A moral compass

There was an interesting point in the debate last night when one gentleman suggested David Cameron had not talked about morality.  Which in one sense was true.  But in another more real sense the gentleman misunderstood what the whole political process is about.  You start with values (or call it morality) and you then devise policies to match that vision.  So you may not talk directly about morality but all you seek to achieve should reflect it.

So, a few thoughts about what having a moral compass brings in policy terms.

1.         An economic policy that allows for people to regain dignity through the creation of 2 million jobs since 2010 - 83% of which have been full-time, not zero hours contracts.  This has to be the No 1 achievement of David Cameron's time in office.  We all remember the cries from Ed Miliband and Ed Balls that unemployment would soar. They were wrong.

2.         As any family knows a deficit is bad news.  So in the UK family the deficit was a crippling factor that had to be dealt with.  What is interesting is even though half the deficit has now gone, some still think it was too much too fast.  But is it not a moral position to adopt to avoid this generation's debts falling on our children's shoulders?  Nearly every cut the Coalition has made has been opposed by the Labour.  Britain is slowly on its way back to fiscal sanity.

3.         Dignity.  Making work pay.  Two sides of the same coin.  Surely it’s a moral case to target welfare on those in real need.  Surely it’s a moral argument that says people who aren't genuinely seeking work should be sanctioned. Surely it’s a moral case to have a policy that will provide more certainty for low income people as they decide whether or not to move from benefits to work.  It will ensure that work always pays.

4.         How we help the really poor on our planet has to be a measure of morality.  Under the Coalition the UK became the first nation to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid.  If that doesn’t make you proud then you and I are not on the same page in life.

5.         Discrimination is wrong.  So no matter your view on same sex marriage, morally you must agree there shouldn’t be discrimination.  And like most reforms that have delivered equality in this and indeed in many other areas of life, they will make for a better more tolerant society. 

6.         Slavery has never gone away.  It was just made illegal.  Trafficking became the new order.  But the moral case to break trafficking saw The Home Secretary Theresa May legislate against human trafficking.  The new law consolidated human trafficking and slavery crimes, provided better protection for victims and harsher punishments for traffickers.

So when our friend in the audience suggests there is no morality in what the current Coalition have done, he needs to look again.  

They think it's all over, it is now. Almost.

Have you event noticed how some football teams develop a habit of conceding a goal in extra time?  After watching last night’s three way Leaders Question time, an interrogation by a balanced and clearly knowledgeable audience, the same thing happened.  It started with Edward Miliband talking about zero hours contracts but then completely failing to answer the man who ran a tourist business who, because it’s a seasonal business, couldn’t dream of taking on people full time.  But he employs lots on zero hours contracts.  The way Edward looked quizzically at him as if to say, what kind of bizarre question is that, and the way he answered him was so alarming for anyone who is in business.  He just didn’t understand how the productive sector of the economy that actually creates the wealth that allows us to have hospitals, police, army, international aid works.  He just doesn’t get it.

One problem with Edward is he preoccupied with the wrong things.  Of course inequality is wrong.  It’s bad for a society.  And he is right to talk about it.  But his prescription of attacking those who actually create the wealth is simplistic and ultimately will be found wanting.  His prescription is an increase in taxes such as restoring the 50p level for high earners and imposing an ill-conceived mansion tax.  There needs to be balance and he displays none.

But Edwards other problem is he has too often found himself on the wrong side of the argument.  If you look at an earlier blog on energy prices you see he doesn’t understand how they work.  Maybe it is a sector badly set up and regulated.  But at least understand how they are set up before trying to change them.  He promised to freeze energy prices shortly before world prices collapsed. So we would be paying higher prices for oil than the market was selling it for at the moment under his plan.

Then there are the banks.  Yes, I know in partnership with Gordon Brown they brought us to our knees.  And David Cameron’s flourishing of the Liam Byrne letter reminded us of that.  But you need considered reform.  What’s the point in taking the moral high ground then losing the contribution the sector makes to the UK economy. In 2014, financial and insurance services contributed £126.9 billion in gross value added (GVA) to the UK economy, 8.0% of the UK's total GVA.  The sector's contribution to UK jobs is around 3.4%.   And in 2013/14, the banking sector alone contributed £21.4 billion to tax revenue.  That’s a lot of money a future chancellor is going to have to replace if banks decided to up sticks and go to Geneva.  Now, I’m not defending the banks.  They and Gordon Brown caused the mess.   I’m saying, have a plan.

