Who am I?

I was forced to go into a bank recently, well, more than once. As the years lay down the sediment of experience on the arteries, I endeavour to avoid moments of great excitement or anxiety and so rely on virtual, on line, banks where ever possible. However, having just taken over as treasurer of a small photography group recently, all attempts to amend the banks records to accommodate this without several visits to the high street, failed. The telephone number in the cheque book connected me only to some remote cubicle where I was informed that they were not in a position to send me the required mandate, I would have to visit the bank in person. A 10 minute wait on a fairly quite afternoon furnished me with a copy of the form, which the enthusiastic assistant informed me, she had downloaded and printed off. "No", there was not anything else she could do for me today, I returned home to complete the process. Completion of the details required, which stopped just short of the inside leg measurements of the existing committee members and the outgoing Treasurer, as well as a copy of the minutes of the meeting where I had awoken to find that I was to be the next person to hold the said position, and the signatures of the Group secretary and the chair of the meeting where the above took place, I decided to check my work to date before sending the form on a round trip to obtain the required signatories. The second visit to the bank, which was admittedly at lunch time when people wanted to use the banking facilities, during their lunch break, but the bank's staff were, unfortunately, also doing what they needed to do during their own lunch break. After reassurance that the form was correctly completed I was advised to bring the form back once I had the two remaining signatures, as I would have to show some identification - a driving licence would suffice. The third visit, and of course, to speak to a different set of brightly attired assistants - no sign of a reduction in banking staff in this neck of the world - did not go well. A second form of identity was needed, a UK, photo, driving licence was insufficient. The fact that I had several other forms of id which showed my name and signature or name and photograph, or even an envelope with my name and address on it, was of no significance. A utility bill would be required before the bank would accept me as me and allow me to manage an account which holds just a few hundred pounds over the year. The young girl who I spoke to on my fourth visit had obviously been on the advance customer service course, completely ignoring me whilst I recounted my previous visits, as she entered details on to the computer, or perhaps she was doing something completely different - how was I to know? I left thinking that had the banks been a bit more careful about who they were lending to or what they were investing in over recent years then we might not be in the mess we are in today.

Never has so much been owed by so many

I use this Churchillian quote as, so we are told, the UK is in more debt than at any time since the end of WW2. The full quote goes, I understand, "Never has so much been owed by so many to so few". I did not use the full quote in my heading as, in the UK situation, I have no idea just who we owe all this money to, and I would welcome a little more understanding on this. From reading the headlines one would imagine that the banks lent money to people who had no means to pay it back and the UK Government printed some more money to give to the banks to make up their shortfall. If it was that simple then one would have imagined that the Government would have asked the bank to sign an IOU so that we might be able to get our cash back, or at least expect the banks to hand over the keys of all of the houses they were going to repossess as a result of the recession. But whatever the problem and extent of the debt the new Government has told us that we have all got to tighten the trouser belt over the next few years to pay off the debt. It is at this stage that the WW2 analogy comes in. During the second world war the Government appealed to the general public to muck in and help build spitfires, bombers or whatever our troops needed. It is said that in response to these appeals, aluminium saucepans where handed to the rag and bone-man and iron railings were taken down and handed over to the scrap yard. Whether in the back street of suburbia or the large estates in the Shires, both simple and elaborate cast iron fencing was taken down, to support the war effort, showing "we were all in it together". But, surprisingly, when the war was over, and after a decent spell of time, the fences to great houses appeared again, apparently having been hidden away in barns and outhouses. And if you do pay your fiver to visit a stately home these days, you will be proudly shown the Victorian kitchen, with all its cast iron saucepans, galvanised baths and copper boilers brightly polished and intact. I mention this only to make it clear that whatever the Government considers is necessary to clear the country's debts, it should apply across the board and that the rich should pay their fair share

Well, I never; but then, I did!

The name Kenneth Baker will not register with those who think that history was yesterday and the day before was, like, boooooring. However, his connection to everyday life through the creation of Baker days, those days of the year when School teachers are removed from the classroom to learn about how to record the fact that the kids have missed a days school time without making the school fail its Ofsted inspection, will perhaps bring about a sign of recognition. It was Kenneth Baker, whose time in Government was made possible by him being given a succession of safe Tory seats, who, as Home Secretary, introduced the Dangerous Dogs Act and sat through a period of prison riots and unrest, but it was during his three years as Education Secretary, when he introduced the National Curriculum , for which he should apologise the most. The fact that he was made a life Peer and chose the name Lord Baker of Dorking was apt but I fear that in his 76th year, the dork is back, with new plans that will, in his words, revolutionise education.

