Government Ministers need to tread very carefully, because the public is watching, therefore any attempt to humiliate, marginalise or intimidate the charity ‘National Bullying Helpline’ or its CEO, Christine Pratt. We all know how vicious the Labour Party’s spin machine can be…and we will be watching very carefully.

Already Mandelson has suggested that there is a “political operation” to undermine the Prime Minister without substantiating his claim. Nonetheless, it has been implied that because the National Bullying Helpline has Anne Widdecombe and a Tory Councillor amongst its patrons, that there may be some political bias. Why? If the claims made by Christine Pratt are true, it makes little or no difference who is a patron of the charity. There are now suggestions that Pratt’s claims are not substantiated…please, how on earth can she do that without breaching confidentiality? Moreover, I suspect that the charity allows a person to seek advice and support without giving their names, which means it would be impossible to identify the complainants even if they wanted to.

No. 10 states that the charity never informed them of the claims against them. Is that any great surprise? It would appear that the charity is primarily a support group and do not have an interventionist role unless specifically asked to do so by their clients. This looks like a cheap attempt to undermine the charity or try and place some doubt on the veracity of the claims.

There are also suggestions that the charity has “breached client confidentiality”. That is total poppycock. No details of the specific claims have been made and they have not released the names of the complainants. Surely it is only a breach of confidentiality if the complainants can be easily identified, this does not appear to be the case? This just looks like another cynical and cheap attempt to divert attention from the real issue…a case of shooting the messenger!

Of course, the charity will now open itself to scrutiny, so I hope for their sake, that they are squeaky clean. Otherwise they will find themselves subjected to all sorts of questions and investigations, because they have shaken a hornets nest here. I don’t think it was wise for a small charity to speak out in this way, but there is an argument that they were prepared to stand and be counted, which at the very least, is a case of leading by example.

The bottom line is, that if Gordon Brown and No. 10 have nothing to hide, then the best thing they could do is stop attempting to defend themselves by attacking others and agree to an independent inquiry, where staff will be given the opportunity to make statements in complete confidentiality. Furthermore, they should agree to an immediate inquiry, so that the matter can be cleared up well before the General Election, because like it or not, the public will form their own opinion…and many will consider that there is ‘no smoke without fire’. This could be hugely damaging to the Labour Party’s desire to gain another term in office.

How could Harriet Harman, rumoured to be vying for Gordon Brown’s job, miss the golden opportunity that presented itself at Prime Minister’s Question time? Now I am no fan of Ms Harman, in fact, that would be an understatement, but who could fail to squirm as she ‘performed’ in place of the prime minister.

It was clear from her replies, and I use that term loosely, that she was neither prepared nor capable of dealing with any questions, least of all those posed by William Hague, a serious bruiser on such occasions. It would probably be too kind to describe her performance as inept, but to all and sundry, it was an embarrassing experience. Miliband was unable to contain his amusement, whilst Straw, Darling and others looked incredibly uncomfortable. You could almost hear them in unison saying ‘when will this be over’. It makes you wonder whether there ought to be a deputy for the deputy PM. Lets face it, I have seen better, more polished performances from children at their annual nativity play…and yes, I mean it.

They do say that if you give someone enough rope, they will hang themselves and I suspect that those in the ‘Stop Harriet Campaign’, were more than happy to hand it to her. A first year student would know how important it is to prepare before you present or accept questions. Harman clearly failed to do this, worst still, this was in front of her fellow MP’s and the television cameras. If that is not clear evidence of a bad judgement call, I don’t know what is? Failing which, it could just be the arrogance of office, but one thing is for certain, she has demonstrated that she is unlikely ever to be a suitable candidate for Labour leadership. After all, we know that New Labour like polished performances, even if they lack must substance, in Harman’s case, it appears that she has neither.

On my favourite subject of the moment, I have just realised that the topical topic of Gordon Brown’s “British jobs, for British workers, is a prime example of Gordon Brown’s propensity to ’say something, do nothing’.

When Gordon Brown inherited the top job, his grand-standing rhetoric included this statement that has now come to haunt him. His updated version of Buy British gave him the headlines at the time and, no doubt, also assisted him in the high personal approval ratings and a powerful poll lead. However, the British people have now realised that it was just that, empty rhetoric, a classic case of say something, do nothing.

