Hold your nose if you have to, but vote UKIP, just this once

I tweeted the following yesterday but just wanted to expand, briefly on what I mean:

They won't (yet) get my vote in a Gen Election but on the basis of what's good for the country, I hope #UKIP does well on Thursday. 

It's a rare opportunity to tell Dave et al that we've had enough of EU bullshit. Almost a mini-referendum imo. Don't waste it. #no2EU

A vote 4 Dave says 'it's all going OK' when it isn't. For Ed it's a vote 4... well what exactly? No ideas or policies. A UKIP vote= #no2EU 

********************************************


Of course all the parties will 'spin' Thursdays results once they're in: 

The Tories (who will probably do surprisingly well given where we are in the electoral cycle - mid term - and given the state of the economy) will tell us that what they're doing is working and that their vote has held up well (most of the seats being contested are in the south though, remember). But they will lose significant numbers of councillors just because they are starting from such a high base - or from Labour's lowest ever base when these seats were last contested. 

I think Labour will do much worse than they should be doing at the stage in the cycle for geographical reasons and because they currently offer very little in the way of reasons to vote 'for' them. No policies, no big ideas, no charismatic leadership from Mr Miliband. The spectre of McCluskey and the unions pulling their strings. Their crass and complete economic failure when they were last in power and for which they have still not taken responsibility or apologised. 

Ed Balls.

Not much has been said during the build-up about the Lib Dems, but I think they are quietly dreading Friday morning. I think Thursday will be disastrous for the Lib Dems. I think they have moved from the forgotten party that could say anything because they would never have to implement it in reality, to one which has had its hands on the levers of power and been found woefully wanting. Oh for a quiet life eh Nick? Still Simon Hughes will be wheeled out to put any kind of gloss that he can on things. Good luck with that Simon.

So, UKIP then. I think and hope that they will do well. Not because I am a UKIP member or supporter, but because if they do, it will shunt what I believe is the biggest issue facing all of us at this time - that's all of us in the UK and in Europe - further up the political agenda to the point where it cannot be virtually ignored by politicians as is currently the case. I am of course referring to the EU.

I have blogged about the EU many times. About how it is an organisation established in the 1950s to address a problem of the 1930s and 40s. How it is unaccountable, undemocratic. How it is effectively a German takeover of continental Europe, using banks and not tanks this time, but the end result will be the same unless we do something to stop it.

That may sound a bit strong, but before you dismiss the notion, consider the issues and the facts that are going on right under our noses - here.

While the unelected fat cats of the Eurocrasy are enjoying their fabulous lifestyles and pissing €billions of our money up the wall, real people, across the whole of Southern Europe are struggling to eat. Germany is booming because it has  the double economic benefit of lower exchange rates than would be the case if it had its own currency (making it massively more competitive in the world and damaging other EU members' competitiveness and indeed the UK's ability to compete against German industry and services) and much lower borrowing costs because it is effectively the central bank for the Eurozone. Meanwhile all other EU economies are struggling, some are openly bust and some, like France, are hanging on in quiet desperation, wholly subservient to Germany for its economic continuance.

They say that all politics is local, and the coming elections are 'local' after all. So how does moving the seat of government further away, to a place where they don't even speak your language, let alone understand your local issues, help matters? And how does it help if the people making decisions which affect all of us are effectively unelected and unaccountable to ordinary voters.

The EU has shown recently that it can steal your money, from your own bank account - money that has been legitimately earned and on which tax will already have been paid - in order to bail-out failing banks and to recoup money loaned by the ECB (European Central Bank) to borrowers in southern Europe, for example, whom they knew would piss it up the wall before the loan was originally made.

Do you think Germany didn't know that Greeks work a few hours a day, retire at 52, enjoy the sunshine and the wine and don't pay much if any tax, before they got them into financial hock (pardon the pun) by giving them cheap money? And then, when they couldn't pay the first lot back, gave them even more money to the point where they now have no hope of ever paying it back?

And that's not being critical of Greeks, just stating the reality. Given the choice between their lifestyle and that of a German - or British - worker, I know which I'd choose, if I could get away with it and sustain it. 

The trouble is that now they're tied in to the Euro these southern European countries cannot devalue their currencies in order to rebalance their economies and become more competitive with Germany. And by the same token, Germany has established a playing field whereby its efficient industries are competing with laughably weak counterparts in the south. No wonder Germany's booming. A captive market that cannot possibly dream of competing with them. German companies are currently buying up southern European businesses like it's going out of fashion. 

