Why spineless politicians will continue to fail to deliver meaningful change
1st December 2024
Seema Malhorta's interview with Naga Munchetty on last week's BBC Breakfast program highlighted just how far the UK has got to go before we have politicians that can effect change. It was one of the most frustrating and cowardly interviews I've ever seen. The question put to Ms Malhorta was "given that your counter-part in the Conservatives has put a number on an acceptable amount of net migration per year (250,000) what figure do the Labour Government feel is acceptable?"
What followed was a stream of waffle, avoiding answering the question straight, despite Munchetty constantly pointing her back to it. After patiently listening to Malhorta's long winded answer (that wasn't an answer) Munchetty rightly just said "But you haven't given me a number"
Cue, another meandering babble from Malhorta and the same ending and on we went.
What concerned me most was that here was a senior government minister who looked visibly frightened at being interviewed and clearly scared to give a straight answer to a straight question and this is becoming increasingly evident.
It goes right to the top in some ways, when you look at the world stage, and what the UK has to offer in terms of real Statesmen/ women. There are very few and the few that are are no longer involved in Government or hold lower positions where they ineffective,
This leaves a vacuum where once, people with gravitas and presence represented the UK on the world stage, on both sides of the political spectrum, such as it is these days in the UK.
Even on a domestic level, most of the current 650 MP's would stand up in the real world and right now, it's our domestic issues that need solving but how do we even stand a chance with limp-wristed politicians who cannot answer a simple question ?
Part of the solution lies in the answer to Ms. Munchetty's original question. To anyone with a grip on what is going on in our towns and cities, someone with any guts, the answer to the question is simple. `ZERO (for illegal immigrants, as is the case in every other country in the world) and ZERO legal immigration, until our current work force is fully employed, or is off the benefits books.
It's incredulous to me that a Government, particularly one with this much of a majority, wields so little power. What on earth is the point in getting voted in to achieve so little (and I refer to many previous Governments, on both sides). Many will say that's the democratic process, but I think here we need to change the way we work with new bills and laws. The entire system we have is geared towards "no change" or, at best, very slow change and if we cannot change things, quickly, then we will never solve any of our country's problems and in 4 years time we'll be sitting here with net migration continuing to rise, adding more people to an already creaking infrastructure, with more discontent, an even more unsatisfied electorate and a bigger national debt than we have now.
G. Hoff - Editor
We need to support our farmers, not make their life harder
With over 46% of the UK's food being imported, the time to protect our farmland, and the farmers that toil on it, is long overdue.
The utter ignorance of this Government on the supposed wealth of farmers is astounding. A farmer makes 1p on a loaf of bread that is eventually sold in the supermarket. 3p profit per kg of apples and a combine harvester costs £500,000... Reeves has been very poorly advised by some pen pushers in Whitehall and now we have a real crisis on our hands because more and more farms will be sold in order to pay these extra inheritance taxes. And all to raise an extra £280 million ... (yes, Million, not Billion).
Again, the defence is that it is all in the name of "plugging the £22 billion hole in the public finances" Yawn....
Firstly, the hole in the public finances is £2.7 trillion. we call that "National debt" but its the same thing so £22 billion, on the grand scale of things, is a tiny pin prick given the nations national debt and the debt ratio versus GDP which is 103% (more than post WW2) and 37% higher than Germany's....
With growth only being 0.1% since Labour took power again, the focus needs to be on igniting business and then making cuts in expenditure for things that are not of immediate importance or concern. In addition, we need to be thinking very hard about self sufficiency as a nation.
Importing nearly half our food needs, not to mention 11 million homes being powered by imported electricity and gas, just puts us at the mercy of other countries and there is absolutely no reason why the UK could not be self sufficient on food and energy, if we invested in those areas. With the way the world is going (more isolationist) we really need to deal with this problem.
Furthermore, not only do we need to stop over-taxing the people that put food on our table, but we need to start relaxing the ridiculous rules that surround food production, the over-zealous legislation and compliance, ever more finicky rules on keeping livestock etc etc.
