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.

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.

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.

Once again, labour party MP’s are looking to raid the coffers of big business. This time, it is to counteract the economic and social impact of the increase in fuel prices, through the imposition of a so-called “windfall tax”. This is so typical of new labour, if they can’t employ a stealth tax or borrow it, they simply steal it. Yes, how else can you describe a direct raid on the profits of the energy companies?

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating that we take no action, but simply applying a one-off windfall tax is not the answer. This would act as a massive dis-incentive for other international companies considering a move to the UK, assuming there are any left. That notwithstanding, this country faces another potential energy crisis in the next 10 years, or more accurately, an energy shortage and that is because many of our existing power stations are due to be replaced. With a build process of 10 years or so and the delay in the decision to utilise nuclear stations, if the existing companies refuse to invest, we could be in a lot of trouble.

It is possible to make the energy companies pay their fair share, by reducing the substantial windfall they received, as a consequence of the free carbon credits. Energy companies would find it more difficult to argue against this particular aspect of their business that a blatant raid on their profits. It may amount to the same thing, but arguably it is all in the presentation.

Using any money gained simply to reduce people’s bills is also not the answer; it is a short-term fix and would have to be repeated year on year, most likely rising year on year to take account of further rises. This is a massive burden on the taxpayer that would have to fund future shortfalls; after all, the government couldn’t simply turn to the energy company’s year on year.

What is needed is a joined up approach to the problem. Existing government and energy company initiatives need to be extended to put in place a programme designed to reduce the energy usage of those in fuel poverty, rather than simply subsidising energy costs. The introduction of low energy bulbs would make a significant difference to energy costs and if purchased in bulk, would cost the government pennies. This could be completed as a project, much the same as smoke alarms were some years ago. Similarly, looking at more efficient energy use, for example, a modern boiler will often use 35% or more, less fuel than an old one. I know the government already has a programme in place, but why not expand it, put more money into this initiative, rather than subsidise bills every year.

We all know of the various, well publicised methods of reducing home energy usage, most experts have suggested that there could be a saving of as much as 35% on annual bills, with a the adoption of commonsense approach to usage and a relatively small, targeted investment. Given the exponential savings in so called greenhouse gases, perhaps the government could consider transferring some of the revenues’ gained from ‘green taxes’ directly into this project.

I don’t have all the answers and I am neither an expert on energy nor the carbon trading scheme, but I know this, we cannot afford to introduce an ongoing form of fuel subsidy for those in fuel poverty and not expect it to hurt the majority. Surely it is better to invest a larger amount of money now, in fuel saving measures, rather than fuel subsidies? The government does not need to employ expensive consultants to come up with a commonsense approach to this problem. I don’t have all the answers and my suggestions may be over simplistic, but then I won’t cost the government hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer’s money in consulting fees either.

As part of the process to speed up big developments, the government is attempting to introduce a bill which will provide developers a “blanket exemption” from complaints about smoke, odour, noise and light. The bill has already passed its House of Commons stages and is now with the House of Lords.

Within the bill is a new amendment which states that criminal or civil proceedings cannot be brought for nuisance over works “authorised by an order granting development consent”. The net effect, if passed in its current form, is this amendment will prevent local authorities acting on behalf of residents with legitimate concerns and amounts to the government, once again, attempting to run roughshod over the public interest.

Light and noise polution is a very serious issue and can have a severe effect on local residents quality of life. Their rights should not be removed in this way and it demonstrates how big business has so much more influence over government policy that the voting public. It would appear that the only time any form of lip service is paid to the concerns of the publice is when they are rebranded the “electorate” and are effectively sold to for the election!

Anyone that has ever lived and worked overseas will have a much better idea of what Quality of Life actually means. Here in the UK, we are forced to travel conjested roads, or use dirty public transport to go to work. Then we will be obliged to work the longest hours in Europe, doubtless to fund the workshy, then after a long day, return to our small homes(by international standards), adjacent to some large development, 24 hour garage or supermarket. The vast majority of the public simply haven’t got a clue what quality of life is, only a very small minority of people have and they don’t have to worry about the affects of local planning laws. Plainly the government would like to keep it this way.

I am personally sick to the back teeth of this government stamping all over the legitimate rights and concerns of the public, simply in order to appease big business. Little wonder that so many ex-ministers and MP’s get such cushy little number when they are removed from office. We should all strive for a decent quality of life, standards that many people in other first world countries actually take for granted. Little by little, this Labour government is taking away our rights to complain, to raise our legitimate concerns and our entitlement to a reasonable quality of life. Yet we stand by and let it happen, we must fight back, we must remind these ministers that they are supposed to represent our interests, they are placed in a position of trust and they are abusing it. We should not be sending this message once every 5 years, but everyday, we should fill the post bag of our local MP’s, send letters to the minister in charge and write to the prime minister. No longer can we accept this draconian law setting by ministers ignoring the long held rights of the public.

 Loading ...

 Loading ...