A sad day for British politics

 Hi,

I am very sad to see Keir Starmer resign, he did itb with some dignity but it depresses me. Starmer is a good man who has tried his best and not has not been rewarded for it. He never really had 100% support from all his MP's, perhaps less than he deserved for bringing back the Labour Party from the disaster of the Corbyn era.  He made mistakes but rather than the PM's congratulating him for his ability to recognise and correct errors they enjoyed attacking him and not helping.

There was no realisation that the situation the government found itself in was very difficult, much worse than they expected. This should have caused the MP's to gather round and support the cabinet 100% but did they. No of course not, they complained if their own particular concern was not addressed. The problem is that to correct all the failures of the previous fourteen years was not going to be easy. Especially those that go back as far as Thatcher's  regime. 

Things that need correcting that go back that far has been to sale of council housing which lead to a dramatic shortfall in affordable rented housing and a consequential transfer of public funds to private landlords. This government wants to build more council owned properties but has lost all the expertise that it used t have as well as the skilled builders needed to actually build the houses. Another issue which many feel needs sorting is the water industry which was nationalised by Thatcher which many want to take under state control. sadly millions have been wasted by transferring money out of the public purse to fund private equity and, to be fair, private pension funds. It is an interesting that the first thing that happened after privatisation was the directors doubly their income! But what is the best way to get the privatised companies back under public control. Their are various solutions proposed and it will need an act of courage to find the right way forward as well as convincing the public that it is the right way.

Another issue which I find concerning is what will now happen. Assuming Andy Burnham becomes the leader, I voted for him in earlier leadership elections though I don't know that I would this time, can he deliver, Many of those supporting him expect he will change the course of the government but how will he manage that. Being a mayor does not involve handling 400 so-called supporters with their own agendas let alone the issue of a vast agenda to control, many of which are not under your control. For example wars in Ukraine and a complete nut leading USA and the difficulties in the Middle East. The trouble is that if he does not deliver then the trust in politicians will drop even further. This tens to lead to a rise in totalitarian leaderships, a desire for the "strong man". In my life, which is probably passed its used by date, I have never seen a strong man whose rule has been good in the long run.  

To end this diatribe I would like to recommend Neil deGrasse Tyson a very interesting american astrophysicist who does some interesting popularising stuff. Tow comments which are relevant to the current situation. I am not sure the accuracy of the quotes but this is my memry of them which is probably what I want to convey.

Politicians lie because if they told the truth they would not get elected.

Simple slogans are easy to understand but take a lot of thinking about to counter.

Regards

Alan 

 

Do not trust simple solutions and things are complicated?

 

 It is relevant to explain that I am a mathematician. One of the things about mathematics is that you sometimes get things wrong. This seems to be a problem in the world of politics and even when you know you're wrong and admit it, you get criticised for being wrong, not praised for being honest.

The other important lesson it is possible to learn from mathematics is that often the soution to a problem is complicated. Therev are two differnt ways this can happen. One is to show that the answer is right but also sometimes the answer is complicated. To illustrate with an example from an area that I have worked in. There are some objects which are called "Finite simple groups". In this context it does not  matter what they are but what does matter is that nearly all of them have nice coeherent descriptions except for 26 examples. This is fact. The descriptions are complicated and, when using the descriptions, these 26 exceptions have to be considered. It is irritating but illustrates the point: life is not simple.

This is why I never trust anyone who tells me that have a simple solution to a problem. Or even that they have a solution. It would be comforting if there were people who were so talented we could trust them to solve all our problems. I am sure there are some people who can solve some problems some of the time; doctors can cure some illnesses but not always. Plumbers can mend some plumbing problems but we would not expect them to cure cancer. Which leads me to wonder why people follow individuals who claim that they have solutions and everything will magically get better. 