At least New Labour understood that markets can be harnessed to progressive outcomes.  It's interesting that at a time of economic challenge, when we look over our shoulder and think we could have been Greece or Spain, we should even want to think about upsetting the applecart and give the guy who was Gordon Browns right hand man as they drove us to the edge of the cliff a chance at the wheel again so soon.  Do we really want a deficit and over spending denier at the wheel? That's what Mr Miliband was last night.

Interestingly, there seems to be a realisation that the last five years actually have been pretty stable. The FT come out and suggest that “at this delicate moment, the best outcome would be a continuation of the 2010 coalition between the Conservatives and Lib Dems…The country would benefit from the countervailing force of Lib Dem moderation at Westminster. In seats where the Lib Dems are the incumbent or the main challenger, we would vote tactically for them.”

And the problem for Labour is, it’s their own fault they will fail in this election.  The primary thing that the British people are waking up to is Mr Miliband has not offered a credible economic prospectus and would apply a brake on enterprise.  So a vote for Labour would bring about a poorer nation that ultimately would bring about more inequality, the verything that that Edward is seeking to get rid of.

I don't understand.

There are two imponderables in the current General Election campaign that are difficult to fathom.

The first is that the SNP are are miles ahead in Scotland and steaming to victory.  The second is that the Conservatives are not miles ahead in the polls in the rest of the UK and steaming to victory.  Neither makes sense.

Gerald Warner remarked recently: “Scottish nationalism is no longer a constitutional agenda: it has been transmogrified into a spiritual cult, an esoteric experience that elevates devotees far above sublunary considerations such as gross domestic product, public sector borrowing requirement or revenue inflow. Its dwindling essays into policy making are now a form of transcendental meditation.”  I know it feels like that when aggressive Nats dominate Hustings. But I’m not so sure I’d give it cult status. 

But economic of the madhouse status seems entirely reasonable.  SNP’s fiscal autonomy would leave £9bn gap in Scotland's finances, says IFS, not known for their exaggeration of anything.  And that’s a big hole that has to be filled by someone somewhere.  That a gap that would only be closed if growth in Scotland were to be double that predicted for the UK as a whole.  And that’s going to happen?  Aye right.   The answer by those who don’t understand the basis of how businesses work is always the same.  The taxpayer either in the form of people or businesses.  They just don’t get it.  Taking money away from the productive sector to pay for the unproductive only ever has one out come.  Failure. And greater poverty for the people who are the poorest.

The IFS observation note also suggests that Scottish revenues per person would need to grow by more than twice as much as forecast for the UK as a whole – 4.5% in real terms per year – by 2020 in order to offset the gap.  Ouch, as the taxpayers will be saying.

I’m not partial to quoting Scottish Labour as their handling of the economy under the last Labour administration didn’t exactly go well.  But Scottish Labour’s deputy leader, Kezia Dugdale, did have a point when she said the latest projections by IFS were proof of her party’s argument that the SNP manifesto “signed up to massive spending cuts that would make even the Tories blush”. 

So why are SNP sailing so high in the polls when, by any reasonable analysis, their figures just don’t add up?

And so what of the Conservatives?  Why are they not miles ahead?  Unemployment down.  Employment up.  Growth (in spite of the blip today) running at 2.5%, miles ahead of the G8 countries.  Crime down.  If the voters are asked who would make the better leader in a dangerous world, David Cameron wins easily.  If they are asked which party would be better for their families’ prosperity, the Tories have a comfortable lead.  So why are the Tories not ten points ahead?

We have but a week and 2 days left to ponder these questions.

Bit awkward these pesky IFS people

Sometimes you really have to wonder about the First Minister of Scotland.  In one breath she says  Sir John Major's warning about the threat the SNP could pose to the UK is an "affront to democracy".  The next minute the SNP leader refused to rule out staging a second independence vote after the 2016 Holyrood elections, surely an affront to democracy given its only 8 months since the people of Scotland, in a once in a generation vote as Nicola helpfully told us, decided very clearly that they want to stay part of the UK, warts and all.

All there would need to be is a "change of circumstances" (as she sees it) to justify another referendum, such as the Tories' proposed referendum on EU membership.

On one hand the former Prime Minister is simply plying political cut and thrust.  That’s the rough and tumble of an election.  On the other hand Nicola Sturgeon is saying that the democratic will of the people of Scotland expressed last year actually means nothing.  In the vote 8 months ago, very clearly, the people of Scotland said they wanted to stay within the UK.  What bit of “we want to stay part of the UK” does the First Minister not get? 