Speaking at the Careers Academies UK Conference recently, Lord Baker, announced the plans he has been working on to revitalise education. The answer, according to Baker, is the creation of University Technical Colleges, UTCs, which would provide less of an academic education and more of a technical one. UTCs would have 6-800 students, aged 14 to 19, who will be taught how to do things and will mix time in the real world at work with time in the classroom. If you do a degree, says Baker, you don't do bricklaying, you study bricks, whereas industry wants people with skills. The plans for UTCs have cross party support and JCB will open the first in the Autumn, focusing on Engineering and Business training.

UTCs seem to be such a bloody good idea that I am amazed that no one thought of them sooner, but then my aged grey cells reminded me that I studied at two Colleges of Technology in the late 60s and 70s, before they were allowed to join the rush to call themselves Universities. There seems to be only one flaw in Baker's new idea. the colleges will be mainly sponsored by Government and will involve industry in devising the curriculum and proving placements, but the universities will also be involved, as monitors. Let's hope that letting the universities have a seat round the table won't mean that the courses will be dumbed down and overpriced. We can do with a few more bricklayers and a few less graduate surfers.

Taking care of the Pennies

Look after the pennies, we over a certain age were taught, and the pounds will look after themselves. A reference to this discipline can be the only positive explanation of the clash between the three main political parties over their difference in views to the rise in national insurance. The Tory proposal to cancel labour’s proposed increase in NI contributions will mean a loss of Government income of £6 billion pounds, I will decline from printing this in full as the continual use of so many 0s will bring on my RSI, and the Parties have argued over whether this money could be raised by Government savings elsewhere and whether an increase in NI will or will not lead to a loss of jobs. With an annual deficit of £167 billion, our debts are increasing by £167 billion every year; this £6 Billion does not appear to be significant. And it probably isn’t.

No of the Parties, however, have the guts to spell out just how bad the situation is and that the only way out is going to be painful, at least to the majority. No doubt there are some that are so cushioned by their wealth that they will escape with nothing more than a slight bruise, but for the rest of us, the hard working and the feckless, “there will be trouble ahead”.

There seems to me to be two ways of reducing the deficit, and we shall only succeed if we follow both. This truth is known by everyone but the reckless feckless as this is the only way out of debt, whether you are Jo Bloggs or Gordon Brown. It doesn’t take a lot of intelligence to understand this so all three claimants to the Chancellor’s chair should be able to grasp this.

The first thing the country has to do is to stop spending so much, and the other thing is to try to earn more. Simples. The ability of the individual or the country to earn more does depend upon the costs of production, so the increase in NI is a step in the wrong direction. We need to increase our output both to export more and import less. Both of these will decrease the deficit, or at least lessen the effect of continuing increases in imported oil and gas costs.

The other essential step is to spend less. Ah, there’s the rub!

Whoever wins the next election has to dismantle much of the welfare state as we have grown to know. The art, and skill, will be to do it so as not to cause a total collapse. A game of Jenga^TM, with everything at stake.

I will include within the welfare state all that is managed by the public sector, not just the benefits system and health service. Anyone who has worked in any part of the public sector will have seen a huge amount of waste that could easily be dispensed with, so the 1%, the cost of the lost NI contributions, will be no problem to achieve. But the big gains can only be made by changing the attitude of those that work in or are elected officers of public sector organisations. My own experience of public service organisations leads me to suggest that the first action needs to be ending the belief within budget holders that they must spend this years budget or they won’t get so much next year. The fact that their pay scale can depend on the size of their budget means that any decrease in budget can have serious repercussions. Much more serious than overspending, in fact. The other attitude I have seen amongst local authority Managers is the opposition shown to calls for cuts by only identifying those that they know the elected officers will not support. Much better say that a cut will mean the closure of an old persons home than a few pieces of equipment won’t be replaced that year or a custom and practice dating back to the days of the horse and cart is tackled.

