As the recession bites, there has been a great deal of publicity surrounding the fact that workers, in fear of losing their jobs, have accepted a shorter working week and/or a reduction in their wages. However, there appears to have been little or no coverage of the cost to the taxpayer associated with these reductions.

Gordon Brown is keen to tell us that there are 500,000 jobs in the UK, even though he will be only too aware that some 40% of these vacancies are for part-time work. My concern is, that a shorter working week or even a reduction in salaries may keep the unemployment figures lower, but there is almost certainly a cost associated with the reduction in income which is not being considered. This relates to income support and/or benefits.

As we all know, the Labour government has introduced a raft of income support benefits and various other allowances that are available to people that fall below a pre-determined threshold. It is, therefore, highly probable, that many of these workers that have had to make a financial sacrifice on their take home pay to remain in work, will now be eligible for some form of benefit payment or income support. It is not my intention to focus on whether or not they should be entitled to these benefits, but whether or not the government is being candid about the additional cost to the taxpayer. Because, whilst the workers will not be registered as unemployed and therefore in receipt of job seekers allowance and benefit payments, they will in fact, be entitled to a taxpayer funded subsidy.

I would argue that government should be completely open with the taxpayer. For example, they must distinguish between how many full-time jobs are available and the number of part-time. This would provide everyone with a number that reflects the true situation rather than introducing false hope. Similarly, when the number of unemployed is published, the government needs to be more open, for example, identifying how many are unemployed, how many are on a disability payments etc., but now, they must include how many people are on a shorter working week and therefore entitled to some form of benefits payment.

This would not change the situation, but it would, at the very least, provide the people of this country with a more accurate picture of the effects of shorter working weeks and/or salary sacrifices. That is to say, if employees opted to go to a 3 day week, rather than have the lottery of losing their job through a comparable reduction in the workforce of 40%, then this loss would not be accurately reflected in existing statistics. For example, if an employer with a 1,000 strong workforce reduced the working week from 5 to 3 days, many employees would be entitled to state benefits or support, but the published statistics would not reflect this. Whereas if they reduced the workforce by 40%, the statistics would pick up the fact that there was a further 400 people unemployed. I would hate to think that this government would be able to massage the true state of our employment situation in the same way as they do everything else!

I live in hope that an enterprising journalist or an MP will, respectively, use the freedom of information act, or a parliamentary question to find out the true state of affairs. Otherwise, we will all be lulled into a false sense of security believing that it is not as bad as it seems, whilst struggling to secure an interview. I hope, at the very least, Alistair Darling has considered this aspect before he presents his budget, otherwise he could find himself missing yet another target. Par for the course when it comes to this government, but increasingly unacceptable.

It is generally accepted that company directors have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. The word itself comes originally from the Latin fides, meaning faith, and fiducia, trust. In other words, a fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. As is the case of a company director.

If we assume that the directors of banks also have this fiduciary duty, why is it that they are being asked to resign, rather than being sacked? In addition to their fiduciary duty, directors must exercise a reasonable standard of care and act responsibly. Now, whilst there is some reasoned argument that the world economic situation compounded the problems our banks faced, it is ludicrous in the extreme to suggest that this is the sole reason for their demise and therefore, the need for vast amounts of taxpayers money to bail them out. With position comes responsibility, if the directors of our banks got it wrong, then they must pay the price. It is after all, they (collectively or otherwise), who made the decisions that ultimately lead to the failure of these once great institutions. Theoretically at least, if any director failed in their fiduciary duty, acted recklessly or without due care then, not only could they be sacked, but they could find themselves liable to a civil action. That notwithstanding, it is clear to me, that if ‘trust and confidence’ is an integral part of a fiduciary’s duty, then there has been a failure.

Government ministers have consistently talked about the fact that there must be “no reward for failure”, this pre-supposes that the bankers have failed,if this is the case, then by which yardstick? Is it in terms if their fiduciary duty, duty of care or that they have acted recklessly? If they have failed, then why were they allowed to leave voluntarily, with or without a compromise agreement? Why weren’t they sacked, why haven’t we heard ministers talk about suing directors that have failed? Could it be that those in public office also have a fiduciary duty and that they themselves could be subject to litigation? I don’t know the answers, I am no lawyer, but I say this, if there is no reward for failure, then there must be action against anyone that has failed in their duties. Not for revenge, but to prevent this happening again. In addition, if the government is correct in its assertion that certain bankers have failed, then surely, the right way to go is not to renege on the terms of any compromise agreement, but to sue the individual in their personal capacity. These individuals have either failed or they have not, ministers must be careful in making damning statements, yet failing to back them up with appropriate action.

