Whilst our immigration policy is prepared to allow in EU citizens, asylum seekers, economic migrants, gangs and people smugglers, we are refusing entry to a handful of Ghurka’s and Iraqui interpreters that have helped us.

For example, since the time of the Empire, the formidable Gurkha’s, have long fought alongside the British Army in campaigns from the two world wars, through to the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan. In spite of this we are prepared to refuse entry to these brave soldiers who have risked their lives for our liberty and freedom, such that it is under the Labour government. Although we have allowed Gurkha’s that have left the army recently, to settle in the UK, we are refusing this benefit to those that left more than a decade ago. Surely our appreciation of their efforts and sacrifices is not time limited?

In addition, we are refusing entry to the Iraqi interpreters that have assisted our soldiers in Iraq. The government has decided that if they have “served” the British army for less than 1 year, that they cannot settle in the UK and, in any event, they should be subject to a quota. Why, is the British government claiming that those that have served less than 1 year are in less danger? What total and utter nonsense. It is reprehensible that the government, in our name, would seek to restrict the access of people that have served or supported our armed forces in the theatre of war, whilst allowing in any other Tom, Dick or Harry.

We are only talking abour a handful of Gurkha’s and interpreters, but the message we send by refusing entry is significant, not to mention hypocritical. This government needs to address this issue positively, before they bring shame on all of the people of this country.

I have argued for some time that we should have a much stricter immigration policy particularly given there is a significant impact on our services, such as health, education and housing, which is all too often ignored in favour of the ’cheap labour’ provided by economic migrants. However, I do not believe we should turn our backs on those that have helped us in our time of need, to do so, is quite simply shameful.

As the tory party conference beckons and in light of the findings of the Channel 4 news poll, it is time for David Cameron to let us know whether he is a man of straw, or a man of conviction. Something that David Cameron should worry about is the fact that he is seen as a lightweight, although this is not particularly surprising given, he tends to come over as a person once removed from the public, all though it could be worse, because Gordon Brown is completely removed. It is also worthy of note, that those polled did not believe that the conservatives would be any better at running the economy than they were in the 1990’s and… that experience counted for something.

Looking at the past 2 or 3 months, it is not difficult to see why the public would have responded in this way. David Cameron really needs to look closely at his policy advisors, certainly if they are the people suggesting it would be risky or ill-advised to engage. There has been consistent bad news over the past few months and instead of grasping at this opportunity to demonstrate leadership, experience, empathy and conviction, the conservative party, lead by David Cameron have fired potshots from the safety of the shadows. Instead of standing up for the people of this country, they have allowed the Labour Party to stumble on relatively unchallenged, save for a swipes about how badly the Labour party have faired or performed. Nothing specific, nothing we can judge the conservative party by and truly, nothing of any value. A lost opportunity. Although Mr Cameron is not a fan of Margaret Thatcher, he should be reminded that she fought and won, she made a difference, she was a conviction politician. Irrespective of whether or not you agreed with her policies, or the way she went about them, she believed in what she was doing, much the same as other conviction politician’s, such as Nye Bevan, Winston Churchill, Enoch Powell, Tony Benn and so on.

My concern, is that whilst Gordon Brown’s attention has been focused on party issues and the economic woes of this country in terms of his legacy, rather than the affect on the lives of the people in this country. David Cameron has been wrapped up in how he looks in the mirror and the conservative party poll leads. Too frightened to make a move in case his carefully staged managed image should unwravel, or his party’s lead should fall. If he can remember his Latin, David Cameron would do well to consider the Latin proverb, “Fortuna audax iuvat“, fortune favours the brave, in other words, in case those around him don’t understand the meaning, good luck comes to those who are prepared to take chances.

We don’t need the conservative party to tell us that this government has failed, we already know that, we want them to tell us what they would do. Instead, David Cameron, the man of straw claims that he is not fighting an election, so there is no need to outline the conservative party policies until then, because the economic situation might change. Well, Mr Cameron, you have obviously never run a business, imagine the CEO going the the board with that one! He wouldn’t last 5 minutes. Maybe that is the problem, perhaps Cameron is worried that not only will we find that he is in fact a man of straw, but also he is lacking in depth, experience and, above all, conviction?

David Cameron has had a pretty easy ride, both from the media and the other political parties. None of them have really challenged him on why he has not outlined his party policies, conservative values and what they would do to make a real difference to our lives. Well, enough Mr Cameron, the public are getting fed up with the cheap sniping, yes the majority want to end this pain that is New Labour, but not if we end up with a man of straw, so frightened of his own shadow, that he won’t take the fight to the government even when they are on the ropes. David Cameron makes the conservative party look weaker than it did during the Major years, at least then, they were fighting for something, even if it was just their very survival. “Tis better to have fought and lost than to have never fought at all”. There is a latin translation if you prefer Mr Cameron.

