Owe no man anything

These were the words of James Martineau, taken from Romans, ch xiii, v8, in a lecture on Christian morals given at Hope Street Chapel, in Liverpool. in 1856. Do they have any relevance to our position today?

What would be the result, Martineau asked, if there was to be a universal winding up, every property to go home to its owner, every engagement to be pressed into realisation, every fictitious footing to be destroyed. How many that are first, would find that they are now last.

Not that Martineau was against borrowing and lending, arguing that if were left to the possessors of wealth alone progress of society would be scant. Commerce relied on credit whilst credit is essentially a reliance upon character.

He quotes the old saying "A man must earn for himself before he has a right to borrow from another and must mortgage what he has for the use of what he has not" and that it is wrong to take on trust more than we can give in pledge.

How much better off we would all be if we could but follow this way of life.

My mother said

I am not generally known for quoting my late mother, except to use an unexplainable saying "That's a daddy that is" when failing to find something she had lost. But this week's budget does call to mind something my mother said when I was a teenager and thought I knew it all. When, briefly speaking about some socialist idea I then had heard from elsewhere, there were few "discussions" in our house, my mother replied " God help us if Labour get in. They will bankrupt the Country if they do.  They did it last time and they will do it again." My mother has long since crossed over. Her education was that of living for nearly ninety years and through 2 world wars, bringing up 3 children, all born before the welfare state began. With hospital treatment as it was then she suffered from a thrombosis giving birth to me and was left with leg problems that led to leg ulcers that troubled her for the rest of her life. My father, having a serious knee injury when a young man had what was known as a "stiff leg", being unable to bend it at all. This did not prevent him one bit from carrying out his trade as a general builder, still hopping up ladders and on to the roof when 80 years of age. Nor did it stop him from riding a bicycle, with only one pedal and no free wheel, so he could pedal with just the one leg. 

Dad didn't earn very much and was not the best person to manage his finances. There were many nights when we sat with just a candle after the electricity had been cut off, the bill being left just a little too long after the red reminder, and days when it was a case of emptying out the drawers and many tins and pots to find enough coins to "nip up to the shop" for something for tea. But we were brought up with the knowledge that you had to earn your own living and, as important, "if you made your bed you had to lie on it".

I have to admit that I voted for the fresh faced Tony Blair back in when ever it was. But the Loony Left of the 60s has been replaced by the Loony Centre of the 00s, the fat cat Tories replaced by the fat cat Labour cronies. the age of equality has meant a dumbing down of just about everything that we once held in high regard and we are "as good as Dammit is to swearing" bankrupt. Sorry Mum.

Right and Wrong

So the right dishonourable Mr Hoon believes that it is perfectly right to live in a house provided for by the tax payer, rent out his "main residence" and then claim expenses for running another "home" in Derbyshire. This, surely, brings into question whether our Transport Secretary has any understanding about the meaning of right and wrong. To say that he was acting within the rules is as lame an excuse as "I was only carrying out orders". It would appear that Mr Hoon, Mrs Smith and McNulty have all financially benefited from claiming expenses for second homes. It would appear that they have all received more from the tax payer than it has cost them. Does Mr Hoon and his chums not think that this is basically wrong, even if it may be within the Parliamentary Rules. And if they think that it is wrong, as Mr McNulty now declares, just why has he been doing it?

No wonder we hear about loop holes in the laws that let tax dodgers, rapists and other criminals escape justice if those that we pay to enable the legislation can not even come up with a system of repaying themselves for the reasonable additional costs of doing their job.

If the Government has a number of empty grace and favour homes because Ministers would sooner sleep in their sisters spare bedroom, then perhaps they should be converted in to a number of smaller apartments to be allocated to MPs that need to reside in London during the week. Alternatively, if any MP does claim an allowance for a 2nd home then the costs of running both homes should be submitted and the taxpayer charged for only the lesser of the two. 

Perhaps, also, where the second home is shared by partner/spouse or other consenting adult, the costs of maintaining this home should be split equally between the two of them.

To have and to Hold

The world, it is said, is divided into those that have and those that have not. The events of the last few months with what was originally described as the "Credit Crunch" but has now turned into the biggest financial disaster in living memory, has reminded us that for many the divide between being a "have" and a "have not"is very thin. Many folk in the UK and the US, who would a year ago have been blissfully going about their business of buying and buying, have suddenly found themselves out of work and homeless. Photos on the TV show scenes of camps in the US very much like the refugee camps we have been used to seeing in the under developed countries. Even in the developed world a large percentage of the population are only a couple of pay packets away from destitution. Here in the UK with its often criticised benefit system, there are many who will be holding their heads in their hands and wondering what they will be doing tomorrow.
The leaders of the world's richest nations met this week to declare that this must never happen again and to make unthinkable amounts of money available to prevent it from doing so. Just where is this money suddenly plucked from and if it is as easy as that to find the resources to save our selves who are suffering from a bout of gluttony and wrongdoing, why hasn't more been available to sort out the poverty and starvation in the under developed countries. Thousand up on thousands have died through lack of clean water. Millions live in poverty with little hope of a better life and we have been sad to see them on our widescreen TV in each room and have put a few pounds into the collection box whilst on a boozy night out on Comic Relief night.
The g20 also declare that they will do something about tax haven's that have allowed the very rich to avoid paying their fair dues. Just a minute? Have tax haven's been ok up until now then? Why have they been allowed to exist for as long as they do if they are at fault? And why do we have a Minister in the UK Government who has previously been associated with them?
Of course, what is clear is that there will be many of the "haves" to which the credit crunch will be no more than a mild irritation. They will be making very sure that what they have, they keep, and even do their best at gathering in a bit more from those not so lucky. It is said that "to those that have, it will be given, and to those that do not have, even that that they have shall be taken away from them". Words, I know, which are quoted out of context, but time will show us just how true they are.