation to ruin, we can stay the grand hand of the progressives and temper there “good ideas” to save the poor British people from there insane lust and we must learn, learn what the eternal covenant means and why it is so important and remember the cost of forgetting it.

Monday, 8 November 2010

Welfare reform

I have been unemployed and I have claimed benefits:

For those who do not know my degree was in public policy; so I like almost every politics student studied the Beveridge report written by William Henry Beveridge, 1st Baron Beveridge. Now Beveridge sought to defeat five giant (Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness) rotting are nation from within. He had lived through periods of unemployment that make the coalition cuts seems meek and he’d seen people starve and made homeless by this unemployment, he and his generation knew that want and idleness where linked, inseparable from each other.

In Beverage’s welfare scheme all would be found work by the state thus removing the threat of idleness, even if this meant forcing them (though such humanist language would have been utterly alien to Beveridge). People made unemployed received after a period of six weeks a choice of three jobs which they were expected to choose, no, if buts or maybes and if there were no jobs Beveridge expected the state to create them.

There was no training (though apprenticeships where common placed) nor long term unemployed and those pensioned off sick where just that, physically incapable of any work. No one chose to be made unemployed because there was no long term benefit and no way to avoid doing work. Also a massive shortage of labour after WW2 assisted in Beveridges helped.

The trouble is, soon government realised that creating jobs was very expensive and lead to unproductive nationalised industries filled to the brim with badly trained unionised workers. They soon decided, instead of providing the guarantee jobs, they would merely supporting people with far cheaper benefits and some notional training and I do mean notional. In the long history of government training schemes very few stand out as useful or anything much more then cosmetic.

Like the pension bomb left over from the birth of the welfare state we are now facing, we are also facing the cost of the end of job creation and of enabling anyone to live a life on benefits. In short we are facing one of Beverage’s giants Idleness. IDS and Beveridge (for very different reasons) both loath idleness not only because it cost the state millions and creates a class of degenerates but because it’s a terrible and inexcusable waste of human life and I believe we need some IDS and some Beverage to defeat idleness.

IDS laudable policy is in short to unify all benefits into one and continue housing and child care benefits into working life, whilst reducing the benefits at the unemployed end or requiring more activity from those receiving it. He has quite reasonably abolished the cosmetic training schemes that the government did occasionally offer to the select few but has and I think tragically not reinstated a universal training program and this is where IDS could do with a little of Beveridges compassion (yes compassion my dear Tories and Beveridge flair for new ideas).

I am talking about a new training state a state that pursues even as a secondary aim the eradication of unemployment through force and assistance and real hand up not a hand out state. Yes Reader a new post-war consensus where we and the private sector work together and achieve the utilisation of all our human labour.
So what am I suggesting, well first thing first that we continue with all IDS welfare reforms even compulsory working , indeed I would add to the long term unemployed (over three years), we add those who managed to gain but quickly loose more than three jobs in a run. I also believe that we must make work pay for all and dam the oddities and inequalities this causes and I believe in tying housing benefit into it, as I am sure Beveridge would be incensed at the idea of a state subsidised house for life.

What I and I believe Beveridge would add is a universal training scheme, open not to a select few but to everyone unemployed. This universal service would tie together apprenticeships (increased by offering tax concession to participating businesses and even future NI cuts for apprentice recruitment. It would combine OU course (already free to the unemployed) with upfront free course of the candidates choice (both to be paid back after employment regardless of the subsequent wage but based upon it, so it never make work uneconomic) as well with local voluntary agencies looking for placements (and anyone on this would be freed of the need of register for six months) and compulsory CV & interview skills as soon as your sign on.

Combine this with NI cuts for any firm taking on the unemployed and tax cuts to all firms offering substantive training and of course intensive job assistance from private or public bodies (replacing the lame duck job centres) and crushing and punitive actions taken against those who reject all the help now offered to them and I really believe even Beveridge himself would see we are not just attacking want but also idleness. I know this is not perfect and I am sure some will suffer but they suffer now, they suffer from idleness and of being thrown upon the scrap heap and I want to liberate them with a true merciful and conservative hand up not a hand out.