A free trade area, which is what we signed up to via Ted Heath's trickery in the early 1970s, is all well and good but 'Union'? That was never voted on by anyone in Europe. It has just been, 'slowly slowly' and 'step by step' imposed from the centre. By Germany in reality. And it's bumbling failures and silly laws have been put out there to the point where many people just ignore the EU as a silly ineffective joke of an organisation. While behind the buffoonery, the sinister, carefully planned, Machiavellian process of taking over all aspects of European governance and control has been relentlessly going on.

The EU makes laws we cannot rescind in the UK even if our democratically elected Government wishes to do so. The EU spends 120m a year just moving the whole circus between Strasbourg and Brussels to appease the French. The EU is unaccountable, its annual budgets have been rejected by auditors for the last 18 years in a row. They have never been signed off as accurate and accountable, but it's our money.  It is trying to make Spanish, Greek, Cypriot, Portuguese, Irish people 'German' in their outlook and behaviour. It is effectively creating a single super-state that will control every aspect of our lives.

It's time, in my view that we had a vote on this stuff. A proper vote not just some mealy-mouthed half-baked excuse that will change nothing. The European Union project is fundamentally flawed and is more likely to create conflict and war than to achieve its original aim of making European wars less likely in the future. It is unfair to its citizens and it's time to dismantle the machinery before it's too late. it might already be too late.

One thing's for sure, voting for Dave and telling him it's all OK really, will not make any difference to his approach to the EU. Telling Ed that you believe in what he stands for (and if you do, I'd be grateful if you could let me know what it is), will similarly have no effect on the EU. Telling pro-EU Nick Clegg that he's doing a good job, might just shock him into changing, but I doubt it.

It's UKIP then. I'm not suggesting that you sign up, become a member or a lifelong supporter. I'm not suggesting that you make a donation. I'm not even suggesting that you study their manifesto and investigate their policies on bananas. I am suggesting, just this once - and hold your nose if you have to - that you vote for them. Only through a great performance by UKIP on Thursday will this vote have any impact on our stance on Europe. Only then will Dave et al have to acknowledge that the EU is a massive issue for the UK population and only then will we get the proper debate and the proper investigation and yes referendum that we so desperately want and need in this country.

It's a local election, not a general one. I'd suggest that you treat it as a mini-referendum on the EU. I know it's not billed as that, but a vote for UKIP would effectively make it so. It would be a clear signal to Government. No other vote will have anything like the same impact of effect.

So do go and vote. Hold your nose if you have to, it's not a permanent and binding contract, just a cross on a piece of paper. But it will send a clear message to Dave and Van Rompuy et al, that enough is enough. Vote UKIP just this once and then let's see, on Thursday.

Thanks for reading. 











  

How the tax system works, explained in terms of beer so as to keep your attention. ;)

I saw this on a US website and it's obviously not an Obama supporting site in terms of its political positioning. I'm not sure how the figures stack up for the UK system, but I think it's pretty close and that the principles and the effects of reducing tax will be pretty much the same on both sides of the pond. I'm not scoring political points here, just sharing something that I thought was quite interesting:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

Thatcher - and the protest is happening in order to...erm, what exactly?

Having deliberately kept well out of the furore that erupted following the death of Lady Thatcher this week, I don't intend to stoke up the emotionally charged atmosphere any more by being either gushing or blindly critical here.

Her life (and death) have clearly raised massive issues amongst the population and have, perhaps more clearly than has been the case for the last 20 years or so, revealed the divide between the political left and right in this country.

Or at least the divide that existed during her period in office and which, it would seem, has now been passed on, like some sort of family heirloom, to subsequent generations.

I say this because, if you're honest about where we are now, politically, we have pretty much continued the course that she established during the 1980s. Yes Government is marginally bigger than it would have been under Maggie; the tax take as a percentage of GDP is probably higher than it would otherwise have been, but essentially we don't have the state (for 'state' read 'taxpayer') supporting failing industries any more and, despite what Messrs Crow, Serwotka and Blower (NUT - was there ever a better named organisation?) would like to think, we are no longer able to be held to ransom by over-powerful unelected unions.

The Labour party under Blair adopted most of Thatcher's modernising agenda and that party moved its position politically speaking to one where it was treading on the toes of the Tories. If you think that Labour's current left-right positioning bears any resemblance to where it was when the likes of Kinnock, John Smith, Callaghan and Wilson were at the helm, you might want to stop reading and go and continue your debate with a two-year-old. From Mars.

I think that most of the changes she instigated were needed in order to rescue the country from decades of ineffectual government (on both sides of the political divide); to face the growing reality of globalisation, competition, free-trade and newly emerging economic powers: That some of the strategically important industries (ship-building, automotive, steel-making, energy, utilities) could have been better supported in a smaller but more specialised form (because once some of these skills have been lost they can never be rekindled), which is what happened in Germany where the trades unions recognised that without change and cooperation there would be no major industries or workers to represent.

