KNIVES OUT FOR CLEGG.

It seems that Nick Clegg now has a bit of a fight on his hands if he's to remain leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister.

After their catastrophic showing in both the Local and European elections, a few voices have been raised suggesting that it's time for Clegg to depart. Yesterday, one of the more significant Lib Dems, Lord Oakeshott, published polling data which indicates that the meltdown in Liberal support is such that even Clegg is likely to lose his parliamentary seat at next year's general election. That this polling was conducted without the support of the party hierarchy and certainly published without it seems obvious, though Oakeshott has claimed differently. He states that his big buddy, Vince Cable, not only knew but supported his actions wholeheartedly; unsurprisingly, Cable, caught somewhat on the hop, has denied this with some vehemence.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs, truths, lies, half-truths and general dissembling, Oakeshott's intervention has caused a pretty big headache for Clegg. There can be no doubt that he's in trouble within his party and that the likes of Cable would love to replace him. As a former Labour party member, as was Oakeshott, Cable can have little love for many of the policies of the coalition government; he'd surely be much happier in a Lib-Lab coalition. The man behind all the trouble, Oakeshott, is now being painted as a rather irritating figure who has been causing problems for the party for years; he has, of course, resigned his membership and will, presumably, resurface elsewhere before long. He is another who seems unhappy with the marginal rightward movement of the Liberal Democrats in recent years and would almost certainly prefer to return to his more socialist starting point.

In the midst of all of this turmoil, Clegg has carried on apparently oblivious to the storm raging around him. Cable has felt obliged to offer seemingly firm support for his boss and several other leading LibDems have done likewise. However, there can be no doubt that this is a very unhappy party and there's still a long summer and a party conference to get through before the election in May 2015.

Harold Wilson famously said that "a week is a long time in politics"; for Nick Clegg and his party, the next year is going to seem like an eternity.

WHAT IS IT TO BE RACIST ?

An organisation called 'NatCen' has conducted a survey on British attitudes to race and apparently discovered that the people of these islands are now more 'racist' than they were 30 years ago. This result has been publicised widely, notably by the BBC which finds it most exciting, but without really explaining anything much about the nature of the survey.

'NatCen' calls itself "Britain's largest independent social research agency" and goes on to say "By really understanding the complexity of people's lives and attitudes we give the public a powerful role in shaping decisions and services that makes a difference to everyone". So there we have it. They're another agency which spouts meaningless twaddle.

In support of this conclusion, the racism survey is a prime example. This survey has reportedly relied on interviewees to state whether they consider themselves to be very or a little bit 'racist'. Exactly what being 'racist' is hasn't been defined and there seems to be no explanation as to what criteria people used in order to arrive at their conclusions about themselves. On the face of it, this research is nothing of the sort and its conclusions are utterly useless.

My dictionary gives 2 definitions for the words 'racialism' and 'racism' :

1) The belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority, and

2) abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief.

I suspect that very few of those questioned by 'NatCen' know either of these definitions, and I doubt that 'NatCen' enlightened them. Basically, I suspect that people were simply asked whether or not they were racist, which is a pointless question unless the meaning of the word is known and understood. Not liking to have your once white Anglo-Saxon home town turned into an Asian ghetto that resembles the slums of Calcutta does not make anyone racist; it makes them protective of their own history, origins and heritage. Not liking the family next door because they are scruffy, dirty and foul-mouthed does not make one a snob whatever colour or race the neighbours are but, according to the approach adopted by 'NatCen', it probably does make one a racist if the family happens to be from a different country. This has to be ridiculous and dangerous nonsense.

I am not a racist but I do have serious concerns over the scale of immigration into this country over the last 40 or 50 years. Not only has the rate of influx been so great as to make effective assimilation almost impossible, but we have also been assailed by the forces of 'multi-culturalism' which have allowed immigrants to take over large parts of many of our towns and cities to such an extent that these no longer appear to be British. This is wrong. Everyone coming to this country should be required to adopt at least an outward display of Britishness and should certainly be able to speak our language. They should obey our laws without question and should, by-and-large, adopt our customs; if they do not wish to do this, they should not come here.