From a personal perspective, I would rather have someone that is prepared to make decisions with the risk that they may end up being wrong, rather than one that is so indecisive that he makes no decision at all. So long as the man that made the decision and got it wrong, knows how he came to that decision, then he has every opportunity to learn and grow based on that experience. It is far, far easier to hit a stationery object, than a moving one.

Running government is not disimilar to running a very large business. Now you don’t see the chairman or ceo surrounding themsleves by their school pals or best mates. Why? Because they want, and indeed need, the best people for each role, they need experience and depth, but above all and this is important Mr Cameron, the ceo and chairman must have people that will challenge, question and fight their corner. There is nothing worse in business than being surrounded by people that agree with you, because, very soon, you will believe you can do no wrong. Ask Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who, for the most part, have surrounded themselves by so called “Blairites” and “Brownites”. Not only does this indicate insecurity, but it also smacks of weak leadership.

The electorate will often, some 18 months before a general election, deliberately go for the main opposition party simply because they want to make clear that they are fed up with the party in government, ignore this at your peril. If David cameron wants to succeed at the next general election, he needs to think seriously about who is in his top team, because from an outsiders persective, they all appear to be old Etonians or former public school boys, this may prove to a be a bigger problem than Mr Cameron thinks, come the time of the election.

There is no better time than the present for David Cameron to prove that he is not a man of straw. The government is on the ropes, Brown is floundering and the country is looking for leadership at a time when we are being run by buffoons, more concerned with losing their seats and lucrative expense accounts, than they are about the people of this country and the state of our economy. If he must, David Cameron could wait until the end of the month and tell us at the tory party conference, but that would be rehearsed, practiced and would not tell the poeple of this country that this possible man of straw can think on his feet.

David Cameron must engage, not just with the public, but with the government. He does an excellent job at Prime Ministers Question time, but he needs to be doing that in the street, in the media and on television. He needs to tell us what the conservative party stands for, what their policies are and why he would make a good prime minister, He must not wait for Gordon Brown to lose the next election, because contrary to what the polls may suggest, David Cameron could find himself having to deal with a hung parliament as the public move towards the LibDems, because they haven’t had enough time to get to know the conservative party.

The public need to know now, what the conservative party stands for, its values, policies and what they would do if we gave them the job of government, that’s right Mr Cameron, it is just like a job interview, and you are currently in the selection stages. Contrary to what David Cameron’s advisors may be saying, about keeping his powder dry, lest he goes down in the polls, he must come out of the shadows, stand up, and be counted now.

Yes, there is a risk that the public may not like his policies or agree with his ideas and of course, the Labour Party and the LibDems may rubbish them, especially if they are bold. But if David Cameron were to tell the public now, he would have up to 18 months to outline what his policies meant, why they would make a positive difference and to adjust, temper or revise them based on feedback. He would have a real opportunity to demonstrate his leadership abilities, not from the perspective of running a party of, for the most part, yes men, but a leader of this great country. It doesn’t matter if the Labour party steals the tories ideas, the public will know wo suggested them first, we are not stupid and in fact, most are a lot more politically savvy than they were 11 years ago.

If David Cameron fails to heed this advice and only tells the country what he and his party stand for in the run up to an election, he is taking a massive risk. He will have very little time to persuade the public and even worse, he and his party will be strangers to the electorate. It will be a hard sell, at least it will if the conservative party is to be bold, have new ideas for a new era and want’s to make a real difference. David Cameron would do well to look at Vince Cable, although he was ousted as leader of the LibDems, he will criticises the government and follows that up with what he would do, short, concise and language that is easy to the ear. I am not an advocat of the LibDem policies, anymore than I am for any other party, I am a floater, but I will say this, you have to admire a man that doesn’t just snipe from the sidelines, but suggests an alternative. You may not agree with him, but one thing he is not, is a man of straw. Mr Cameron, think on!

Yet again, Gordon Brown fails to grasp the nettle, coming up with a weak package of measures, that once again, lacks real detail and as always, with any money pledged by this government, it is more ‘jam tomorrow’. If Brown was running a business he would have been fired long ago.

This government claims that they have been “negotiating” with the big six energy companies, if that is the case, why are they having to threaten to legislate to ensure that the energy companies and energy producers cough up the £910m? That notwithstanding, Gordon Brown says “I do not expect the £910m that we raise to be passed on to the consumer by the energy companies“. Really? That sounds like a typical politician’s answer, the statement should have read, “The energy companies will not be permitted to pass on the £910m in the form of higher bills”.

So, let’s sum up, the government says that following negotiations, the energy companies will put up £910m over the next 3 years. But, this is not guaranteed, because the government, by their own admission, may have to legislate to force them and, there is no guarantee that we will not be faced with higher bills as a consequence of this investment. It is estimated that we are already paying an extra £35 per annum for existing energy saving measures employed by the big six. So there is a precedent for passing on the cost. Well done Gordon, great job.