So the people of Scotland, having decided the UK was the place for them, will now be ignored by the SNP.  This idea the SNP are putting forward that there will have been a change of circumstance is too ridiculous for words.  The people voted to be part of the UK.  It had been made perfectly clear long before the in-out referendum on Scotland staying in the UK that the Conservatives would offer an in out referendum on the UK staying in Europe. So there really are no changed circumstances at all.  The people knew that could be a consequence and still voted to stay in the UK.

Perhaps referenda are just there for the things Nicola wants to vote on and not the things the whole of the UK which we elected to stay part of want.

Or were her words today less than subtly trying to wrestle the agenda back from the rather unfortunate report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) that the SNP plans to move to full fiscal autonomy for Scotland over a number of years would not address the "fiscal gap", with projections suggesting it would increase rather than shrink over the next few years.  Bit awkward that when trying to show you are fiscally literate.

So tonight’s doorstep question.  “If you believe in referenda and respecting the will of the people, why not one on Europe?”.  After all it is certainly a couple of generations since we last had a chance to vote on Europe.

Madness vs Austerity

Definition of Madness.

Spending what you don’t have.  Borrowing what you can’t afford.

Definition of Austerity.

Not spending what you don’t have.  Not borrowing what you can’t afford.

£1,873

Here are some facts.  Always a good place to start.  Last year, the UK government spent £90bn more than it received in tax.  That left a budget deficit worth 5% of national income.  It’s a fact that the economy is growing.  It’s a fact that more people are employed and unemployment is falling.  So far, so good.

But let’s now we move to the assumptions, not facts.  If the economy is growing there is an assumption that tax revenues should increase and welfare payments will come down.  This assumption continues to suggest some of the deficit will be whittled away naturally.  But perceived wisdom of experts in the City, academia, the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) suggest that part of it will remain.

So if no one is quite sure how big the residual deficit will be, how reasonable is it that your assumptions are good enough to help formulate a coherent economic policy?  Reading today's SNP Manifesto there seems to be a great deal of assumption in its calculations.  But what if the SNP gets it wrong?   Can the assumption made by the SNP, where it hopes that more of the deficit can be tackled through the stronger growth that will result from abandoning spending cuts, really stand up?  It's a really fragile assumption that deserves a great deal of scrutiny.  What if it doesn’t happen that way?  

It’s a massive risk changing path given the Conservative Lib Dem route has at least started to get the economy back on some sort of sensible road.

As Larry Elliot economics editor at the Guardian points out, there are a lot more if’s and but's than the SNP care to admit.  First, the economy will have to grow faster than most analysts are expecting for the next five years and do so without creating inflationary pressure. That’s a very big if.

And second, the Bank of England and the financial markets will have to be relaxed about the abandonment of austerity.  (For whatever austerity actually means, see earlier blogs.)   If they take fright, interest rates will go up and any positive impact on growth from saying no to further spending cuts will be offset by the negative impact of higher borrowing costs.

And that could leave us where?  A perfect storm.  Quite possibly in a worse place than we were when Liam Byrnes’ infamous note was left on the incoming Chief Secretary to the Treasuries desk.  And we will be continue paying out of tax payers pockets the interest payments.  That accounts to £45bn a year or 3% of GDP.  Or putting it another way, every household will pay £1,873 this year, just to cover this interest.  I’m not sure I read in the SNP manifesto any real logic to back their assumptions they can deal with this drain on people pockets.  And every pound the people have taken out their pocket, there is one less pound people can spend in the productive sector that funds all the spending desires of political parties.

So I guess a question to ask any candidate who happens on your doorstep tonight could be, “why do you think that taking £1,873 out of my families pocket this year that I could have spent on helping create employment in businesses and shops will help the economy?”.

I went to listen

I love the cut and thrust of political debate.  It is good when people get passionate about what they believe.  But when that spills over into a shouting match it begins to lose its gloss.  And so it was last night as I sat in a Hustings in East Dunbartonshire.  The candidates all tuned up (except UKIP:  I think he lives in Ipswich) to debate the issues of the day. 

What didn’t surprise was there were clearly people there as supporters who were not floating voters like many of us there to be persuaded by the candidates, surely the purpose of a Hustings.   Each party had supporters who toed their own political line.  All parties do that. And good luck to them.  

I like it when people debate polices hard.  When there is constructive interaction between the platform and the floor.   But I thoroughly dislike it when some of the audience who are there, not to learn but to give vocal support to “their” candidate, get in the way of those wanting to listen to the answers.   It spilled over into a bit of a barracking match with SNP supporters basically shouting throughout the answers of other candidates.  It’s as if they don’t want others to hear what is being said.  (Just pause and think that one through in an historical context for a moment).  It was certainly a misguided tactic from the floating voters point of view.  The SNP supporters were, putting it politely, boorish.  And didn’t do their cause any good from where I was sitting.

