Doom and bust

Hi everyone.

Well, I hope you enjoyed the latest Bank Holiday weekend of the spring and have enjoyed the good weather that there has been of late. The meterologists reckon that this summer is going to be a hot one, let's hope that doesn't just mean thunderstorms and heavy rain. We surely must be due a glorious summer to bask in the sunshine and enjoy the great outdoors.

For those reading this blog that live in Brighton, like myself, they will no doubt be taking in the annual extravaganza of the Brighton Festival which started last weekend with the traditional Children's Parades. I'll have to see about getting along to taking in some shows and maybe visiting one of the Open House exhibitions. After all, you can't pass up a free glass of wine, eh?

And I suppose the big story of the last week or so has been the swine flu which supposedly has now reached pandemic levels. Or is that just a measurement of the media hysteria? Of course, it is the great unknown that is causing people to be worried but I'm sure it is just a case of being vigilant. So, if you happen to pass a pig wearing a Sombrero or swigging a bottle of Corona, I'd advise running very quickly! Mind you, I hear that catching the swine flu is easily remedied by applying a small amount of oinkment. It can't be any worse than man flu, surely?

Well, as ever there's plenty of stuff to talk about, but so little time in which to do it. Time for me to get scribing I guess.

1. Government by the lowest evil
Well, it has not been a good time for Gordon Brown's Government recently. In fact, just about everything that could go wrong is going wrong for the dour Scot put in charge of this fair and crazy isle of ours. I say "put in charge", well I can't say that he was elected because his elevation to the poisoned chalice that he had always coveted avoided the approval of the electorate as Brown was handed the baton of power by Tony Blair after no meaningful alternatives were found to take over from the Colgate loving, God fearing, outgoing PM who made his getaway with the blood on his hands from the Iraq war.

Brown was not universally regarded as the right man to lead the country at the point that Tony Blair left number 10. For years he had been seen as the dour and prudent operator overseeing the safe and careful handling of the economy, but was not regarded for his people skills. Now that the economy has imploded as badly as it has, Brown's main selling point has blown up in his face. Far from now being seen as a prudent man who like the stereotype associated with his country of birth kept a tight rein on the purse strings, Brown is instead seen as someone who has been reckless with the public purse and allowed the national debt to spiral out of control.

Is this criticism fair? Well, politics like commerce and like sport is a results business and right now, with high unemployment figures and record levels of national debt and crazily low interest rates the evidence for the prosecution is pretty damning. I'm not going to get into carrying out an economic dissection of the policies of the Brown Government as frankly that would be enough to cure even the most hardened insomniac, not withstanding the fact that I do not possess the economic mind of Adam Smith or John Keynes. However, I do feel that some of the current problems are self-inflicted by Brown's decisions while others are out of his control.

First of all, let no-one be in any doubt that Tony Blair did not pass over the reins of power to Gordon Brown when he did just so he could allow his old adversary the chance to fulfil his political dream. Blair saw exactly what was coming and decided to exercise his get out clause before the Labour Government's world caved in. Blair knew that his "golden era" of power had long passed. Up until 2003, Blair could do no wrong and all the while the Conservative Party got through party leaders in the period of time that most people get through toothbrushes, the Labour Government was in harmony and this was reflected in the public vote.

Then it changed. The point at which Blair's popularity hit the highest peak of the curve and then started what would prove its continual descent can be traced back to March 2003. This was when Britain invaded Iraq. Now, there are cases that people can make for and against that decision and certainly no-one would dispute that a world without Saddam Hussein struck a blow for democracy. After all, this is a man who adopted the Henry Ford policy to voting in his country, namely that you could vote for anyone you like as long as it was Saddam Hussein.

The arguments for and against entering the country are understood. What is not understood is the underhand way in which the Government justified its decision to go to war. If you recall, the Government's rationale for invading Iraq was to locate the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq had supposedly horded. Many months passed and still no such weapons emerged to support the claims of the dodgy dossiers. It was not until much later when it became clear that the weapons of mass destruction were seemingly a figment of everyone's imagination that the Government changed its story and stated that their aim was to bring about "regime change". If that was their clear aim from the outset, why not state it rather than justifying their actions when they had no clear evidence?

I will declare my hand and say that I was against the war from the start. OK, I wanted to see Saddam Hussein consigned to history as much as anyone, but I was never comfortable about Britain accompanying the United States arm-in-arm to the battle zones of the desert. It was clear from the moment George Bush came into power that he was an inarticulate warmonger only to keen to finish the battles his father couldn't and that was only exacerbated by the terrible, life defining events of September 11, 2001. However, instead of trying to track down Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban, as would have been the logical course of action at the time, Bush and his posse of cut-throat advisors decided that Hussein must have been in cohoots with Bin Laden. If he wanted to open up old wounds, it's surprising he didn't also implicate Colonel Gaddafi.