Sadly the British unions took a more belligerent, short-term, 'fuck you' approach and were, in my opinion, more responsible for the demise of manufacturing industry in the UK than Maggie could ever claim to have been. You don't have to scratch very deeply beneath the surface of the UK's remaining dinosaur unions to realise that echoes of this approach - where efficiency and productivity were unimportant, where the success of the employer organisation was of secondary importance to screwing as much money out of them as possible even if it was unaffordable - are still around, but nowhere near as influential, today, thank God.

So the 'death parties' this week, in addition to showing some of our fellow citizens at their absolute, disrespectful, almost demonic worst (in my opinion), are actually not even about anything substantial. Maggie won the argument. She set the only possible course for the UK if the country was to achieve any kind of stability and prosperity. Does anyone really think that if she hadn't made the changes which took account of the need for our industries and businesses to be competitive on a global stage, that we would be anything other than Bulgaria, or Greece today?

Some might, but certainly not the Labour Party. Which leads me to the unavoidable conclusion that the protests scheduled for her funeral next week are so misguided as to be laughable. Born out of an outdated set of beliefs (that even the Labour Party under 'Red Ed' would find unrecognisable) and inspired by a vitriolic meanness of spirit and the same lack of understanding, generosity and patriotism that got us into the mess of the 1970s in the first place.

In the name of free speech I would defend to the death your/their right to protest (so long as it's peaceful - good luck with that); but I think if one is to commit to making a protest, one should at least have some kind of understanding of the issues involved and that it should represent a valid argument rather than just an excuse to protest without being able to offer any kind of positive alternative. It's not as if there are any issues at stake here; a political ideal or doctrine - or that any changes will come about because of the protest that takes place.

It is, in effect, a protest about something that happened almost 30 years' ago, which cannot now be changed (and nor would either main party wish to do so) and from which most of the rest of us have, happily, moved on and benefitted from. It's an excuse to be nasty and disrespectful to someone who undoubtedly changed this country for the better. Sadly, it's an event that will show that while most of us have moved on, there are still a considerable number of people in the UK who hark back to our 'glory days' as the 'sick man of Europe' (industrial action) and who are part of the problem and the past, rather than part of the solution and the future.

Anyone want to join my protest against the Corn Laws?

£53 a week?

So having stated that I could, and do, feed a family of three for a week on £53, here goes. There are of course some limitations as you will see, but if you follow this and stick with it for a week you'll feel healthier, probably lose a bit of weight (though that's not the objective) and be better off financially. What's not to like?

OK here's the deal: You have to shop at Lidl or Aldi, usually both and to get as much as possible from these two, otherwise Waitrose, possibly ASDA, but not Sainsbury's, ever. You'll find, from the following recipes that the only things you need to get from Waitrose are arborio rice, possibly some herbs, the blocks of Tofu and root ginger. Everything else you should be able to get from the crafty Germans. The more observant of you will also notice quite quickly that there's no meat on offer, nor alcohol. You could add chicken to some of these without breaking the bank. But absolutely no processed meat, unless you really like horse.

What I've done here is to produce 63 meals, equating to a whole week's worth of catering (3 people, 3 meals a day, seven days in a week). Obviously in the real world, we tend to cook something different each night, possibly have something left over from last week that has been frozen, etc and we tend to have some of the 'stuff' like veg stock, a splash of wine left over (yeah right), etc, 'in'. So the actual week is much more flexible, varied and interesting than I'm showing here, but this is meant to illustrate that it can be done for £53 a week and without being boring. The vegetarian thing is not about principle - we're not vegetarians (although daughter is vegan) - but about health, cost and (for some of us) weight control. In the real world we do have fish in the form of frozen (not battered) fish or tinned tuna or sardines for lunch and maybe a good steak every two-three weeks or so - you really appreciate a nice steak when you ration it rather than having it every night.

So, 21 breakfasts, 21 lunches and 21 dinners - budget is £53. Costings are based on actual receipts.