There are too many examples today, from Trump and Farage on the right to Corbyn and Polanski who are more on the left. It is not just the individuals but those who put so much hope into them. The problem is that there are those who put their faith into "simple" solutions, whether it be religious or political beliefs. Tax the rich, let the market decide, be a christian/hindu/islamic country and all our problems will be solved.

Surely it must be clear that this is nonsense, is it just that we want to believe there are simple solutions! 

 

 

 

 

Douglas Carswell: a fraud/

I went to the Charles Clarke conversation on politics with Douglas Carswell at UEA last night. Perhaps it is unfair to  Carswell a fraud but certainly he lives in a world of self-delusion.

He was moved by his experiences as a child in Uganda where his parents were doctors during Idi Amin's regime. It is not surprised that such events moved him to believe in the need for people to be given freedom and independence. So he became a libertarian but what did this mean to him.As a student he studied history at UEA.

Politically he joined the Tory party because he couldn't join the Labour Party because it didn't believe in democracy, just wanted to tell people what to do. Perhaps I am paraphrasing but that is what comes across. As a Libertarian he wants everyone to do their own thing and not be corralled by government or big business, so why he joined the Tories is a bit of a mystery.

So having realised that he could never convert the Tories to his views, he joined UKIP because they are the party of intelligent libertarian thinkers. He managed to explain that they are not a bunch of racists who just don't like immigrants and foreigners. It is wonderful to hear him justify his position as a libertarian who supports the restrictions of peoples liberties, my question was just a  sixth form question. However for a libertarian he supports the health service and the welfare state, or seems to. He also happily supported campaigning against Scottish independence. What has happened to his libertarian principles, they are probably only used against trade unions and the Labour Party and other political parties. He would sacrifice them for other political ends.

Like many people he deludes himself into thinking he is being consistent, never ever self aware of the inconsistencies of his own position. My wife always says that I think consistency is too important but as a mathematician I have no choice, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  I have always believed in judging people by what they do not what they say. Something my Dad used to say which I disagree with I understand, "Don't do what I do, do what I say" at least recognises that we don't all live up to the standards we set ourselves, perhaps we would be a better society if we all admitted that.

Farage & UKIP

 It was very disappointing to see how well UKIP did in the election. But one thing cheers me up a little, of those voting 75% did not vote for UKIP and the imposter Farage.

  Let us consider what he is selling himself as, anti-Europe and anti- immigration and as a man of the people. He is almost certainly descended from immigrants, a name like Farage does not sound terribly English. Perhaps he should like me be proud of his immigrant background.  I still recall n MEP proudly proclaiming that all 16 of his great-great grandparents were born in Norfolk. What was there to be proud of, that his family were unadventurous and very boring. People who have made significant contributions to the world have largely travelled and explored other places.

 Then he claims to be a man of the people, but his father was a stock broker and he went to a public school. He then worked as a trader in the City, the group of people who have brought the financial crisis upon us. He is really much more like Cameron than either admit, which is probably why the do not like each other. They sell themselves, which they are quite good at but what they sell is just the same as what the bankers sold us, a lie which will line their own pocket.

  Is he really anti-Europe, he sits as an MEP and his second wife is German, so what doesn't he like about Europe. Probably like most Tories what he doesn't like is the protection that European legislation has given to workers, especially women.  It was European legislation that made employers give the same rights to part-time workers as full-time ones. This was hugely beneficial to women who made up the bulk of the part-time work force. The working hours directive, which in this country seem to be misunderstood, but who wants a doctor who has been on duty for 48 hours treating you. We don't let lorry drivers do it so why should doctors be allowed to. Unfortunately we fought off attempts to stop firms in Britain selling "ice cream" that has no cream! Is that really a triumph?

  However our so called free press devotes many column inches to telling us how bad Europe is but very few to telling us that good things come out of Europe. Why would I say "so-called" free press. Because the national press is dominated by a few very rich men, most of whom do not live in Britain and hide away in tax havens. There only concern to is to protect their wealth, they have no interest in the long-term welfare of the citizens of Britain.   The rich always want less interference and lower taxes
as it might damage their wealth. They want the right to lie and cheat you, I wonder if Mr Farage believes that publicans should be allowed to water their beer. After all it is only government interference that stops that happening.