I am not qualified legally or otherwise to determine whether or not any individual director has failed in their fiduciary duty. Therefore I am not suggesting anyone (bankers or otherwise) has acted improperly, I am relying only on the governments own words, that there should be no reward for failure, which implies that there has indeed been a failure. However, in the “court of public opinion” I would like to state for the record, that I believe there is merit, perhaps even a duty, for the government to seek legal advice on this matter, because they, as a majority shareholder in these banks, have their own fiduciary duty to the shareholders, you and me!

Hazel Blears has suggested that Labour MP’s should “get a grip” in relation to gossip about those seeking to take on the top job when Gordon Brown steps down. Like that is going to happy any time soon!

However, in my view it is Gordon Brown that must get a grip, of MP’s expenses. At a time when everyone is tightening their belts to ride the storm that for the most part has been created by this government, its policies and Gordon Brown’s mis-management, many MP’s are filling their pockets with tax free expenses. These expenses are funded by the hard pressed taxpayers of this country. I am not suggesting that MP’s are not following the letter of the rules, but they are quite clearly not following the spirit and that in my view this is an abuse. To make matters worse, people right at the centre of government are also abusing a set of rules that were introduced to assist MP’s in their out of pocket expenses, not enrich their lifestyles.

Take Jacqui Smith for example. She claims that the decision to call her sisters home her main residence is within the current interpretation of the rules and that may even be the case. But this woman is the Home Secretary, surely someone that sits at the top of the food chain in terms of law and order should act strictly within the rules, not simply in the spirit of them? She, with her fellow cabinet ministers, must set good examples, not simply sit with their noses in the trough. Members of Parliament are in the unique and privileged position of bring able to claim expenses quite freely that those in the private sector could only dream of.

It is estimated that Ms Smith has been able to claim as much as £116,000 tax free as a result of this interpretation of the rules. If an ordinary member of the public were to be asked how they would determine someone’s principle place of residence, they are likely to state that it would be where the rest of their family reside, where the kids go to school, where all the household accounts are held, where your banks and credit card statements go to etc. So why is it, that MP’s are given so much latitude? Simply this, that instead of MP’s expenses being a method of reimbursing out of pocket expenses, it has become a ‘perk’ of the job and that is completely and utterly unacceptable. The Jacqui Smith debacle follows, of course, directly on the heels of the uproar over Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper’s interpretation of the rules that allowed them to elect which property was their primary residence (subsequently upheld by the watchdog). The bottom line is MP’s cannot and should not be trusted to vote on and determine their own allowances or expenses.

MP’s expenses must be further simplified, instead of a second home allowance, they should be provided with a ‘fixed’ overnight allowance. That is to say, if they elect to stay in a hotel then the maximum allowance is, for example, £120 with a receipt, if they stay ‘with a friend’ etc., then this would be reduced to £50 per night, for which no receipt would be required. All other second-home allowances must cease, they are an unnecessary expense. In terms of travel expenses, MP’s should follow similar rules to most private companies, flights under 4 hours, they must travel economy class, using the cheapest possible airline. Another very generous allowance is vehicle mileage, instead of MP’s maximising the benefits of this perk, the reimbursement should be limited to what the cost of a standard fare train ticket would cost for the same journey. In other words, if it costs £100 for a return ticket from Nottingham to London and the mileage allowance for using a car pays £260, the MP can only claim £100.

Unless or until members of parliament start to live and operate to the same standards that everyone else does, the public will continue to view  them with mistrust and scepticism. That is not in the interest of our democracy, nor is it in the longer term interests of our MP’s. Gordon Brown needs to stop protecting his cabinet colleagues and instead, start to ensure that they operate to the same rules and standard as ordinary members of the public. Because, in my view at least, there is little difference between failed bankers of publicly owned banks paying themselves bonuses out of public coffers and MP’s who have failed to protect the interests of the electorate claiming massive expense allowances, especially.  In all of these cases, the final bill is paid for by hard-pressed taxpayers. Gordon Brown needs to understand, that at a time, for example, when he is going to fail to meet his reduction in child poverty targets, his MP’s are filling their own pockets with the same money. How does he expect the general public to view such duplicity?