Breakfast

2 x Cartons of orange juice from Lidl - one small glass each, each day.
Coffee with milk and sugar (optional obvs)
2x 48 packs of own brand Weetabix from Lidle half the price of branded. Have three with hot milk and sugar. all week.

weetabix £3.10 (£1.55 per pack of 48)
Milk 8 pints £4.00
Orange juice, £2.16 (2 at £1.08)
Coffee estimate £2.00

Total (breakfasts) £11.26

Lunch

Pea and potato soup:

2 onions peels and chopped £1.50 (whole bag and covers onions used in other recipes below)
1,600g potatoes peeled & cut into smalish chunks £1.20 (2.5kg cost £1.69)
700g frozen peas £2.00
2 teaspoons of mint sauce £0.25
2 litres vegetable stock £0.20
Bread & butter (olive spread) £1.00

Total: £6.15

Cook onions til soft, add potatoes and stock. Simmer for 12 minutes, add the frozen peas cook for another 5 minutes. Put in the blender and whizz to soup consistency. Back into the large pan, add mint sauce, stir, heat through. Serve with bread & butter. Serves 7 (more like 12 really)

Salad:

Lettuce. baby tomatoes, cucumber, red onion, grated carrot, sliced tomatoes, peppers, black pitted olives (sliced to resemble matchbox car tyres). Dressing of 1 clove garlic crushed & chopped with sea salt, twist of black pepper, 1/2 teaspoon of mustard (Dijon is good for this) two teaspoons of balsamic vinegar and 7 teaspoons of extra virgin olive oil. Mix in a ramekin & dress salad with it. You might add cottage cheese (the devil's work imo, but some like it), or some tuna to eke this out a little. Serves 7

Cost (est) £6.00


Aubergine bake - serves 7

Three aubergines sliced lengthways, brushed with extra virgin olive oil and grilled or dry fried on a skillet to get the 'lines' in the flesh. £2.40
Jar of tomato and basil sauce (Lloyd Grossman is good) £1.80
Jar of green pesto £1.00
3x mozzarella balls £1.50
Parmesan cheese £2.00
Fresh basil £0.60

Total £9.30

Arrange a layer of the part-cooked aubergine slices in a lasagne dish, spoon some of the pesto over and add a layer of sliced mozzarella. Then another layer of aubergine slices. more pesto. Add the tomato sauce all over, then grate parmesan over the whole thing and then slices of mozzarella evenly over the top. Bake for 25 minutes until bubbling, serve with fresh basil and a twist of black pepper.


Evening meal

Mushroom and spinach risotto:

1 pkt Arborio rice £1.00
2 tablespoons of extra virgin olive oil £0.20
bag of Spinnach £1.00
Chestnut Mushrooms £1.30
Veg stock £0.10
2 Onions chopped (see above)
Glug of white wine £0.40
Parmesan cheese £0.30

Total £4.30

Cook onion until soft (5 mins - half way through add the mushrooms), add the rice and cook for a minute, add the wine and cook for another minute until rice has absorbed most of the liquid then start to add the stock a good slug at a time. Stir a bit until stock is absorbed and add more stock. This takes about 20 minutes. With the last slug of stock throw in the spinach and stir well. Serve with parmesan grated over the top (unless you're a vegan in which case leave out).
Serves 7

Three cheese cannelloni

2x Ricotta cheese tubs £2.00
bag of Fresh basil. £0.60
Parmesan cheese (about 2/3 of a wedge) £2.00
Sun dried tomatoes (jar) £1.00
large jar tomato & basil sauce £1.80
2 x buffalo Mozzarella cheese balls £1.00
20 cannelloni tubes £1.00

Total £9.40

Mix ricotta with chopped sun-dried tomatoes, torn basil leaves and parmesan in a large bowl. Then fill the cannelloni with the mixture, fiddly but worth it. Use a large teaspoon and 'tamp down' with the handle as you go. You'll get the hang of it. Then arrange the filled tubes in a large lasagna dish pour over the (heated) tomato sauce, grate a load more parmesan cheese over the top then add the mozzarella slices evenly over the top of the mixture. Bake in the oven for 40 minutes, serve with a few basil leaves scattered over, a twist of black pepper and a smile. Serves 7

Red lentil curry

2x onions chopped (see above)
2x garlic cloves crushed & chopped £0.20
1.5 tablespoons medium curry powder £1.00
Pinch of flaked chillies (optional) £0.20
7oz red lentils (dried in packet) £0.40
3 peppers deseeded and diced £1.40
I aubergine diced £0.80
1.5 pints of vegetable stock £0.10
400ml tin of chopped tomatoes £0.35
chopped coriander £0.60
Flaked almonds £0.50
Brown rice £1.00

Total £6.55

Cook onions & garlic until soft, add curry powder and cook for another minute. Stir in the lentils and veg cook for a minute then add stock and simmer for 40 minutes. Add tomatoes & coriander simmer for 10 minutes, serve with brown rice (which takes about a week to cook) toasted flaked almonds (dry fry in a small pan for 5 mins) on top & twist of black pepper. Serves 7.

And that's it! As I say in reality we have something different every night (via slightly smaller portions than indicated or leftovers etc, although buying to do the recipes means that we throw away almost nothing - everything gets used.

