The Great British Spending Review……

Now that the UK Spending Review has been revealed in all its controversial glory I'm left wondering what all the fuss is about. Cuts in the welfare budget? Good. Increased retirement age? What's the beef? Cuts in government departments? Good. Increased pension contributions for civil servants? Fine. Stopping child benefit for high income earners? About time.

And yet the fear of the over sixties to lose their bus-passes, free TV licences and winter fuel allowances have all been unfounded. Social housing rents for new tenants to be nearer those of the private sector, and the removal of a council house for life seem reasonable enough, and yet I am not heartless. I fear that the less able will struggle.

It is unfair for them to bear the brunt, yet likewise a system which stifles ambition and encourages state dependency cannot be condoned either. Then there are the increased university fees, and the concern that this may limit opportunities for young people whose families are economically challenged.

The business of banks is to lend. The proliferation of borrowing encouraged rampant fiscal irresponsibility. The old adage of neither a borrower or lender be, is commendable, but hardly practical. The problem was that both shared a bed and behaved shockingly promiscuous. The ex Labour government found themselves with a treasury which they played with as a child in a toy shop. Since 1997 they spent money like water – foolishly and carelessly without thought nor consequence. Give the people what they want, and they will vote for you. They were guilty of gross misconduct and justice has been served upon them.

A period of austerity will not be a bad thing if it returns sense and good housekeeping to the nation. Folk years ago planned their futures, did not buy what they couldn't afford or live beyond their means. They instilled thrift and responsibility to their offspring, which led naturally to self worth and dignity. Two concepts which have been lost in today's selfish consumer driven society.

This easy access to money, this unadulterated borrowing, this embracing of wealth at any cost, this greed, forced simple things like affordable housing through the roof and has virtually killed the chance for any average earner to strive for a home of his own. Over inflated property prices has stifled ambition for our most worthy citizens. It seems like an unattainable goal, and yet the alternative of cheap rents are a thing of the past because landlords are generally greedy bastards. Children therefore stay longer in the nest, and parents invariably bear the brunt. In many cultures extended families live together where it is the norm. In Britain – in the West, the nuclear family has been assigned to the history books, and its fragmentation is reality.

Meanwhile the French are up in arms because they will have to work an extra two years to retire at 62. And we think we have problems! Whats their boeuf? Or is it all Coq au vin?

It will take more than a generation to fix our current problems, if at all. There needs to be a massive cultural sea change. Sadly we cannot return to the days of innocence and good intent of the 1940's when social welfare was an attainable reality. This brave new world has challenges which cannot be addressed by governments alone. Environment, over population and increasing demands on resources are just three other factors to add to the crazy puzzle which needs solving in the 21st century.

Man has done well to get this far, but his unique emotions of hope and faith may not be enough to get him much further. Still, we live in hope!

The Big Society….

How big is it and how many will play the game?

"The Big Society" raised it's head during the UK election campaign and like a withering candle was promptly snuffed out. It didn't capture the imagination of the electorate, and although it didn't destroy the Conservative campaign either, it surely dented it, and may have been instrumental in the advent of a coalition government.

The concept has now resurfaced, but what does it mean? Nobody really knows. But it has something to do with the decentralising of government, returning power to local authorities and communities, and giving more control to the citizen.

Critics argue that it is the Big Con, a ploy to cut the debt, and a ruse to reduce the number of public and civil servants by replacing them with a volunteer workforce.

Sections of the electorate have remarked that when they voted for the tories they didn't expect to be doing all the work for them as well.

If the notion that people will be more active and take interest in the community around them, then surely it is a good thing. The culture which has developed over the years, particularly influenced by the last Labour government, is that the state will provide and impact on every area of life. The state became a behemoth that was expected to solve every problem, and created laws to replace common sense, individual responsibility and duty.

Because the power was taken away from the citizen, the citizen likewise chose not to get involved. They would cross the road instead of helping a fellow in distress, they would avoid altercation for fear of being on the wrong side of the law; they would not volunteer in schools, hospitals or charities for being branded as paedophiles or perverts, and they would not spend fees on criminal record checks just to prove they had never done anything wrong, or were a danger to society.