I suppose commonsense dictates that we should all have known that this was not a promise he could keep, after all, it was against European rules and lets face it, no-one could or, more accurately, should have made that commitment. It is possible, that at the time, Gordon brown felt that he could do no wrong, we know after all, that he almost certainly believed that he could walk on water, but in his position he should have known better.

There are still many die hard Labour voters out there, but I suspect, many of them could see their jobs go to cheaper European labour over the coming months as companies struggle to make ends meet as a consequence of a global slowdown and lack of available credit. Finally, these supporters may start to realise that below the thin veneer, is cheap chipboard and vote this excuse for a politician out at the next election.

What is particularly galling about the situation at the Lindsey Oil Refinery is that, although it hasn’t been confirmed, it is highly likely these workers are being paid and taxed in Italy. Now if this is the case, it is not a level playing field and is, morally at least, completely wrong. I do not believe in protectionism, although I do believe in times of crisis, that we should consider some form of nationalism. That is both natural and has happened before. If the Italian’s were bidding for a contract, then the terms should have included a requirement that, at the very least, the workers were paid and taxed in the UK. Further, if the profit was being made in the UK, then it should have been taxed right here, at source. Had this been the case and, the bid was won based on a level playing field, then I suspect that the workers at the refinery would have had little to complain about.

What is disappointing however, is that Gordon Brown is now attempting to re-write history with the statement “When I talked about British jobs, I was talking about giving people in Britain the skills, so that they have the ability to get jobs which were at present going to people from abroad.” Clearly he is not adverse to insulting the intelligence of the British people. As I have said, say something, do nothing.

Now whilst Gordon Brown says that there is little or nothing that he can do to protect British workers, what we do know, is that this government tends to decide which rules they accept or apply. Take for example, cigarettes, Gordon Brown decreed that the maximum number that could be brought in per person, from European countries was 3,000. Yet the whole point of a European free trade market was that we could buy what we wanted and bring it back here without additional taxes or conditions. In similar fashion, the government has still to do anything about the ruling recently passed in the European courts in relation to this governments policies on the retention of DNA on innocent people.

This is a say something, do nothing government, lead by a man who is incapable of humility. We should steady ourselves, for over the coming months we will all become increasingly aware of just how full of rhetoric this government is and, inherently lacking in any real substance.

Whilst reading an article on New Labours plan for broadband over on the British Politics blog I was taken by acomment included in the post, not directly related to the subject, but it struck a chord with me. British Politics described New labour as the “say something, do nothing” party. At a time when Gordon Brown likes to continually accuse the conservative party of being the “do nothing party”, it crossed my mind about people in glass houses etc.

Now I don’t deny, as was stated by British Politics, that when it comes to spending our money, attacking our civil liberties or hiding their expenses from prying eyes, the Labour party is active, perhaps even enthusiastic. But, what about all of the other promises and commitments they have made over the years? This “say something, do nothing” party has, over the last 11 long years, consistently made promises and failed to deliver. They have enjoyed the publicity of one ‘policy initiative’ afetr the other, but conveniently forgotten to do anything many of them, or conveniently buried them when they couldn’t make it work.

New Labour ministers are for ever opening their mouths, before they have engaged their brains. The broadband promise is yet another example where Gordon Brown is trying to spin the subject matter for positive headlines, yet, all he has in the content of an interim report, there is little or no substance to it and no real financial figures. In fact, it is a perfect example of “say something, do nothing“.

After all, how can the government promise something that the commercial sector must deliver, how can the government determine a timescale with no commercial agreements, in fact, just what will the government be doing to deliver on this commitment, they won’t legislate for it? Well the the answer is simple…nothing. In other words, they are the ’say something, do nothing’ party.

This got me thinking, perhaps Gordon Brown should try a dose of his own medicine, after all, he started this whole thing didn’t he? I wonder how many other examples we could put together where Gordon Brown, Tony Blair or New Labour have said something and done nothing. One that immediately springs to mind, is the promise of a further 200,000 affordable homes by 2016. At this time, there are virtually no homes being built, much less, affordable homes.

But again, Gordon Brown basked in the glory of his own spin, promised 200,000 houses, even though his party were making a promise that only the private sector could deliver on. Remember, he did not promise social housing, just affordable housing. A perfect example of ’say something, do nothing’. I am certain that if we put our collective minds together, we could list dozens of other examples, please feel free! Perhaps we should also consider adding another tag to New Labour posts, ’say something do nothing’, it might even encourage David Cameron and the Conservatives to start highlighting just how many broken promises there have been under this government? Please feel free to post your responses below.

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.