That goes for all industries, not just farming, as it is strangling our ability to increase production and sales. Complying to all these rules costs money, yet another administrative cost that damages the already thin margins on many businesses and furthermore discourages people from carrying on, or at the very least, stops them growing.
The biggest elephant in the room is inheritance tax per se. This tax is an absolute disgrace because it is on money that has generally had tax paid on it already. The whole scheme is just unethical in the first place.
The farming industry is key to this country's independence and way of life and we should be investing in it, rather than trying to penalise them. In order to raise the money to pay the tax, younger generations will be forced to sell large chunks of land only 44% of which will remain as farmland and slowly, but surely, we will eradicate the brown field acreage down to a catastrophic level.
G. Hoff - Editor
OLDER ARTICLES
Labour stick to their guns on winter fuel, but should we really be entitled to such handouts ?
So, the Labour Government has indeed made its first difficult decision to amend a controversial policy and has successfully pushed it through Parliament.
However, I am not sure whether this was just to prove a point (I.E. "We have such a super majority, even something as controversial as this will get through, despite 50 odd Labour backbenchers rebelling") or it was slap in the face for the Conservatives, levelling the blame on the necessity for such a cut firmly at the feet of the previous Government and the alleged £20 billion black hole they left behind.
Either way, I am not sure it was strictly necessary or really the battle ground Starmer and Reed should have chosen to stamp their authority. Firstly, it's an issue the clearly the far left and trade unions were going to object to.
Secondly, the idea of one threshold, one cut off point is slightly short-sighted in my opinion. Why on earth you could not have 2-3 bands so it was staggered with the poorest getting the full allowance, and so on. This would have placated a lot of Labour rebel parliamentarians as well as the public, to whom the new means tested rules will apply to.
Thirdly, pensioners are of all creeds and political leanings and you had members of the public on both sides of the spectrum affected. It certainly wasn't all conservatives saying they agreed and all labour supporters saying they disagreed.
In fact, interestingly, one staunch Labour supporter vehemently said he did not see why he should get an allowance despite the fact they were struggling, which brings us into an interesting point.
Why should anyone be entitled to a winter fuel allowance at all, on top of all the other benefits ?
I found myself agreeing. In hindsight, why are we getting these, and many other handouts from the Government ?
Of course, it all traces back to the founding of the NHS in 1948 and Clement Atlee's "cradle to grave" philosophy.
As commendable as Atlee's initiative was, over the years, it has morphed from what its' basic principles and offerings were, into something completely different, resulting in a ;population who are so used to holding out the begging bowl that it now seems normal. But this is not normal, or even logical, and the state we are in now as a country is largely to be blamed on this culture of entitlement particularly those who abuse it, rather than just use it.
However, even for those who are entitled under the current rules, one has to ask why ?
Initially, the answer is, clearly, you take what is on offer and when the Government decided that a winter fuel allowance was appropriate in 1997, then I guess the attitude was "don't look a gift horse in the mouth". Thereafter, the allowance becomes the norm and then it becomes expected but the reality is the Government cannot afford to be giving away money so people can heat their houses. This is socialism on an unprecedented level when you consider all the other free money that is being doled out for various reasons.
My opinion is that only the very poorest and elderly should be getting any kind of benefits. When it becomes expected from the Government, then people become complacent and dare I say it, in some cases, lazy. In turn, this is making us soft as a race/ nation, unable to cope with small and relatively unimportant adversities such as not being able to get a ticket to Oasis's latest concert tour. Imagine then being a little shortage of food and a colder house. That would seem completely unacceptable to the majority of the UK population but its a reality for many and no-one in this country has a god given right to a warm house and food, except perhaps ex-servicemen and women. Our grandparents and great grandparents suffered through so much adversity in the war, with rationing, homelessness caused by bombing and countless other hardships and they never asked or expected handouts from the Government. They just got on with it.
To put things in perspective, if we look at state pensions, Japan has one of the least generous in the world yet it is the 4th largest economy on the planet. If you don't make good provision outside of the state pension, you are likely to be living on cat food. Why is this ? In simple terms, Japanese culture prevails that you should be responsible with your money, save as you earn and not live on credit. This is just the way there and its accepted without constant whingeing added to which they have the worst gender pay gap in the world on pensions.