A couple more recipes that are cheap, simple and quick to do, just for variety:

Tofu stir fry

One square tub-thing of firm tofu, drained and kitchen rolled dry, cut in half lengthways and then into cubes of about 1 inch square. £2.00
2 garlic cloves crushed £0.40
Thumb-sized piece of root ginger (don't buy a pack, just break off a bit the size you need) chopped £0.20
pack of Chestnut mushrooms sliced. £1.40
Pack of baby sweetcorn halved lengthways £1.20
Pack of mangetout £1.00
any other veg sliced thinly - carrot, courgette, peppers etc. £1.50
Beansprouts or 'ready for wok' noodles £0.80
pack or jar of any stir fry sauce - hoi sin, oyster (not veggie) chow mein etc £0.75
spring onions £1.00

Total £10.25

Chuck everything except sauce and noodles/beansprouts into a wok for 6 minutes then add the sauce and noodles, cook for three more minutes serve with spring onions on top and chopsticks. The fork and spoon police will almost certainly be in your area when you cook this. You have been warned. ;)

Moroccan Stew

1 onion sliced (see above)
1 garlic clove £0.20
1 Aubergine diced £0.80
8 oz carrots slided £1.00
1 butternut squash peeled & diced £0.90
tsp ground cumin £0.20
tsp ground coriander £0.20
tsp ground cinnamon £0.20
2 tablespoons tomato puree £0.50
1 pint vegetable stock £0.10
pack of firm tofu cubed £2.00
handful dried apricots chopped £1.00
fresh coriander £0.60
2-3 oz pine nuts toasted (dry pan fried for 5 mins don't burn!) £1.00

Total £8.70

Cook onion, garlic & veg in large pan for 5 mins (in veg oil - 1 tbsp). Add spices, cook for 1 minute, add puree and stock, simmer for 40 mins. Add tofu, apricots, coriander, cook for 5 more minutes. Serve with toasted pine nuts on top.

enjoy!

So, based on the above - and I have tried to be quite generous on my cost estimates, based on actual receipts but with odd numbers rounded up.

Breakfasts - £11.26
Lunches - £21.45
Dinners - £20.25

Total £52.96.

You could easily substitute one of the other recipes for lunches or dinners (instead of soup or salad) without breaking the budget. Obviously the risotto and curry are cheaper than some of the others, but I could have just done risotto & curry all week for everything and shaved £15 off the final budget. Not sure what I'm going to do with the £0.04 I have left over from my £53.00 budget. Probably blow it on wine, women and song. ;)

I'm taxed enough in the bedroom

That made you click didn't it? Sorry to disappoint (another bedroom reference there for your delectation), but this is a brief (there I go again) piece (ahem) about the so-called Bedroom tax or 'spare room supplement' being proposed by our great leaders and masters at this time.

Now by instinct I'm slightly to the right of Attilla the Hun, but I have some serious misgivings about this policy.

Firstly let's just clear up the fact that this was a policy mooted by Labour and they would have brought forward legislation on exactly this issue had the electorate been stupid enough to vote them in again last time, instead of just almost doing so. (Go figure).

Because, you may not have noticed yet, but the politicians we vote for and elect, are allowed to put forward some suggestions and shout loudly from time to time, but it's Whitehall, and unelected Civil Servants who actually decide on policy and keep the whole machinery of Government rumbling on.

So Labour, like the Coalition, understood the principle that houses with more bedrooms cost more money and that, therefore, people who live in social rented accommodation (council houses to you and me) should have a clear need for the number of bedrooms in the house in order to qualify for that size of property. And single people living in three bedroomed homes while families with children live in one-bedroom homes, particularly when all of it is paid for by the state (for 'state' read 'taxpayer') is just plain wrong.

And that's fine, it makes sense and in a world where, for the past 50 years we'd been building anything like the number of new homes (including social rented or 'affordable' as they're sometimes, misleadingly described) needed to meet demand (with more people living alone, people living independently into older age, family breakdown, growing population etc), this would be workable.

But we haven't. The Labour caveat to the (let's call it, for simplicity) bedroom tax, was that it would only be levied if tenants had been offered and refused a suitable alternative. Now we can argue about what 'suitable' means til the cows come home, but let's just say somewhere with more or fewer bedrooms depending upon the size of their family, taking account of any disabilities etc, within the same post-code, for the sake of argument.

And I agree with that. If said alternative is available, has been offered and declined, then the charge (and by 'charge' I mean whatever 'penalty' is being put forward) should be made.