The government have announced that the package is worth £1bn. Okay, lets get this straight shall we? The Warm Front programme has had £250m sliced off its grant, but the government now offer an extra £30m per year over the next 3 years as part of its measures to reduce those suffering from fuel poverty. On this basis, Gordon Brown has announced £910m that he hasn’t got agreement on and put back £90m of the £250m he removed from Warm Front. Where, exactly, is the big news here? Also, does the extra £90m the government are putting in, include the extra winter fuel payments referred to in the same announcement. As they invariably say, whenever Gordon makes an announcement, the devil is in the detail.

It is estimated that the energy companies received their own windfall of some £9bn in the form of free pollution permits under the European Emissions Trading Scheme. Was there no quid pro quo when this was gifted to the energy companies, who agreed this figure?

The government has indicated that they have no wish to legislate regarding energy prices because they believe that competition will result in lower prices. Really, where is the evidence that this is so? The energy companies may raise their prices at different times, but, for the most part, they have all increased their prices more or less in line with the other energy suppliers. This does not look like competition. But regulation is not just about price increases, it is about preventing companies that are in a dominant position, with a product that the consumer needs to buy, abusing their position.

If Ofgem were given the powers through legislation they could prevent the big six energy companies imposing a penal charge on consumers who do not or cannot pay by direct debit. It is estimated that there is a difference of £144 per year between those that pay by direct debit and those using a prepayment meter, of which there are estimated to be 5m. Ofgem claim that it costs £85 per year to run a prepayment meter with 5m in use, this sound extremely unlikely and who’s side are they on anyway? At best, this charge is excessive and undoubtedly, Ofgem demonstrate how gullible they are by accepting this claim at face value. Given some 50% of the people with prepayment meters are likely to be on fixed or low incomes, it is appalling that they should be further penalised by the energy companies, who claim to be helping many of the same people with social tariffs, it really smacks of duplicity.

It is also worth remembering that the European Trading Emissions Scheme is a tax, therefore the government are also profiting from people’s misery. They can tell us until they are blue in the face that they “care”, but whilst they are effectively taxing essential commodities such as heating and lighting they are acting like hypocrite’s. Furthermore, our caring energy companies spend a tiny fraction of their revenues on social tariffs, just £50m per annum.

The bottom line is the initiative put forward by Gordon Brown & co in a very sensible one, certainly preferable to subsidising the fuel bills of those in fuel poverty, year in and year out. However, it is, seriously underfunded and as in commonplace with this government, spread over a long period, which means that some people will have to wait two or three years before they can take advantage of the savings.

As is usual, the opposition parties are, for the most part, silent on this issue. Critical, but offering no tangible solutions. Predictably, Cameron’s conservative party says little of any value, instead of seeing it as an opportunity to demonstrate what they would have done. As I have said before, Cameron doesn’t want to win the election, he just wants Labour to lose it, as they surely will. But it does clearly indicate that Cameron lacks backbone, new ideas, or more likely, both. At least Vince Cable comes up with some suggestions.

The government needs to be far more bold in their approach. They already collect more in green taxes than they invest back in ‘green initiatives’, they should substantially increase the amount of money invested in these energy saving measures, offering to match the energy companies pound for pound. They must also go back to the energy companies and renegotiate the current “agreement”, which needs to be doubled to have any serious impact.

Ofgem should have their powers increased to allow them to cap prices and restrict the energy companies from imposing unreasonable charges such as direct debit penalty payments and high premiums on pre-payment meters. The government should provide an undertaking that a fixed percentage of the income generated in green taxes imposed on the energy companies should be set aside and used for energy efficiency measures. By all means priorotise the most needy, but the government should not exclude everyone else.

The government must introduce legislation which requires the energy companies (producers and suppliers) to invest a minimum amount in infrastructure (based on their turnover), in the same way that the water companies are required to invest in infrastructure. This will avoid a situation where the energy companies can blackmail the government into submission by threatening not to invest in new power stations and so on. The government should investigate the generous £9bn windfall the energy companies received in carbon credits and if it was incorrectly assessed, then the difference should be clawed back. The Competitions Commission must launch an enquiry into competition in the UK market and publish their findings, based on which, the government must legislate if necessary.

The government should not be persuaded to introduce a windfall tax, this is far too crude and serves only to punish. There are other, more subtle ways of dealing with these types of challenges, such as suspending the carbon credits, whilst the initial £9bn is investigated and introducing emergency measures to increase the powers of the regulator. If the energy companies were to face a suspension of the credits they have priced into their share prices, a risk of price caps through the offices’ of the regulator and a Competition Commission enquiry, they will see a fall in their share prices and nothing is guaranteed to make them sit up and listen, than a fall in shareholder value.

This government is happy to fleece, bully and bellow at the people in this country, exercising ever more draconian powers over the individual, yet when it comes to big business, they seem at best impotent and more likely, incompetent and complacent. Come on Gordon, get you act together and fast.