One of the stupidest comments of the evening was made about the Lib Dem candidate giving up some points in their manifesto to make a coalition.  Er, that’s what you do in a coalition; you give and take so that you can move forward constructively.  Yes, even sacred cows can and do go.  But in doing so they seek to do so for the good of the whole country.  And let’s not forget the disastrous state the country was being left in.  Who can forget the infamous note left by Liam Byrne.   Clearly the SNP supporters in the room thought collation is all about taking and not giving.  Mr Miliband is in for a very rude awakening should he find himself leader of the largest party but without a majority.

And so it was that I left with the rather vacuous feeling that this hadn’t been about democracy.  It had been about a small minority mob rubbishing everything the candidates they didn’t like said.  Like Chelsea footballers surrounding the referee when the give a ruling they don’t like.  It was unpleasant.

Take back the NHS means what exactly?

Today the Green Party of England and Wales is launching its election manifesto with a call to "take back" the NHS from the private sector. 

In terms of meaningless statements I’m not sure I can think of many better.  

Let’s just think what the NHS is.  It has only one role.  And that is to provide a free at the point of delivery healthcare service to the nation.  No party I’m aware is advocating anything different. 

It employs people to deliver services, that’s true.  But here is where it begins to unravel very quickly.  Is Natalie saying everyone who delivers a service for the NHS should be employed by the NHS?  Is she saying every service provided by the NHS should be State owned?  Is she saying that the NHS should only use equipment that is made by the State?  You can see very quickly how ridiculous such a statement is.  This really is not the progressive politics that she claims it is.  It’s regressive.  It’s old eastern bloc thinking of yesteryear.

So in her model of utopia I guess she will have to start with employing all the GPs in the country as currently they are all independent businesses that deliver services on behalf of the NHS.  So they will have to buy out every GP practice including in many cases their premises.  Though one wouldn’t wish to hold their breath on them paying compensation.  That car crash of an interview with Nick Ferrari a few weeks back had Natalie having a cough at the critical time when she was being asked how she could justify such a low cost in building new houses when the land had to be bought.  Was it a strategic cough there to hide the reality of the Greens?  They would simply nationalise the land, the State taking away without compensation what was not theirs.

Then there are the businesses who build hospitals.  I don’t think I can name a hospital that was built by the public sector.  And there is all the goods and services that are used.  The beds, the monitors, the sheets on the beds, the drugs, the syringes, the clothes the nurses wear.  You see where this is going.  The NHS can’t exist without what the private sector provides.   In addition, ask yourself, “who funds every single nurse working in the NHS?”.  The private sector.   

The Greens want to go to a model where the State runs, the State provides.  And as we all know only too well, that brings mediocrity at every level.   The olden days we called it Communism.  Today we call it Green politics.

So when a Green candidate pops on to your doorstep, ask them, what exactly do they mean when they say they will take back the NHS. 

Why do businesses pay dividends?

I don’t know about you but I kind of hope that the people who serve our nation as Prime Minister and Chancellor know what they are doing.  So like many I have read with interest what Labour had to say today as they launched their Manifesto.  All gloss.  All nice words.  All seemingly so easy to achieve.  But achieve what?  That's where the clarity breaks down.  That’s where the problems start. 

Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said of the Labour manifesto: “Literally we would not know what we were voting for if we were going to vote for Labour”. 

 

In a way I’m not surprised that the august IFS have come to such a conclusion.  There is a theme of economic illiteracy flowing though Labours core.  Labour really don’t understand how the economy works. They showed that with devastating results under the last administration.  Nor do they understand how businesses work.  And it is businesses that will fund government expenditure either directly though taxes or indirectly through the taxes their employees pay.  

We all know that Ed Miliband is not that sympathetic to the private sector.  But then he has never worked in the private sector, never had to understand what running a business is all about.  One head of a FTSE 100 company was recently given “facetime” with Miliband.  The business leader was reportedly stunned into silence when Ed asked him “Why exactly do you need to pay your shareholders dividends?” 

Now, this was the man who, along with Ed Balls who aspires to be Chancellor, played a big part in crashing our economy when they were last in power.  Borrowed what we couldn’t afford.  Spent what we didn’t have.  And with recent comments like those to the head of a FTSE 100 company, leaves you really wondering if their arithmetic adds up. 

So, should a candidate chance on your doorstep tonight, ask them if they know why companies pay shareholders a dividend.  If they don’t know, don’t let their party anywhere near No 11 Downing St.

