Category Archives: Politics

Benefits for All?

Posted on by

Ian Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions certainly opened a can of worms last week when he suggested that wealthy people in receipt of  state benefits should hand them back if they don’t actually need them.  A non-UK citizen following this story from afar would probably scratch his head in bemusement and  wonder why it is that the State would hand out benefits to wealthy people in the first place.

As for Mr Duncan Smith, he doesn’t seem to have much knowledge of human nature if he really thinks people will voluntarily hand money back once the State has placed it in their bank accounts. Some may do but the vast majority? No chance. That said, I understand his thinking and I’m sure many people will agree with much of what he suggested.

The obvious problem with benefits for all – universal benefits – is that some people will quite clearly have no need of them. It strikes me as ludicrous that a multi-millionaire pensioner can still receive a bus pass, winter fuel payment and even a state pension when he needs it about as much as an Eskimo needs a fridge freezer! It is surely all a question of degree. The whole point of a welfare system is to ensure that the State does as much as it can to eliminate poverty and suffering among its disadvantaged citizens, drawing a line below which nobody must be allowed to fall.

I can see that pensioners, having worked hard all their lives and having dutifully paid their taxes and national insurance, should reap the benefit of that hard work by receiving benefits from the State once they have retired. Quite right too, it is they who have helped create the nation’s wealth, such as it is. It is all a question of degree and I use the example again of a multi-millionaire receiving benefits. That is not what the system was planned for.

Surely the obvious solution to this problem is to have a proper system of means testing so that no benefits are paid to anybody with a yearly income of over £100,000, for example. Something needs to be done however and our politicians need to engage in meaningful debate rather that just simply slag each other off and point score. We are in a recession and we can’t afford to waste a single penny. It’s not just politics, it’s common sense.

Maragaret Thatcher – An Appraisal

Posted on by

The funeral of Margaret Thatcher takes place on Wednesday and what should be a dignified and solemn occasion is threatening to be anything but. As the security forces brace themselves to counter the threats posed by protesters the rest of the world looks on, I’m sure, in a state of amazement. What is it about our late prime minister that elicits such strong emotions?

Clearly, even though the Conservatives won the 1979 election with a sizeable majority the appointment of Britain’s first female prime minister was not met with universal acclaim. I suspect that a fair number of women disliked her because, well, she was a woman and we all know how competitive the female sex can be amongst each other. Men with misogynistic tendencies no doubt  disliked her too because they would never take kindly to being lectured by a mere woman. The British generally hate being told what to do, it’s in our cussed nature and Mrs Thatcher’s, at times, domineering manner and headmistress-like demeanour were certainly not appreciated by all.
For many of us though, putting her mannerisms and policies aside for the moment, the fact that she, a grocer’s daughter, and far removed from the established ruling elite, defeated the system and all its considerable obstacles to become the first woman prime minister was nothing short of remarkable. Even now, the odds against a woman making it to the top of her profession or calling are still heavily stacked against her.
Irrespective of her character, it was Mrs Thatcher’s policies that effected the divide in society which clearly exists to this day. She stood for free enterprise, hard work and standing on your own two feet. She believed that the little person, given encouragement and free from restrictions, could make it big. Think of Lord Alan Sugar, from uneducated London barrow-boy to multi-millionaire in just over a decade. She was the opposite of the money for nothing-do nothing-the State will look after me section of our society who are naturally among her most fierce critics.
She believed that people should try to make their way in life free from the interference of the State. In short she was the complete antithesis of Socialism, Communism, Marxism and their various spin-offs. She posed a direct threat to the anti-democratic trades unions who had brought our country to the verge of bankruptcy during the strike infested winter of discontent in 1979.The fact that she defeated the unions and reformed their dictatorial ways by introducing a secret ballot is surely to her credit.
Her opponents constantly remind us of how she closed down mines and collieries and caused the collapse of various industries nationwide. Well, my recollection is that those particular industries were losing money and were no longer viable. If you are running a business at a loss economic common sense, if nothing else, is going to tell you to do something about it. Unemployment is always sad but is it the duty of the State to provide people with work? Further, if those industries were closed down unnecessarily and money was there to be made why didn’t Tony Blair’s Labour government reopen them when they came to power in 1997?
Margaret Thatcher didn’t get everything right, the poll tax was a glaring example of that and towards the end of her final term she seemed to become more out of touch and less tolerant of her government colleagues, believing always that she was right and they were wrong. In the end her political demise was as inevitable as it was necessary. So what then of her legacy?
I will remember Margaret Thatcher as an honest decent woman who spoke her mind, rare traits in a politician. A woman who defeated the mighty trades unions and got Britain back to work and competitive again. A woman who, ignoring all advice and displaying more cajones than most of her colleagues, decided to retake the Falkland Islands from a foreign aggressor and succeeded against all the odds. A woman who stood up to the injustices of a corrupt European Union and won us a rebate which we have to this day.
A woman who along with her close friend, the American President Ronald Reagan, did more than any other western politician in bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union. A woman who, resisting the clamour for more sanctions against the cruel apartheid regime of South Africa, preferred negotiation which eventually led to reform and the release of Nelson Mandela, a fact that Mr Mandela himself has not been slow to acknowledge. 
Most of all, I will remember a woman, an extraordinary woman, who beat the system and won three general elections for her party, a woman who loved her country and made many of us feel proud to be British again.
Mourn her if you will, despise her if you must but whatever your stance, be assured that we will never see her like again. I just hope that enough decent true Britons line the streets of her funeral procession on Wednesday and that they, with dignified mourning, deny the anarchistic mob their moment in the lime light. The lady deserves nothing less. 

