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.