If you have ever wondered why so many government departments are in a mess, then you probably don’t have to look much further than the man or woman in charge. Ask yourself whether they are fit for purpose. If you visit MP’s websites, you will note that many are bereft of any detail regarding their past experience, in other words, before they entered parliament. Some may have had experience in senior management and others run a business, but by and large, my straw pole indicates that few have experience either.

My question is, should members of parliament, with little or no experience, be placed in charge of huge departments and labour forces? One minute they are trundling the street begging you for votes and the next they are running some of the biggest organisations in the country (in terms of budget, headcount etc). One or two may even be running departments which determine our civil liberties, even though the MP’s have little business, or for that matter, life experience. Little wonder that our civil liberties have been steadily eroded.

Could anyone imagine Barclays Bank appointing a postman and telling him to start running the business with little or no relevant experience? You know, “don’t worry mate, you can learn on the job”. Ridiculous isn’t it? But what is the difference? Would Unilever appoint a new CEO, who has a total of 7 years ‘commercial’ experience as the deputy head of the Inflation Report Division at the Bank of England and an economic writer on The Guardian Newspaper? Yet this person now runs a department with 20,000 staff and a budget of £14bn.

The problem must start when the local constituencies select their prospective member of parliament. What criteria do they use to determine who to select, is it because their face fits, they are mates with the constituency chairman, a determined party ’activist’ or some other banal reason? Once elected, they could end up in a junior government post, or even in the cabinet. So how does the prime minister decide who is going to get which post? Experience suggests, that more often than not, the ‘plum’ posts are offered as a reward, rather than based on experience.

Yes I accept, that ministers heading government departments will receive advice and guidance from experienced civil servants, but surely that is not the point? Members of Parliament, if they are being paid to run a department, need to add value. Lets face it, when they talk at the public, they do so as if they are experts in their field and how many of us actually question their qualifications and ability to judge the issues they are covering?

No system is perfect, but surely we can do better than this? Surely the public have a right to know what level and type of experience our members of parliament have? Why do so many MP’s rarely publish their pre-politics careers, are they worried that the public may be concerned at their relative lack of experience? None of us would be able to secure a job without a CV. Why shouldn’t MP’s, that work for the public, be compelled to publish a detailed account of their past experience, which is then open to the public. Then, perhaps, when they make a statement, we can make a judgement as to whether they are properly qualified to make such a statement or if they are just acting as a mouthpiece for some faceless civil servants.

Yes, I am questioning the very basis on which our MP’s are selected and our government is run, but just because that is the way it has always been, does not mean that it should continue to be so. Progress requires and top to bottom review of systems, processes and protocols, if we determine that the current system is better than the alternatives, then so be it, if not, then we should seek to make changes. 

Perhaps if our members of parliament had not screwed us for more and more tax, then squandered so much of this income, or they had not attempted to turn this country into a police state by eroding our civil liberties, we would be less inclined to ask such impertinent questions, such as are they qualified for the job? But they do, they have and they are.

John Demitriou, on his excellent blog Boatang & Demitriou offers a noteworthy and thought provoking series of suggestions to the problems that we are facing, specifically Politic’s isn’t working and I couldn’t agree more.

Gordon Brown is right, the rumoured proposal that the government provide rebates or vouchers to those in ‘fuel poverty’ is simply not sustainable. With an estimated 4.5m homes in fuel poverty by the end of the year, this problem is of a scale that no government can realistically resolve without placing a massive burden on the public purse. Worst still, the problem will still be there in a year’s time, possibly even worse and those recipients will expect the government to step in again.

The government is right, investment needs to be placed into a long term solution, that both encourages and helps people use less energy. This is part education and part investment. It is estimated that home insulation and other energy saving measures can reduce energy bills by as much as a third. However, the government recently reduced the money available to Warm Front by a third, this does not provide much evidence that the government is practicising what it preaches. No doubt Gordon Brown will reverse this decision and then suggest that it is “new money”.

Whilst there are an estimated 4.5m people in fuel poverty, it is worth noting that everyone is suffering, irrespective of whether they have been labeled as such. Those that are not currently in fuel poverty are also having to contend with higher fuel bills, higher food bills and in some cases, higher mortgage costs. Many who are actually working have had to seek part-time jobs. If the government provides subsidies to those in fuel poverty, the truth is, everyone else will have to foot the bill, either through higher taxes or higher fuel bills. The government need to be creative rather than simply shifting the burden, not least because those that are in work have consistently, under this government, been expected to take up the slack and pay for those that are not prepared to look for part-time work.

The government should increase the amount of money available for energy saving measures such as insulation and low energy bulbs. They should persuade, rather than attempt to threaten, the existing energy companies to meet this additional investment on a pound for pound basis. It must be remembered that these energy companies will have to invest billions of pounds over the next 10 years to secure our energy resources for the next generation. They must stop talking about a windfall tax, but instead, use the carbon trading scheme to maximum affect to encourage the investment in UK based energy saving measures rather than those of third world countries.