Is Nicola extracting the Michael?

There was a bit of pot calling the kettle black on the second the leaders debate in Scotland.  As David Coburn (UKIP) was explaining why, as he saw it, the problem was….    And before he got a chance to utter it, Nicola Sturgeon said “Europe”, they (UKIP) always blame Europe.  Which I did have a wry smile at given everything ever to go wrong in Scotland is always someone else’s fault, never the fault of Nicola and her SNP government even when it’s a devolved issue like the NHS.  London always gets the blame.

During the course of that debate Nicola said, when it comes to having a 2nd referendum, the people of a Scotland will decide.  Well, perhaps like so many other things, Nicola is trying to air brush inconvenient truths out of the SNPs recent past.  For example, the people of Scotland gave a pretty emphatic decision when given the chance to not be part of the UK.  They said No.  That sounds a pretty clear decision by the peoples of Scotland to me. 

She lost the once in a generation chance to convince us to leave the UK.  So she can’t now say, “Scotland didn't vote for the government in power”, as she seems to be hinting will be her rhetoric in the future, if a democratically elected UK government, which had as part of it's manifesto, offered an in out referendum on the UKs continued involvement in the EU.   What part of the emphatic yes to staying within the UK doesn't she understand the people of Scotland gave last year?

You know, they may be politically miles apart but there are increasing similarities between the first minister and former prime minister Margaret Thatcher in her last year in power.

Increasingly shrill.  Increasingly myopic.  Increasingly intolerant.  And increasingly extreme.  The difference is Margaret Thatcher won three democratic general elections.  Nicola so far has won nothing.

Who actually pays for things governments decide are good for us?

Patrick Harvey, leader of the Greens in Scotland and Nicola Sturgeon Leader of SNP were in action last night on the BBC Leaders debate from Aberdeen.  It was difficult to put the ubiquitous fag paper between them when it came to tax and spend.  So, in the spirit of free thinking, here is a little exercise to consider.

There are two people.  One works for the private sector.  The other works for the public sector.  Both get paid £100.  And both are taxed at 30%.  Which one is more vital to the economy?

Now I know it’s a bit of a false question.  But I ask it because I met one of these public sector workers the other week.  A responsible position.  Managing seriously big budgets. And the conversation turned to civil service salaries and who funds them.  "We all pay taxes”, was the reply. "But who made up the 70% of your salary that your own taxes don't pay for?", I asked.  It seemed a logical question given an individual public sector worker can’t fund their own salary through their own taxes. So where will that money come from?  It has to come from somewhere.

What surprised me was that this individual had no understanding that this was the reality.  Their whole career in the public sector had them simply dealing with budgets, very big ones in this persons case.

Now don’t get me wrong.  We need people in what economists would call the non-productive sector.  Being non productive doesn't mean you don't do anything.  It simply means that in economic terms a nurse will never pay herself out of her own taxes. 

So where will that 70% of money come from to fund the nurse?  Only one place.  The private sector.

So, yes, we all pay taxes.  But it is the taxes of the private sector that fund the activities of the public sector.  And that’s good.  But let’s not forget who lays the golden egg.

So every time a politician argues that we need to add 1% more in public expenditure, ask them where it’s going to come from.  If they say "borrowing", ask them how we can borrow our way out of debt.  If they say "taxation", ask them why they think it’s a good thing to tax more the people who are creating the recovery, the private sector.  And given businesses will then have less money available to spend, ask them where they think these companies will find the money to invest in growth of their businesses.

He said what?

I’m into quotes this morning.  So, who said this yesterday?

“Remember the relief we felt when Scotland voted no.  Why was that?  Because towards the end, having paid only intermittent attention to the enormity of the decision, we awoke to it and realised – I think with shock – how close we had come to relegating ourselves from the Premier League of nations.  Now think if the vote had gone the other way.  It doesn’t bear thinking of.  It would be exactly the same with a vote on Europe.  We’re frankly not much focused on it now.  But that is the same semi-conscious torpor that almost led us to disaster in keeping the UK together.”

Basically Tony Blair is saying the people are stupid.  Don’t give them the chance to vote for something you don’t agree with.  After all, you can’t risk the people getting it wrong by giving them the chance.  It is only a frighteningly small step to “they will vote wrong in the next general election so let’s not give them the chance.  Let’s cancel the election”.  Don’t laugh. It’s been the excuse by the political elite in many a country who are out of touch with the people who put them there in the first place.