How on earth do we stop this mad man that is Gordon Brown. Not only was he the architect of the financial system and regulation that lead us into this disastrous mess, but he is also the man that believes, he is more qualified than anyone else, to get us out of it. This deluded man is convinced that he bears no responsibility for what happened, even though everyone else knows differently. This vain man even seeks to lecture the leaders of other countries on what they must do to overcome the economic meltdown that is happening around our ears. This inept little man constantly tells the people of this country that the problems that have beset the United Kingdom are a direct result of economic and commercial mis-management in other countries, such as the United States. This incompetent man has the temerity to inform us that we are best placed to “weather the financial storm“. Yet he knows that this is not true and, that notwithstanding, no other economic expert agrees with his assessment. No doubt this could explain why it is that Gordon Brown has never told us why we are in a better position.

Gordon Brown, the unelected the prime minister of this country is a fool. He was a very poor Chancellor, arguably one of worst in our history. He has built on that well earned description by becoming one of the poorest, most incompetent prime ministers in recent times and there are plenty of former PM’s that could have been considered for that award. Any good leader would not assume that only he has all the answers and yet, Mr Brown constantly spouts on about the fact that he has the solutions and is best qualified to lead us out of this deep recession. A good leader would surround himself with knowledgeable people, not loyal soldiers, yes men and women, or business people seeking a knighthood or peerage for their ’services’. Any good leader would know that a top team would always challenge the status quo, keep them on their toes, ensure that they don’t start to believe their own publicity, question, cajole and nudge. Any good leader would not be cowed by strong people around them, but instead, seek their counsel, listen, question and heed. But, Gordon Brown has clearly demonstrated that he is NOT a good leader.

Let’s consider a few other things;

Gordon Brown, as Chancellor, was the architect of the tripartite arrangement formed between the Treasury, the FSA and the Bank of England. Yet it was the failure and inadequacies of this system which allowed interest rates to be reduced so low that a housing boom was inevitable. Each party failed to respond to the experts that had argued the housing bubble was unsustainable and there was likely to be a crash. It was the failure of this system that allowed banks to grow at a rapid rate utilising funds raised on the money markets rather than the more traditional route of saver deposits. It was the failure of this system that allowed banks to package new mortgage backed securities that were then traded, but so complicated; few people understood them or the associated risks. It was the failure of this system that permitted banks to create a culture driven by greed, short-term profits and rewarded with massive bonuses. It was this system, which was set up to control, regulate and manage the City and the economy that ultimately failed on all fronts. The architect of this tripartite arrangement was Gordon Brown and he is ultimately responsible, instead, each party points the finger at another in the triangle. Not one party has had the humility or honesty to admit any form of responsibility.

Yet Gordon Brown’s incompetence is every where, for example; In spite of experts advising him of the risks, it was Gordon Brown that raided private sector pension funds. Perhaps in the belief that private sector pensions were the preserve of the rich, rather than millions of ordinary hard-working people. In doing so, he has raised around £175bn in tax revenues. But, at what cost? Roughly two thirds of (private sector) final salary pension schemes have been closed to new members, large company pension schemes have ended up with massive deficits. Pension schemes have collapsed and, of course, those within the private sector that have not been protected by employers pumping more money in will receive much smaller pensions. Meanwhile, Gordon Brown has done nothing about the public sector final salary pension schemes, the majority of which are not funded through an annuity, but out of future tax revenues. The latest estimates put the public sector pension liabilities at a staggering £1,071bn, that is correct, BILLION. As a consequence on the government’s inaction, the ‘average’ pension enjoyed by someone in the public sector is nearly 15 times higher than that of the private sector. Another blinder from the iron chancellor that was supposed to be Gordon Brown.

Here are a few other things that Gordon Brown either presided over, or influenced as part of the government machine;