There is no doubt that the energy companies have taken advantage of the current turmoil to increase their profits and therefore the dividend payments received by their shareholders. The government must provide the regulator with teeth, in order that the regulator can control and approve energy increases. If the regulator is not in place to keep a handle on such matters, then what is it there for? [Can Parliament control Energy Prices]

Another, perhaps more controversial solution, is to allow those in fuel poverty to seek part-time jobs. Yes, I am talking about lone parents, pensioners, the unemployed and the 2.5m in receipt of long term disability payments. There will be some that are genuinely not capable of work, even light work, but the vast majority could do something, stacking shelves, cleaning, washing cars etc. If those in work have to help themselves to keep their heads above water, then why not the unemployed, lone parents, pensioners and long term disabled? Many won’t because they have to declare the money they earn and so, for every pound they earn, they lose it in benefit. So in a way, their view is understandable, given it is a disincentive to help themselves.

Instead of just giving them another handout, which only encourages them to expect a bailout everytime they are in trouble, the government should give them a tax free allowance, that would allow them to earn, for example, up to £150 per month without having to pay tax or national insurance. Yes, we wouldn’t get any tax revenues from these earnings, but neither would the rest of us have to pay out a cash subsidy in full. Better still, it encourages them to stand on their own two feet, to stop looking at the state, or more accurately their working neighbours, friends and relations to subsidise their living expenses. There may be a special case for pensioners, but they, of course, do receive additional fuel allowances and many would work part-time if it were not for the complicated process of paperwork and tax they must endure at the hands of this bureaucracy obsessed government. Those in receipt of ‘tax credits’ could be provided with a special ‘work credit’ that would allow them, or their partner to earn a specified amount of money which would not be subject to tax or national insurance. This could be removed, if necessary, at a leter date as the economy improves.

Any allowances should be very carefully targeted at those that simply cannot help themselves, genuine cases, not the workshy. Those in receipt of benefits would have no excuse not to do what everyone else must do when things are tight, to go and get a part-time job, to help themselves. You reap what you sow.

A creative approache to government always has its critics, because there will always be those that believe it is wrong to expect people to help themselves, or it is just not the way things are done in the UK. Who cares, our greatest leaders have had original thought and a desire to deliver. But, desperate times require desperate measures. A government bereft of original thought, needs to be more radical, a government that believes throwing money rather than opportunity in the direction of the so called poor, needs to look at alternatives.

This government needs to look at its income much the same as the average family. In difficult times, the family will look at ways to economise, ways in which they can generate additional income and ways in which they can reduce or minimise the cost of their borrowings. Government needs to adopt a similar approach. There are countless examples of this government’s waste, excess and abuse of taxpayers money. They need to reign this in now. Government needs to look, not at borrowing their way out of this mess, or just dipping into the pockets of the hardworking taxpayers once again. They must be creative in their thinking, radical in their approach and understand that if it was not for the taxpayers of this country, the poor would be desolate, starving and homeless. But there is a limit to just how much you can redistribute wealth and most taxpayers have had enough.

The pound is low, which makes exports much cheaper, this government should have their best ’salespeople’ lobbying leaders of other countries to buy our products, to improve our exports. It doesn’t matter whether it is the trade department or the ambassador, everyone should be put to work to help this country. Taxpayers funds, as the government has finally discovered, are not the bottomless pit they once believed. Be creative, be bold and stop worrying about your seats at the next election. This government must start to demonstrate respect, not contempt for the ‘have’s’ that have subsidised and supported the ‘have not’s’ and allowed you to spread our money around as if it were your own or an automatic entitlement. Above all, remember, there are 650 of you that have been entrusted with the future of this country, earn that trust by doing your jobs!

A good start would be to suspend or dramatically reduce our overseas aid budget. This could provide up to £5bn to invest in energy saving measures. Charity, as the saying goes, begins at home. This government ignores that at it’s peril.

For the past eleven years we have heard nothing else but, how Gordon Brown was going to put an end to “boom and bust”, how he was an iron chancellor, and how New Labour were beyond reproach in terms of economic competence. How does this correlate with a UK recession that, by all accounts, only those outside government could see coming?

How could so many British people be so naive as to believe that a government that increased taxes and borrowing during a period of significant growth and wealth creation could sustain this? Why did we allow a government to dupe us in terms of its true financial position, with the off-balance sheet PFI initiatives that leave us owing some £170bn, which must be paid off between now and 2032? Government pension deficits of £790bn and so on? All of this on top of the “official” debt figure of a tad under £500bn.

Gordon Brown and his government have been caught out in the lie that has become the legacy of their time in office. They have left this country vulnerable, with high taxes, high debt, long term financial commitment and, above all, lacking leadership. New Labour has become synonymous with spin and its ability to consistently dupe the public and manipulate the press. Inevitably, we will all have to pay for their incompetence. Tony Blair was a prime architect and whilst he may be basking in the fruits of his former position of PM, giving lectures and writing books, he shares responsibility with Gordon Brown. Alistair Darling is just cannot fodder, he knows it, we know it, he is just the fall guy for Gordon Brown.