Dancing on the Grave

Posted on by

The death of Baroness Thatcher last Monday at the age of 87 generated enormous headlines worldwide.  By any standards, Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister from May 1979 until her resignation in November 1990, was a remarkable woman and in addition, as many of her contemporaries have testified,  a formidable politician. As our country’s first and only female Prime Minister, she undoubtedly became one of the most important leaders of the 20th Century.

Expert political commentators and journalists have analysed Margaret Thatcher’s impact and legacy in fine detail over the last few days and there is nothing further for me to add. I do, however, have one comment. Having watched the televised scenes of her opponents openly celebrating and revelling in her death I cannot help but wonder how any civilised human being can behave in such a manner. Of course, the clue lies in the word “civilised”.
For sure, Thatcher’s politics and persona evoked all sorts of emotions in all sorts of people and her policies were certainly, as many have put it, extremely divisive. But, whatever your views on the lady and her policies there can never be any justification for the sick, disgusting behaviour witnessed this week. It brings nothing but disgrace on the perpetrators but worse still, it brings shame upon the whole country.

Politically Correct Child Care

Posted on by
The story, published over the weekend, about the Rotherham couple who have had their foster children taken away from them because of their membership of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) almost beggars belief. I say “almost” because, where our politically correct bureaucrats are concerned, nothing should surprise us any longer.

Even so, this particular story represents modern day political correctness at its most invidious. The couple concerned, foster parents for the last 8 years and thoroughly respectable and decent by all accounts have had their latest charges (three children aged under the age of 10) removed from them because the little dictators at Rotherham Council Politburo (sorry, Social Services) don’t like the fact that the parents are members of a political party deemed by the Council to be “racist” (a euphemism for anything right of centre).

So what? What on earth have somebody’s political beliefs got to do with their ability to look after children? Are you only fit to look after children if your political views are left of centre? Is there any evidence to show that these particular foster parents have in some way neglected or abused the children under their care and control? There appears to be no such evidence and the Labour controlled Rotherham Council, caring not one jot about the welfare of the children concerned, are simply politicizing child care.

Local authority Social Services should concentrate purely and simply on child welfare and particularly on the prevention of child abuse, an area where, let’s face it, they have not exactly performed with distinction over the last few years. This sort of totalitarian behaviour is more redolent of Stalinist Russia than modern England and I would bet £10 to a penny that if the foster parents were paid up members of the Communist Party the comrades in Rotherham wouldn’t have batted an eyelid.

I hope the Government appreciates the national outrage that this incident has provoked and takes appropriate action against the Council’s employees responsible for it. A strong message needs to be sent out to councils, bureaucrats and civil servants everywhere that we live in a democracy and, as such, our freedoms of speech, belief and association are sacrosanct and will be protected at all costs.

