BENEFIT 'CUTS' ARE NOT UNJUST.

The spokesmen of various churches have today claimed that the supposed 'cuts' to welfare being enacted by the Government are 'unjust'; apparently they target society's 'most vulnerable'.

 

As well as being the expected ramblings of a mish-mash of wholly unrepresentative and ill-informed socialist-minded individuals, one has to wonder what these befrocked people know about what has been, and is, going on in our society. It's only too easy to criticize others from a position of total ignorance and much harder to develop a coherent plan for tackling major economic difficulties.

 

Most churches are rich in that they own land; they also enjoy charitable status and so avoid paying certain taxes, notably VAT on their purchases, and also enjoy the benefits of 'Gift Aid' whenever any benefactor decides to leave them any asset of value, be it cash or anything else; this measn that they can claim additional amounts from HMRC that are related to the value of the donation and the tax status of the donor. Given this preferential status one has to wonder why these socially minded bodies don't offer the proceeds of these benefits to the least fortunate of their flocks. The answer, of course, is that it's much easier to spend other peoples' money and to try to claim the 'high moral ground' when the other people don't want to play ball.

 

Our country is all-but bankrupt. For decades, we have spent much more than we have earned and we've led lifestyles that simply aren't supported by the real wealth that we have; far tto much has been based on credit of one sort or another. The chickens are now coming home too roost. All debts have to be repaid eventually, be they credit cards, mortgages or government borrowing; what we are now seeing is start of the repayment of what the Governments of this country have borrowed over many years in order to finance an utterly unsustainable standard of living for most people in our country. This process will go on for many years, perhaps even decades, given the extent of the debts that have been built up.

 

The beneficiaries of most of the largesse of Governments have been the supposed 'poor'. Compared with the real poor of Victorian times and even with the poor of the the 1930s, these people are, in fact, rich; they have homes of their own, modern appliances of every sort, cars, mobile telephones, computers and regular, often foreign, holidays. These are things of which the real poor of the 20th century couldn't even dream; their predecessors in bygone days would have no understanding whatsoever of any of this.

 

It is the case that the definition of 'poor' has been subverted to mean anything that its speakers want it to mean. For the most part, 'poor' in 21st century Britain means less well-off than others; it does not mean destitute or on the streets; it does not mean unclothed. More often than not, those who claim poverty can still afford to drink and smoke; their 'poverty' is as much a life choice as anything else.

 

To return to the theseis proposed by the churches that the Government's approach has been 'unjust', I would have to say that this view is rubbish. Everyone except the very rich, and by this I mean people with wealth of many millions of pounds, has been affected by the current economic crisis. The bulk of the population are those whose assets are massively below this level but many are also the people who have been the recipients of vast government support over many years; the only way for the Government to even to begin to redress its huge financial imbalance is to start to reduce the level of support which it has hitherto offered. This may be painful for those who are most exposed but it's also entirely just; how can it be right that millions live on benefits paid for by those who are frequently not much better off ?

 

I have said before and I will no doubt say again that churchmen should keep out of politics. They are usually ill-informed and usually speak from a blinkered standpoint. It's bad enough that they profess belief in a deity which cannot be seen, heard, touched or experienced in any other way; that they should also profess belief in an economic system which can support everyone, all of the time, really is a step too far.

MILIBAND DIVORCE IS FINAL !

So now we know for sure - David Miliband and his little brother Ed, really have fallen out in a big way.

 

A couple of years ago, everyone happily assumed that it would be David who who emerged as the new leader of the Labour party following Gordon Brown's departure. Instead, it was little brother Ed who got the job, courtesy of an electoral system which gave the ultimate power of selection to the Trade Unions. David promptly took umbrage and departed to the back benches with his bat and ball. Today, despite reported overtures from his brother for him to return to a high profile role, he's taken the final step and announced his resignation form his Parliamentary seat; as if this wasn't enough, he's even decided to leave the country and will be taking up a job as a bigwig in some charity in the USA.

 

Those of an age can well remember the 'great sulk' of Ted Heath after his ousting from the leadership of the Conservative party by Margaret Thatcher in 1975. Unlike Miliband, Heath remained in Parliament and was a constant thorn in the side of his successors; Heath never forgave his party for sacking him and spent decades as an embittered man on the back benches. Miliband has, at least, decided against such childish behaviour though the overall nature of his departure seems somewhat excessive and probably calls into question his true commitment to the political life of the United Kingdom.

 

From a Tory viewpoint, one Miliband down, one to go. Oh that Cameroon and Osborne would choose to follow the same path.