1. Introduced more stealth taxes than any other chancellor in history, equivalent to an extra 10p in the Pound on the basic rate of tax (source: Grant Thornton).
2. Solld the UK’s gold reserves at the bottom of the market ignoring expert advice not to.
3. Introduced ‘green taxes’ in the full and certain knowledge that any revenues gained were not destined to be invested in green initiatives. Yet another successful stealth tax to add to the collection. If you are starting to feel a little duped, then read on, I haven’t finished with Mr Brown yet!
4. Successfully achieved the goal of becoming prime minister without going through the inconvenience of being elected by the people. This in spite of the fact that New Labour gained their substantial commons majority with 57% of the voters supporting another party. So much for the benefits of our First Past The Post electoral system.
5. Was party to the sell out of the UK’s sovereignty to an unaccountable foreign ‘parliament’, in spite of a manifesto promise to allow the public to decide through a referendum.
6. Destroyed the union and in the process, ensured that his countrymen received more money per head than those in England and Wales.
7. Missed virtually every financial growth target announced in each successive budget without so much as a murmur from the press.
8. Successfully managed to dupe the press into believing that he was an iron chancellor driven by prudence, when in fact he was a spendthrift.
9. As the architect and driver of the revised PFI initiative originally proposed by the conservatives, saddled the country with a bill of £170bn which must be paid by 2032. Without having to include the figure as part of the public sector balance sheet.
10. Managed to keep the £780bn public pensions deficit off the books, even though this is equivalent to over £30,000 per household and must be paid out of future tax receipts. Estimates of this deficit have now been increased to over £1trillion.
11. Managed, without any consideration of the irony, to lecture people on their level of borrowings, whilst building up nearly £500bn of debt on the governments own ‘credit card’. If other recent liabilities are taken into account, this figure would rise substantially over £1trillion.
12. Introduced and supported a complicated tax credit programme that has managed to lose £2bn every year through fraud and errors.
13. Left the taxpayer saddled with £1.7bn of Metronet’s debt having been the person that pushed through the Private Public Partnership initiative for the London Underground.
14. Managed to convince the public that local authorities were responsible for the doubling of council tax. Meanwhile he was actually placing responsibility for all additional services firmly with the local councils.
15. Managed a real blinder, by camouflaging the inflation rate by changing the measurement from RPI to CPI.
16. Underwritten £17bn of debt for Network Rail, without having to include it on the public balance sheet.
17. Survived the embarrassment of claiming in March 2006 that 31,000 government employees had been trimmed off the payroll, whilst the Office for National Statistics claimed one month later, that the headcount had actually increased by 62,000 a difference of 93,000!
18. Managed to introduce such a complex set of rules and regulations, designed to extract maximum tax take that the annual Finance Act (summary of tax changes in the budget) has increased from 300 pages or so in the 1980’s to over 10,000.
19. At a time when businesses are struggling and people are having to tighten their belts, presided over a government that boasts some 78 acres of empty space in office buildings and grace and favour homes.
20. Managed to push another 3.5m people into the higher income tax bracket, using a favoured trick of ‘fiscal drag’, where the tax threshold is raised more slowly than earnings are rising, so that workers end up paying a higher proportion of their income in tax.
21. Twice shifted the timing of the ‘economic cycle’ in order that the so called “golden rule” would not be missed, resulting in a brazen massaging of the figures.
22. Ensured that there are now twice as many tax collectors as there are nurses, demonstrating firmly where the government’s priorities lie.
23. Masterfully convinced people that they are “better off under Labour” even though each family now pays more than £5,000 in extra tax, compared to 1997.

Then let’s take a look at how he has ‘fixed’ things, telling us how at least he was “doing something” as opposed to the Conservatives, who are, according to the supreme leader Mr Brown, the “do nothing party“.

He invested £billions of our money into the Royal Bank of Scotland, who are now expected to report a loss of £28bn. What level of due diligence was exercised before our money was invested into a bank with such massive liabilities? Now, we have a similar story with HBOS, here, losses have been reported at £11bn, same thing, did the government complete any due diligence prior to investing our money? I am not so worried about Lloyds TSB, they must answer to their shareholders, government and Gordon Brown must answer to the taxpayers.

Yet still more £billions of OUR money has been invested into the banking system by Gordon Brown, with the specific aim of easing lending to consumers and business as well as freeing up inter-bank lending. But this has come to nothing. Not satisfied with spending this money, yet more £billions has been pledged or spent on a bank ‘insurance scheme’ and, as is the nature of insurance, we can never truly know the extent of that commitment, other than the fact that with Gordon Brown’s track record, we know it will exceed all expectations. Over £1trillion has been spent or committed, for nothing, we have not been able to see ANY tangible benefit, in terms of what Mr Brown TOLD us we could expect.

In other words, he told us that our money was going to be used to achieve a specific objective or goal and nothing has happened. This time however, Gordon Brown has outdone himself, because nowhere in history, has a single politician spent so much money for so little, or more accurately, no return. Yet he is still there, grinning like a Cheshire cat and snarling at anyone who would dare question his actions. Anyone with an ounce of commonsense, for example, would have known that a 2.5% reduction in VAT would have little or no effect, set against a backdrop of high street retailers discounting up to 50% off the ticket price. But this arrogant little man went ahead, and as a consequence, he has wasted another £12.5bn or our money.

In the last week, much has been said about the fact that many of our most senior bankers have no relevant, professional qualifications. But ask yourself this, what qualifications has Gordon Brown got, (or did he have) that would qualify him to determine our economic future? None, zilch. He would normally be considered to have been qualified by experience, but just look above and you will see what his ‘experience’ leads to. The appointment of an inexperienced politician to the position of Chancellor of what was the 5th largest economy in the world, is akin to asking an engineering apprentice to act as Finance Director of BP.