What I wanted to see in order to convince me that invading Iraq was a good idea was a clear plan of what would happen after the objective of overthrowing Hussein had been achieved. I wanted to see that the US and UK Governments understood that overthrowing Hussein would not be universally popular in Iraq and that there would be factions totally against Western interference in their affairs. I also wanted to see some plans for regenerating the country. It was all well and good saying that democracy had been achieved, but at what price? There were innocent people that lost homes, lost livelihoods, in some cases lost loved ones. Were these people just expected to regard this as a small price to pay for achieving democracy? This struck me as typical US and UK arrogance when it came to throwing their weight around and I saw no evidence of a clear exit strategy for what would happen after Hussein's grip on power had been toppled.

Well, six years on and just in this last week, British troops have finally left Iraq. Can we say that the mission has been accomplished? Sure, for many Iraqis they can grow up in a country that has a democratic ruling power and they will experience freedom of choice. But they will also be growing up in an unstable country where there will be factions who forever will be vehemently against the new regime introduced against their will and will stop at nothing at airing their anger and grievances. The families of those who lost their lives while serving in Iraq will hardly regard it as satisfactory for their children and siblings to be seen as martyrs for democracy.

Anyway, I have somewhat digressed from the original theme of this post which was talk about the position the Government now find themselves in although in talking about Iraq, I have highlighted the crossroads in the Labour Government's time in power. Up to 2003, the electorate were generally happy with the running of the country after years of sleaze and fat cats under the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s. The invasion of Iraq marked a watershed and ever since, the Government had gradually and continually lost its grip on power to the point where its position of power is imploding rapidly, to the point where Brown's chances of re-election next year look about as likely as Peter Mandelson winning an award for sincerity.

There cannot have been a time in history when public apathy and distrust of politicians of any rosette colour has been higher. If you talk to the average media influenced man or woman in the street they will have so little time for politics or politicians because they are seen to be hypocritical, incompetent, slippery and only useful for cheating the system. A common complaint is that "they are all as bad as each other". And that complaint is not far wrong. What are the alternatives to a Labour Government? The Conservatives look red hot favourites to be elected next year and yet David Cameron has shown little evidence of being anything more than a habitual bandwagon jumper. His constant criticism of the Government's handling of the economy is easy, but Cameron has made little by way of pronouncements of how he would handle it better.

There is good reason for this because the Conservatives' policy would prove unpopular in the long run. Their approach will be to cut back significantly on Government spending, which you will say is a necessity in the short term because of the vast amount of national debt needing to be paid back. That is fair enough, but those clawbacks on Government spending will be taken from the education and health pots, not to mention prisons. Therefore, Cameron's current criticism of the existing Government's handling of education and of the NHS will prove hollow considering the cut backs he makes will do nothing to improve resources for either of these key services.

There are ways in which savings can be made and wastage reduced without needing to burn a hole in the pot of the aforementioned core areas. Local Governments are the worst offenders when it comes to wastage of resources, not least because of the ridiculous jobs they advertise for meaningless positions where often the responsibilities could easily be covered by someone else within their ranks as part of their existing job role.

For example, what is the need for a Diversity Manager? I understand the need for councils to monitor what percentage of their staff are from ethnic minority groups in order to satisfy the requirements of their funders, but surely this should be a function of the Human Resources Department? Any initiatives to promote diversity in a given area could surely be taken on by an existing member of the Marketing Department. Creating jobs just for specific projects over a finite period of time seems to be the way that recruitment is going in the statutory sector, but this encourages short term strategies which cost more money in the long run when they are torn up and replaced by another initiative.

In the recent budget that was announced by Alistair Darling, who I incidentally feel that people find difficult to warm to because of his uncanny resemblance to Sam The Eagle from The Muppet Show, it was noticeable that vast amounts of money were being pledged to look into the causes of global warming. Now, I fully appreciate the need to preserve this planet for generations to come and there needs to be progress made in ensuring that people's gradual destruction of the planet is reduced. However, in the here and now, there are more pressing matters than what may or may not happen in 500 or 1000 years time. No-one on this planet will still be around by then, even Bruce Forsyth! At this time the breathtaking amount of money being spent on environmental concerns could be invested in other areas of public interest.

Apart from the usual increases on petrol, alcohol and tobacco which happen every year regardless of the economic stability of the time and which always produce the same grumbles, the feature of this year's budget that seemed to provoke most controversy was the 50% tax on people earning £150,000 or more. The supporters of this decision heralded it as a positive step in addressing the fat cat managers of the failing banks. However, its critics saw this as a cheap move that would make little difference to the health of the economy.

In my opinion, I thought it was a hollow policy which could actually do more harm than good. It seems to me that it is a very British psyche that we actually want achievers to pay more for the upkeep of the country than those who enjoy the benefits of other people's inputs. The Robin Hood economics of progressive taxes that see the richest of the rich having to pay more to the poor is a sign that New Labour is shifting back to Old Labour, as this kind of taxation policy is more in keeping with the party's Socialist origins. I see this as a sop to the rebels within the Labour Party on its traditional left who may be toying with the idea of jumping ship given the Party's current problems.