Morning after the night before

North of the Border we had a four way debate between the main party leaders last night.  Fresh from her elevation in the UK media to being winner of the UK debate, would Nicola Sturgeon win again?  Well, it certainly wasn’t last weeks result.  As I think we all thought, once on home soil, when she can be challenged on her record in Scotland by people who know, wheels can start to come off.  And they did.  But more of that another time.

What was also interesting to see was Jim Murphy under the cosh.  Being derided for repeatedly mansplaining Ruth Davidson and Nicola Sturgeon and coming fourth with the Sun’s Twitter worm I don’t think Jim will be too comfortable this morning

But it was also the moment the Scottish Tory leader pummelled her Labour counterpart on the economy:

RD:  “There’s a massive difference between you and me.  You crashed the economy and I’m trying to rebuild the economy.  That’s the difference between you and me, Jim.  You’ve run from your role in the referendum and I’m proud of my role in the referendum.  That’s another difference between you and me, Jim.”

JM:  “…The growth big growth in the last few years hasn’t been in industries, it’s been in foodbanks.”

RD:  “The big growth in the last few years has been in jobs, you had higher unemployment…”

JM:  “…There are people out there tonight sitting over their phones who have got zero hours contracts…”

RD:  “And 68 of your MP colleagues employ people on zero hours contracts.  Have you ever worked on a zero hour contract?  Have you ever worked on one?  I have.”

Ouch!

Where is your vote going?

Here is an interesting little exercise.  Click the link and go through it and then leave the options open for all Parties at the end.  See who you align with.  It may surprise you.  It did me!

What exactly is a "cut"?

One of the much over-used words already in the hours since the official dissolution of parliament is “cuts”.  Simply by using that word implies that whatever level of spending that there currently is should be treated as the norm, the basis from which everything should then be measured.  But why? Who said what we currently have should be the base level?

By way of an example let’s say we spend £100 each year on providing a free at the point of delivery NHS.  But supposing fewer people got ill, the need to spend that £100 diminishes.  So spending less on the NHS in this example is not a cut but a reduction in spending given the reduction in demand.  Now it is just a hypothetical example, but I hope you see the point.  Supposing crime reduced.  We don’t need so many police.  Suppose, well, you can see the thread.  Just because we spend our taxpayers money on certain things now does not mean if we reduce expenditure on them in the future it should be regarded as a cut.

So next time a candidate says we will stop the cuts, give them this example and ask them to explain exactly what they mean.

What is Austerity?

Austerity.  Can you tell me what that word means?

Let’s think of it from a practical point of view.  At home.

By way of an example, if you earn £100 in a month, how much money do you have available to spend?  £100.  Well, of course you can spend more, but that would involve going into debt, borrowing money from someone else, like a bank.  Or a pay day lender.  Or a credit card company that “allows” you to repay money you have borrowed from them when you bought that item at, say, £150.  So you can spend more than you earn in a single month.

But of course you can’t do that every month.  In this example, assuming you repaid the £50 you had borrowed at £10 a month, you would be debt free in 5 months, excluding interest that may also be payable.

To take it further.  Suppose you spent £150 every month.  That would mean you need to borrow £50 each and every month.  So after a year you have borrowed £600.  Now, you realise this is getting a bit out of hand so you decide that you simply can’t keep accruing that kind of debt and you promise yourself to do something about it.  You decide you want to get out of debt, to pay back the £600 (plus interest due).  Now how can you do that?  Well, only two ways really.  Earn more money.  Find a job that pays £120 a month and if you keep your spending at £100, in 30 months you will have paid off your debt.  But supposing you can’t find a job that pays £20 more a month, there is only one solution.  Spend less, say £80 a month out of the £100 you earn, and put the other £20 towards paying off the debt.  Again, 30 months later you will be debt free.

Yes, it will hurt to spend less.  Maybe you will have to walk more rather than get the bus.  Maybe less processed pre-packed meals and start cooking proper food.   Maybe just stop driving at 70mph and drop to 50mph.  Or maybe it may take even harder decisions.  Every little counts.  All this money saving activity to help you to live within your budget. And pay back your loan.

Know what we call that necessary action?  Austerity. 

This is how Labour left the UK at the last election in 2010. In massive debt and spending more than it could afford.  Who can forget the note the out-going Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury left to his successor.

So next time a politician tells you austerity is bad, tell them this little example and ask them how they would get the family out of debt. 

The people decided last year

Gordon Wilson, former SNP leader, today apparently urges First Minister Nicola Sturgeon to declare independence if the UK votes to leave the EU but Scots back staying in.