But we are in a democracy; surely we don’t have to put up with this?

How naive we are as a people, we have been told we are in a democracy and we believed them. What type of democracy allows the coronation of a new prime minister, without any reference to the electorate? What type of democracy allows a party that received just 43% of the vote to have such a massive parliamentary majority? What type of democracy provides the PM with so much power, that he can spend or commit £1trillion without even referring the matter to a commons vote? What type of democracy allows its prime minister to continue damaging the country, its economy and its prospects without any way for the people to put a stop to it? What type of democracy allows a government to renege on a manifesto promise, without any form of recourse from the electorate?

What type of democracy allows a government to force through intrusive and overbearing legislation designed to spy on its own citizens, monitor their travel arrangements, emails, telephone calls, vehicle movements, medical records and share that information with another 780 government and private agencies? What type of democracy allows its government to shatter long held rights to privacy and liberty virtually unchallenged, to the detriment of the people? What type of democracy provides its people with no opportunity to impeach its leader if that person is considered to be acting against the interests of the majority? IT IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, it is an authoritarian dictatorship that serves the government of the time and not the people. We all need to catch a wake up, our whole parliamentary system needs a radical overhaul and members of parliament need to be reminded that they are supposed to serve the people, not themselves. If ever there was a case for the people of this country to have the power to push an eject button, this is it.

We, the people of this country need a way of bringing down a government or removing any minister that fails to act in our best interests, lies, or bullshits, not at a time that suits them, but when it suits us. Better still, we need to be ruled by people like us, not the self-serving, inward looking, expense grabbing, ego driven, twats that are currently lording it over us all. This description is not, of course, limited to the Labour Party, there are many people within other parties that simply do not give a toss about the electorate, other than once every 5 years or so when they would rely on our votes.

At prime minister’s question time, Gordon Brown told MPs: “We should agree as a world on a monetary and fiscal stimulus that will take the world out of r…, depression.” David Cameron did not immediately pick up on the use of this word, but when challenged later by George Osborne, the PM’s spokesperson said that it was a slip of the tongue.

Perhaps so, but it must have been on his mind, otherwise he would not have used such emotive terminology. Particularly given he had just finished lecturing Cameron on talking the economy down. It is however, precisely this sort of ’slip’ that must give the people of this country cause for concern over Brown’s capacity and ability to see us through this downturn coming, as it does, hot on the heels of his ’saving the world’ comment. When Gordon Brown makes errors like this, I cannot help but be reminded of Vince Cable’s comments referring to Brown as “Mr Bean”. Gordon Brown seems to go from one crisis to another in the spectre of a battering ram, rather than a well practiced, experienced politician. In my opinion, even his outbursts at PMQ’s are reminiscent of a spoilt child having a temper tantrum.

Little wonder then, that Gordon Brown has had problems, by his own admission, in getting Obama and the Indian Prime Minister to take his calls. Could this be because they are sick and tired of him lecturing them on economic fixes, when Gordon Brown and Labour Party policies have actually lead to the UK being in the worst position of any developed country to recover from this recession? From an outside observers perspective, I see Gordon Brown as a man of conviction, however, this appears to be offset by a man incapable of humilty, one that is unwilling to answer direct questions and a man who looks as if he will explode if anyone challenges him, so long as there are no members of the public or cameras present. Little wonder then that he appears to have surrounded himself with weak, self-obsessed people. Classic signs of a schoolyard bully.

In my view, Gordon Brown has few, if any redeeming features. I have never considered him to be a good chancellor, even when most of the newspapers, desperate for a scoop, kept pandering to him and what were the New Labour spin doctors. I also thought he would make an appalling prime minister, but in that respect, he has outdone himself, because I cannot find any adjective that could accurately describe his term…other than, perhaps, Mr Bean without the comedy. Time to go Gordon, do us all a favour!

In the meantime, David Cameron should prepare for office. By that I do not mean he must send all his friends details of his new address, I mean he needs to get some quality, experienced, heavyweight people behind him, ‘real’ people, not toffs or Oxbridge cast-off’s. Otherwise he will never shrug off the label ‘lightweight’ nor will he ever convince the people of this country that he knows what he is talking about. As I have said before, I believe that New Labour will lose the election, it will not be Cameron winning it, therefore, once in office Cameron must ensure that his key advisers and the people around him are ‘real’ people, because otherwise a man who has not experienced a recession, belt-tightening or poverty will find that whilst he may hold the office, he cannot claim to lead the people.