But just charging people for where they've ended up (kids left home etc) without them knowing it was going to happen so they could downsize (just as one could or would in the private housing sector) and if alternative provision were available, is draconian in my opinion. I understand about comparisons between public and private sector provision and this system should be imposed for all new tenants, but the problem of lack of provision, as previously described, means that there is very rarely a suitable alternative open to the tenants concerned. Which means that many of them have no choice but to accept this penalty. Which, to my mind, is akin to charging people for the air that they breathe. If they have no choice about it, it is a backwards, draconian and completely unfair step in my opinion and what's more it is an unworkable game of musical chairs which will inevitably hit the worst off in society the most.

I'm all for breaking the welfare trap that has people almost stuck in a life on benefits: I see strong evidence of this close to where I live where, for many 14 and 15 year old girls, 'starting a family' is seen (and I'm deadly serious about this) as a career option, in that it comes with housing, child benefit etc and is 'liveable'. So I do believe the balance has to be changed as IDS is trying to do, to encourage people to work and to get on. But this particular measure is badly drafted, badly thought-through, unworkable and unfair.

Anyway, following the start of this blog, it seems I'm in the spare room anyway for the foreseeable future. ;) Thanks for reading.

Aspiration Nation

What does 'Aspiration Nation' really add up to?

It has clearly been seen before during 2012; was used again by Call-Me-Dave during PMQs immediately before the Chancellor's budget speech and repeated therein several times, and subsequently. So is it a new dawn for the coalition or another gimmick like 'in it together' or 'localism' both of which seem to have died a slow quiet death in recent times?

So, 'Aspiration Nation' then? Is it a new vision, a strong, well defined and clear signpost to the future or another half-baked, half-hearted message that its creators hope might just fly?

The thing about slogans, strap-lines or 'mission statements' is that they can do great things for, or great damage to, reputations and outcomes. Ideally they should be relatively simple so that everyone can understand what is being communicated, strong and clear in a way which captures the imagination and, crucially, they must be committed to on the part of the proposer and supported by actions, in reality, on the ground. There are, I would suggest, four levels of quality when looking at slogans; 1 being the ideal, 2 being good (and arguably better than 1 - bear with me on this), 3 being a bit of a waste of time and 4 being damaging.

1. Strong, clear message backed by real, coherent activity on the ground.
2. Slightly more muddled, inaccessible message but with a clear connected vision being delivered.
3. Strong message but not supported in reality.
4. Half-baked unclear message with no resonance in reality.

Not being (particularly) party political here, but the example of 'New Labour' would seem to be an appropriate one to use. Following on from 18 years' of Tory Government, when the incumbents had run out of steam (as do all Governments after 2.5 terms or so) the New Labour thing was a breath of fresh air to many voters, signalling as it did; change, something new, a new dawn, a fresh start blah blah. (The word 'New', like the word 'sex' sells in advertising terms). So it was a strong vision which was, initially, backed by programmes and policies being delivered on the ground. Everything Labour then tried to do was set against the background of this vision: Education, health, the economy, defense etc, was all about delivering the New Labour vision.

And it worked, to the extent that it won Mr Blair three elections. It was a strong, clear vision that was (to an extent) supported in reality on the ground - or at least was repeated often enough and very effectively 'spun' often using stats rather than actual outcomes (see the stats-led disasters that are now coming to light in education and the NHS for proof of this), to convince many people that it was working. Critics would (and do) say that actually the whole thing was a slogan-led programme which was not properly reflected by achievements on the ground, which is where it descended from number 1 on the above list, towards number 3. It got lost along the way, but not for a considerable amount of time, and then Mr Brown came in without much of a clue about vision, communications, engaging with other human beings, finance, figures..etc you know the rest of course, and the whole thing fell into disrepute.

But having this strong, clear vision worked wonders for Labour for a number of years. And whilst I am instinctively not a Labour supporter, I can respect the clarity of vision that New Labour represented even if, ultimately, it failed and was not, after all, all that strongly represented in real progress.

So, just when we needed real leadership to get us out of the mess that engulfed the UK on the back of failed Labour policy and world economic activity (disasters which, by the way were not spotted by the same 'leading economists' who are now telling us where we went wrong and what we should now be doing. Bah), what have we got?

We had 'in it together' which was a laudable sentiment but one which was very open to miss-interpretation and (pardon the term) piss-taking in relation to the have-nots using it to kick the 'haves, particularly in Government. We had 'Localism' which was, I think, about 'power to the people' (irony claxon), but which simply didn't resonate because it wasn't clear what it meant and wasn't backed up, having been introduced, by any kind of commitment from the Tory party.