  Perhaps that should be the slogan "Vote UKIP for watered down beer"

How do polticians get away with it

 Liam Fox has not been found guilty and has not been found innocent, so there is an enquiry into his behaviour.  If he was  a teacher or doctor or even a policeman he would now be suspended until the decision was made.  But Dr Fox as a politician and a minister so somehow he is allowed to continue carrying on his duties as a minister despite the fact that there is an enquiring into his behaviour. so the next few months whilst the  enquiry takes place he can go on using his office and behaving as he wishes.

  It is just interesting that MPs and politicians somehow think they can behave in the worst way than any other public servant.  It's just because they recognise that they are a very unimportant people so that they cheat and behave improperly as a matter of no import.  It has been the same with  respect to their pensions and to their behaviour on the fiddling expenses.  Perhaps we will get no one to respect politicians until they learn to behave honourably.

  On a completely different note I was thinking about the governments policy on whether people who are ill can work. One of the difficulties is that the government can't really know. So why not let employers organisations make the decision,  Obviously if the tax payer is footing the bill they will make  more & more people unfit for work. So any funding for people who are not fit enough to work should be paid by employers from a payroll tax. That way they would have an incentive to help people get back to work. They might even find that flexible working for those with health problems would be a really good idea.

Why the rich should be poorer

Given the riots there has been much discussion of the inequalities of wealth distribution in Britain, and the US. The rich always try to argue that it wouldn't help to make the rich poorer, but they would wouldn't they. A bit like the founder of Autonomy saying there is no problem with selling the company to the US but he has just made 60 million!

Trying to find up to date figures for the UK GDP gives slightly different figures but it is roughly 1.5 trillion pounds. that gives, also quite roughly, £25,000 for every adult and child in the country. That would suggest a family of four ought to be worth about £100,000. Let us halve that for the needs of the country, you still get a figure of £50,000. So what has gone wrong.

It is quite simple, the rich are too rich. The solution is of course not so simple. One of the arguments is that the rich have worked hard to achieve their wealth. That is rarely true, most of the really rich in this country have inherited their wealth, see David Cameron, George Osborne and Nick Clegg. Note also that many very rich families put their money onto so called charitable trusts so they do not appear to own the money but the trusts only give money to the family!

The myth of the self-made millionaire isn't quite a myth but they are very rare. Very few people start with nothing and become really rich

MP's and Rioters

MP's and Rioters what' s the difference.

It is sometime since I blogged, too much time playing silly games & going on holiday but I was contemplating the smug face of David Cameron on tele yesterday and wondered what the differnce between him and the woman who was given some stolen goods. That is the one who was sentenced to prison and then released and given community service.

Then there werethe MP's who were claiming for things they shouldn't, what happened to them. They paid the money back and were forgiven, well at least by them selves. It might be argued that what they did wasn't criminal but of course they are the lawmakers so of course they decided it wasn't criminal.

It is the same with pensions, public sector pensions are too generous. Who hs the most generous public sector pensions, why the MP's but when it was suggested that they should have the same changes as everyone else, they said that would not do!

Clegg- Man or Mouse

Delivered to my door was the literature for the no campaign. The final page is a complete demolition of the Clegg!

This is a campaign led by, his erstwhile co-conspirator in the destruction of the British economy, David Cameron. How come Clegg accepts this abuse, if I were him I would not have responded so calmly. My assumption is that Clegg would do anything for the trappings of office, even being shat upon from a great height by his colleague. Though it is clear that the relationship is more that of lord and servant, Clegg being almost below the salt.

The paper this morning suggests that the Lin-Dems will just accept the defeat and soldier on. Their ministers just doing as their told by their Tory masters. This is not a coalition but an annihilation. I suppose we can wave goodbye the the Lib-Dems for the next 50 years as a force in British politics unless they revolt pretty soon.