Which means that Cameron will just end up talking at us and continuing to use new phraseology that only he and his Conservative cronies fully understand.  Cameron has a real prospect of becoming PM, but I so hope he has the ability to understand that people will be voting New Labour out, his chance will come as a consequence of Labour’s failure, not his engaging personality, depth, sincerity or policies. It doesn’t really matter how he gets in, so long as Cameron listens, surrounds himself with people that will engage and challenge him, rather than blindly follow him. It is a strong leader, not a weak one, that is confident enough to surround himself with strong people and that is the BEST way to get rid of the lightweight tag.

Though I am no expert on the stock market crash of 1929 or the Great Depression that followed, what a pity that senior bankers and politicians did not study this subject and learn some of the lessons. There are so many parallels that it is uncanny and implies that people who should know better never learn their lessons.

In the run up to the Great Depression, ordinary people were allowed to purchase shares, whereas in the past it had been an exclusive club. In doing so, they increased demand and share prices started their relentless rise. This started to encourage more and more people to buy shares and, you’ve guessed it, the prices started to rise even further. The inexorable rise in share prices encouraged people to start to borrow in order that they could take advantage of the wealth creation that the stock market appeared to provide. The vast majority of these ordinary people had absolutely no idea how the stock market worked, it just looked like a one way bet. Brokers extended credit to share purchasers, in what became know as ‘margins’ whereby the purchaser could buy for example, $60,000 worth of shares, with just $6,000 of cash, the rest was borrowed.

The people of America felt rich, lifestyles improved after the austerity of the first world war and few people raised any doubts, those that did, such as President Hoover, tended to keep it to themselves, rather than be see as the Cassandra. Millions of people were encouraged to invest in the new gold rush that was the New York Stock Exchange, with little or no knowledge of the risks and inevitably with a ringing in their ears that you have to be ‘in it, to win it’. Banks and brokers stoked the money fever by extending loans secured on the shares. Inevitably the bubble burst, some were smart enough or lucky enough to get out before the crash, but they were few and far between. The vast majority of people lost all of their savings. There followed
the Great Depression, which lead to mass unemployment and affected virtually every corner of the world and it lasted 10 years. Some would argue that it also encouraged fascism and communism, if true, then it could well have been a precursor to the second world war.

If we exchange shares for houses, the parallels are uncanny. Many people have jumped on the housing bandwagon for fear of being left behind and a concern that if they were not a property owner, then they were nothing. In fact, there is some irony with that last statement because, as we all know, if you went to a bank and were a home owner, even if you owed £300k on your house, you were more likely to be able to secure another loan, than if you had no such liabilities because you rented. Somehow, owning a home had become the primary goal of a good proportion of the people of this country, actively encouraged by the banks. Loan to Value (LTV) ratios increased from around 75% to, in some cases, 125%. This implied that the banks felt that their investment was safe, because house prices would continue to rise, which meant that in a relatively short period of time, their risk would be covered by the rise in house prices.

If the banks felt that way, why would the buyers not? The ratios were also increased, allowing people to buy a house with multiples or 5 or 6 times their earnings, where previously this had typically been 2.5 times joint, or 3 times a single income. If that were not enough, many of the banks introduced ‘buy to let’ schemes, which allowed people with little or no money to build up a property portfolio in no time and of course, lead to an even greater demand for properties, leading to a further increase in house prices. So, everyone was making money, homeowners, the banks, mortgage companies, estate agents and of course, your friend and mine Gordon Brown, in the form of the Treasury.

After the 1929 stock market crash, Hoover introduced the Securities & Exchange commision to regulate US markets, this had the desired affect. However, over the past 20 years or so, the rules and regulations have been relaxed, seen as no longer necessary and much of what we witness in the United States today can be attributed to the easing of those regulations. Similarly, the much vaunted deregulation of the City was also a pre-cursor to the problems we all face today. Light regulation and a hand-off approach by government and the regulators has allowed the banks to enter very high risk transactions which many people struggle to understand. Yet, in doing so, they have clearly bet everything on it, presumably because they also though they couldn’t lose. Now, clearly all of us must take personal responsibility for our respective levels of borrowings, but easy money is difficult to refuse especially when it is being rammed down your throat on a daily basis, in the newspapers, on TV, in the shops and via direct mail campaigns.

However, when people hold senior positions, in banks, commerce and government, we could all be forgiven for believing that they are well read, experienced, shrewd and knowledgeable. In fact, we tend to take it for granted, how else would they have secured senior positions with such huge responsibilities? As chancellor, Gordon Brown in particular and the Labour government in general have let us down, their collective naivety lulled us all into a sense of false security, with Gordon Brown using the oft repeated mantra that his government policies would lead to an end of “Tory boom and bust”.

