Thursday 28 March 2013

28th March 2013

What is it reasonable to either blame or praise a Government for?

Historically getting the trains to run on time was a signifier of good governance!

The weather of course, its hardly their fault is it?

As Bill Clinton observed, the economy, that does rather bring the responsibility closer!

Homeless people on the streets?

More immigrants?

The sudden appearance of food banks to enable folk to feed themselves and their families?

Some years ago I was travelling North on the M6 and the indoor critic needed to use the loo, so we pulled into a service station to find all the disabled parking spaces full.

So we parked got the wheelchair out and headed to the loo.

Returning to the car we passed the disabled parking and spotted a large 4x4 not displaying a blue badge, inside was a youngish chap, eating a sandwich, I really couldn't stop myself and tapping on his window I asked the obvious question.

Fortunately my height and general appearance usually afford me some protection so the chap didn't respond aggressively, but equally was completely unabashed, he didn't especially defend himself, but his view, as he expressed it was he was here first so I could lump it.

His selfishness, and abuse of the disabled parking, was of course typical of the selfishness of the eighties.

And I did and still do hold the government responsible.

I didn't realise at the time, but when we sang along with George and the other two of what was left of the fab four when Let it be was released, we were not, as George intended, singing a transliteration from the Bhagavad Gita to the effect that true freedom comes to those who renounce selfish desires and break away from focusing entirely on I, me, mine.

We were in fact singing the theme song from the Thatcher years. Sung in the Champagne Bars of Canary Wharf by those celebrating their bonuses year after year, I, me, mine.

Compared with the story of the first Labour Government told by Ken Loach in his documentary, The Spirit of '45, which led to the creation of the welfare state and the public ownership of industries as a way of advancing the public good, the selfishness of the Thatcher years is exposed for what it is.

Governments may get the the trains to run on time and the economy working even if the weather defeats them (although recognising that human impact on the environment is in fact affecting the climate should be part of their stewardship).

But more significantly Government should set the tone for the societies they govern; generosity, mutual responsibility, openness are key to a happier and more fulfilling life.

Beveridge's welfare state was a secular version of what in his letter St James describes as 'care for orphans and widows and in their distress'. St James calls this true religion.

It might also be called good governance.

The legacy of the coalition will be determined in the future, but as the number of and necessity for food banks grows, as organisations supporting those with disabilities warn of  dramatic reductions in benefits (a £28 Billion reduction according to today's newspapers), hardening attitudes to migrants and asylum seekers and as huge bonuses are still being awarded.

The culture commended by this Government looks increasingly like a spirit of selfishness and greed rather than one of generosity and care for others, and for that they will be both praised and blamed depending of course, on whether you are a winner or a loser.


Monday 25 March 2013

25th March 2013

The Budget came and went and nothing  much happened.

It was in practice so unfunny that there were few if any jokes on the social media.

Heard the one about the banker using his bonus to buy a seaside villa with his mortgage guarantee?

The beer I ordered at the bar on Saturday did not appear to be any cheaper but my pension statement suggested that I will be able to afford at least half a pint a week more taking into account the increase for inflation.

The Labour Party is declaring the next ten years to be a lost decade, unless?

But the narrative of both parties seems to point to the same thing, more Keynesian economics, more growth, and increasing personal indebtedness funded by rising house prices.

Britain's very own Beppi Grillo appeared on television at his party conference outlining his own view and that of his party that somehow we can extricate ourselves from Europe, raise the drawbridge, seal the channel tunnel and then by a miracle of legerdemain and sleight of hand, lower taxes, increase benefits (NB These are not the same thing as Welfare Benefits) and have more of everything we want.

But in truth as the parties slogged it out over whether the wealthy can use the money, made available to underwrite mortgages, can be used to purchase second homes one thing became very clear.

The poor will always be with us.

After the introduction of Annually Managed Expenditure they will be even poorer and there will be more of them, because the more there are people claiming benefits as a result of job losses, unemployment and ill health, the cake will be consistently shared in smaller and smaller slices because the annually managed cake will not be allowed to get any bigger.