In a submission to a think tank he suggest: "If the Tories win (the UK General Election), as is feasible, then the UK will be faced with an in-out referendum on the EU.  This will be decided on English votes given the disparity in populations amongst the component units of the United Kingdom.”

Er, no. It will be decided by a simple majority of votes of the United Kingdom the people of Scotland voted, by quite a margin in the end, to stay a part of.  Therefore they decided to be part of a UK parliament, and part of the UK in Europe.  We had the chance to choose otherwise but didn’t.  The people of Scotland were not convinced that they wanted to be apart from the other three constituent part of the UK and voted accordingly.

So you can’t now come out and say, well, we as Scots don’t agree with what the UK is doing.  We voted to remain part of the UK and that’s the bed we have to stay in.  For Mr Wilson or Ms Sturgeon to think otherwise is delusional and bordering on the megalomaniacal. 

Do we want a leader to go down the UDI route without another vote on, “Do you want Scotland to be an Independent country”.  It’s almost too absurd a concept for words.  

For better, for worse.

The NHS is getting worse under Labour in Wales.  In England the NHS is getting worse under the Conservatives.  And in Scotland the NHS is getting worse under the SNP.  So there you have it, not one of the governing parties can run the NHS in the patch where they are dominant.

Actually, I think this should be no surprise to anyone for three reasons.  First is, our expectations of what the NHS can do are ridiculously high.  It won’t keep us alive indefinitely.  We have to get used to the fact that no matter how much taxpayers money you pour into the NHS, it will never be enough.

Second, whether you think a healthcare system is good or not depends on how you look at the figures.  Washington based Commonwealth Fund for example rates the UK top.  But on a narrow raft of measures.  Many don’t agree with the Commonwealth Fund about what should be measured, and how the results should be weighted.  A survey on health-care efficiency by Bloomberg recently chose Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan as the best performers, based on their efficiency.  Adding greater weight to patient choice, for example, might reshuffle the rankings.  The Commonwealth Fund most values equity and access, and so rewards the systems where it finds these.  But change the weighting given to each category, as Bloomberg does, and you can quickly change the outcome.  So when it comes to judging the world’s health systems, preferences and values guide conclusions, as well as raw data.  So choose what surveys you look at carefully.

The third point is this.  Governments simply are incapable of running an NHS.  I think that’s pretty obvious to most people.  How about all a government should do should be to set the parameters, give the money to a commissioning body on a 20 year rolling contract and let them get on with it.  Free from political interference.  Let the NHS concept of free at the point of delivery flourish.  But endow it with the opportunism of innovation and free thinking.   But for that to happen the politicians have to agree that the NHS needs to end its monolithic sole provider status.  Only then will innovation and fresh thinking waft through the wards.  

But of course, that will never happen.  The politicians have no desire to get together and give up the one thing they can use as an emotional battering ram come election time against each other.

So, over the next few weeks, think what you will be asking the candidates in your constituency, assuming that actual candidate ever comes to your doorstep.  If they start to warble on about investing your taxpayers money, or waiting times or whatever, just stop them and ask them one simple question.  “If you care about the NHS, will you agree a consensus with the other parties for the long term and agree a funding strategy and have no political interference for 20 years and allow the clinicians, health economists and health management professionals the freedom to make the NHS do what it was intended to do.  Care for us at our point of need.”

I think we know what their answer will be.

Once upon a time in a land far far away.......

Once upon a time, in a land far far away, the people realised there were a few bad eggs amongst them.  So they decided to give some people within their community “special powers” to deal with these bad eggs.  They could arrest them.  And all with the consent of the people who appointed them.    

And so it went on for many happy years.  Until one day one of these people who had been given these "special powers" decided that, well, maybe he could push the boundaries just a little bit.  And so over time he began to think, "this is easy".  And so corruption slowly invaded the system.  Others who had been given similar “special powers” saw this and thought, “well, if they can push the boundaries, so can I”.   

And last year in this land far far away there were 3,000 allegations of “special powers” people having behaved corruptly.  And anyone who tried to expose this was hounded and persecuted.  But it gets worse, only half of these allegations were properly investigated — because for “special powers” people, corruption was becoming routine.  

So you are asking, where is this land far far away.  Russia?  North Korea?  Israel?  India?   Er, no.  The United Kingdom.    

So, how do we know this?  Well, it was all in a little-noticed report by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary for England and Wales. It went on to tell a sorry story.  Nearly half of 17,200 officers and staff surveyed said that if they discovered corruption among their colleagues and chose to report it, they didn’t believe their evidence would be treated in confidence and would fear ‘adverse consequences’.  Only two things flourish in such a climate.  Dishonesty and malpractice.  