BUDGET IS A DAMP SQUIB.

Well, that's it for another year unless 'Boy George' decides to continue with the recent pattern by having a second Budget in November.

 

Given the economic state in which our country finds itself, it was hardly going to be a Budget that would appeal to many people. In the event, it was pretty much a non-event, and all we can expect is more of the same; the important figures really involve Government borrowing and the accumulated deficit, which is forecast to rise to an eye-watering 85% of GDP within the next few years. That this is a totally unsustainable level of debt is something that no politician ever mentions; it's equivalent to a houseowner having debts of £425,000 to set against a house valued at £500,000. Unless the real value of the property increases, in the case of the Government it's national GDP, the debt can never be resolved.

 

George did talk about cutting back on Government expenditure and very kindly promised that huge sums of money would be ear-marked to try to boost housebuilding and home ownership, but this is all a bit peripheral; if these measures have any effect, the effects are likely to be limited and a long way in the future. There was very little that would help the economy today. Things that he could have done, such as making real cuts in Government expenditure by abolishing whole departments and QUANGOs, are far too sensitive to  even consider and yet that is one of the places where real savings exist. Why do we need a Department of International Development or a Department of Culture, Media and Sport ? Why do we need a bloated 'Cabinet Office' which was only invented in recent years ? How many QUANGOs do we have ? There are bodies of which most of us have never heard that monitor and report on anything and everything - WHY ?

 

The social security budget, inflated out of all control by the Blair-Brown coalition, hands out vast sums of money to all and sundry, often in such a away that there is no point for recipients of this largesse to bother going to work. While the Government has some plans to change this system, it's been effectively hamstrung by the horrible complexity introduced by Gordon Brown and the expectations that he allowed individuals to have. Any Government that now tries to make real cuts to welfare spending will be most unlikely to win any subsequent election, making trying to deal with the situation virtually impossible and politically catastrophic.

ARCHBISHOP WELBY; OUR MONEY PAYS FOR HIS GUILT.

At a time when our nation is under enormous economic pressure, it is to be expected that everyone who knows nothing about the issues will pontificate. 'Pontificate' is exactly the right word to use when such interventions come from an Archbishop.

 

Justin Welby, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, but a man who has only been a bishop for a year or so, has joined in with a left-wing diatribe from an assortment of other bishops, attacking the government's plan to restrict the increase in benefits form April to 1%. That he's done so, shows a shocking lack of understanding of economics as well as of his role as Archbishop.

 

From an economic standpoint, how can anyone justify increasing State payments by anything at all given the dire condition of the nation's economy ? With most people suffering restrictions in their pay, some experiencing reductions, how can it be right that benefits continue to be increased ? We already have a situation in which it is pointless for many people to work at all or certainly to work more than part-time, given the way in which the system of tax credits and housing benefits works; this system, invented by Gordon Brown, is something that will be seen, in the future, as THE major cause of the ultimate decline of the British economy. That state benefits have to be reduced in real terms, and ultimately abolished, is the only realistic option; for the highly privileged Archbishop Welby and his chums to argue with this is anathma. It is not the business of the church.

 

Welby is a man who came late to religious life and, perhaps, feels guilt about his previous life as a highly paid executive from a highly wealthy and privileged family; he did, after all go to Eton and has various knights and peers in his heritage. If he wishes to assuage his feelings of guilt, let him do so from his own purse, not from ours; don't make us share his guilt by forcing us to offer endless support to the indigent.

The church is responsible for the spiritual well-being of its advotees, not for the economic lives of the nation; we should tell Archbishop Welby and his episcopal pals to shut their mouths.

NIGERIAN HOSTAGE REPORTED MURDERED.

Once again, a British hostage has reportedly been murdered in foreign parts, this time in Nigeria. If the report is true, it's another example of both the brutality and barbarism practised in that country and of the naivety and idiocy of workers who happily move to such places in pursuit of high wages.

 

Those who try to tell us that the people of the 'third world' are really no different to 'us' are such morons. In the UK we do not kidnap workers, nor do we murder those whom we've kidnapped. In entirely uncivilized and uneducated parts of the world such as Nigeria such behaviour is commonplace. This is not to say that Nigerians, or any others, are all uncivilized or barbaric, but many in the third world, perhaps most, are. Their understanding of the world and their approach to life are simply less developed than is common in the more developed parts of the world.

