Spending priorities for the UK

Recently I posted a blog here which purported to be a leaked version  of George Osborne's upcoming Autumn Statement.  This was a spoof but some people took it more seriously.  Perhaps that's because it is the sort of thing that Osborne should be saying?

The United Kingdom now has a national debt in excess of £1.4 Trillion.  I am not even sure I know how many zeros that represents but I do know it's a lot.

Britain is now paying more than £55Bn a year in interest on its debt.  That's more than we spend on defence!

I was thinking about this and watching a news clip that was showing Bono and Sir Bob Geldorf talking about aid for Africa and so on and Bono commented that Britain was one of the few countries that actually lived-up to its international aid commitments.  I was proud, for a moment, then the news moved on.

I have been thinking about that moment, for a while and no longer feel proud.  I feel ashamed.  Ashamed that Britain is impoverishing its own people and future generations to provide aid to other nations.

That's right, Britain is borrowing money so that it can give the borrowed money to other countries to feed their hungry and homeless, while the hungry and homeless in Britain continue to be hungry and homeless.  The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.

Any spending by government on aid has to start from the premise that charity begins at home.  In what parallel universe can it make an iota of sense that Britain borrows money to give to others?

Probably in the same parallel universe where it makes some kind of sense to be involved in the 2014 version of the arms race.  Instead of building dreadnoughts, the race is about NHS funding.  The Conservatives are trying to out-Labour, Labour on the NHS by ring-fencing spending.  They absolutely know that the NHS is a black hole that could, almost as soon as tomorrow, swallow the whole UK GDP and still need more money.  They know that the second biggest problem with the NHS is actually PFI.  The NHS, under the last Labour government, borrowed massively to build new hospitals and offices for their army of managers and executives.  Now they are spending money that should be spent on front-line health-care provision, funding this spending splurge.

Again, the UK government is borrowing money and impoverishing our people and our children and our  children's children, to fund this.

The deficit isn't coming down and neither is debt.

It is bad enough that politicians don't have the courage to do the right thing - to tell the people of Britain, what the people already know - that we are 'broke', 'skint' 'borasic' call it what you will - and we must cut back spending in order to survive and that these cuts will have to be severe.

We cannot afford a high welfare bill, while also funding local spending, so 'welfare' has to be 'earned'.

We cannot simply borrow to fund overseas aid  - our first priority must be charity spending in the UK or rather not spending what we don't have.

We cannot police the world - we cannot afford it.  If certain nations want us to fight or bomb  ISIS and other terror organisations then those nations must fully fund such actions.  Same goes for the fight against Ebola.  In the extreme we are an island and have a natural barrier to the spread of foreign sourced contagious diseases, so why must Britain be at the forefront of spending its money - money which it has to borrow - to put troops and resources into Africa?

We cannot afford the European Union.  The funding of this  un-elected and highly inefficient bureaucracy is simply unacceptable.  Remember these are the same people, who, when the individual countries of Europe were implementing various levels of domestic austerity, these Eurocrats put forward a budget calling for them to have increased funding from member states.  That act, displaying such a dis-connection from the real world should be enough to cause Britain to distance itself from such madness.  Instead, Britain must borrow money to fund such lunacy.

We borrow, borrow, borrow.

We borrow to fund International Aid, to fund military adventures overseas, to fund a European monster that needs constant feeding, to fund international banks and lending institutions that suck funds from the NHS before a drug is bought or a nurse or doctor is paid and to fund an over-generous welfare system (that treats those who have never paid a penny into the 'system' the same as or better than those that have).

The spending priorities for the UK desperately need to change.

So here is a challenge for politicians.  Stand-up and be counted.  Stand-up and justify why the UK must continue to borrow money to send to countries that can afford their own space programme and yet has its own people depending on the charity of others through food banks.  I have nothing against food banks, by the way, I think they are an excellent way for us to show that we care for our fellow citizens and I see these as a great benefit in terms of the voluntary nature of the wealth redistribution and also of the spirit of compassion and humanity to our fellow countrymen.  I struggle though to understand why my children and grandchildren must suffer so that others can drive around in 4x4s doing 'good' in faraway places!

Any politicians out there, ready to take-up the challenge?  Self health tip - I am not holding my breath!

Cameron and the EU - more dithering

Didn't the Brown years teach the Conservatives anything?  Don't they understand that dithering isn't seen as 'weighing the possibilities'.  It is seen as not knowing which way to jump.