His performance on morning television defending AV was pathetic, allthe wrong arguments and in no way attacking Cameron and the rest. As someone pointed out in the Guardian yesterday, Cameron would no be leader of the Tories, nor as a consequence the Prime Minister, if the Tories chose their leader by a first past the post system. It is interesting to observe the double standards that leaders are willing to use. To get me in power in my party AV is good but to get my party in to power, first past the post is best.

Is the public stupid?

I was just reading the Guardian online. They has a report of the latest opinion poll about the referendum. it says that 16% are now against AV!

I found this quite depressing, the no vote literature can through my door and I thought it was clever but mostly misleading, if not downright lies. so why has it been effective.

The main point is that it is simple. One of it claims is that the first past the post is simpler and easily understood. That is true but simplicity is for the simpleton and though it sounds good it is not very good. For example, Simon Wright on the Norwich South election is 2010 despite the fact that over 70% of the electorate voted against him and that was just of those who voted. It might be simple but it gives daft results.

They also claim that only three other countries use the system, yes that is true but most use a more complex system not a simpler system. They also claim the current system is cheaper but I don't know why. We could do what the French do and if no one gets over 50% they have another election, the alternative vote is just a neater way of doing the same thing.

Another statement is that it has done us OK in the past.Is that really true, when we get huge majorities in parliament with parties have mote than 60% of the electorate voting for them. What we have in this country is elected dictatorships with a limited life span. Who voted for the Iraq war, who voted for the poll tax, how many voted for a huge rise in tuition fees. Are we really a democracy.

Note the Tories want bigger constituencies, thus making it more likely that we get MP's forlife with more and more of the population having no effective vote. All I can say wake up to being conned by the Conservatives and the dinosaurs of the labour party. Notice that those from the Labour side are all past it, Lord Reid, an old communist, never known for supporting democracy.

House of Lords

I have always believed that it was just a retirement home for old Tories and recent events have convinced me that it is time to get rid of it. Why what has just happened to reinforce my prejudices. Well can I recall an occasion when they have rejected Tory legislation. No, they vote loyally for the Tories and they always get their legislation through.

The recent bote on the education bill was the recent event that convinced me. We had silly old war horses like Lady Williams, she can always talk the talk BUT has never in her life done anything right. She was incompetent as a Minister of Education under Callaghan and she has got everything wrong ever since but she stills sits in the House of Lords and votes with this Tory government. She used to be against fees and academies but she manages to vote for them.

How long did it take the previous government to get he fox hunting bill through and that was in the manifesto. The nature of the house of lords is conservative. This is because people are appointed for life and many older people don't like change. They still somehow thing that the Tories represent a return to the old values which they were brought up with.

That is the trouble with the House of Lords, the idea is that because they are their for life they can vote for what they believe in but no they follow some party line. And they get older and older and as someone who is also getting older, many just think things were better before.

If we are going to have an appointed house like this then the least we could do is to only allow limited terms with no reelection. It shouldn't just be a gravy train with a title. Some of us recognize that there is a time to slow up and stop taking the Queen's shilling. Seven years would be quite long enough AND they should lose their titles afterwards.

How does it help?

Student fees are a big topic at the moment, the LibDems are going back on their pledge. but lying to try to save their bacon.

They keep claiming that there system is fairer but how. OK you won't pay anything back till you earn over £21000, they don't make clear at what money, now or then.

But the true inconsistency of their argument is that since you only pay it back once you are earning it should not put anyone going to University. But now they are saying the poorest, and it will be the poorest, won't have to pay for the first year and that if they go to an expensive university they will get another one free. So two people with the same education, same job and earning the same will have to pay back different amounts depending on the wealth of the person's parents. The LibDems strike again.

Then we have the problem of bureaucracy, which they claim to be against. How will the scheme operate, what happens if your parental income is above the threshold when you start or below it when you finish. Will it depend on whether you had free school meals, the for the whole time you were at school or just in your last year. What about people who could have had free school meals but didn't.