But, by far the biggest challenge for any of the parties, is the absolute need to change the moral attitude of a large number of individuals that they have a right for any of the services and benefits that are on offer and it is the Government’s fault when they don’t have these rights fulfilled. The fact that so many of those at Westminster have displayed these very same attitudes does not fair well for the challenge ahead, even if those who form the next Government are willing to face the challenge. A recent story in the Daily Mail, about a family with a large family all being brought up on an income of £42,000 a year, entirely from benefits, even if half true, is a measure of the challenge that the next Government must tackle. Allegedly, as they say, the “mother” was quoted as saying that she was happy to take the money- “I’m just working with the system that’s there”. Very much like the MP’s response “ I only claimed what I was entitled to”.

The Daily Mail couple were happy to go on having children if the rest of us were going to pay for their upkeep. Indeed they considered that they had a right to a bigger house, on the state, to accommodate their desire to have even more children. What working couple with a family and mortgage would consider that they had a right to a bigger house? Well perhaps the current financial situation, fuelled as it has been by those who have obtained bigger and bigger mortgages on bigger and bigger houses, is evidence that more than a few thought they had such a right, but others, perhaps remembering that other learnt truth- cut your coat to suit your clothe, will have limited their family size to their earned income.

Just how the Government will cut the benefits bill, as they must, will be the biggest challenge of the decade but if Brown, Cameron and Clegg don’t grasp the nettle next month then we are all in for a sorry future.

Big Fleas have little Fleas ....

No soon as I said it, the consequences of my action became apparent. Having announced a hope that rather than ban the burqa we should be seeking to ban Speaker Bercow, I sat down to watch the repeat of “Have I got News ….”. Horror of Horrors, there, sitting next to Paul Merton, was the absolute Horror of horrors, Nigel Farage. His appearance reminded me of his intention to stand against Bercow in the coming General Election. For those of you have been living on the Planet Zogg for the last six months, the fact that there will shortly be a General Election in the UK may come as a shock but a fact it is. Oblivious to the comments from Herr Hislop, Farage wobbled about like a 1980s far east derived musical children’s toy responding to any external sound with a spontaneous outpouring of his pre-recorded diatribes on immigration and EU waste, his face exploding in mirth with the opportunity given to him to broadcast his right wing views. The thought that Farage, who’s actions in Brussels have been no less embarrassing than the football louts of a couple of decades ago, should slip into Westminster through the main Parties following the custom and practice of not opposing the Speaker’s seat is truly worrying.

Perhaps we need people like Farage in the same way as, presumably, there is a need for fleas in the Great Architect’s game plan? But to give them anymore scope for self publicity is a dangerous move.

Hopefully, the Monster Raving Looney Party, or some other fringe party will take up the challenge in the Buckingham Constituency and ensure the removal of both Bercow and Farage. Or, perhaps, a more appropriate airing of a Bercow / Farage contest would be on Harry Hill’s TV Burp- “Fight”.

Don't ban the Burqa, Ban the Bercow

If Belgium is not already Europe’s Joker then their attempt to ban the wearing of the Burqa surely puts them in pole position for the award. If the accounts of their proposed legislation is correct, then they propose to ban the

wearing of any clothing in public which partially or completely covers the face and prevents recognition. This would of course mean that anyone who dons a fancy dress costume, whether on the way to a party or as a means of selling burgers or whatever, could face a fine. Cyclists protecting themselve

s from traffic pollution by wearing a face mask would fall fowl of the law, as would the motorcyclist, the hill walker or anyone else who follws mum’s advice to wrap up warm. The common practice of attending peaceful protests while wearing, for instance, a paper mask of the Belgium equivalent of Gordon Brown, god forbid, could be rounded up and taken to court, a much more serious threat than all of the Belgium women currently wearing the burqa or niqab.

This nonsense is not only limited to Belgium as similar legislation is being discussed in both France and the Netherlands. The picture of a burqa clad woman being arrested whilst walking through the red light district and its nightly window display of half naked women comes to mind.

This rise of intolerance across Europe is very worrying. Only last week, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for a burqa ban declaring that “The all-body veil is contrary to the dignity of women," and that "The answer is to ban it”.

Although having witnessed very few burqa clad women I do struggle with this statement, especially against the constant spectacle of half dressed women of all ages that appear on the streets these days. At least the burqa clad women I have seen have been behaving in a dignified manner, rather than shouting and swearing as they swagger, or stagger, down the street.I would much sooner spend time debating just what it is that makes women want to follow this custom. Of course, if it is due to parental or community pressure then that has to be addressed. No one should be forced to wear any garment any more than they should be banned from doing so.