Fiction or Fact?

Posted on by
According to yesterday’s Mail on Sunday the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, presumably taking a breather from his attempts to reform Britain’s declining schools, has declared that we need to take a tougher stance on Europe and to tell Brussels that if we had a referendum on continued membership he would vote to leave. There were no actual quotations from Mr Gove personally and most of the viewpoints attributed to him came from interviews with “friends” and “a well placed source” who gave testimony as to what Mr Gove told them. In effect this was either a non-story placed on the front page to sell copy or alternatively it was an authorised leak to convince us that the Government are, at last, going to get tough on Europe.

If it was an attempt to sell newspapers then fair enough, the fall in newspaper sales caused by universally obtainable online news would justify almost any attempt to boost sales, even stories based on hearsay. However, if it was a deliberate leak to try and convince a sceptical and disenchanted public that the Government is actually going to stand up to Brussels then that is a different matter. There is no doubt that the Conservatives, who in power seem no better or, at times, no different to New Labour, are losing support at an alarming rate.

Perhaps the Prime Minister’s colleagues and advisers are finally beginning to realise that they need to do something about it and they now realise that continued membership of the European Union is of concern to a sizeable proportion of the electorate. Let’s hope that this is the case because the continued defection of traditional Conservatives to UKIP is going to do neither party, nor the country as a whole, any favours since neither one will be strong enough to form a government come the elections in 2015.

The Ugly Face of the Unions

Posted on by

`In an interview with the Sunday Times last week, the General Secretary of the Unite Trade Union, Len McCluskey, said that he and his union would “kick the New Labour cuckoos out of our nest” in their attempt to “reclaim Labour” and promote a “renewed socialist agenda”. Since Unite is the largest trade union in the country, with over a million and  a half members, and is the Labour Party’s biggest donor (having given £6 million over the last two years) his threats are not to be taken lightly. In a typically anti-democratic move by a typically dictatorial trade unionist, McCluskey has said that Unite will not provide financial support for any Labour MP who doesn’t  share the aims and views of Unite. Welcome back to the 1970s.

Those of us who were around during that troublesome decade will recall how the unions  brought the country to its knees with almost constant industrial action and strikes called regularly whenever things weren’t going quite the way they wished. It seemed as though the Labour government of then Prime Minister James Callaghan was at the mercy and beck and call of the unions and in many ways, of course, it (and he) was. Now it looks as though the Labour Party  (irrespective of the fact that they, like any other political party, are beholden to the public who democratically elected their MPs) will once more dance to the tune of unions like Unite. Should the Labour Party, as seems perfectly possible, gain power in the 2015 general election then the whole country can look forward (an unfortunate  expression I know) to government by trade union.
Unite’s “struggle for Labour’s soul” is illustrated by its aim of persuading 5,000 trade unionists to sign up to the Labour Party (and thus increase their control) by December of this year. Evidently they are on target to achieve that aim so it looks like the Labour Party will once more be home to socialist firebrands whose dogmatic aims will always be put before the prosperity of the nation as a whole.  
We’ve already seen how destructive Unite can be with its call for strikes to disrupt the recent Olympics and its support for the petrol tanker drivers strike earlier this year. They have amassed a £25 million fighting fund to back further strikes over the next few months so their threats are clearly not hollow. Book your flight tickets now since a winter of discontent to match that of 1978-9 is a distinct possibility.

Welfare Attacks

Posted on by
There will, of course, be much controversy over the Prime Minister’s announcement of plans to scrap Housing Benefit for under-25s and to introduce measures to stem the flow of taxpayers’ money on various other welfare benefits. Whatever he proposes, he is bound to meet strong resistance from his Coalition partners and his parliamentary opposition who seem to regard the State’s funds as an unlimited resource.
The fact of the matter is that the State’s coffers are not unlimited. On the contrary, we are in the grip of a severe recession that shows no sign of abating in the foreseeable future and it makes sense that the State should do all it can to ensure that funds are collected from all available sources and, once in the possession of the State, be spent wisely or preserved to try to keep us out of further economic misery.