Today's newspapers report that Cameron is 'prepared to consider an EU referendum' - that sounds like dithering to me.  It is probably intended as a sop to the more than 100 Conservative MPs that are pushing for a pledge to hold an In/Out referendum in the next Parliament

I don't understand though why the Conservatives don't grasp the nettle.  This is the issue that will differentiate their 'brand' from their competitors.

I think that most people understand that the UK economy will continue to be buffeted by external forces and so not much can be done to achieve any meaningful growth.  Of course making real cuts in public expenditure and in income taxes would be a great start but the left-leaning media (does 90 degrees to the left count as leaning??) will not allow that to happen.  They and their overpaid unionist fellow travelers along with the Labour Party will strive to derail and ridicule any attempt to bring sanity back to the public finances - look for 'bleeding stumps' and 'wheelchair victims' of cuts to continue to be paraded on your TV screens.  Don't bother looking for those hard working 'ordinary' people who work, pay their taxes, obey the laws and see others doing nothing and having a better life-style (work-shy long term unemployed) or committing criminality and getting away with it (bankers).

Real public sector cuts could also be a differentiating factor but I sense that absent concrete examples - something like, 'we will reduce the cap on welfare benefits to £15,000 (or £10,000, maybe)  and we will introduce regional welfare payments and we will introduce regional pay bargaining for all public sector workers' - people just won't accept it.  I believe that the 'people' see the sense and justice of this but we lack politicians with the spine to do what is necessary - that is, to roll back the state and to make work pay!

Europe then, that can differentiate the Conservatives and galvanise their supporters and the 'waverers'.  The Lib Dems are wedded to the EU.  Clegg has to stay with the EU, which is where his next job will be, after all.  Labour?  The federalist EU and its 'nanny-state' approach to all matters of life, fits squarely and neatly into the Labour philosophy.  The EU thinks it knows best how to control our lives - if you don't believe me, ask the Greeks! - and the British Civil Service just lap up and speedily implement all of the regulations that spew out of Brussels and Strasbourg.

So, Cameron, Go For It!

What to go for? 

How about a pledge, made now, that the next Conservative administration will:

• Renegotiate the powers of Brussels and repatriate all those that do not explicitly relate to the Single  Market (or the Common Market as it was once called and for which most Britons think they signed-up)
• If the renegotiation is successful, the result to be put to a referendum with the question, accept or reject.
• If negotiations are unsuccessful, a referendum held with a simple In or Out question.
• The above to be conducted within the first 6 months of the Conservatives being elected and this Pledge to be an immutable part of any Coalition agreement.

I know that there will be questions as to what constitutes 'Single Market powers' versus all of the other rubbish foisted upon us by Brussels (and, let's not forget our own past political leaders) but surely we have the wit to figure that out? 

• Working Time directive - that goes
• EU Army and Foreign Office - they go
• EU Commission - undemocratic so bye bye
• Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy - need you ask? 
• EU foreign aid - that goes too!  if the people of the UK want to provide aid, they can decide to whom and how much

 As I wrote here in mid May, timing and deciding on a referendum is critical and if the Conservatives are not careful, they could well find themselves, outflanked by an opportunistic Labour Party.

Time for the Tories and Lib Dems to be bold

I am writing from outside the UK and distance is maybe changing (improving, I think) my perspective.

It currently seems a 'given' that the Lib Dems will receive a hammering at the next General Election.  Much of this will be due to their perceived 'betrayal' over tuition fees.  That the support of tuition fees was an absolute requirement, given the awful state of the UK finances, at the time of the change of government, will count for little with an electorate, that like others in Europe, prefers to think that 'the situation can't really be that bad, can it?'

The Tories too are suffering a leakage of support -not on a Lib Dem scale - but worryingly enough, all the same. 

So what to do?

I would suggest that now is the time for boldness!  Some suggestions follow which I believe would, if presented as a Coalition policy and loudly supported by both parts of the Coalition,  help both the Tories and the Lib Dems.

Welfare Reform
Working people (there are still a few of us!) look at the £26,000 cap and still see that this is WAY too high.  Maybe the level was set by Westminster MPs who see that in London that isn't such a large amount, but on Merseyside, Tyneside, Manchester and Birmingham, such a cap is still seen as high and as offering no incentive to go  out and get a job. 

The Average wage is £26,000.  On this tax and National Insurance would be assessed, so the 'Welfare crackdown' or as Labour puts it, 'the attack on the poorest members of society' still leaves some folks better-off out of work, than in it.

Two further reforms:
Restrict all benefit eligibility to those legally resident in the UK for the two years preceding a claim.  If that means changing the law or abandoning the European Courts, then do it.  Hundreds of thousands of Southern Europeans heading towards soft-touch UK, should concentrate the minds of our politicians (should do, but probably won't as they are in such thrall to Brussels and Strasbourg!).