The reason that I say this could do more harm than good is because if you tax the richest people in the country more tax, they will just decide to leave the country and go somewhere that they do not get charged at all, namely tax havens like Monaco or Switzerland. Ah yes, tax havens. Just three weeks ago, a key element of agreement at the G20 summit had been that tax havens should be eliminated. And quite right too, given that they result in so much money being lost to national economies. Britain was in support of this motion. Yet, so soon afterwards they are introducing a policy that will actively promote the use of tax havens. The curse of short termism strikes again.

The Government is guilty at the moment of misreading the public mood in some respects and it thinks that by introducing these types of "gimmick" policy that their public approval rating will increase. The reality is that public confidence in this Government is now glued to the basement. It is all well and good thinking that the public will support tax hikes for the rich if you sell the idea on the basis that it will hit the bosses of failed banks and financial services hard. But it is a moot point, because very few of the 350,000 UK citizens earning £150,000 a year or more are in charge of banks. The vast majority of the people in that bracket are entrepreneurs, self-made millionaires who made their vast wealth from their own hard work and blood, sweat and tears. It is a peculiarly British phenomenon that we seem to distrust and penalise success. Tell an entrepreneur he needs to pay more tax and they will think "No problem. I will just go and moor my yacht in Monaco and enjoy the Life of Riley".

The latest developments in Westminster just this past week concerning the Gurkhas and the vote that the Government lost after dissent within their own party was another example of a Government misreading the public mood. The Government I imagine felt that any move to clamp down on immigration at a time when the country isn't so much going to the dogs as having sprinted out of trap one at Hove dog track and ate the hare would capture the public support, not least those ever reliable bastions of the moral compass, the Daily Mail. But how wrong they were as not only were the Government defeated but they failed to realise the esteem in which the Gurkhas are held in this country because of their stoicism in defending the UK's interests. Once a national treasure such as Joanna Lumley became the spokesperson of the Gurkhas' rights, the Government were fighting a losing battle.

The Government did make some moves in the Budget to address the unemployment rate that is increasing rapidly due to the shockwaves of the recession with the investment of monies into Job Centre Plus. In principle, this is a policy that I support, because as I previously mentioned on these pages back in March, I feel that Job Centre Plus is in need of change at a time when its resources are going to be strained by the current unemployment problems. However, I do feel that its idea to find work or training for all adults under 25 who have been unemployed for less than a year is possibly a misguided one. I feel that there is potential for this to lead to a revolving door at the Job Centre where people get fixed up with jobs in order to get them off the books, only for the very same people to return six weeks later when that job wasn't for them.

As well as the wave of redundancies that are going to build up the levels of people passing through the Job Centre's books in the months to come, the biggest challenge facing the country so far as unemployment is structural unemployment, where there are more unemployed people than there are jobs in some parts of the country, with people unwilling or incapable of moving to other areas where the suitable jobs are to be found. This is particularly going to be noticeable in parts of the country where manufacturing or construction jobs have been lost because opportunities for like-for-like jobs without the need for re-training will be few and far between and workers may lack either the skills or the inclination to learn them in order to transfer to the service sector. It is a tricky problem to deal with, but it is encouraging at least to see that skills packages will be provided to the young unemployed. It should be realised, however, that the longer term unemployed are also in need of accessing these packages too.

So all this leaves me in a quandary. Within 365 days from now, an election has to be held. I feel that a change of Government is inevitable, but that still begs the question of who on earth will I vote for. Right now, I can honestly say that I do not have a clue. I do not feel that I could vote for the Labour Government on the basis that they have run out of ideas and the cycle of debt and borrowing that has damaged the economy has to end. But in making this decision, I equally could not vote for the Conservative Party on the basis that I do not know what their policies are, what they stand for and I hold their party leader in complete contempt. How can we expect him to look after the country if he cannot even look after his bike? Previously, I have voted for the Liberal Democrats before but while I admire some of their thoughtful, idealistic policies, the current economic problems call for practical, harsh solutions. Nick Clegg seems to keep himself in the background while the main man of substance in their party, Vince Cable, is happy to just speak on monetary matters and when push comes to shove, a vote for the Liberal Democrats will not get them into power.

Beyond these three parties, there is the possibility of making a protest vote but frankly Mr Shankly, I'd rather munch on a broken light bulb than vote for one of the insular, secular parties with oppressive agendas such as the BNP or the UK Independence Party, nor do I really feel that a vote for the Communist Party or the Kumbaya singing, tambourine playing groupies that make up the Green Party would constitute a meaningful move.

So the dilemma I face, my friends, is that I have to either choose the party of the least evil despite its faults, or I could decide not to vote at all, in keeping with probably at least a third of the eligible voting public. In saying this, maybe there is a third option that I could explore and just form my own political wing, a la Edmund Blackadder. It would probably result in lost deposits and less votes than there are spoilt ballot papers, but at least I could say that I tried to make a difference. Maybe there is a winning manifesto in us all which if we just had the confidence in and not to mention the finance, we could go some way to changing the world. So who wants to come on my battle bus?


Just about all from me tonight having spent so long on my lead article for this week. I hope to be back at the weekend though to talk about a few other random bits and pieces. Hope to have you along for the ride.