It is, I think, reasonable to expect that people that you need to associate with should be appropriately dressed. I would have no objection to the person at the cash desk at Tesco being veiled though I expect that the women who are persuaded to go about in this way are not going to seek such employment. I would, however, be uneasy about taking advice from a professional of whom I could not assess the body language, or recognise later when every thing has gone pear shaped.

In France there appears to be even a campaign to prevent women from wearing a headscarf and girls are already banned from wearing these at school. I hope that the French Police are at this moment rounding up the women I last saw selling lace in those quaint little Breton villages we all love to photograph.

I am much more concerned about the rise of the BERCOW, than the burqa. Whilst the latter cover everything other than the eyes, Speaker Bercow is clearly pulling the wool over our eyes in his new role. The thought that someone who was involved in the MP expenses racket and, allegedly, double flipped his second home allowance should be now be in such a position defeats me. The expression “lunatics in charge of the asylum” cannot go within a mile of summing this up. Until Bercow is thrown out with the rest of the dishonourables, Parliament will not deserve any trust, respect or support from the British electorate.

A liar or a cheat?

The truth about the influence that Stephen Byers has had in changing Government policy and whether he has gained financially, we shall probably never know. But why should he have volunteered such information? The Education Minister, Kevin Brennan, in a fine demonstration of the "Queens English" taught in schools today, said that Byers was "bigging himself up". Was Bryers' statement the truth, an exaggeration of his own importance to gain employment as a lobbyist or was he merely trying to impress the female undercover reporter he was talking too. Whichever explanation is correct, and I would put my money on a combination of the last two, he is clearly not the sort of chap you would wish to hang the title of "right honourable" on.

Even suggesting that one would be willing to attempt to influence a Government Minister for money should be enough to result in dismissal and removal of any further right of access to Westminister. If General Gordon (Brown) vows to fight on to the end, is the likes of Stephen Byers the sort of chap he would want to see watching his back?

having watched the "dispatches" programme on TV last night I am even more convinced that Byers was "Bigging himself up" a bigger prat is rarely seen, even amongst MPs. Hoon, came pretty close in the weasel words stakes, a 100% weasel if ever you saw one. I would like Channel 4 to tells us whether there were any MPs that they approached that turned down their approaches. It does seem surprising that all of the MPs approached were willing to sell their souls for a mess of pottage. Is the rush amongst their fellow right honourables to distance themselves from those discovered with their snouts in the trough a genuine revulsion or are they just relieved that their own dodgey dealings, or willingness to partake if asked, has not been disclosed?

Is this the Mother of Parliaments we have been told is the envy of the rest of the world?

The House of Waste

Passmore Edwards, the Victorian Philanthropist who's name will be found over the door of a number of London Libraries, and a greater number in Cornwall, was the MP for Salisbury from 1880 to 1885. After a lifetime of campaigning for social and political reform he found his time in Westminster a great disappointment. He called it the House of Waste and said that the role of a majority of MPs was merely to stand about waiting for the division bell so that they could follow the Whips directions into the appropriate lobby. Besides that, although many had forcefully campaigned at the hustings for reform, once in Parliament their thoughts were more set on climbing the social ladder, crawling to a peerage, as he put it, or forwarding their own commercial interests.

The events of the last 12 months appear to have shown the situation not to have changed one bit. Members of every political hue have been shown to be at Westminster for their own personal gain, or if not, it is probably because we haven't yet found out just what they are up to. At least it can be said that politicians of every political hue have taken personal gain from their time at Westminster. The excuse that their claims were in accordance with the rules is no defence. Any MP that can truefully say that he thought that it was ok to claim many of the suspect claims unearthed by the Daily Telegraph worries me. These are the people that we have permitted to take decisions that affect the lives of our servicemen in Afghanistan and the lives of all of us here in England. To think it is ok to charge the taxpayer for the costs of improvements at one house and then swap the designation of that house so that they could claim further expenses on that home just defeats me. And to tell the tax man that one home is your main residence but tell the Ministry responsible for the expenses claims a different story seems to me, at best, to be just plain lies. How can you trust any such person again? Some one recently said that we don't need a war on poverty, we need a war on Greed. It can only be greed that explains the actions of many of the MPs featured in the Daily Telegraph last year. Perhaps it is the fact that they mix with individuals who "earn" obscenely high salaries that has developed the greed within themselves?

With a general election on the horizon are we any less concerned that the next batch of wannabees will be more concentrating on public service and less on self service?