And now we have 'Aspiration Nation'. On the face of it it's quite strong if a little 'gimmicky' and not easy to define what it is. 'Aspiration' is quite a good sentiment to use - everyone aspires to bettering themselves, their family's prospects, their country etc. It also suggests improvement and ambition. 'Nation' supports the vision by suggesting inclusiveness, that it applies to everyone and also has some nationalistic overtones which, despite our now almost dominant PC culture, can still be a positive thing to communicate, especially in the current European political climate. So not brilliant in the way that 'New Labour' was, but I would say adequate, number 2 on the list, rather than number 1, 3 or 4. Yet.

And the thing about number 2, is that it is probably the best one in practical terms to be adopted, because it relies much more upon what is being done on the ground for its credibility and power, than does the brilliant number 1 slogan which can mask failings and be used to dupe people into thinking everything is fine, when it isn't. Aspiration Nation cannot carry people with it on its own (it's not strong enough), but it can, if matched by real, measurable progress, become a strong message to define positive improvements. And, the reason why I say it can be better than my defined number 1, is that it relies on real progress to be made rather than spin which will only ever get you so far. Mr Blair, Mandelson, Campbell ;).

But in order to work effectively it must be committed to by everyone in the coalition (that'll be a first then), must be repeated ad nauseam and must be related to positive achievements and changes to policy. It must be explained repeatedly and often by everyone involved in its delivery and every new initiative must be able to be measured and compared against the Aspiration Nation vision. In that way the credibility of the vision can be communicated, underlined and built upon so that it becomes stronger than the sum of its parts. And it can also provide direction and leadership in the formation of new policies: 'How does this Health initiative (for example) fit into our Aspiration Nation vision?'

My hope is that this will be the case: that reality - putting things right, solving the massive problems we face as a nation, delivering leadership on the big issues including Immigration, Defence, Europe, Health and Education (as opposed to gay marriage and a ban on hunting say [just to be even handed]) - will happen and then be credited as being part of the Aspiration Nation vision. It will then come to define what this Government is all about and might even allow it to take some credit for having a coherent, joined-up approach to its work that might just deliver electoral success, particularly when compared to a current opposition that is offering no ideas or coherent policy suggestions, but, despite that is well ahead in the polls.

It seems to me that it has taken a gargantuan effort for Call-Me-Dave to be trailing so disastrously in the polls following his replacement of one of the most morally and financially bankrupt administrations in history, and that, just maybe, a coherent communications strategy, including a strong vision, well delivered, might just have been of some use to him. Sigh.

Anyway, things seem to have gone quiet on the Aspiration Nation front since the budget and the danger must be, therefore, that it will, like its predecessors, be relegated to another gimmick that didn't quite work, didn't really communicate what the coalition stands for and what the country needs. If that is the case then 'Aspiration Nation' moves down my status list to number 4 - which means that it becomes damaging because it is seen as another half-hearted, un-thought-through piece of crap with which the spin doctors were trying to dupe us all and which just provides more evidence of the shallow, un-prepared and uncommitted nature of the current administration. It also makes any future slogans or promises less likely to be taken seriously in a way which can be truly damaging to their reputation.

Time will tell, but I'm not hopeful that the coalition really understands the value of a strong, clear and effective vision for the country, or that it could bring massive benefits to them amongst the electorate. Maybe they shouldn't have left it to the night before the pitch to come up with something?

Thanks for reading. I wrote a much more technical - and sweary, sorry - piece on the subject of vision last year. Just if, after the above, you're still not quite able to get off to sleep, you can read it here.

Cyprus - a threat to civilised values and peace

Of course I'm not suggesting that Cyprus is a threat to world peace. Heck they'd probably take a couple of weeks to defeat a military minnow like Argentina. And the next village to me, Weston-By-Welland would almost certainly beat Kirchner's mob more quickly. But what is a threat to world peace, to our civilised society, to the values and bedrock upon which we have built our prosperity and with which we have raised our children since the last unpleasantness, is what has been going on on that Mediterranean island.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't we go to war, twice, in the last century to protect ourselves from unelected tyranny, overpowering and self-interested dictatorship from Germany? To secure our freedom to elect our own representatives, to retain our own national identity and the ability to live in peace, work hard, earn money, pay for our material needs, daily comforts and, ideally, a comfortable and secure retirement?

At the heart of that, almost central to it as far as 'ordinary' people are concerned is the assurance that one can rely on one's bank to keep one's money safe. Indeed Governments used to advise people not to keep their cash under the mattress, but instead to put it in the bank 'where it will be safe'. Safe as the bank of England. Or Safe as houses they used to say. That might have a somewhat hollow ring to it if you're in Spain or Ireland or many parts of the US at this moment in time, but you get my drift.