If they really wanted to help those on low incomes there are two things they could do, keep the education maintenance allowance and increase for students in higher education.

But no they really are only concerned with making sure that the wealthy stay wealthy but have to provide a sop to those suckers who thought they were mildly left of centre to find that they are well to the right.

It is quite clear from this, as was well understood by those who have seen them in action in local elections, they will say anything to get elected. Normally they don't so they don't have to do anything about it

Cables Stitch up

It is clear that Vince Cable is lying through his teeth. His proposals on student fees will save the government almost nothing in the short term The claim that students will not have to find the money up front means that the taxpayer will have to find it, so no decrease in governemnet expenditure.

So this is part of a long-term Tory plan to only allow the rich to go to university, once again the desire for power is turning the Tories into cover for the right-wing Tories.

Vlegg & Cable the game is up, you have sold out hook, line & sinker to the Tories for your 15 minutes of fame. Sad but true

Myths and political lies

It is interesting to speculate on the difference between a myth and a political lie. The current government is trying to pretend that the reason for their current policies is the failure of the previous government to bring the the deficit under control and that it is all much worse than they thought. This is clearly a lie, the deficit is slightly better than predicted by the previous government.

By telling this lie and by keep repeating they hope to persuade people that there vicious attack on the sate is not their fault. Of course it is and it is part of the right-wing philosophy of the Tories. The Lib-Dems are like rabbits in car headlights, they are totally fascinated by the appearance of power and can't resist. So we have a new myth that will arise, how the Labour Government wasted the countries resources recklessly. The fact that the country would be in a sever depression by now without those measures is totally lost.

This is just another myth to add to a list of lies and myths that the right-wing like to spread. Usually with the support of a right-wing media. One of the earlier ones is the idea that the 60's was a creation of a free & easy moral permissiveness of the Labour Government under Harold Wilson. There is a glimmer of truth in that but the beginning of the trend was the government of that other Harold, Harold Macmillan. I can remember the election campaign of October 1959,
“Indeed let us be frank about it – most of our people have never had it so good.” This was a government which ended in 1964, half-way through the 60's, with scandals of a sexual nature. That was the beginning of the moral permissiveness. As was his decision to legalise gambling and create betting shops.

These were good things to do, it took gambling out of the criminal classes and made it easier for people to gamble legally. It was Harold Wilson's government which went on to legalise homosexuality and make abortions legal. These were following on from the previous Tory government but the seeds for the liberalisation of our laws had been set in motion. There are important lessons for today in relation to drugs. We just have to accept that the criminalisation of drugs has failed to stop people using them so we must move to decriminalise their use.

To my final example of myths about the Labour party and lies told by the Tories. It was a Tory government that came back from Munich waving a piece of paper in the air and claiming peace in our time. It was the leader of the opposition, Clement Atlee who opposed the treaty! Yet Mrs Thatcher. for one, always seemed to claim that the Labour party wasthe party of appeasement when it was the Tories, remember they were in power for the whole time that Hitler was in power in Germany.

The Tories learned a lot of lessons from the Nazis, one of which is to tell big lies and keep repeating them. Truth is something which many politicians find a difficult concept but I am afraid that the Tories seem to find it harder than most.

Some Random Thought from the news

Hi

This is going to have three parts about the odd things I read or hear in the news.

The first is really to do with management but about schools. Recently the Tories said that they want to give Heads more power. I wonder why? Do they think that it is bad teachers that make bad schools? It is true that a bad teacher can slow you up, if they are subject teachers they can ruin that subject for you. If they are a class teacher they can make a year miserable BUT they don't make a school bad unless most of the teachers are bad.

However a bad head can ruin a school and so the whole of your education. So why give them more power, so they can do even more damage. That is not the thinking, what is behind this management idea is that managers, that is heads, are all good and it is only the workers, that is the teachers, who make things hard for the bosses. It is is a sloppy and easy attitude that those inpower blame their juniors when things go wrong but what to claim success as their own.