Friday, 5 November 2010

A critique of tea party ideals

Dear reader as you may know I am a devout right wing Christian; exactly the bread and butter of the tea movement in the US. Yet to the shock of many I oppose the tea party and to explain this I am writing a series of blogs which outline my critique and objection to this popularist pseudo movement.

Below are the key ideals which are the basis of the tea party movement and I intend to look at each in a British perspective and to critique them as being vague and incoherent and lacking depth. Throughout I will remind the reader of the duty of conservative to the eternal conversant and social stability .

Fiscal responsibility

“Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honours and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of his or her own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject it's citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty. (Tea party)

I will spare my informed reader from a lecture on the self-obvious, that higher taxes have utterly no bearing on liberty, unless one wishes to argue that the Scandinavian countries are dictatorships or that the lands of Europe are markedly less free then the US we can dispose of this fig leaf of an argument.
Tax in Europe is no new creation, indeed tax probably descend from the earliest civilisations and is certainly mentioned and accepted in the bible (even Jesus paid tax Matthew 22:15-22) and even though there have probably been thousands of battles over tax only the US declared a totally new nation due to minor levels of tax. We must see the tea parties rejection of tax as a by-product of American history.

Anti-tax movements on the other hand play little if no role in are own nation building story. Indeed often the right to vote has been tied to paying tax or owning property. It may seem odd but for most of Britain’s history paying tax has been a status symbol. Tax occasionally been used positively to prevent madmen enjoying the fruits of their labour freely, if we think of the gin levels or the duty on gambling all of these curtailed socially corrosive crazes and established a safer and more coherent society.

In the end dear reader ask yourself this if you were forced to pay for your medical aid, forced to pay for your rubbish collection and parks and education would you in any meaningful way been freer or lived in a freer society? In ancillary to this question, how much is this extra freedom worth? How many homeless and sick people is it worth to be able to enjoy ten % extra freedom?

Constitutionally limited government

“Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law”

I loved this bit of the tea parties manifesto, I loved it doubly when British politics student or ex-student faithful and without any real thought support a constitutionally limited federal government as opposed the unconstitutional sovereignty of the queen in Parliament leading a singular unified nation which has been the British model of government since the act on the union.

Imperfect, eccentric and often panicked stricken though are post-civil war politics maybe it has been one thing, free of tyrants, free of plebiscites and free above all of self-aggrandising, her today and gone tomorrow leaders and parties. Are leaders have trod carful not out of deference to some document construed by long since dead men but out of regard for the eternal covenant with the British people and a distaste of both radicalism and fossilisation.

One of the reason the British political elite has withstood for so long is they understand though sometimes unelected they serve at are whim, we agree not to follow every popular, romantic but inevitably flawed and deluded revolutionary leader and they promise to rain in there lust and ego. It is not perfect dear reader, nothing of the world of man is perfect but it has worked and has managed massive democratic and social change without the need for revolution or anarchy.

I also quickly wish to point out that supporting unabridged personal liberty and the rule of law is a paradoxical position as is the idea of a government by the people (all of whom are alive) and supporting a constitution (written by people long since dead). I also question the ability of people four hundred years to know the absolute will of people long since dead and doubly question how democratic it is to enforce the living to bow a knee to the laws of the long since dead.

Free market:

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do (tea party)

Beyond the fact that I very much doubt the capitalist impulses of the puritanical founding fathers we must remind ourselves of something very important. Conservative e cannot be pro an unabridged market and nor can Christians (1 Timothy 6:10-11).

Indeed we British need no lecture on the pursuit of a free economy, are economic history is not marred by protectionist policies and are companies are not protected from foreign by outs, unlike the US. Indeed if a list of the most free of free markets where drawn up I would glad bet that Britain would out score the US and when the Tea party talk of free trade they mean only internally.