This is not 'racism', it is common sense. Britons traveling to foreign parts are expected to obey the laws and customs of the countries they are visiting; why is it not the same for those coming to this country ? Years ago, Enoch Powell predicted that the immigration policies of the then government would lead to trouble and he was roundly condemned by all and sundry; in the intervening years matters have become far worse as the views and actions of successive governments have heaped coal on to the fire. Inevitably, the flames are beginning to come through.

Only now are the intelligentsia waking up to the fact that Powell was right and they and their predecessors have been horribly wrong. Let's hope it's not too late to prevent the catastrophe that he foresaw.

UKIP "NASTY AND UNPLEASANT" SAYS BLAIR.

Now Tony Blair has decided to enter the fray, denigrating UKIP in various ways.

Blair, a man who espouses socialist views while having enjoyed a private education and amassed a vast fortune at the expense of taxpayers, must have the hide of a rhinoceros. Having presided over 11 years of Labour government which culminated in the catastrophic financial meltdown of 2008 and gave our country an immigration crisis, he now claims that UKIP has "no solutions to the problems of the 21st century"; such nebulous and grandiose sounding phrases are meat  and drink to Blair and his ilk, while purposely being utterly meaningless.

He also said, when questioned, that Labour must "confront and expose" parties like UKIP and ended with a portentous "You look underneath that UKIP façade and you see something pretty nasty and unpleasant".

None of this rhetoric means much, if anything, but it all sounds very 'statesmanlike', which is what Blair wants. It makes him sound like an older and much wiser figure, sharing his great intellect with the world. In truth, it's just more political double speak. If I look under Labour's façade, I can find criminality, corruption and deceit; likewise with both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Is this any more nasty and unpleasant than what Blair claims is hidden beneath the façade of UKIP ? Indeed, his comment about UKIP is no more than a 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' to voters, suggesting that UKIP is little more than the BNP in disguise, without actually saying it. As such, he can later claim that the remark meant anything that he then wants it to and can deny any interpretation that doesn't then hold water.

What is interesting is that Blair has suddenly emerged from the shadows to denounce UKIP and provide advice to the Labour party's leadership, as well as to the leaders of the EU. One wonders what is in it for him, for it is fairly certain that he hasn't come forward just for the fun of it.

UKIP TOP THE POLLS !

Now that nearly all of the results are in, we can finally see the effect that UKIP have had in the elections for the European Parliament.

Really rather astonishingly, this party, which has been called a bunch of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" by our beloved Leader, has come top of the polls; does this then brand more than a quarter of the population that voted as such ? Across England, outside of London, UKIP actually polled over 31% of the vote; this figure was dragged down by the huge Labour bias in London, and by the SNP/Labour axis in Scotland but, even so, it demonstrates enormous disquiet amongst the electorate.

The response of the 3 traditional parties to this earthquake has been pathetic. They're all relying on voters returning to the fold at next year's General Election so, while telling us that they've "listened" or "will address the voters' issues", or "understand the voters' concerns", they've basically sat on their hands and swallowed hard. They really do not 'get it'.

No doubt, many voters will go back to their roots next year, but many will not. UKIP may win a few seats in the UK Parliament, or they may not. However, for a party to come from nowhere to be top of any national election is phenomenal. In 2009, they gained 16.5% of the vote and now that has risen to 27.5%; this is not the usual swings and roundabouts between Labour and Conservatives, it is something far more fundamental.

The insults, abuse and  brickbats that have been hurled at Nigel Farage and his party over recent months have failed to deter voters from expressing their unhappiness; unless the other main parties mend their ways and start really listening to the electorate, next year's election may not be quite so spectacular but they will find it most challenging. UKIP has a whole year in which to build on its successes and build they will. The Parliamentary by-election in Newark, due to be held on 5th June, will be their first opportunity to show just how significant is their following and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they could even win it.

It is high time that the 3 old parties were shaken out of their complacency and UKIP might just be the lot to do it. The only problem is that once they gain seats in the House of Commons, they'll start to become part of the establishment; will they then continue to be a force to be reckoned with, or will they just become another bunch of career politicians with snouts in the trough and paying little or no attention to their voters ? Only time will tell.

ERIC PICKLES - JUST ANOTHER FAT CAT.

Following on from Harriet Harman's appearance on the Andrew Marr show, Eric Pickles, a Conservative 'big-wig', has just been on the 'Sunday Politics', interviewed by Andrew Neil.