If we want to improve education management we need robust structures in place that stop bah heads ruining schools, not spend all our time worrying about bad teachers. getting rid of one bad head will be more useful that getting rid of forty bad teachers.

The other recent headline has been about the so-called "death tax". Personally I am happy with this idea but their is much emotion attached to the concept, even by people who would call themselves rational. Peter Wilby wrote a good article in the Guardian about it on Tuesday, which I recommend. This is a theme I have returned to before, why do we value property so highly, he argues that for many people they have invested their lives in their house & garden. Thus it becomes much more than a house or a property but a representative of their life and what they are and have been. But this leaves us with a difficult decision, whan someone has put their life into a house and then reach the situation that their income no longer supports this life style why should the rest of us pay for it.

As I have argued before, and will probably argue again, it seems unreasonable that someone owning a propert worth a quarter of a million pounds should be treated as poor. If they sell and rent they will be seen as rich, we have to think very clearly to see how to resolve the issue. One p[ossibility is that an costs become a charge on the property BUT that is seen as a "death tax". The alternative is a tax on the living, surely the former is better. It is clear taht as people live longer the costs of maintaining older people will get higher. One argument is that people should work for longer. As someone who is approaching 70 it is not clear to me that I could hold down a full-time job. I know that there are many examples but very few of them actually work full-time at a job where someone else tells them when to work. I can still work quite hard for periods, but if I had to go and work all day every day that is all I would be able to do.

I promised three parts and I like to keep my promises as well as my threats. It has always been true that society values the rich and if someone has made a lot of money then they have some talent for making money. It makes them in no way a better person or someone whose advice on anything other than making money valuable as of right. If we take the example of Mr Hands a rich private equity financier., who has decided it would be better to be resident of the Channel Islands and not see his wife or kids than to pay tax. He sounds a rather unpleasant character whose advice on anything other than tax evasion would be of little value.

As a teenager I had plenty of diputes with my father, which teenage son doesn't. With age my admiration for my father grew and I realised what a good man he was. But he spent most of his life being poor. But as a man and a thinker better than most. He had a hard life with no opportunities for an education. Not a man with the talents to make him rich but able and talented at a time when someone from his background had little chance to make the most of his abilities.

So should we admire the rich, certainly not those who have inherited ut and dome nothing with it. Take Mr Cameron what has he done but swan around pretending he cares. Yes he cares about the NHS because it has touched his life but the rest he has no understanding. It strikes me that to be a credible politician someone has to understand the needs of those whose position in life you have never experienced. It is interesting that many who have recently been sacked have suddenly discovered how mean the benefit system really is. And that it is just layabouts who lose their jobs.

Blair does it again

Hi,

It is a long time since I did any blogging, somehow life seems to short to put my feeble thoughts down on paper.

Still the Chilcott Inquiry and Blair's performance made me think. One is what a waste of time lawyers are and that Blair goes on deceiving himself. Let me address the first issue.

Many lawyers and like-minded individuals have complained that the interviewing needs tough forensic attacks of the sort barristers enjoy. But lawyers aren't interested in the truth, trying either to prosecute or defend. The idea of trying to establish a nuanced version of what actually happened is not part of their brief. So we see with the Chilcott Inquiry gentle prodding and the truth emerges, no aggressive trying to point the finger or lay blame, just what they did. Maybe those inside the Westminster bubble knew but most of us didn't. A good lesson if you want the truth don't use judicial inquiries, they cost a fortune, go on forever and nobody is any wieser at the end of them.

Now we come to Blair's evidence. One thing we learned was that he wanted to go to war as Bush's sidekick whatever happened. One way or the other he wanted to send the troops in and see himself as the great saviour of the world. My instant thought is "What a prat!" but more worrying was that almost evertung he thought was true wasn't and the events that followed he had no idea about.