True leaders show their ability it times of crisis, not the good times and as this government moves from crisis to crisis, relying on a sticking plaster to fix things, it is just going to get worse. True leaders know when their time is up and those with integrity and pride, will step aside and let someone else in. However, there are two large problems here, firstly, a new leader of the Labour Party will not make any difference, given they are clearly a spent force, who have substituted the so called Tory sleaze, with a programme of lies and inept ministers. The second problem is where do we go from here?

David Cameron’s conservative party has still not told us what it is they stand for, what their policies are and what they are about. Yes, Cameron has come up with some quaint new soundbites, such as a ‘broken society’, but so far, it is just rhetoric. This is not backed up by new ideas, proposals, policies or answers. So we still have no idea what they would do if they were in government, so why would the electorate entertain such a party? We could simply be going from the frying pan, into the fire. As for the LibDems, well do we know who they are? Clegg says some sensible things, but this is a party that a year or so ago proposed higher taxes, how many governments have been voted in with a promise of higher taxes? Vince Cable is very knowledgeable, but the party sidelined him, because they felt he was too old, so what does that say about them?

The future does not look so bright! There is no obvious choice, unless Cameron can start to convince us that his party has original ideas and, above all, people that are capable of delivering on them. The main parties have 550 or so MP’s between them, but how many of us could name more than 10 or 20? What does that say about the way the political party’s are run. Even if we can name them, how many would we trust, if any, to lead us through this mess and do we know what they stand for?

As we enter this uncertain time, perhaps it is also a period for reflection, we need to consider whether our political system is truly representative. For example, how many ordinary people have a realistic opportunity to get elected as an MP, if they are not already aligned with one of the principal parties? The Labour and the Conservative party select their candidates based on many things, which often includes, but is not limited to, race, gender and loyalty. Why shouldn’t they advertise to get the best candidate? Yes this is simplistic, but the best ideas often are, surely the electorate is entitled to the best man or woman for the job, not those that are already part of the ‘club’ that is party politics right now?

Over the past 11 years, we have witnessed an obsession with government control, from the 4.2m CCTV cameras, through to the right to detain for up to 42 days without charge. We have been told that we must have ID cards to help protect us from the threat of terrorism, yet the government are trying to include so much biometric data that it is difficult to comprehend the true justification. It is claimed that the UK government and its agencies have more access to our private details than virtually any other country including Russia and China. This obsession with state control is worrying in isolation, but when this is coupled with a dishonest government, self-obsessed ministers, weak members of parliament and a virtually non-existent alternative party, we must start to worry.

There is no sense in kidding ourselves that we have choice or that we live in a democracy, if our choice of ‘elected’ representative is limited to the whim of party leaders. This country was quick to criticise China for primarily limiting their choice to existing members of National Peoples Congress. What is the difference, surely it is only scale?

We need change in this country, we need to review our whole political system and above all, we need to look at the way much of the news media sets the agenda. British Politics expands on this argument.

I am no economist, nor am I a banker, but I invite those that are to pick holes in my assertion or put my mind to rest. I have never been a great advocate of government intervention, but I believe they need to do far more and now, before we reach a genuine crisis driven by the falling property market.

Many people have suggested that the property market is long overdue for a “correction”, but just how far should this be allowed to go? If we assume that a bank has secured its lending against an asset, which subsequently falls, surely at some stage the banks will be required to write down the difference, just like any other business? If this is the case, they could, theoretically, breach their covenants in terms of their reserves.

Banks have very strict rules in relation to their reserves and many may end up having to go cap in hand to the market in an effort to raise money to shore up their capitol reserves. In a nervous market, this is going to be very tough, particularly if there are several banks trying to do this at the same time. The affect of a major bank failing could have catastrophic consequences for the city, Sterling and the UK economy. This would almost certainly lead to some form of government bailout, which would very costly indeed at no doubt lead to the breaking of our own fiscal rules in terms of borrowing.

Therefore, surely the government would be better advised to intervene now, invest what is required to stablise the property market and avoid a banking crisis. The government must know the risks, they pay hundreds of millions of pounds to expert advisors every year. Now, they may want to keep this information from the public, but they simply can’t afford to ignore it.

In a recent statement, Gordon Brown said, “We are showing that,unlike previous governments that could not manage a way through these difficulties successfully… we are resilient in the way we are dealing with these problems.” What an arrogant, self-serving and belligerent remark from this man. He is passing judgment on previous government initiatives with the benefit of hindsight, whilst arrogantly assuming that his measures will succeed. Why, because he says so?