We are in a mess.

Europe is in a mess.

The Global Economy is in a mess.

But those responsible for the mess expect to be allowed to keep digging no matter how deep the hole they have got us into.

Ground Zero disappeared so long ago that it seems we cannot as it were draw a line, back to basics has been consistently rejected ever since John Major coined the phrase.

But the predicament in which we find ourselves needs a radical response.

Getting to the roots of the problems facing us is made more difficult because of the confrontational nature of politics.

I once lost an election and said well the electorate has spoken, to which a friend responded we need a new electorate.

Maybe.

But what we do need is a new way of looking at things so that the true impact of the policies we pursue can be clearly seen and not just felt by those most adversely affected.

The mess that we are in is not a Laurel and Hardy kind of mess, much of what we consume is funded by personal indebtedness which is actively encouraged and promoted because an indebted nation is a compliant nation.

So a new way of doing politics, a new way of doing business, an alternative to capitalism.

The report prosperity without growth has a twelve step plan it asks more from those who aspire to high office and offers real challenges to society but if we are to break free from our addiction to growth we must set out a new way forward and as Lao Tzu would have it, the longest journey starts with the first step, and a fudget budget hasn't helped.















Monday 11 March 2013

11th March 2013

The thing is, a country is not a household in the sense that Mrs Thatcher argued.

In a household you have an income, the income has to be shared between various demands, somewhere to live, fuel to heat the living space, food to feed the inhabitants, perhaps a couple of shillings set aside for a rainy day and of course a funeral plan.

Its granny's tins on the mantle piece economics.

And if anything is left over a holiday would be nice and presents for the kids at Christmas.

In a country of course you have no income unless you raise it from the folk who live in the country. That is called taxation!

Then you spend it on things the folk who live in the country need, security, a bit of help when things aren't going well, educating the young and ensuring that the elderly don't starve or die of hypothermia.

So how do you  manage a countries affairs differently than a households?

Politicians of left and right are arguing until they are blue or red in the face, (or jaundiced like the lib dems)!

And of course the commentariat are offering their two penn'orth as well.

That we're in a fix is not at issue.

Whose fault it is, is part of the narrative that is being spun.

And Ukip of course blame johnny foreigner i.e. Europe and Immigration.

What could we do to improve matters given that after two (is it really only two?) years of austerity we are in fact deeper in debt than we were when Gordon Brown departed Downing Street.

Well, we are being advised by  the con-dems to do various things.

Welfare to work.

Make work, work, by reducing welfare, if welfare payments are lower than the lowest paid work, then folk will take a job! Obvious really! Especially obvious if you are a member of the Millionaire's cabinet.

There are two flaws in this thinking. There is a high percentage of people who are working and claiming benefits not because welfare pays to much but because work pays too little. The less people have in their pockets the less likely they are to buy luxury stuff so demand is stifled and fewer people are needed for manufacturing, so unemployment increases and more folk rely on benefits to keep body and soul together.

That is an unvirtuous circle.

The bedroom tax.

If you only need one room then you should only recieve enough in benefit to pay for one room, so we'll take some money off you, and whilst we're at it we'll decide how many rooms you need.

It's a bit like saying we live in a country that's too big for us so we'll move to a smaller country, which will be cheaper to run. It might be a bit small, we might have to share, but after all, so many people want to move here, perhaps we could rent it to them and move to the Isle of Man?

Spend less on security.

Let's reduce the Army, this is bad thinking! (less jobs for working class lads from Northern towns and cities = more benefit payments), let's reduce the policeforce and the prison service and hand over to Group 4, more bad thinking (think Olympic security fiasco and Clockwork Orange!).

Actually the best plan is not to replace Trident and use the expertise, skills and technology to make something useful like baby monitors and medical equipment.

Raise more money.

Well in my household if we need something we usually sell something or part exchange it to raise the cash.