Just as Harriet Harman demonstrated a total disregard for the electorate, so did Mr Pickles. His answers to Neil's questions were opaque in the extreme and his babbling and waffling was painful to behold. Apparently, the Conservatives are intending to 'reduce the pull factor' with respect to immigration; does anyone have a clue what this might mean ? To my ears, it was the type of language politicians employ in order to say nothing meaningful and to bamboozle the electorate.

Pickles and Harman may not look the same but they are clearly out of the same pod. They will lie and dissemble as if their lives depended on it, their only aim being to retain dominion over us. Neither of them is to be trusted in any degree, nor to be voted for.

Astonishingly, the other political big hitter to hit the screen this morning, Theresa May, was very different. Also on the Marr programme, she didn't say anything particularly new but she was easily the best performer of the three on offer. An easy smile and some unexpected honesty suggested that she is far more in touch with what is needed if the fortunes of her party are to be restored.

Harman and Pickles are dinosaurs and will soon be extinct. Mrs May, on the other hand, could very easily be the next leader of the Conservative Party. However, I still say 'VOTE UKIP !'.

HARMAN SPOUTS THE USUAL DRIVEL.

Oh dear.

Following my last post, I've just experienced Harriet Harman being interviewed by Andrew Marr. Ms Harman, true to her nature, gave the responses that might have been expected; "We've listened, we 'cognize' (?) the peoples' concerns and will address them, we actually did rather well, we will deliver the answers, we're moving forward, blah, blah, blah".

What she didn't do is say anything definite about anything. She simply repeated a predetermined party line. Anyone with half a brain who heard this interview must surely realise that Harman is one of those career politicians who sees herself as being above the rest of us and who will carry on regardless in the expectation that the moronic masses will still put her and her appalling party back into office next year.

Perhaps she's right. Perhaps most of the people are morons. Let's hope she's wrong.

UKIP GALLOP ON !

Listening to the raft of usual platitudes emanating from the leaders of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties, after the results of the local elections showed them all to be losing the support of the electorate, makes one wonder just how stupid they think the people are.

Every one of these privileged 'rich kids' spouted their standard responses, roughly stated "We understand that the people are unhappy and we'll do our best to listen to them and put things right". We all know that what this actually means is "Stop being a pain, trust us, keep voting for us and do what we tell you !"

These arrogant bastards simply do not think they are in any way required to represent the views and wishes of the people and they also believe that we are all so naïve as to have never ending faith in them. They fail to realise that there are many people who are a wee bit more savvy than this. During my lifetime, British politicians, no one else, involved us in the Suez crisis, conflicts in Malaya, Kenya, Aden, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and numerous other issues in foreign parts, none of which ended well. They created financial crises in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, always blaming them on others - the bankers, the unions, big business, nationalisation, denationalisation etc. They have spent more and more on 'social' care and activities to little effect; they have introduced more and more control over education while our children have become less and less educated. They have encouraged and allowed massive immigration while ignoring its impact on the existing population and services. Almost worst of all, they took us into the European Union on the back of a massive lie - that it was just a trading block - when it was, in reality, a step towards a United States of Europe. On top of all of this, they have increased taxation, year after year, while telling us that they are actually reducing it; this is a lie repeated over and over again by political leaders who like nothing more than spending OUR money on THEIR pet projects.

Today, after being shocked by the rise of UKIP in the local elections, one would have thought that they might have shown some genuine realisation that they need to mend their ways; some hope. Instead, they all came out with their usual 'double-speak', meaningless waffle which can be interpreted in any way that they like. They did not talk to the people but at them. The one man who comes across as a real person is UKIP's leader, Nigel Farage, and there seems little chance that this will change; Cameron, Miliband and Clegg simply aren't 'men of the people', have no desire to be such and have no idea how to be anyway.

What will happen on Sunday night and Monday as the results of the European elections become known is anyone's guess. One thing for certain is that there'll be more celebration for UKIP and more platitudes from the three stooges.

NIGEL FARAGE : MAN OF THE PEOPLE !

You always know when politicians feel threatened because that's the only time they show any real passion about anything.