This is a prime example of a man that is deluded, one that believes he can do no wrong and one that is undoubtedly surrounded by ‘yes’ men constantly telling him how brilliant he is. Any decent leader will surround himself with people that will challenge him, test him and guide him. This ensures that the ‘leader’ keeps his feet firmly on the ground and does not start to believe his own spin, it is a dangerous cocooned world. Smart people recognise this; clearly some politicians and cabinet ministers do not. But it is the difference between leaders and truly great leaders. Take a look at Gordon Brown’s ‘inner circle’ can you see anyone that is likely to challenge him on policy without being crushed?

If this wasn’t enough, Gordon Brown has, once again said, “There are unique circumstances with the trebling of oil prices. That has not happened previously - and of course with the credit crunch”. In other words, it’s not my fault guv, I have done everything right; it is everyone else that is at fault. If your ministers and advisors don’t have the balls to tell you what you have done wrong, maybe it is left the public?

• You have hiked our taxes through a series of stealth taxes, to the extent that you have nowhere else to go, you have little or no room for any further tax increases.
• You have raised £billions in national insurance contributions and then recklessly spent this money on quick fixes rather than long term investments in the health service.
• You have allowed government departments to squander £billions of taxpayers money on projects that have been curtailed, scrapped or changed.
• You defied repeated warnings from your own officials in terms of the time bomb you would create by scrapping tax relief on dividends paid into pension schemes. As a consequence of your actions, you have devastated the lives of hundreds of thousands of pensioners and what do we have to show for the estimated £100bn you have scored from their misery? As a result of your meddling, many final salary pension funds have been scrapped….and some companies have had to find £millions to top up the funds.
• It is estimated that you cost this country close to £2bn when you decided to sell our gold reserves at the wrong time. On this occasion, you ignored the advice of the, Bank of England.  

Whilst the last conservative government may have introduced the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), you made it into a major instrument for the provision of public facilities and services, effectively forcing public bodies to use the PFI model. As a consequence, public bodies are committed to paying a total of £170 billion to contractors in more than 800 PFI schemes up to 2031-2032…not surprisingly; this figure is growing every year.

I agree you are resilient, there are not many people that could make so many mistakes, so consistently and still claim to be the leading architect of the success of this country. We have succeeded in spite of you, not because of you and one day the electorate and the newspaper editors will wake up to this fact. If you had been genuinely prudent, we would not have the level of public sector borrowing that we have, we would not be in a position where there in no money in the piggybank to allow us to weather the storm of this current downturn. And, we would not all feel so much pain as a direct consequence of your massive tax take from our current earnings, as well as the reduction in value of our pension funds affecting our retirement plans.

Let me remind you, that £400m was spent on ‘cost control’ for the Olympics, how can you honestly justify that level of expenditure with a straight face? Would a “prudent” chancellor allow expenditure of over £16 million on the creation and upkeep of VIP lounges in Heathrow and Gatwick despite the fact they are not government-owned?

You cannot abdicate responsibility by blaming Blair for the first 10 years either, because we know that, the Treasury, under your tenure, became the principal originator of government policy, rather than an evaluator of policy. Your personal obsession with micromanagement has lead to the introduction of thousands of targets aimed at directing policy; it also determined exactly each the departments should meet their targets. So when a department was or is failing, it is impossible to tell whether the cause is the policy itself or its implementation. This has made it virtually impossible for the Treasury to judge poor performance. Another tidbit for you, during your tenure, the Treasury was one of the largest spending departments, with a budget of £20bn. Is that prudence?

Let me remind you of some of the things you have achieved. Following your introduction of complicated tax credits, it is estimated that the taxpayer (no not the government, it is our loss, our money) loses £2bn every year through fraud and errors. In spite of your micromanagement, it is estimated that the planned NHS computer system will cost £6bn more than originally planned. 

I could go on, but it would take me weeks to list Gordon Brown’s “achievements”. Far from being a prudent chancellor, I am convinced that in years to come, we will look back at both his chancellorship and his period as prime minister and have a completely different take on this so-called iron chancellor. I am further convinced that we and our children will be spending the next 30 or 40 years paying for the mistakes of this government, the former chancellor, the former prime minister and the current prime minister. Gordon Brown should consider his words carefully, because they will surely come back and haunt him, no doubt at a
time when he is not surrounded by yes men telling him how brilliant he is.

Now let me get this straight. According to a “leaked” dossier, the credit crunch is going to result in an increase in crime, extremism, racism, violence and illegal working. Is there any area of responsibility that the Home Office has not covered?  Talk about trying to cover their backsides. They have covered virtually every area of responsibility they have, up to and including, terrorism.

Now, whilst I accept that this document is supposed to have been leaked and therefore is not supposed to have been endorsed by Jacqui Smith. Precisely what does Jacqui Smith and the Home Office intend to do about it? With a budget of nearly £14bn, surely we can expect a little more from these prophets of doom? If this was a private or for that matter a public company, it is a racing certainty that Smith would have been fired.

So, according to the Home Office, a rise in crime, extremism, racism, violence, illegal working and terrorism has nothing to do with the Home Office, nothing to do with the government, but instead can be blamed in its entirety on the state of the economy or the credit crunch, depending on your take of the situation.