We can be forgiven for believing that a man in such a position would be best placed to know whether that was true or not, but instead, we have all come to realise, that politicians do not earn their position because of their knowledge, but instead, where they sit in the party. In other words, they learn on the job. Imagine placing a 10 year old in charge of a London bus if you will! Similarly, bankers have created new financial products, which are so complicated, that few, if any, could actually understand the risks associated with bundling mortgage securities. At best their actions could be described as reckless, but a far better description maybe of a desperate gambler playing for high stakes.

The regulators appear to have either been overwhelmed at the scale of these new securities or, more likely, unable to understand the complexities. As a consequence, those that were entrusted with our financial security, government ministers, regulators and banks, have seriously let the people of this country down, as well as shareholders, many of whom are you and I with pension funds invested in the stock market.

What is particularly galling is the fact that no-one wants to accept responsibility. On top of that, the same people that got us into this mess are, for the most part, still in the same positions. Asking us to believe that they have all the answers. Even though, had they studied their subject matter better and read up on the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great depression, many of the problems we are facing today could have been anticipated and perhaps even avoided. Governments around the world want us to believe that their solutions will work, but how do they really know, what confidence can we have in their solutions? They are spending £trillions on propping up banks, business and economies, but all of this money is borrowed, have they learnt nothing?

The rest of us are having to tighten our belts, but our governments are spending our money in what appears to be a last throw of the dice. They are all frightened of another depression, aren’t we all, but sometimes it is necessary for a period of reflection, instead, governments around the world appear to be thrashing around, panicking in a last throw of the dice. We all find ourselves asking where will it all end, not when?

We must all learn lessons from this. But one fundamental lesson is that no member of parliament should be allowed to take up a position unless they have prior experience. For example, no current cabinet minister has ever run their own business, so what do they know of the problems being faced by business people? When was the last time that an experienced person was placed in charge of the second largest employer in the world, the National Health Service? Take a look at Miliband, he is wet behind the ears, lacks depth and credibility, he may be ’smooth’ but he does not look like someone that is well read. In fact, he even managed to offend the Indian government on his last visit, are these the sort of people we want to be representing us on the world stage? What of Jacqui Smith, she finds it difficult to string a sentence together has allowed the police and other agencies to trample all over our civil liberties and lacks any obvious gravitas? Little wonder that we are in a mess.

In my view, government ministers and bankers must be called to account because they have demonstrated what appears to be a reckless disregard for the interests, respectively of the people of this country and the interests of their shareholders.

It is a time for change and this must include a look at how or on what basis members of parliament are given key cabinet posts. In no other business or industry I know of do people with little or no experience get elevated to such senior positions based on nothing other than a handshake. Never again should the people of this country be lead by donkeys. We will come out the other side, most likely in spite of this government intervention rather than because of them, but when we do, the people’s voice must be heard. We must demand change.

Is it just me or are we are all becoming a little blasé about money, or to be more accurate, the number of noughts that follow the £ sign? Let me explain. Ever since Gordon Brown announced a massive £500bn plus bailout of the banking sector, commentators and politicians have been talking about £billions in the same way as they used to talk about £millions. In other words, everyone seems a little punch drunk. In the sales arena, the constant mentioning of large amounts of money was known as conditioning, if you keep talking about £65k BMW’s, then when the salesman mentions ‘just’ £15k for a new Vauxhall, it sounds like a bargain. However, in my little world, a £million is still a lot of money, especially when you consider how long it takes us to hand that amount of money to successive governments.

At a time when everyone is having to tighten their belt, this government has announced that they will increase spending from £620bn to £650bn, the conservatives tell us that they will “only” increase it by £25bn. Forgive me, but this sounds like an awful lot of money! In my personal life and indeed my business life, I have always understood and accepted that there are excesses, in other words, there have always been things that I want, rather than need. Therefore, when times are hard, I am obliged to deal with my excesses, to reduce my outgoings and I suspect, that this will be going on in the majority of homes and business up and down the land. This is a painful but necessary evil when times are hard. Not so for the government. No, instead, they tell us how they are going to spend more money, not how they are going to provide better value. The conservative are no better, because they say that they will just spend less (£5bn), but their proposals still amounts to an increase of £25bn!