That is easier said than done but practically it means that the Government must ensure that those able to contribute do so by paying their taxes (see Friday’s blog) and then try hard to avoid frittering it away whether it be on pointless foreign adventures (Iraq and Afghanistan), by ill-conceived and inefficient domestic policies (too many examples to list) or by throwing it at citizens who have no intention of ever contributing to society. The latter has the Prime Minister’s attention at the moment and whilst there is undoubtedly a sickening culture of scrounging in this country, it must not be forgotten that, as a (relatively) civilized society we have a duty to protect the weak, infirm and severely disadvantaged.

The Prime Minister is right to address the problem of benefit fraud and the culture of getting something for nothing but there has to be a balance. By all means, prevent able-bodied citizens from claiming benefit when they are offered and decline reasonable offers of employment but don’t punish those without the choice or the chance of climbing out of the mire and advancing themselves. Restrictions on the granting of Housing Benefit should undoubtedly be put in place but whether it is right to deny a whole group, such as those under 25, is a matter for careful consideration and debate.

A Load of Rubbish

Posted on by

We all know what a big problem we have in this country with litter and waste disposal whether it be louts throwing McDonalds cartons out of car windows or low lives dumping old mattresses and settees by the roadside. However, it’s good to know that the Government recognises the problem and is doing all it can to alleviate it – by increasing the cost of dumping waste!

Yes, the latest stroke of genius to emanate from the corridors of power (in this case HM Revenue and Customs) is a huge increase in the cost of waste disposal which in effect is an invitation to fly-tip on an epic scale. Evidently, the cost of dumping some types of waste has gone up from £2.50 to £64 per tonne according to the Independent newspaper.
Of more relevance is the fact that the cost of emptying a skip has gone up from £144 to £300 and in the middle of a deep recession that is some increase. So concerned are national waste disposal companies that they have already staged a protest in Parliament Square and are predicting not only a huge increase in the illegal dumping of rubbish but also the loss of thousands of jobs in the waste disposal industry.
What on earth is going on in Whitehall and Westminster? Does nobody in Parliament have even a modicum of common sense?  We can only hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be persuaded to realise that this is yet another gaffe by his accident-prone Government and he will smartly effect another U turn to match the other half dozen or so since the disastrous March budget. I wouldn’t hold my breath though.

Dull Politicians

Posted on by
The Prime Minister, David Cameron, was reprimanded this week by the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, for calling Labour’s Ed Balls “a muttering idiot”. A muttering idiot? I would have thought that was almost a compliment, bearing in mind most people’s view of the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer!
Really though, was it that much of an insult? In Australia and Italy for example, politicians get away with far worse and the insults are generally far more fruity resulting sometimes in bouts of fisticuffs between over-excited opponents. Now there’s a thought, how much would you pay to watch Cameron slap Milliband around the chops, or vice versa?

As far as the UK is concerned perhaps it’s just a sign of the times and an indication of how dull and lacking in wit are many of today’s politicians. Indeed, our current bunch are pygmies compared to some of the greats of old, statesmen like Winston Churchill, David Lloyd George or Benjamin Disraeli. Prime Minister Disraeli once described his opponent and former PM William Gladstone as being “inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity”. Now that was a clever insult – in fact, probably too clever for the majority of dullards present in today’s House of Commons!

As someone once said of politicians “The more I see of the representatives of the people, the more I admire my dogs”.

More Sleaze

Posted on by

 So it costs £250,000 to enter the Conservative Party “premier league” and purchase a meeting or even dine with the Prime Minister according to a Conservative Party treasurer, Peter Cruddas, who resigned yesterday following revelations in the Sunday Times.

I’d like to say how surprised and outraged I am by this latest scandal and affront to the democratic processes of our once great country but unfortunately my reaction, like that of many other people I imagine, was more like “oh dear, here we go again”!
Of course, the revelations, if  true, raise several important issues, amongst which is was the Prime Minister aware of these payments? Further, did those payments, leading to meetings with the Prime Minister, actually buy favours and undue influence for the donors? If either answer is in the affirmative then Prime Minister David Cameron could be in big trouble although I suspect, like Tony Blair before him, he will simply wriggle out of it, we’ll forget about it and the unsavoury circus of British Politics will trundle along like it always does.