Well now the cat is out of the bag Jacqui, we demand to know precisely what you are going to do about it. If you are simply going to accept it, then you should resign now. If your department is suggesting a 19% increase, based on the 1992 figures, then we would like to know why, in spite of the significant investment in your department, and 11 years in government, you expect to fair no better than the conservative government of 1992? Your government has presided over a significant erosion of our civil rights, your government has introduced draconian laws which allow the police and scores of other government departments to snoop on the private affairs of virtually every individual in the UK, and your government has increased significantly the spending, in real terms on policing and counter-terrorism in this country.  This is the quid pro quo, speak now.

A dossier produced by your department has been leaked. You must now tell us which parts you agree with and which parts you don’t. Then based on this information, you must then tell us what you are going to do to reduce the doomsday scenario of your own department. If this is simply your departments’ way of having something placed into the public domain, so they can later claim that they told us so when these scenarios are allowed to become fact, then that is totally unacceptable.

We should not need to remind you that you and your government are public servants, you are employed and rewarded for doing a job, and failure should not be an option. Simply telling us that you are going to fail in advance is no excuse.

So, Alistair Darling finally tells everyone what we already knew, that the economy is in dire straits and our government hasn’t got a clue how to deal with it. In fact, in the interview, he goes on to suggest that the party needs to re-gain its “zeal” if they are to win a fourth term in office. Is honesty the best policy in politics?

Wake up Alistair, if the economy is in such a mess, your party must take its share of the responsibility, after all, your boss has been claiming all of the credit for the past 10 years of growth, which he has conveniently been forgotten as the legacy that was passed on to him by the previous conservative government. Your first priority must be to get us out of the mess that you and your party of government sauntered into. You and your party have been in denial for too long.

What saddens me, is whilst it would appear that Alistair Darling is actually quite an honest sincere sort of chap, who doesn’t want to kid the public anymore, experience suggests that this is more likely to be a cynical approach to the whole debacle. If he tells us what we must expect, then he can’t be accused of hiding the truth from us all, if he paints a particularly bleak picture and it turns out not as bad as he predicted, then he can claim the credit for saving the day. Or, perhaps, if he tells us what pressure he and his government are under, we will all feel sorry for them and provide them with a sympathy vote.

What may have been a genuine heartfelt interview with the Guardian newspaper (also described as a “gaffe”) has, however, been undermined by the fact that he has since come out and insisted that the problems we are facing as “worldwide problems”, which by implication means it cannot his fault, his predecessors or the governments. This is ludicrous in the extreme. Yes there is a general downturn, but we are suffering more than most. Why? Because his predecessor spent the last decade spending an increasing amount of money, through borrowing, stealth taxes and higher general taxes as a consequence of more employment and higher company profits. But honestly, what do we have to show for it, not much?

France and Germany were more prudent. Gordon Brown used to delight in comparing our growth figures with theirs, true, France and Germany did take longer to recover from a downturn. But unlike us, they put a little away for a rainy day, we haven’t. So the government can only “help” us through higher taxes, higher borrowings or, most likely, a combination of the two. However, they won’t help the majority, no; they will help traditional Labour supporters, by offering grants, tax credits, hand-outs and so on, which the rest of us will have to pay for. I don’t know about this government having to find its zeal, maybe someone has confused this description and what they actually meant was the government had to regain its ability to steal from the majority, to support the ‘minority’, or a more accurate description may be the core labour voters rather than the minority.

As an act of contrition for the damage they have caused, this government should step aside and let the electorate decide who they trust to take this country forward. Let us take the responsibility. If the Labour party gain their fourth turn, then so be it, if not, then they will have to accept that we have all had enough of false promises and the abdication of responsibility that has been the Labour party mantra for anything negative.

The Labour party cannot expect to get away with taking the credit through the so called good times and then blaming everyone else when things start to go wrong. Winning the next election has nothing to do with “zeal”. Alistair, your party of government has an unelected prime minister, you lied to the electorate about a referendum on the EU constitution, you have consistently increased our taxes through dishonest stealth taxes rather than a more honest increase in the standard rates, you have squandered the billions of pounds raised through the increase in national insurance contributions, you have plundered peoples pension funds, whilst retained a ‘gold-plated’ pension plan for yourselves, you have taxed us for every single ‘benefit in kind’ whilst ignoring such rules for members of parliament, you have placed this country in jeopardy by failing to plan ahead in terms of energy independence….

I could go on, but what would be the point? Alistair, don’t just be honest about the current economic state of the country, take an objective look back at your party’s so called “achievements”, consider the promises you made and whether you ever really delivered on them, the money you have spent and whether you received value for money for the taxes and, of course, New Labour’s values and whether you remained true to them. You don’t have to look far to see that your government is finished, you should do the honourable thing and call an early election, so that someone can be given a mandate from the people of this country to clear up your mess.