In the last few weeks, Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, plus an assortment of their lieutenants, have come out swinging at their nemesis, Nigel Farage. The UKIP leader really has got under their skins and has finally been seen as a genuine threat to the cosy world which the three big parties have had to themselves for many years. In recent weeks, every slight failing of UKIP, Farage or any of their members has been pounced upon in order to show what a nasty lot they really are; every opportunity has been taken to denigrate them in every possible way. In fact, it's been quite interesting to see how the campaigns of the 'Big 3' have been focussed much more on decrying UKIP than in putting forward much in the way of meaningful and coherent policies of their own.

Thus far, Farage and his party have emerged relatively unscathed from the attacks against them, probably because the general public are only too well aware that much of the anti-UKIP rhetoric is simple 'politicking'. Last Saturday's 'Daily Telegraph' carried a report which, perhaps, summed up the real problem for the main parties and perhaps explains why they are so terrified of UKIP. According to it, Gillian Duffy, the woman branded a bigot by Gordon Brown, has said that Labour needs a straight-talking leader who is comfortable drinking a pint to reconnect with working class voters. She apparently went on to add that Ed Miliband is a 'privileged' career politician who lacks the authenticity of Nigel Farage.

Mrs Duffy is not the type of voter anyone would expect to come out with a good word about Mr Farage, but she did, and with a swipe at Miliband along the way. It's also undoubtedly true that her words are equally applicable to Cameron and Clegg, both of whom are from privileged backgrounds and neither of whom has ever had a real job in their lives; neither has any real connection to the people  they expect to vote for them. The one man who seems 'real' in the political dogfight of the day is Nigel Farage.

 

Frankly, Mrs Duffy has hit the nail on the head.

ADAMS, McCONVILLE AND THE TRUTH ABOUT IRELAND.

The saga of Northern Ireland's troubles continues despite the best efforts of assorted political figures to resolve matters.

We all know that the likes of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were, at the very least, closely allied to the IRA for many years. Their more recent incarnations as respectable politicians should fool no one; they are both dyed-in-the-wool republicans who see the ultimate reunification of Ireland as their only goal. Both remain, at heart, terrorists.

Whether or not Adams was involved in the abduction and murder of Jean McConville, he undoubtedly was a party to many brutal acts in the past. It seems quite probable that he and McGunness will continue to support, surreptitiously or otherwise, those who commit acts of violence in pursuit of their republican ideals.

Some appear to believe that the 'Irish question' can be treated in the same way as problems in other parts of the world, with 'truth and reconciliation' arrangements or something similar. In believing this, they fail to understand the nature of Ireland's problems and the degree of hatred that has existed there not merely for a few decades but for centuries. The brutality exercised by the terrorists on both sides of the divide has been such as to render simple forgiveness impossible.

There is only one answer to Ireland's difficulties and that is both simple and fraught with its own problems. The country must be reunified regardless of the bigoted religiosity of its population; only by giving up the divisions of the past can true peace ever come to this tragic place.

CLIFFORD & BRISCOE GET JUST DESSERTS.

Recent events have proved, if proof was necessary, that people in the public eye or in positions of authority are every bit as likely to be corrupt as anyone else.

Constance Briscoe, a barrister and part-time judge, has been found guilty of lying to the police during their investigation into the Chris Huhne affair and sentenced to prison. Briscoe obviously believed that she was above the law but the law thought otherwise. Now, someone who's no doubt been responsible for sending others to gaol, is beginning her own 16 month sentence, and her career is over.

In a different case, the publicist, Max Clifford, has been found guilty of a variety of sexual crimes and sent down for 8 years. Clifford is another who has considered himself to be impervious and able to do whatever he wanted without any chance of recrimination. The string of allegations against him demonstrated that he is a man who used his position to exploit others with absolutely no restraint. Again, his career is now over and his reputation destroyed.

One wonders how many other public figures have similar skeletons in their cupboards.

CARE HOMES UNDER FIRE AGAIN.

The BBC has uncovered more poor care at a care home, this time the "Old Deanery" in Braintree, Essex. Shock, horror, some residents were taunted and roughly handled and one was slapped. Representatives of the home said they were shocked and saddened and the CQC hasn't really said anything.

What is really worrying is not that elderly residents of this home have been subjected to poor treatment and abuse, but that this type of story breaks regularly. Care home owners have glitzy websites that promise the earth and their managers tell potential clients how wonderful life will be if only they move in. The sad truth is that most care homes are understaffed, most of the staff are poorly paid, undertrained and disinterested, and the management is abysmal.

