HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM MUST PROCEED

As the Government unveils its proposals on reform to the House of Lords, listening to the bleating of various current members of this august body really is becoming painful.

Of course, you can't expect turkeys to vote for Christmas, but these are supposed to be intelligent and trustworthy people, appointed to the House specifically because they are so. Hearing so many of them trot out every possible reason why the House should not be reformed tells me that the majority are simply self-serving politicians who will fight tooth-and-nail to protect their own exalted status.

'There are far more important things for Government to deal with'

'We will lose so much expertise'

'There will be a blurring of responsibilites with the Commons'

'It's a mechanism for the LibDems to gain a permanent advantage'

'We will lose the 'voluntary' ethic that currently exists'

'It will be much more expensive'

'The membership will be more 'politicized''

These are only a few of the nonsensical reasons that I've heard used in the last couple of days - there are many more. What drivel. For a democratic country to have half of its Parliamentary system composed of a huge number of politically appointed individuals, is ridiculous, whatever the reasons that are given for its continuation. Failed and retired members of the Commons can frequently rely on the patronage of their Party to grant them 'elevation' to the 'Upper House' together with a fancy title and ermine robes; the right to attend all manner of state functions and a status that they never enjoyed as elected representatives.

What rubbish is this ? Whatever one's political persuasion, the House of Lords as it is currently configured is unsustainable and must go. Governments have been promising full reform for more than a century and little real progress has been made other than to make the House evermore political in nature. The nay-sayers should be silenced and the House should be reformed as a matter of urgency; despite the claims made, it is an important issue, indeed it is a vital one in any nation that calls itself 'Democratic'.

BANKING IS CORRUPT - OFFICIAL.

The news that 'Barclays' bank has been fined a substantial amount, almost £300m in fact, for manipulating interest rates might be shocking but doesn't really come as any surprise. Anyone who's used any bank in the last 30 years cannot be anything but well aware of the way in which 'service' has declined and management-speak, opacity and greed have become all.

Every time I pay in any significant sum, I'm asked if I have plans for the money, this being a programmed mechanism designed to see if the bank can get its grubby little hands on the money. If a withdraw anything significant, there is a similar reaction; my own main bank even takes to ringing me or writing to me on such occasions, asking if I'd like to attend a financial appraisal meeting, but couching the invitation in such a way as to suggest that the meeting has already been arranged. 

In recent years, I've experienced a number of problems with banks and it's usually needed a letter to the Chief Executive to get matters resolved; the resolution is frequently accompanied by a degree of financial compensation which is really a sweetener to get me to go away and not make any more fuss.

The fines that have been imposed on Barclays, and the bits and pieces that such banks regularly pay out as compensation for screwing their customers' accounts up, aren't a charge on the bank. These monies all come out of the profits that the bank would otherwise make and, therefore, are paid by their shareholders rather than those who are actually responsible for the mistakes, be they innocent or, as in the manipulation of interest rates, morally if not actually criminal. In the case of Barclays, some of their senior directors have announced, in an attempt to save their own reputations, that they will forego this year's bonuses; what will happen about the pay and bonuses of those who are no longer employed, if anything, has yet to be announced. 

As I write, a further twist in this story has come to light, with the revelation that a number of major international banks have been discovered to have been manipulating the LIBOR rate, an interest rate benchmark that is relied on by banks worldwide. If anyone wanted proof that banking is a corrupt business, they now have it. We should expect some very big names from some very big banks to find themselves in prison before very long - much more likely is that more shareholders' monies will simply be paid out in fines and the criminal behaviour of the super-rich banking officials will simply be brushed under the carpet.

ARE TORIES TURNING THE CLOCK BACK ?

As the coalition government totters from crisis to crisis and its members make increasingly disunited statements, 'Dave' has now decided to start setting out the Conservative Party's vision for the years after the next election, even though this is still some 3 years away.

Last week, we had the sight of Michael Gove being dragged to the House of Commons to explain a leak about his plans for the future of secondary education and today, apparently, Dave is going to make a speech about reforms to the welfare state. Gove's leaked plans have been seen as the beginning of his campaign to replace Dave as Tory leader so, perhaps, Dave's speech today can be seen as part of his effort to keep the job himself.