Loads of people buy and sell their stuff on ebay, which is why the charity shops have little or nothing to sell.

So look around, what could we flog on ebay? There must be loads of stuff:  the Dome, the Olympic Park, the odd palace and castle, the National Trust, after all we sold the QE2, the Royal Yacht and Tower Bridge!

If we raised enough on ebay we could reduce the debt altogether.

Then we could plan to do three necessary things to help us over the long haul.

Make sure that there is a relationship between the top earners and the bottom. a factor of 20 is sometimes suggested.

So if I earn a hundred a week the CEO of a footsie 100 could expect 2000, not unreasonable.

Introduce flat rate income tax at a level that pays for what most reasonable folk need to remain secure and functioning in a post modern society and get rid of VAT, Corporation and Inheritance taxes.

Start making things that folk actually need, here in the UK so that when they decide to buy something the money stays home and doesn't go walkabout round the global shopping mall.

Lewis Carroll had it right, forget common sense, lets start imaging curious things before breakfast, we might all be better off.

Saturday 9 March 2013

9th March 2013

In the late fifties, in a previous age of austerity, a friend of my fathers won a hundred pounds.

I remember saying to my father that this was great thing to happen.

Yes, my father agreed, for me it would be great or for you if you were sensible, but for Fred it will be just four deposits.

Sure enough, when the items appeared and we were invited round to admire the new possessions, that is exactly what had happened, and, after the payments were not kept up, one day the bailiff appeared and the shiny new Radio, TV, Cooker and Fridge disappeared.

Of course later I did something similar, although I still have the goods I bought.

After winning a £100 on Premium Bonds I bought amongst other things a picture from an Art Gallery and a couple of other bits for the house.

Each time my eldest daughter asked about the new purchase I said aah, yes, we won a £100 on Ernie.

But, my daughter responded, you've spent it four times!

Out pf the mouths of babes?

Today I looked at my Bank Account.

There was less money in it than I expected there to be.

I expected to see a deposit of £6000, apparently this is the amount of money that the Bank of England has created through its policy of quantitative easing.

£6000 per person.

To say that I was disappointed was an understatement. But then equally I was not surprised.

But it would seem that if the Financial Times was right, because that's where I gathered this interesting fact from, then it would seem that no-one else has benefited from the £6000 either.

So Mr Cameron heads off to Keighley and announces that all sorts of external economic factors over which we have no control have conspired to hold back the UK economy and keep the flat line flatter.

There is he repeated, No Alternative to Austerity.

It would have been interesting to hear his answer had one of his audience asked for his £6000.

After all if I had been given an unexpected windfall, given my 'previous' I would have spent it, hopefully only once, but ....... who knows?

Politics appears is in a state of disrepair.

The latest comments by the Prime Minister, challenged by the head of the Office of Budget Responsibility, Robert Chote, suggest that there is a need to review and reconsider the current  policy of austerity.

In a global economy it is clear that events in other markets will impact on a countries ability to buy and sell its goods and services but it is so overwhelmingly clear that the policy of austerity being pursued by the con-dems is resulting in a continuing reduction in economic activity in the UK.

The big society has become a busted flush.

The newly minted money has had zero effect in stimulating economic recovery but my £6000 must have gone somewhere, been given to someone?

It's all to do with multipliers.

If I took my £6000 and spent it on eating out, a new garden shed, some new outfits and a new motorcycle.

Then the beneficiaries of my largess would in their turn go out and spend their share of the £6000, together with their own £6000, that would generate £14400 pounds of economic activity, multiply that a few times and the economy would start to become noticeably active again.

Some of the money would generate demand, some would generate investment, some would generate profits and be spent again and again.

Mr Osborne has an opportunity to review his economic strategy in March let's hope he decides to make a few deposits (by which of course I mean investments in UK plc) before the bailiffs turn up!

Sunday 3 March 2013

3rd March 2013

My Constituency MP regularly sends me a newsletter by email.