So what we're now seeing in Cyprus where unelected Eurocrats in Brussels have decided simply to take people's money out of their bank accounts is, in my opinion, a grave and serious threat to the stability of the civilised world. If your money is not safe in a bank, where is it safe? If people who you didn't vote for, have never met, who don't understand your circumstances in any way, can simply take your money, what is the world coming to? Who can you trust?

And to say 'well there's lots of 'laundered' ill-gotten Russian Mafia money in Cypriot banks' is irrelevant. If it's illegal money then do something about that illegality. Use the law as it is designed to be used. Don't use it as an excuse to just steal that and other monies legitimately held by normal people. Money which, incidentally, has already been taxed by the local Government and some of which will already have found its way back to paying for these unelected fuckwits in Brussels/Strasbourg.

It's like Mr Hitler saying: 'there's some dodgy money in Poland and Czechoslovakia? Fuck it we'll take the Sudetenland and then move eastwards.'

The Eurocrats owe their entire cushy lifestyles to the EU and will do anything in their power to keep this failed project going, including the complete sell-out of the people they're supposed to be representing. The Cypriot deal, roundly rejected by that Island's Government and it's people last week, has now been forced through in such a way that the interested parties don't even get to vote on it. Is that democracy? Does that follow the EU ideals of accountability, fairness for all? Recognition of minorities and the overriding founding principle of cooperation in such a way as to make future wars impossible?

I've blogged before about what I called 'economic blitzkrieg' and also about the 'end of democracy in Europe' - the take-over of Europe by Germany, not with tanks, but banks. It seems to be coming to pass right now.

And remember that Germany is booming. Unemployment is less than 6% while it is over 25% in Southern Europe. Because Germany is enjoying a massively favourable exchange rate compared to what it would be if it still had the Deutschmark (because the exchange rate is measured in a way which includes the much weaker economies elsewhere in Europe) while at the same time having an almost captive audience for its goods and services. And the smaller, poorer, less industrially strong or efficient countries, which always used to be able to devalue their currencies and thereby become more competitive again, simply cannot do this now. Which means that they're (technical economic term) fucked.

It is becoming a German take-over of continental Europe and we're just now starting to see what that will mean for ordinary people who don't toe the German line. But this situation has been created by Germany (strictly speaking the EU but the terms are effectively interchangeable) allowing countries to join the EU and the Euro who had no hope of ever meeting the entry criteria economically (I won't bore you with those criteria, but you can take a look here and here). Then Germany got these countries 'hooked' on cheap money, gave them massive financial aid (which most of them promptly pissed up the wall as Germany knew they would) and now they are almost entirely beholden to Germany and the EU to have enough money to eat (pay their public sector workers including the police).

I think that the EU has become such a laughing stock over the years, on issues like straight bananas, health and safety, human rights etc., that no-one is really bothering to take any notice any more. And that's a shame, because if we don't take notice - really take notice - right now, it will be too late and the values and freedoms that our soldiers, in their millions during the last two unpleasantnesses, spilled blood to preserve, will have disappeared.

Cyprus has been a major blunder by the EU and the hard line has been more about upcoming elections in Germany (where the population are also increasingly anti-EU by the way) than anything else. But it has shown the potentially evil, undemocratic and all-consuming power that the EU can now wield. From unelected premiers imposed on Italy to stealing - yes it is stealing it's not a 'levy' FFS - the bread out of people's mouths in Cyprus.

And now they're (the EU) capping what people can withdraw, controlling capital transfers, not allowing people to leave the country with serious amounts of money and limiting card transactions to €500 per month. How is that a 'free movement of people, trade and money', as per the EU principles? see Here for details.

I also happen to think that if I wanted to find a group from which to steal money, the Russian Mafia would not be high on my list of targets, but that's another matter.

The Dutch and Swedes are also starting to lose faith in the EU but leadership is unlikely to come from those places. France is effectively bankrupt and will do whatever Germany tells it to do (as usual). Most of the other EU member states don't have a pot to piss in. The only hope for the independence of smaller (i.e. non-German) countries in Europe now probably lies with the UK. And we're not closely involved with the shambles that it is becoming (although we're paying massively into it).

I hope that the Euro will disappear up its own rectum because of the fundamental flaws in the system, but, as I say, these people will do almost anything - things, like this week in Cyprus which I think even Mr Hitler would have blanched at - to keep the thing going. If the wheels don't come off we're all in for a great deal of further pain and, in my humble opinion, I think that the EU could end up creating the very thing that it was set up in the 1950s to guard against; war and renewed conflict in Europe and beyond.

And now a joke to lighten the mood... not really. Thanks for reading, sleep well if you can/aren't already.