It's reported that Dave will suggest, among other things, that housing benefit for single people under the age of 25 should be reduced or stopped altogether. My reaction is to ask why it is that it's ever been paid to this group in the first place. Not very many years ago, it was the norm for young people to remain living in the family home until they left to marry and establish their own household; those who did not manage to achieve this within a reasonable time, or who simply didn't want to carry on living with ma, pa and the 6 younger brats, went into lodgings. In neither case did the state pay them anything for the cost of their housing and they were expected to make provision for their rent as a 'first call' on their earnings. If this left them with insufficient to support the lifestyle they would have liked to have had, that was just tough.

Today, children as young as 16 are often desperate to leave home and to get away from what they see as the interference of their parent(s). Older young'uns are not prepared to contemplate living in lodgings of the type their predecessors endured - small dingy rooms in old houses - and demand to be given flats or houses of their own, whether they have the wherewithal to pay for such accommodation or not. In our excessively generous welfare society, the government now falls over itself to provide what these groups want. As well as the huge financial burden this places on the state in supporting the large number of claimants who are either unemployed or whose income is deemed insufficient to pay the rent, this has resulted in a substantial increase in the requirement for accommodation, thus contributing to the supposed, but largely mythical, housing crisis.

It isn't considered de rigeur to look back at earlier years and to suggest that we might actually turn the clock back a bit, but both Gove and Dave are suggesting exactly this and why not ? For years now this country has ben living well beyond its means and the people have enjoyed lifestyles that they could not afford without the support of the state. It is high time that this nonsense was stopped and we returned to a world in which individuals are responsible for their own economic well-being; for the state to be stealing around half of the income of those who have anything, to hand it out to thousands of ne'er-do-wells is no way to run an economy or to encourage personal responsibility.

If the Tories really do mean to attack the problems of our education and welfare systems as is being indicated, they will have my vote come 2015.

SO WHO DOES PAY THEIR TAXES ?

Given all of the recent talk about the tax affairs of a distinctly average comedian, one has to wonder why it is that the arrangements entered into by other high earners have not received more scrutiny.

Of course, we frequently hear about the 'excessive' salaries of senior managers in major companies but how often do we hear anything about the much larger earnings of a raft of entertainment and sporting personalities ? For instance, how much tax does Paul McCartney pay on what must be vast earnings from his career as a pop singer ? Then there's Elton John, Cliff Richard, Mick Jagger and many others. What about the grotesque salaries paid to Premier League footballers, at least some of which are undoubtedly arranged through complicated schemes specifically designed to avoid tax ? Why does David Cameron not condemn these arrangements and why does the Treasury not act to close the 'loopholes' that are exploited on behalf of the people concerned ?

If I, or any other ordinary individual, dares to make a mistake on our tax returns we can expect HMRC to come down on us like a ton of bricks; fines and even prison sentences can follow. Anyone who's in normal employment will find tax, and national insurance, removed from their salary even before they receive it; does the same apply to footballers and pop singers ? Of course not.

Ordinary people have very little opportunity to defraud the taxman and even if they find a way, the extent of the fraud is tiny when compared with the vast sums of tax that are avoided by rich 'personalities'. This is not to say that these people are acting illegally but, if David Cameron wants to make a stand about the morality of paying tax, these are the people he should be targeting. Tell the Treasury, and HMRC, to close the ridiculous loopholes that exist purely to enrich these parasites. If they then decide to go elsewhere, so be it; they pay little or no tax now, so we will be no worse off.

Perhaps someone in the Treasury could provide an estimate of the total tax avoided through the operation of these schemes that are apparently legal, while being what the Prime Minister would consider 'morally repugnant'. Publication of the figure might just be enough to stir the government into some form of real action.

JIMMY CARR, TAX, CASH & MORALITY.

I had rather ignored the issue of Jimmy Carr's tax arrangements until I heard a comment from Andrew Neil on Today's 'Daily Politics'. Mr Neil remarked that Carr had paid cash for his current home, and not just a little bit. £8,500,000 of cash, actually.

Forgive me for being a little shocked by this revelation but where on earth does a second rate comic like Jimmy Carr  get that sort of money, and in cash ? No doubt this is also a question that will now be persued by the tax authorities and it would not really surprise me if they found some naughtiness involved somewhere along the way.

I have no objection whatsoever to people paying only the tax that is due and the Government rhetoric about the unfairness and immorality of special arrangements passes me by. If the Government doesn't like loopholes in the tax laws, then it should close them; at the same time, I have some difficulty with the scheme that Mr Carr was apparently employing, one that involved him receiving his pay as loans from an off-shore company - this smacks of tax fraud, even if it isn't.