Cut benefit for people that have refused to accept three jobs.  They get 2 job interviews and can turn those down, if they turn down the third, their benefit is cut by 25%.  Refuse the next one, that's a further 25% cut.  Oh, and if they get sacked from the job they take, in the first three months, same rule applies.  And benefit cut means ALL benefits - unemployment, housing, council tax etc..

Growth

On its own, Welfare Reform is politically problematic.  Though if we don't do something to be bring down public expenditure, we might end up having this forced on us by the IMF!!  The way though to make it more acceptable is if there is a strategy for growth.  Making statements such as 'get a job you lazy scrounger' might allow an over-taxed worker some release of frustration but if there isn't a job to go to!?

I have yet to read any accounts of how job and economic growth is to come, without the commentators looking for this to be built from the ground-up at small and medium sized enterprises.  Tesco or Asda hiring on an extra 5,000 workers (many of whom will be part-time) grabs the headlines, but it is the 1 or 2 hired at the local plumbers, or engineering firm or garage, which, when multiplied across the length and breadth of the country, that will get the economy growing.

So........

Government (Local and National), in the form of excessive regulation needs to get off of the backs of these business.  They (companies less than 100 employees) should be exempted from Working Time directives, exempted from unfair dismissal legislation and enjoy a far, far lighter Health, Safety and Environment regime than that applied to the larger companies.  These bigger companies can afford, Equality Officers, Environmental Impact and Risk Assessment Officers, Green Business Stewards and such.  In many of these small companies these bureaucratic roles end-up being filled by the owner or spouse and just take them away for growing their business - that is the business growth that will lead to hiring more employees!

Local Government should exempt local employers that employ less than 100 people from Business Rates or if that is to onerous, should give a discount for each new employee hired.  Hire one new employee, 10% off of your Business Tax, hire 5 employees, 50% off etc. 

The poor working stiff still makes up the majority.  These are the folks that paying their high income taxes and National Insurance and VAT and ever higher fuel charges/Green Taxes these  latter to wastefully fund an extravagant and totally unnecessary policy on Climate Change (remember it used to be called Global Warming, until the 'science' was found to have been doctored?). 

My view is that people understand that under Labour, things got way out of hand.  We understand that cuts need to be made and those working in the public sector need to suffer a greater sacrifice as they benefited most from Labour's tax-payer funded largesse.

We see through Labour's opportunistic politicking at a time when all developed economies are suffering but some see that at least Labour seem to have a policy.  It is the same old flawed policy that they used to get us into the current mess, for which they have never said sorry, but at least it seems better than what we are getting!

Pass this on to your Tory and Lib Dem colleagues, it can only help them get re-elected!

English Bishops - questions to answer

An amendment to the Welfare Reform Bill, that is currently winding its way through Parliament, was passed in the House of Lords, last night.  This amendment, was tabled by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds and was supported by other bishops, Labour peers, so-called cross bench peers (said to be independents) and Liberal Democrat peers. The amendment sought to exclude Child Benefit (a universal welfare benefit paid to all parents of children), from the total benefits cap of £26,000 that the government is seeking to set.

£26,000,  is the average gross pay of a UK worker - i.e. before taxes and national insurance (social security) are deducted!

One of the main reasons for a high cap is that 'Housing Benefit' is included.  This is where the rent for housing welfare claimants is also paid as part of their welfare package.  In certain parts of the UK, (particularly London and the South East)  this rent can run into more than  £1,000 (in some cases up to £2,000) per week.

Labour is in such a mess that it is not difficult to understand their peers voting for the measure and opposing the Government.  The Labour Party say they support a cap but don't want to hurt vulnerable people!  The reason they say they support the cap is that poll evidence shows that there is overwhelming public support for a cap on benefits.  So Labour saying two opposite things at once is to be expected.

The Lib Dem peers showed that their idea of participating in a coalition differs from what any sane or normal person would consider as right.  Former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown said that the Bill, in its current form was 'totally unacceptable'.  So we can presumably expect more whining and disloyalty from that quarter.

The Bishops used to be called 'the Conservative Party at prayer'.  That was a very long time ago.  Some of them, having ditched God and the Holy Trinity have now also been joined by others and moved wholeheartedly to the Labour Party!

The Bishops represent the Church of England

• The same CofE that is a very large landowner in the UK.  
• The same CofE that  rents out a very large number of properties to private tenants and charges them market rents.  
• The same CofE that is said to pay the average parish vicar considerably less than the average UK salary of £26,000

Given that attendance at CofE services runs at less than 2% of the population it is not really a surprise that the they are so out of touch with how the UK people think. 