Let us return, however to the tea party and their belief that economic freedom is equivalent of liberty. So let us test this theory, let us lock up Sahara Palin in the deepest, darkest cell in Christendom and slowly fill it with the fruits of her labour and see how free she fails to be. The freedom to en joy the fruits of ones labours is one possible because we have a stable society and that dear reader does not spring forth naturally, it requires time and often money. So taking some of your fruits in order for you to enjoy them in the future is not a lessening of your liberty but a guarantor.

Of course having your fruits wholly consumed either by your peers or the state is being brought to the state of slavery to them by them and wholly unacceptable. It is a balance, some of our labour we owe not totally and must balance this with are own need to keep and use the fruits of are labour as we will.

In will say just briefly why supporting the market wholly is conservative; firstly the market is a fetish of man, well money is. Man in pursuit of money which is part of the market would willing undermine and corrupt any institution and forsake and step upon any of his fellows. Not only does the pursuit of money thus damages are society it also damages those institutions which is corrupts and which are not fiscally orientated.

Wednesday, 3 November 2010

What makes angle weep and devils rejoice

I read this line in my university days and it have stuck with me ever since. The answer is of course truth and as a Christian I believe it is a sin to bear false witness / lie and I remember that Jesus is truth (John 14:6) and to deny or forsake the truth is to deny or forsake him.

What does this have to do with living life as a Christian? Well I was recently made redundant and was forced to undergo the horror of interviews. I am told not once but a million times that interviews are a game where the literal and absolute truth is sacrifices to vague semi-lies and half-truths and where imperfect human natures is transmuted into perfect humans and corporate machines.

So as I filled out application forms, wrote my CV and even attended interviews I stuck rigidly to the facts, I refused to fudged the truth or e forsake it . I refused to exaggerate my abilities at the cost of the principles of truthfulness and yes modesty which are part of my Christian faith. Whenever aksed a question I always answered frankly and honestly, continuing my theme of honesty and my belief that an honest answer deserves and honest question.

All the time I knew that others, probably less qualified then I where, let us be kind, stretching the truth. Also I carried on honestly letting jobs I could have perfectly managed passing by because I lacked one required aspect of them and refused to lie about it. All the time losing out on opportunities I would have loved in the name of truth and thus in the name of the saviour.

I was even told that I should realise that this processes is a competition and an unfair one and that I should not be so strict about the truth but I stood firm, I reminded them that the truth does not alter ever and that as Christians we must sometimes (and for me personally often) be willing to sacrifice what we want in order to live a good and decent life, a life in keeping with Christ.
In the end without lying I managed to land a job, not my ideal job and one which was lower paid then my last one but the Job I believe God intended for me, a honest job for an honest man.

Tuesday, 2 November 2010


In every social system there are those at the top and those on the bottom indeed the “managing or politicisation” of these two groups has been a motivating factor behind political thinking since Marx .

Until recently, in the history of politics or social policy, there was very little concern for the group below even those on the bottom the so called lumpon proletariat, the very lowest of the low. They have always existed, always self-medicated first with cheap booze and then with opium the state has vacuolated between content acceptance and criminalisation and often both.

Often the state or the police has been happy to allow them to wallow in the dark places of society, happy to let them rot in the unseen places of our society; happy as long as they don’t cause a fuss and they are out of the way. They were explained away as lazy or drunk or stoned, there exclusion was justified because they were undeserving of our help, or beyond it and thus without a glance we disappear them.
There are those of course who see these invisibles often the religious among us. They sustain this displaced mass with soup and too infrequently salvation. They struggle in vain to clean and house these damaged souls, they swim against a tide of indifference, suspicion and often bile to look after those we have blinded ourselves too.

We have a power though a power to house the homeless and treat the addicts. The UK had an almost zero homeless rate until Thatcher and I say as a conservative that one homeless person is one person too many.

So what is the solution well first build more treatment centre and homeless centres (take the money from the international development budget). Free drug and homeless treatment from the quagmire of human rights laws and ideology, replacing it with the first principle of solving the issue forever and no person left behind. Most importantly of all we must make rehousing the homeless and rehabilitating the drug addict top priorities.