The Government finds ever more surreptitious ways of picking our pockets at every opportunity and now takes more of our hard-earned income than it ever did. Given this, it is perfectly fair that tax payers find, and exploit, legitimate avenues for minimising their own tax liabilities. One has to assume that the likes of Tony Blair have used every means under the sun to ensure that they pay as little as possible, as no doubt have the forebears of the likes of David Cameron, Nick Clegg and George Osborne, so why shouldn't the rest of us ?

The feigned outrage of Cameron is really pretty laughable. He has 2 free homes together with staff and all utilities, while being paid something like £142,000 pa plus expenses. He, of course, has little or no expenses and is free to invest most of his post-tax income in savings for his future, as is his wife who also enjoys a largely free life on the tax payer. So, Mr Cameron, I think you should shut up.

Putting aside the purely political issues, the fact that Carr has amassed such a fortune from so little must raise a few eyebrows. Let's hope that an investigation into the associated issues brings some explanations.

GREEDY DOCTORS CAUSE PAIN.

Today, some doctors have gone on strike in order to complain about their pension arrangements.

As someone who worked in the NHS for many years I have very mixed feelings about doctors. Some were undoubtedly very good and very caring; all-in-all very decent people who had no inflated view of their own position or importance. Sadly, there were others who were, not to mince my words, arrogant, ignorant, offensive, overbearing and greedy; some of this latter group treated nurses and everyone else around them, apart from their patients, with utter disdain and were even known to have reduced some of their nursing support staff to tears on a regular basis.

The state of the country's finances, allied to increasing life expectations, clearly requires addressing and there is no reason why doctors should be exempted from bearing their share of the pain to come. Doctors already earn much more than most in our society and their pensions mean that the vast majority are already amongst the wealthiest in retirement. That they should go on strike, causing misery to thousands of patients, is a digrace and simply shows many up for the greedy, grasping people that they are.

Make no mistake. Doctors are not gods and have no right to special treatment in any respect. After today's little episode, one can but hope that more people will realise this.

FALKLANDS OR MALVINAS : THE PEOPLE MUST DECIDE.

While attending the latest 'G20' party in Mexico, David Cameron seems to have had a spat with the Argentine president, a woman whose sole aim in life appears to be to initiate a second 'Falklands War'.

This lunatic, the Argentine not Cameron on this occasion, is hell bent on regaining 'Las Malvinas' for her country, presumably in order to get her hands on the oil that's now been discovered in their vicinity. She's tried to get backing from her South American neighbours and even sought to have British ships turned away from ports in other South American countries. Now, she's presented some sort of motion to the United Nations and, apparently, yesterday she tried to hand a copy of this to Cameron.

Sensibly, Cameron refused to have anything to do with the mad woman but she will no doubt be quite happy with the publicity that her actions gained. The most worrying thing about the whole affair is that it's clear the issue of the sovereignty of the Falklands is far from being resolved, at least as far as some in Argentina are concerned.

Next year, the islanders plan on holding a referendum on the question. There can be little doubt as to its outcome and the islanders will certainly vote, by a huge majority, to remain tied to the United Kingdom. There can be equally little doubt that the Argentine government, led by the barmy President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, will refuse to accept the results of the ballot and will continue to demand the 'return' of the islands to Argentine control.

Perhaps it is time that Britain pointed out to the world that Argentina provided tacit support to the NAZI regime during WW2, and continued to provide a refuge for some of its most hideous members thereafter. It might also be timely to note that Argentina has a history of coups and military juntas with little real democracy until the last few years. What right do they have to lecture us on the rights and wrongs of history ?

WHO WILL BUY MY LUVERLY EURO-BONDS ?

The 'G20' meeting in Mexico ended with the usual meaningless words and very little, if any, action. However, Eurozone countries now appear to have come up with another bright idea aimed at preventing the collapse of their currency; they will, collectively, buy up vast amounts of bonds issued by the worst affected countries, initially meaning Spain and Italy. The intention of this action is to allow Spain and Italy to raise money at rates of interest that ignore market forces and the inherent weakness of their internal economies.

On the face of it, this ploy could work for a while. Unfortunately, all it really does is to spread the weakness of the worst affected around all of the others, creating an overall weakened group of nations. The final result is that nothing changes, the Eurozone as a whole stays in every bit as much of a mess as it was before the idea was mooted.