He seems to believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction despite the fact that they didn't have any and that as soon as the west went away they would suddenly appear. At no point did he understand that the Coalition forces were seen to be an occupying army or that in the chaos that followed Iran would seize the opportunity to cause trouble. Given that a majority of the population were Shia and that many of their leaders had taken refuge in Iran this seems to be a lamentable failure of Blair's understanding of the situation. What comes across most forcibly is that of a man with almost no ability to see anything that he didn't want to see. This might be his religious fervour or his training as a barrister. After all his ability to see only the arguments that supported his view is precisly waht lawyers do when presenting a case, recall they are professional liars, as unfortunately are a significant number of politicians.

The other point he keeps making is that 9/11 changed the world, it didn't, but it changed peoples' perception. Many seem to have forgotten that their was an earlier attempt to blow up the twin towers. Perhaps if that thraet and the causes of it were taken seriously the successful attempt might have failed. So the threat of a terrorist attack on the US in the US was clearly a possibility, yet they seemed so shocked when it happened.

Another worrying feature of the Blair analysis is the belief that he can decide who is a rogue state and decide to invade them. One of the arguments that those supporting the war seem to make is about democracy and supporting the rule of law. But Blair & Bush behaved like vigilantes with no respect for the law, I could imagine them as members of the Klu Klax Kan stringing up a negro because he got uppity. And as in the south usuing tame lawyers to give a veneer of respectability to their behaviour. It is clear that Goldsmith really changed his mind because he know Blair was going to go to war and, to give him credit, he wanted to protect the armed forces from prosecution as war criminals.

Public Expenditure and the depression

I have just been reading Sidelski's one volume biography of Keynes and have read the stuff about the great crash & depression that followed. Listening to the right wing commentators nobody seems to have learned anything, I suppose it was nearly 80 years ago and all the young people writing don't know any proper history.

The whole point is that in times like this it is essential that the government keeps spending or the situation will spiral down and down. Many think that the unemployment after the great crash went on until the WWII and that was a great bout of public expenditure.

Economies depend on money circulating and when things get bad, people stop spending, so less goods are sold and more people are out of work and the situation just gets worse. It becomes imperative for governments to borrow to spend. There is an argument that says that if the government is borrowing to fund public expenditure that takes money away from the private sector. That might well be true in the good years but not now. How many businesses are going to be borrowing millions for major works at the moment.

Those like David Cameron and the Liberals and, I am afraid, some in the government who are going on about cutting public expenditure are condemning millions of people to unemployment. It is essential to maintain public expenditure over the next few years. Those in what should be secure jobs need to feel they are secure so that they will not cut their expenditure.

It will lead to an increase in public debt and the government will owe money but it can be paid back over time. Even 40 years ago it was normal to borrow up to two or three times income to buy a house. My calculation that would be equivalent to a public sector debt requirement of 200% and we were not too worried. The current debt of the government is far to low to sustain the economy when the private sector has let us down so badly. It would also seem unfair to attack the wages and pensions of public sector workers for the failure of the private sector.

Mp's Underpaid?

On the Today programme today, March23rd, there seem to be a feeling that British MP's were not paid enough. Whilst they might well be paid less than a number of politicians in other countries surely we should be more rational. After all, they aren't going to rush off and do the job soemwhere else.

What is the job description, get elected seems to be the only requirement and if we are honest, they don't get elected, their party does. If they lose office they get get rather generous payments, if all redundancy schemes were as generous that might be fair.

But what do they have to do once they have the job, as far as I can tell they hjave to turn up once and be sworn in. Do they have to attend a place of work, meet targets, even live in their constituencies. Let us be honest there are no constraints on MP's, apart from breaking the law, I suppose. So let us be honest it is the cushiest job going, free housing, no bosses, no targets, work if you want to.

Perhaps they should have to pay to have the job?