I usually respond to the effect that whilst I am unconvinced by his politics I recognise that as a Constituency MP he is right to keep me, as a constituent, informed even if I didn't vote for him.

Usually however I have to make the point that nationally his party is working against my interests in regard to pensions, welfare, the NHS and Education.

His latest letter is sharing news about three projects that he is supporting concerned with broadband, housing and planning.

Essentially I am relieved that our MP appears to be just getting on with his job and is not fighting a permanent election campaign.

It is of course a significant issue in the current political climate, both in Europe, North America and here in the UK, that politics have become more political as the parties refuse, once the electorate pass their judgement, to co-operate across party lines in pursuit of what used to be called 'the common good'.

In America the Republicans refuse to co-operate with President Obama's 'socialist' policies despite his overwhelming victory in the recent election.

The fiscal cliff was narrowly averted but the current sequestration means that many budgets will be heavily constrained because of this confrontational approach to politics.

In Europe the recent proposed cap on Bankers bonuses has been rejected out of hand by the con-dem Government in the UK who have proposed their own cap on welfare benefits.

Despite having been in Government for over two years each day the political discourse is conducted as though we are in the middle of an election. Striver versus scrounger, the costs of welfare and the irresponsibility of the Labour Party are all part of a political narrative aimed at ensuring that the failure of capitalism is overlooked.

Within the coalition:  the cons want to cap welfare and are actually cutting as a consequence of the 1% increase, whilst the dems are a tad unhappy.

The cons want Bankers to keep their bonuses whilst the dems appear to have a no view.

In fact the  cap proposed by the EU will only limit a bonus to the value of the original salary i.e if you earn a £1M then your bonus is limited to a £1M unless the shareholders decide it can be increased further, whereas the cap on welfare is a definite limitation of £500 per week per family.

In Europe the recent elections in Italy have been a judgement not only on the state of politics and politicians but also on austerity.

Here in the UK, London is becoming a destination for millionaires, billionaires and zillionaires from around the world and all too soon we will be seeing the kind of shanty town encampments alongside the tracks that greet Eurostar passengers arriving in Paris.

Broadband, of course is crucial to communication, sadly for the cons and the dems the anticipated auction of the 4G Network did not realise the estimate, so I guess welfare will have to be reduced again?

But broadband is crucial not only for bankers who send enormous amounts of cash flying around the world at breakneck speed but it also means that you can watch dancing ponies in Shetland on your mobile phone (see Dance Pony Dance at www.youtube.com), priceless!

Housing is of course political. A previous Conservative administration put social housing on the market and then failed to support the successor agency to the Local Authority as a housing provider in the shape of Housing Associations who were forced to turn to the market and of course the banks for the capital they needed.

As a result of this house building, particularly in regard to social housing, is at an all time low in the UK. So housing is of crucial importance not only to those who need homes but to the wider economy as it brings jobs and wealth to a neighbourhood.

Local community initiatives are to be applauded, but a Government that fails to build houses is a Government without an economic policy.

Local planning has  much to commend it an early exponent of local planning was Dr Tony Gibson of Nottingham Universities Education for Neighbourhood Change Unit.

When I was working I used his method to great effect and Planning for Real(R) continues as an agency based in the West Midland's.

But the politics of planning are far more complex, especially in an area such as the Lake District where there is always the potential for conflict over the desire to build and change against the perfectly proper desire to protect the environment.

A bonfire of planning restrictions will not necessarily bring about economic growth and prosperity, local interests have to be debated alongside broader national interests and there needs to be a strategic view taken.

Burying nuclear waste adjacent to an area where fracking for natural gas might be used in the future is just an obvious example of how the broader view is needed.

So I look forward to hearing how the next campaign to be supported by our MP goes and meanwhile I will continue to hope that my pension will allow me to make my mortgage payments on time and that the next time I have to attend my local surgery I won't be greeted by a picture of Richard Branson announcing that he has just become the new owner.