I write this from some detailed knowledge of 4 care homes in my local area. What is most surprising is that more are not discovered to be delivering 'care' that is at the bottom end of what is acceptable, not that the odd one is found to be sub-standard. I, for one, will never willingly enter a 'care home'; I value my dignity, person and life far too highly for that.

CAMERON'S DIVISIVE CHRISTIANITY.

David Cameron has apparently said in recent times that the UK should be "more confident about our status as a Christian country". Now a rag-bag group of 'public figures' has claimed that Cameron risks being divisive and causing alienation in our society as a direct result of his remarks.

How all of these people can be so wrong escapes me. Britain was a Christian country in the days when its people believed in ghosts and goblins, when they feared for their eternal souls and had no understanding of science. Today, we are at best a nominally Christian society with only a handful of those professing Christianity attending church other than for marriages or funerals; even baptism has largely ceased to be the ritual it once was. Additionally, with the vast influx of Muslim, Hindus, and others we now have whole areas of our larger towns and cities that owe no allegiance whatsoever to Christian values.

Cameron is correct only in so far as the dominant heritage of our nation remains Christian and the values of most of the population continue to be based on that heritage. However, to claim that we are a Christian country is nonsense. Likewise, for the signatories to a letter sent to the Daily Telegraph to claim that Cameron's comments may be seen as divisive and alienating is ridiculous. Cameron has done no more than state his point of view, a view based on the history of this country, and that can hardly be seen as divisive; any divisiveness can only come from the influx of settlers who do not, and will not, share that history. The divisive influence derives solely from the immigrants who refuse to mix in with the established society but, instead, set up their own enclaves where they continue to behave exactly as if they had never left Calcutta, Jerusalem or Islamabad.

The recent issues raised with regard to schools in parts of Birmingham are a clear example of divisiveness being caused by immigrant groups. Here we have Muslims apparently attempting to ignore national rules and guidelines and imposing their own cultural values on British state schools. Previously, we've seen issues relating to the wearing of traditional Muslim and Sikh clothing being used to batter holes in our laws and to introduce special concessions for non-Christians. How long will it be before we begin to introduce special arrangements allowing Muslims and others to set up their own legal and education systems and exempt themselves from the state ?

Many will say that my comments are rubbish; all I can say in response is "Wait and see". Just as George Orwell's 1984 got its time frame wrong, so did Enoch Powell. In every other respect, both made accurate predictions of the shape of things to come. 

RAJ MATTU NOT LOUGHTON'S ONLY VICTIM.

Listening to 'Radio 4' this morning, I heard the story of a doctor who had finally been able to clear his name some 13 years after he was initially hounded, harassed and bullied by his employers, before being suspended in 2002 and sacked in 2010 from his post with the Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust.

Dr Raj Mattu was a consultant cardiologist who raised serious concerns about the treatment of some of his patients, 2 of whom died due to poor safety procedures at the Walsgrave Hospital in Coventry. It seems that the hospital management did not take kindly to his actions and did everything they could to discredit him. Ultimately, he was paid for 8 years while on suspension, costing the NHS well over ½million pounds, and the Trust also incurred huge legal costs. Dr Mattu will now also receive a substantial compensation payment in respect of his treatment, loss of earnings and reputation, damage to his health and so on.

What drew me to this story is that I also suffered from the bullying behaviour of the Trust's then chief executive, David Loughton. During a merger of 2 neighbouring Trusts, Loughton attempted to drive me from my senior post and declare me redundant, quite illegally as was confirmed when I took basic advice. In my case, he very quickly backtracked to a degree, though I was still levered out of my post and out of the Trust little more than a year later although I did gain alternative employment and still within the NHS. Sometime later, during an important meeting, Loughton even referred back to these events, something which was utterly inappropriate and clearly designed to try to intimidate me; it was clear that he had no limits as to what he would do to anyone who crossed him. The overall experience is not one I would care to repeat and I have great sympathy for Dr Mattu whose ordeal has lasted for so many years.