An apology for Gordon Brown

It is clear that Gordon Brown will not apologise for his mistakes. In fact none of the polticians who have been in power for last few years are likely to apologise for their mistakes over the economy so I thought I would write one for them, it will do for most of them.

Dear Public,

I would like to say sorry for what has happened to the economy over the last 18 months or so. Something went wrong and some of the blame must fall on me. Naively I thought that all those clever people in the financial sector and in the banks and insurance companies were doing their best to make us all wealthier and better off. But I was wrong all these years, they were not using the super intellects to help us but themselves. They fooled many of us into believing that if we left them alone and didn't enquire to carefully it would be good, they were creating wealth for us all, we just had to trust them. This was my big mistake and I am sorry.

Now I know that the lessons of the previous two centuries should have been heeded, whenever clever greedy people get together and are not watched they will line their own pockets.

Yours

Gordon Brown

Wealthy Philanthropist?

An article in the Observer about how wealthy peopel have made lots of money got me thinking. How did they get to be so rich. Some city guy has just given away 500 million and my thought is how did he get so rich., like where did the money come from.

So perhaps he just gave it away becuase of a bad conscience or is there something deeper going on. So hwo do you get to be rich, gambling, though in the city it is called somewthing else, or charging too much or paying workers badly. One alternative might be to give the business to the staff, an alternative chosen by the original John Lewis. It would be fair to say that most of the money came because of the work of their employees. So why not give the money back to them. That would mean no credit and no control of the money so that would not boost their egos in quite the same way. Of course they could just have paid the staff better earlier so they wouldn't have got so rich in the first place, but then they couldn't hav egiven it away later and looked so good.

The people in the City are even worse, they gamble but cleverly with other peoples money. Really clever borrow some money and gamble if you make lots great and when things are going well that is easy. When things go bad you make sure it is other peoples money you lose. the government is worrying about pensions, where is the money going to fund pensions, into the back pockets of the wonderful city gents, who of course make sure their money is safe and well away from any tax regime. Somewhere I read that City bonuses have been about 10 billion despite the almighty disasters, but where did the money come from and where has it gone. Certianly not tot he needy in Britain or into pension funds, which the taxpayer will have to subsidise. No it will vansih from Britain into tax havens to enable the rich to have a life style which depends on poor people working for them for miserable pay.

There are a few ricj people who have done something idetifiable which one understands but most are very good at having sticky fingers, footballers are more honest than most rich business men, at least you can see waht they do for their money.

Are MP's useless

Try to understand the debate about the proposal for detention for up to 42 days without charge one begins to feel that MP's do not know or understand what they are doing. It is clearly a matter of conscience, nothing to do with political parties much as the debate about embryology was taken away from the childish behaviour of political gangs.

Why if something is religious it is called a matter of conscience but if something is an ethical or moral issue is it not a matter of conscience. Surely to lock innocent people up for 42 days without being able to defend themselves is surely a serious matter but it is being discussed as if it is some sort of game. Why is it not seen like this, largely because those proposing the plans always present the case that the person being held will prove to be guilty but of course in practice that will not be the case.

We are constantly being told that after 11 September the world has changed. This is like most statements mostly false. There was at least one previous attempt to blow the twin towers up and even in Europe the IRA and ETA cheerfully blew up bombs which killed innocent civilians. The British government even tried internal exile, prison with trial to stop the IRA but that was not the solution.

Imprisoning people for 42 days will have no positive benefit and will clearly damage our human rights. Legislation to take away peoples rights almost never get reversed and the use will spread as as happened with other many such pieces of legislation. We have recently seen local authorities using anti-terrorist legislation to spy on families about school places, even a story of DWP using heat sensors to try to prove someone was cohabiting, 42 days will not become common but the prrsent maximum will soon become the norm and many innocent people will be locked up for a month merely because the police suspect them.

What is going on in Parliament, horse-trading up to the last minute, hardly a rational considered debate. The members of parliament should be ashamed of themselves and their collective behaviour.