The current MET Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe leads from the top.  One of first moves after arriving at the MET was to use the Official Secrets Act to try to compel a Guardian journalist to reveal the source of a story. The Official Secrets Act is meant principally to be used to trap spies, traitors and those who threaten the defence of the realm, real seriously bad eggs — not reporters going about their business.  Surely this was a disproportionate and oppressive use of the law.   

Similarly, legislation designed to combat terrorism and serious crime, such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, is used with alarming frequency by Hogan-Howe and other police chiefs to snoop on the internet and phone records of law-abiding citizens.  This is the tactic of the police state. Not so much total policing as totalitarian policing.    All in the cause of necessity, they claim.  So little wonder his officers push the boundaries of what’s right legally but forget what’s right morally.   

And, as Neil Darbyshire writes in the Spectator this week, “One of the consequences of a heavy-handed police leadership stretching the law and using their power to bully and intimidate is that rank and file officers are encouraged to think they can do the same.  Once ordinary officers start abusing power, a culture of semi-criminal behaviour becomes normal and whistle-blowers are treated not as honourable but as traitors.”  As we saw in my earlier blog, What would Peel think?, officers already think they can make up the law as they go along.  That should worry you.

To quote Pitt the Younger, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”. 

Mind your language

Was it strong language or shocking language the iPlayer helpfully asked if I was ok about before I clicked download?  I can’t remember.  But the script of The Great European Disaster Movie (BBC) was more comedy than anything else.  Not so much offensive in a swearing sort of way, more offensive in its patronising tone.  The EU is right and you’re a bigot / racist / insert your own word if you think there is the tiniest thing wrong with the great god of European union.

Which is fine if you watch a programme like this without engaging your critical faculties.  But those who prefer dialogue rather than diatribe will have been disappointed.  Rather than a reasoned and critical examination of the real issues, it dared to suggest that civilisation itself would virtually fall apart if the UK exited the Europe Union.  Which of course is utterly fanciful for surely even the most committed EU enthusiast.  Yes, there would be issues that needed to be resolved.  That is clear.  But we have heard these gloom merchants before.  The UK will be a backwater if it doesn’t join the European Single Currency.  Oh yes?  Who’s laughing now?  Although it’s no laughing matter that most of Europe is still living in the aftermath of the crash while the rest of the developed world, the UK included, and interestingly all European Free Trade Association Nations, whose members top the global league tables on wealth and quality of life, and whose peoples have made up their minds against EU membership, are all slowly but surely getting on their feet again.  Sustainably.

Of course, the last thing the Euro-zealots want is to compare the merits of their bloc – the euro, the tax harmonisation, the Common Agricultural Policy, the swatting aside of national referendums – with prosperous and happy EFTA nations.  Hence their near-hysterical insistence that the only alternative is economic collapse.

And that is the problem with zealots.  They only see things from their angle, refusing to acknowledge that anyone else may have a point of view.  And we all know where that sort of talk leads. 

What would Peel think?

There was a curious news item the other day about the “special edition” Charlie Hebdo magazine that was distributed.  Apparently constabulary in England had been put on alert to be ready for any trouble that may flare up as a result of the publications sale in the UK.  So far so good.  Then a constable asked in a newsagent for the names and addresses of all those who bought the publications.  The names and addresses of the buyers were added to an intelligence note and fed into a police crime and intelligence system, police confirmed. Yes, you heard that right.

The said force was sensible enough to see this had been a pretty stupid thing for the officer to do and quickly apologised. Wiltshire police subsequently confirmed that it had deleted the names of the buyers from its system. No formal complaint has been made against the officer who will receive “words of advice” but is unlikely to face any disciplinary proceedings.

But it’s the assumption the officer made that is worrying.  Clearly a policeman is walking our streets thinking he can make up the rules as he goes along.  If you don’t find that worrying you should.

When you combine that with Police Scotland, for “operational reasons”, (that is a useful set of words to cover just about anything the police want to cover) routinely having armed officers on our streets, you can't help but think there is something seriously wrong at the top of our police forces.  And when they encourage the talk of the “police community” they forget there is no such thing.  All police officers are members of the community they serve. All we have done is we have given them permission to exercise the power of arrest.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  They are certainly not part of a separate community. 

Sometimes I think the training of police offers must be somewhat wanting.  They seem to forget in the UK, policing is by consent.  It's one of the original fundamental concepts of British Policing dating back to Sir Robert Peel.  It essentially means the police can only operate with the support of "their" public.  Not by force.   So why does it seem a random officer in Wiltshire thinks differently? And if he was like that, how many other officers are too.