Loughton was effectively forced to resign from the Coventry Trust in March 2002, after he was the subject of intense criticism for his behaviour and the Trust's performance. In addition to the bullying of staff, it was the case that the Trust had routinely manipulated figures relating to its activities, claiming far better results than were the case. Insiders told me at the time that this was done on the direct instructions of Loughton but everyone was far to scared of him to do or say anything about it. Matters came to a head only when the then NHS 'watchdog', the Commission for Health Improvement' gave the Trust the lowest possible rating in 2001.

Shockingly, even after all of this, Loughton resurfaced in August 2004 as chief executive of another NHS Trust in Wolverhampton, where he is now facing similar accusations. Unfortunately, as he is now 60, he is quite able to walk away with his substantial pension and any sanctions against him are likely to be little more than window dressing. He is also unlikely to be deprived of the C.B.E. which he was awarded, quite inexplicably, in the 2010 New Year's Honours List.

GRADUATES LEARN ABOUT SUPPLY AND DEMAND - THE HARD WAY.

Shock, Horror ! The pay of graduates has fallen over recent years and by as much as 11% between 2007 and 2012. Is it really any wonder ?

Some academic has discovered that the salaries paid for newly recruited graduates in professional posts have fallen continuously since 2005 with the rate of decline accelerating since 2007. That this has come as a surprise is, perhaps, more surprising than the fall itself. The world has been in something of a financial mess for the last 6 or 7 years and budgets have been squeezed; it is not only graduates who have felt the pinch. However, in their case, they have been subject to another pressure, that is, the inexorable rise in graduate numbers from an increased number of universities. As any economist ought to know, price is related to supply and when the supply goes up, the price goes down.

Sending hundreds of thousands of our teenagers off to university never was a good idea and this is just one of the consequences. Leaving aside all of those whose degrees from fourth-rate institutions are unlikely ever to be of any value, there must be many others who are now competing for jobs which previously attracted no more than a handful of candidates; 'head-hunting' for the very best has not changed and they will still demand a premium, but the rest are now in a fight. Employers can hardly be blamed for taking advantage of this, nor for taking a cautious approach when appointing someone from a less than prestigious establishment.

Yet another glorious Socialist ideal gone haywire.

'SHELTER' HAVE IT ALL WRONG.

Today's news carries a claim being put about by the left-wing housing organisation 'Shelter' which defies belief. They say that there are 3.8 million families in Britain who are no more than 1 month from homelessness as they would simply not be able to pay their rent or mortgage if they were to lose their jobs. The organisation wants the Government to 'provide better short-term support' for those who fall into such need.

What annoys me particularly is that anyone in work and earning a relatively low wage can qualify for 'working tax credits' and, if they have children, 'child tax credits' and support with childcare costs as well. If they're income is deemed insufficient, they also get financial help with childcare costs and let us not forget child benefit. On top of all of this, there is housing benefit and council tax support.

With all of this a family with 3 children may expect to gather in an overall total of around £28,000 a year in earnings, tax credits and the rest. To claim that this is 'living on a financial knife-edge' as do Shelter, is ludicrous; while it may not allow for stately living, it is far from penury.

My personal knowledge tells me that the real problem is a cavalier attitude adopted by far too many of these supposed 'poor'. Rather than making sure that bills are paid and money is put aside for holidays, Xmas, occasional demands and rainy days, they waste their money, much of which may well come from the taxpayer, on cigarettes, alcohol and gambling. They do not seem to care that a packet of cigarettes now costs around £7, nor that a pint of beer may be in the region of £3.50; they smoke a packet or more a day and drink excessively. It is far from difficult for 2 adults in a family to get through £10,000 a year in this way, wasting more than a third of their total income. If they also gamble on horses, dogs or the lottery, things get even worse.

Such families have no savings and are in perpetual debt. They may be, as Shelter claims, less than a month from homelessness but it is nobody's fault but their own. There may, indeed, be outwardly wealthy families who are in as much of a mess as my example but, again, this will almost certainly be a result of spending money they do not have and of failing to put anything aside. In the event that they fall on hard times, it should not be for the government, meaning other taxpayers, to bail any of these profligates out. If necessary, children must be protected which could mean removing them from their parents; the parents have no defence and should suffer the full consequences of their actions. A few nights on a hard floor in a hostel or in a cardboard box under some cold bridge is likely to have greater impact and long term effect than providing still more government hand outs.

Harsh, yes. Unreasonable, no.