In summary, whilst we are very empathetic to the most vulnerable and they should be looked after, it really is a tiny minority that need this help whilst many are just taking the handout. Starmer's Government has at least stuck to its guns and taken the first step to routing out those who really don't need financial assistance (on the grand scale of world poverty with 760 million people with no access to clean drinking water and 881 million undernourished elsewhere in the world). Hopefully, they will apply the same scrutiny to all other benefits and they will fill that £20 billion gap in no time whilst getting some of the 1.4 million unemployed back to work.
G. Hoff - Editor
PREVIOUS ARTICLES:-
288th July 2024
Another farcical period in British politics
As yet another Prime Minister moves into No. 10, its 5th incumbent in 5 years, another farcical period of British politics draws to a close. We hope... Regardless of your political persuasion, to have a Government installed with such a huge majority means that at least things will change. Whether for the better or worse for the bulk of the population remains to be seen, but change is definitely on its way, assuming Starmer does not alienate a large proportion of his own party with the desired bills he will wish to bring to a vote.
Given that the biggest majority that Margaret Thatcher had was 144 and Labour now have an advantage of 172 (181 in real terms given certain voting rules), then this is an even larger benign dictatorship than she ever had and she still managed to bring sweeping changes, even in her first term which was a mere 44 seat majority.
Despite the fact I am not a Starmer fan, I think it can only be good for the country that whatever happens, it is decisive and moves us in one direction or another. The issue of evenly matched parliaments, given each party always has its rebels, is the inability to effect real change with bills under constant revision to satisfy enough people in order to pass it, by which time its been compromised and become benign.
However, the reality for Labour and their supporters is that the elephant in the room is MONEY, or a complete lack of it. Worse than that, we need, as a country, to start eating into the huge debt, which was largely caused by COVID and the effects of COVID which continue to dent our economy. So it will be interesting to see how Labour navigate these choppy waters since the only option to start paying down the debt, relieving inflation and interest rates, is to balance the books which in reality, means making budget cuts, which is precisely the opposite to Labour's normal modus operandi.
It is going to take some real guts to make things better, for the MAJORITY of people, and personally I don't believe Labour have the resolve for it. Perhaps Sir Keir does, but I suspect those on the left (hence his desire to cleanse the party of the far left) will not agree and those rebels may number more than is necessary to defeat certain bills. Time will tell, but I would say this to the far left. If you want your party/ Government to have any lasting legacy it will need to demonstrate that it achieved change during its term(s). As unpalatable as making certain cuts will be, it is for the greater good and that is what a Government is here to do - make changes that benefit more people than it damages.
Sir Keir and the party testify that they want to get Britain's economy going, make it more independent on energy and reduce unemployment, amongst other initiatives. Commendable, but hardly an avant guard position - surely that is the aim of every Government... The key here is HOW ? How are you going to achieve this when your traditional policies lean towards increased social care and benefits, in short, spending money the country does not have. The UK is already crippled by benefit junkies, who work the system to a completely ludicrous level in order to avoid working. Luckily, these people are a relative minority so to cut them off would not cause many ripples.
Next you have the limp-wristed policies of multiple past Governments, on both sides of the spectrum, which mean people don't even have to play the system to get free money - it's simply handed to them on a plate. So that needs to change. Currently, 16 million people in the UK are listed as "disabled". That's a quarter of the population. At least 6.9 million claim disability allowance and even if it were true that these 7 million really cannot work, it's totally unsustainable to have this many people claiming extra benefits. Given the average disability pay out is £ 72.65 a week, that's £ 26 BILLION a year we are providing.
I myself could claim disability allowance if I so wished, through chronic long term illness that has been with me for 27 years and I warrant there are another few million like me, who don't. In short, people claiming these kinds of benefits really need to look themselves in the mirror and ask:- "Am I really incapable of working?"
If they do not, then the only sensible option is to remove all these kinds of benefits and start from scratch again, with proper assessments so the people who really need the help get it, and perhaps more help than they are getting now.
This is just one area where Labour could find money very quickly but there are many many more which would give the treasury an immediate injection of money.