 

In a similar vein, the workers who see employment in various foreign countries as nothing more than a means to make large amounts of untaxed money are also idiots. They fail to understand that they are exposing themselves to dangers of a sort which do not exist in the world from which they come. They have an exaggerated view of their own importance and ability to survive; they are frequently uwilling, or unable, to reconcile themselves to the realities of a new life in a very different place. The consequence is, sometimes, painful and even fatal.

 

Over the coming days we may well be assailed by stories of the shocking murder of this 'entirely innocent' Briton. While this will be nothing more than the media making money from the unfortunate man's misfortune, it will overlook all of the background to the affair. It will simply refer to terrorists behaving unspeakably and poor workers in foreign parts being targeted in a horrible way. This will do no justice to either side in the equation - it will just cloud the truth in an appalling fog of political correctness and left-wing obfuscation.

 

If a man has been murdered, it is tragic for both him and his family, but we must not ignore the circumstances, all of the circumstances, that have brought him to this point. If we do, then we will do no service to those involved to date or those who may become so involved in the future.

HUHNE & PRYCE : CONTINUING A LONG TRADITION !

A couple of weeks ago, Chris Huhne, disgraced Liberal Democrat MP, pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice and will undoubtedly go to prison before very long. His political career is over.

 

Following Huhne's acceptance of his guilt, a jury found it impossible to arrive at a verdict in the case of his former wife, Vicky Pryce, who pleaded not guilty to the same offence on the grounds that Huhne had coerced her into complicity with his wrong doings. She employed a rarely used defence of marital coersion (they were married at the time of the offences) and it seems that this confused the jury. A second trial was convened and the new jury has now delivered a guilty verdict on Ms Pryce, rejecting her claims to have been coerced; she may well also go to prison within the next week or 2.

 

Pryce had become a frequent figure on BBC television programmes. She is, apparently, a respected, though left wing, economist of some standing and those of like mind at the Beeb, of whom there seem to be many, obviously saw her as a fellow traveller. The fact that she was actually a vindictive woman hell-bent on destroying the husband who'd left her for another woman seems not have bothered them, as she continued to appear even after Huhne was initially arrested.

 

While this whole saga is a very public and extreme example of what can happen when relationships break down, it's also yet another scandal to affect the political establishment and the Liberal Democrats in particular. From the days of Lloyd George, who was an acknowledged womaniser, through the scandals around Jeremy Thorpe and Paddy Ashdown, the Liberals have had trouble keeping out of trouble. More recently, Simon Oaten and Charles Kennedy have caused them serious embarrassment and now it's Huhne going to prison along with his ex-wife. Will it never end ?

UKIP TAKES ALL THE HONOURS IN EASTLEIGH.

So Eastleigh did stay with the Liberal Democrats, but with a much reduced share of the vote. Undoubtedly, they had UKIP to thank for this happy turn of events as the 'new kids on the block' sent the Conservatives tumbling down to third place in a seat that they themselves held as recently as 20 years ago. Seeing and hearing the candidates, it wasn't hard to see why UKIP's Diane James gained more favour than the Conservative's Maria Hutchings and she could easily do even better in a couple of years time.

 

Although the Liberals retained the seat it is UKIP who are the real winners. Not only did they achieve their best result ever in a UK parliamentary election, they convinced nearly 28% of the electorate to vote for them. This is far more than a simple protest vote and, with the Conservatives unable to fight them off, it is also a serious message to David Cameron and his chums that they need to get a grip of things.

 

Cameron is, by upbringing and inclination, much more of a social democrat than a true Conservative and he's also scared of not being in what they all like to call 'the centre ground'. Consequently, he's fundamentally incapable of taking the strong and decisive action that's necessary to bring real long-term stability back to the British economy. Additionally, he's incapable of responding to the concerns of his more right wing colleagues on issues such as the EU and immigration, leaving a gaping hole through which UKIP have now stormed.

 

This election result may, of course, be nothing more than a blip, though that seems very unlikely. UKIP are, at the very least, destined to be a very significant presence at future elections, taking votes from all three of the main parties though, perhaps, mainly from the Conservatives. However, they may turn out to be much more than this and could easily become a real force in British politics, one which will move us to a 4-party system and perpetual coaltion government. Alternatively, disaffected Conservative voters may turn to them for salvation and Eastleigh might signal the start of a terminal decline for a party which has stood the test of time for more than 200 years; UKIP could be the 'New Conservatives'.

 

In May, many people will go to the polls again in local government elections for 35 non-Metropolitan county councils and unitary authorities. The Conservatives currently hold power in 29 of these authorities and Labour in just 1. If UKIP decide to get involved, the picture after the elections might be very, very different.