The state was all powerful, and recruited more and more workers to administer the monster. Society became unsociable. The proliferation of "Big Brother"cameras watching every movement, meant that faceless individuals could impose fines with impunity.

The police no longer could exercise discretion by interaction with the public, but became distant, all monitoring, unfeeling state enforcers. They lost their primary purpose and lost the confidence of the very people they served.

Peacock strutting officials like traffic wardens, environmental control officers, noise abatement officers etc were empowered with inflated self-importance with dictatorial powers granted by demigod councils.

Bureaucracy was out of control, and the army of pen-pushers was growing. Something had to change.

It is the change which scares people. But maybe this is the opportunity to restore sanity.

Under the last government thousands of libraries, post offices and pubs disappeared. All of them vital to the cohesion of communities.

If the "Big Society" means that well meaning and experienced people could move in and keep them alive, then surely that is a good thing. Surely its better to have a library manned for two days a week by volunteers, be they retired or unemployed, than to lose them altogether?

I don't buy the negative argument from the unions and others that this is an excuse to get rid of jobs.

I support the "Big Society" because there will be no excuse for welfare benefit couch potatoes to sit on their arses doing nothing. I support it because there are thousands of people who are unable to find a job but still want the chance to contribute to society and be active.

I support it because there is an untapped resource of qualified people whose skills are going to waste which can be utilised in their community. I support it because it will set examples to those who don't want to do anything.

Yes it will have a rocky passage, but the alternative was the status quo, or God forbid, five more years of Labour.

That is a prospect that would have finished Great Britain for good.

Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free-bies….

Pensions – where's the Beef?

Back in the good old days, pre-welfare state, no money, no jobs, no future.

Children in bare feet, ten to a room, Mums ageing before their time, dads despondent, no decent working conditions, smog, poor housing, disease, illiteracy, low life expectancy, and early child mortality, the General Strike, the Jarrow March, etc etc…

Then lo and behold things changed. The NHS, free healthcare, unemployment benefits and a state retirement pension.

The retirement age was set at 65 for a man because he would be lucky to last that long after a lifetime of manual labour. It was an economically sound and safe age, and not likely to impact much on the treasury. It was a nice carrot for the working classes who were required to keep the wheels of industry in motion. Add to that social housing, free education, and improved working conditions.

And thats when things went pear-shaped. The working man paid for all this out of his wages through the clever instigation of National Insurance contributions. But what about those who weren't working, those not contributing but still benefited. Slowly but surely the legacy and culture of welfare dependency was born.

The commendable dream to provide for the poorest and less able proved to be a magnet for the lazy and opportunist.

It's interesting that in the boom years of USA immigration the sound bite engraved on the Statue of Liberty is:

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

What it didn't say was "By the way, you'll have to bloody work for it!"

But back to Britain. What those well meaning reformers failed to understand, and ever since, is that if you provide better conditions and with the advancement of medical science people will live longer.

Consequently many who retire at 65 can expect to live another 20 years at least, and in theory they can spend a third of their lives in retirement.

The figures will never add up, and every penny deducted from a wage to provide for the welfare state is spent immediately.

So yes, its time for new reform and it will be painful for many. But if this new austerity will change the mindset of an underclass, then surely it will be the restoration of pride, dignity and responsibility.

For example don't have children unless they can be afforded. This is a message to everyone. The Land of Hope and Glory is the Mother of the Free, not the mother of freebies. Too late to change many, but perhaps there's a chance for the next generation.

If it took fat-cat bankers to be the catalyst, it took fat Brits and others to borrow their money. I don't blame the bankers. Why should I? They are necessary for purpose so long as they are fit for it.

We know they use their customers money to invest and lend to others. If everyone just kept enough money in their accounts to pay their bills, then it may seem sensible, but where will the mortgages come from? The sensible approach is to use your bank to work for you, not the reverse.

And that's the issue isn't it? Use the bank to buy a home, but to borrow rampantly to furnish it and to live beyond your means? The luxuries, the holidays, the fancy cars, the exhibitionism and excess must wait until affordable. The birds have come home to roost, and a good investment might be a chicken coop. Cluck Cluck!!

Cheers to Great Uncle George – sixth row back, third from left in the pic. Rest in Peace.