Strong leadership means being able to make tough decisions that are not popular with everyone. So, Labour, have you got the stomach for this and other major actions, which will be perceived to be anti-Labour, but which will give you the finances to make your desired changes ? If you haven't then regrettably you are going to struggle to achieve anything positive. Time will tell.
G. Hoff - Editor
G. Hoff - Editor
Another farcical period in British politics
As yet another Prime Minister moves into No. 10, its 5th incumbent in 5 years, another farcical period of British politics draws to a close. We hope... Regardless of your political persuasion, to have a Government installed with such a huge majority means that at least things will change. Whether for the better or worse for the bulk of the population remains to be seen, but change is definitely on its way, assuming Starmer does not alienate a large proportion of his own party with the desired bills he will wish to bring to a vote.
Given that the biggest majority that Margaret Thatcher had was 144 and Labour now have an advantage of 172 (181 in real terms given certain voting rules), then this is an even larger benign dictatorship than she ever had and she still managed to bring sweeping changes, even in her first term which was a mere 44 seat majority.
Despite the fact I am not a Starmer fan, I think it can only be good for the country that whatever happens, it is decisive and moves us in one direction or another. The issue of evenly matched parliaments, given each party always has its rebels, is the inability to effect real change with bills under constant revision to satisfy enough people in order to pass it, by which time its been compromised and become benign.
However, the reality for Labour and their supporters is that the elephant in the room is MONEY, or a complete lack of it. Worse than that, we need, as a country, to start eating into the huge debt, which was largely caused by COVID and the effects of COVID which continue to dent our economy. So it will be interesting to see how Labour navigate these choppy waters since the only option to start paying down the debt, relieving inflation and interest rates, is to balance the books which in reality, means making budget cuts, which is precisely the opposite to Labour's normal modus operandi.
It is going to take some real guts to make things better, for the MAJORITY of people, and personally I don't believe Labour have the resolve for it. Perhaps Sir Keir does, but I suspect those on the left (hence his desire to cleanse the party of the far left) will not agree and those rebels may number more than is necessary to defeat certain bills. Time will tell, but I would say this to the far left. If you want your party/ Government to have any lasting legacy it will need to demonstrate that it achieved change during its term(s). As unpalatable as making certain cuts will be, it is for the greater good and that is what a Government is here to do - make changes that benefit more people than it damages.
Sir Keir and the party testify that they want to get Britain's economy going, make it more independent on energy and reduce unemployment, amongst other initiatives. Commendable, but hardly an avant guard position - surely that is the aim of every Government... The key here is HOW ? How are you going to achieve this when your traditional policies lean towards increased social care and benefits, in short, spending money the country does not have. The UK is already crippled by benefit junkies, who work the system to a completely ludicrous level in order to avoid working. Luckily, these people are a relative minority so to cut them off would not cause many ripples.
Next you have the limp-wristed policies of multiple past Governments, on both sides of the spectrum, which mean people don't even have to play the system to get free money - it's simply handed to them on a plate. So that needs to change. Currently, 16 million people in the UK are listed as "disabled". That's a quarter of the population. At least 6.9 million claim disability allowance and even if it were true that these 7 million really cannot work, it's totally unsustainable to have this many people claiming extra benefits. Given the average disability pay out is £ 72.65 a week, that's £ 26 BILLION a year we are providing.
I myself could claim disability allowance if I so wished, through chronic long term illness that has been with me for 27 years and I warrant there are another few million like me, who don't. In short, people claiming these kinds of benefits really need to look themselves in the mirror and ask:- "Am I really incapable of working?"
If they do not, then the only sensible option is to remove all these kinds of benefits and start from scratch again, with proper assessments so the people who really need the help get it, and perhaps more help than they are getting now.
This is just one area where Labour could find money very quickly but there are many many more which would give the treasury an immediate injection of money.
Strong leadership means being able to make tough decisions that are not popular with everyone. So, Labour, have you got the stomach for this and other major actions, which will be perceived to be anti-Labour, but which will give you the finances to make your desired changes ? If you haven't then regrettably you are going to struggle to achieve anything positive. Time will tell.
G. Hoff - Editor