In an effort to avoid having to make the politically unacceptable decisions that the Eurozone problems really need, politicans are thrashing around trying to find evermore futile ways of shoring up a collapsing building. The amounts of money being committed have escalated from a few billion to, now, a reported 6-700 billion Euros; my understanding of the opinions of the wisest heads is that even this astronomical sum is nowhere  near enough to resolve the situation.

If it wasn't so terrifying, it would be comical.

AUNG SAN SUU KYI.

The visit of Aung San Suu Kyi to anywhere outside of her native Burma is something to be welcomed; it is particularly good news that she has just started a visit to the UK.

This woman has been an international 'super star' for a good many years, despite doing almost nothing. However, her 'nothing' has been in the face of the most appalling treatment meted out to her in her home country and has opened her up to considerable dangers. Unlike the sainted Nelson Mandela, she has never embraced violence and was one of the very few truly worthy recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Aung San Suu Kyi is a role model for the world. Her low key approach belies her innate strength of character and determination. Our own politicians could learn a thing or two from this great woman.

CORRUPTION IS EVERYWHERE

As the 'Leveson' enquiry rumbles on, we simply become more immured to the notion that all of the people who occupy positions of power and authority are likely to be devious, duplicitous or outright corrupt.

There have been so many contradictory versions of the various meetings and conversations between politicians and media representatives that it's becoming impossible to sort the wheat from the chafe. The people giving evidence are all experts in making apparently definite statements of fact that are, in reality, nothing of the sort. Their words are always open to further interpretation and can be claimed to have been misunderstood if necessary. They are, frankly, lying, duplicitous bastards.

The latest of these individuals to be given a real 'going-over' is Jeremy Hunt. the so-called 'Culture Secreatary'. I won't rehearse the history of Hunt's involvement in the issues being investigated by Leveson, but it seems abundantly clear that he has questions to answer. I can't say that the man is corrupt but .......... . The Prime Minister seems to regard Hunt so highly that he refuses to sanction any enquiry into the man's activities, something that serves only to raise questions about the Prime Minister's own integrity.

In my estimation, the entire ruling body of our nation is corrupt. Parliament, Church, business - they are all equally culpable when it comes to issues of morality and ethics. They all work entirely in their own interests and with scant regard for the interests of their constituents, congregations or shareholders. Eventually things will change, but it's unlikely to happen without a lot of pain for many people.

EURO DIES - TOMORROW'S NEWS TODAY !

The bail-out of Spain by the European nations will, no doubt, cause a bit of excitement on the markets on Monday. Perhaps we will have a bounce, possibly quite a big one, before the same markets actually stop and think.

It's already been suggested that €100bn is no where near enough to resolve Spain's problems; it's also said that Ireland is, again, in trouble, while the unresolved issues affecting Greece, Portugal and Italy will most probably raise their ugly aheads again in the next few months.

The Eurozone, as it is currently configured, is dead. The only people who won't admit this are the politicians whose careers rely on its success and continuation. The longer these morons insist on trying to keep it staggering along, the worse will be the eventual collapse. Why can they not see this ?

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO EDUCATION ?

Jolly old Michael Gove has apparently dreamt up a new wheeze. He's going to make primary schools put a glossy new focus on spelling and grammar.

WHAT ?  When did our primary schools stop paying proper attention to these core issues ? I know that when I was at school, in the prehostoric past, spelling and grammar were central to our education. Consequently, my language skills tend to be rather better than those of the youngsters I occasionally meet.

Gove's 'imitiative' is yet another frightening indicator of the extent to which our children's education has been 'dumbed down' by successive governments. Younger people in our society cannot spell, they cannot write or speak in coherent sentences; they cannot do simple arithmetic and mental arithmetic is generally well beyond their capabilities. However, they do know all there is to know about the world war two holocaust and the evils of slavery; they know about their rights, without having any thoughts about their responsibilities, and they know all about contraception and venereal diseases without knowing anything about morality or ethics. They're taught 'health and child care' rather than biology, and the traditional sciences of chemistry, physics and biology seem to be lumped together as 'triple science' rather than being given the individual emphases they deserve.

Governments have fiddled with our education system for decades and every change has made it worse. Gove's proposal could be the first step in a recovery process, though I won't be holding my breath.