Surely now is the time for this irrelevance to be dis-established and put on the same footing as the other religions in the UK?

1. How can the Bishops fly in the face of overwhelming public opinion?
2. Will they and the Church Commissioners, use their ample resources to fill the gap that their actions have the potential to create?
3. Will they declare how much they receive in rents from tenants that are in receipt of housing benefit?

This week's YouGov poll, in the Sunday Times, showed that among the public, 88% of Conservative supporters, 69% of Labour supporters and 66% of Lib Dem supporters, support a cap on benefits.  Overall, the support for a cap was 76%, with just 9% opposing..

The same poll  found that 59% believe that the cap should be  £26,000 or less and 36% think it should be less than £20,000

The UK Sunday Times reported this week, on a family from Somalia that arrived in Britain, three years ago and have never worked.  They initially lived in Coventry, in the West Midlands, where house rentals are much less expensive than in the South East but then wanted to move to London 'to be nearer their extended family.'  So they were re-housed in the very chic and up-market West Hampstead suburb, in a six bedroom property, which is estimated to cost around £4,800 a month to rent.  This is the rent that is then paid as housing benefit on top of all of the other benefits that they receive  

Housing Benefit has increased, from the 2008/9 figure of  £15.6 billion to £20.5 billion in 2010/11 an increase of 31% - this when property values have declined! 

We are being taken for a ride and paying a very heavy price for the dubious privilege and the UK Bishops support our pockets being picked! 

Do remember!  The cap is at the level of Average UK wage.  Somebody on the Average UK wage, would simply not be able to live at the same standard as someone on the cap, let alone someone claiming more than the cap.  Now you can see why work doesn't pay!

Welfare Reform - long overdue

So the bleeding stumps and wheelchairs are being trailed around Westminster to try to garner sympathy and opposition to the long overdue reforms of UK welfare programmes, that are under discussion.  I think that these are entirely misplaced.  The genuinely disabled will not see their benefit cut.  Those abusing the title 'disabled' do need to fear the reforms.

When you read this you may think I want to abolish DLA and Incapacity Benefit and ESA - I don't.  I do want people to be rigorously assessed and then if they are found to be eligible for benefit, to be given it and if they are not eligible, then they don't get it. 

This gravy train needs to stop because we simply cannot afford it.   Money that is taken by those assessed as ineligible is money that can be spent on genuine needs, including that of the real disabled.

Disability Living Allowance (DLA) was introduced, by the Conservatives, in 1992.  At that time, around 1.1 million people were eligible for the allowance.  At May 2011, 3.2 million people were claiming the allowance.  An almost 200% increase.  Perhaps some of that increase, you decide how much, is due to an aging population (the pensioner population has increased by 10% or just over a million, in the last ten years)  and some to an increasing population (it grew by around 4.5 million or 8% in the period).

My suspicion though, is that the very significant part of this increase can be traced to the fact that until very recently, claimants for this allowance were not independently medically tested.  For some people, there has just been a paper based assessment  - Maybe you say on the claim form that you have a certain condition and the government takes your word for it!

Government statistics suggest that most claims were assessed based on checking with the claimant's GP (GP as in General Practitioner and certainly not a specialist!) 46%, information on the form (see above) 16%, ringing up a carer, an astonishing 32%.  This leaves around 6% where the claimant was assessed by by a specialist for the purpose of the claim. 

Yes, that's right - just 6% are assessed by a specialist in what is being claimed for!

DLA now costs the taxpayer more than  £12.3 BILLION a year

Fit for work tests for the 1.5 million people that claim Incapacity Benefit and its successor Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)  have been underway for some months.  Figures published in July 2011 showed that of those assessed, 39% were deemed fit for work, immediately and 17% could consider working, with the right help.

Indeed, of the more than 1.3 million people assessed, just 88,700 people were found to be completely unfit for work!

Interestingly, one in three of those due for assessment dropped out of the application process.

Incapacity Benefit and ESA costs the taxpayer around £8.7 BILLION a year.  This includes, based on Department of Work and Pensions figures, £24.2 million for sufferers of 'dizziness and giddiness' and around £2 million for those nursing haemorrhoids!

In ten years of Labour mis-rule the number of people receiving sickness handouts for more than 5 years rose 20 fold.  In May 1997, 68,000 claimants had been in receipt of incapacity benefit for five years or more.  By May 2006, the figure had soared to almost 1.5 million.