By spending our money more wisely, buying what we need, rather than what we would like and curbing our wasteful habits, I suspect that most of us could, conservatively, reduce our outgoings by around 10%, possible considerably more. I didn’t say it would be easy, nor did I say all of us, so please accept that I am referring to most, not all of us. If this is a reasoned argument, why is it that the government cannot reduce their own waste, surely they are not going to argue that they are lean and mean or that all of our money is spent both wisely and without excess? Not a cat in hells chance. Surely, it would be better to reduce government waste and excess to channel the savings into more relevant or deserving causes, rather than just borrowing more money. The government is effectively condoning living on the never, never. Failing to practice what they preach. What angers me most, is that the conservative party, petrified of being accused of being the party of cuts, has failed to talk convincingly about value for money, getting the most of each taxpayer pound collected or borrowed.

With an election likely to be just around the corner, now is the time for the other parties to get tough. I am not talking about an austerity speech, nor a doom and gloom scenario, as has become the conservative party mantle. No, I am referring to a party, any party, that offers realistic hope, leadership and direction. One that refers to government money as taxpayers money, borrowings as future liabilities and above all, the use of taxpayers money in terms of value, not numbers to be bandied about. The people of this country do not need to see doom and gloom whenever they turn on the TV or read a newspaper, the majority of us know that times are tough and that they will be for the foreseeable future. What we need to witness, are politicians that appear to know what they are talking about (a very rare bread) and political parties that truly demonstrate that they know how to run a country and a good start would be how to spend taxpayers money wisely in order that we, the taxpayers, receive maximum bang for our buck.

Politicians and government must stop ‘conditioning’ the British people by constantly bombarding us with numbers most of us simply can’t envisage or picture. Instead, they must do what most normal people managing household budgets do when times get tough. Ensure that we are getting value for money. It is, after all, possible to spend more money on a holiday if someone gives up smoking, or to buy a better car if we shop at Aldi’s instead of Sainsbury’s, buy tea instead of coffee, drink tap water instead of bottled or even to survive the recession if we cut our cloth to suit our circumstances. It is a question of priorities. Government, whoever they are, have a responsibility, in fact a duty, to ensure that they spend or invest taxpayers money wisely. They must not be allowed to pour more money into a bucket which is already leaking taxpayers money.

Gordon Brown has been thrusting himself about the world stage as he tries, unsuccessfully in my opinion, to appear like a sort of financial guru. I honestly believe that many world leaders are laughing at him behind his back. Only someone as naive and self-obsessed as Gordon could run around having virtually single-handedly destroyed the UK economy and think he is King Economy. The man is a fool, but then most objective British citizens already know that. Anyway, let me get to my point.

As we all know, the Labour government spin machine always leaks its own announcements early so that they can guage ‘public opinion’, normally expressed by what the newspapers say (rather than the public), before making any final tweaks to their policy announcements. However, if the leaks are to be believed it looks, once again, that Gordon Brown is going to continue with his social engineering project, otherwise known as Robin Hood from Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.

It would appear that Gordon Brown does not believe that everyone is suffering as a consequence of his handling of the economy for the past 11 years and the subsequent recession. Oh, no, Gordon Brown from his taxpayer funded home in Downing Street, believes that it is only those on “low incomes” that are in need of tax breaks. What world is he living in? He has spent 11 years long years targeting so called middle income earners with his tax increases, using this section of the community to fund his extravagant, cost-loaded experiment to re-distribute wealth. Now having squeezed the middle income earners until they are bordering on relative poverty, he has now abandoned them, by saying that any tax breaks will be targeted at “low income earners”.

During New Labour’s reign, top earners have remained relatively neutral in terms of total tax take, low income earners have benefited dramatically through allowances, tax breaks and various forms of income support and middle income earners have been seriously and relentlessly shafted. Now, he has got away with it so far, because the golden goose did not really feel all the affects of his shafting, as a consequence of a booming economy and the relative wealth created by higher house prices. That of course is no longer the case. As the economy starts to contract, the golden goose is starting to feel the pinch and because they were the primary target for revenue raising, they are feeling it more than any other section of the community. In spite of this, Gordon brown in his cosseted environment, turns his back on the very people that have funded his social engineering experiements.

Now I know that Gordon Brown needs to guarantee his core vote, many of whom will come from the lower earners and rightly so, because lets face it, they have been the only winners over the past 11 years. But he needs to understand that it was the votes of the middle income earners that actually brought New Labour to power and that irony cannot be lost on this section of the community. Nonetheless, it is all a bit academic, because there is no way that Labour will win the next election, even if Gordon Brown went around at Christmas and gave every Labour voter a £1000, oh sorry, that is the plan isn’t it, hope I haven’t spoiled anyone’s surprise!

Now enough of my sarcasm. Gordon Brown does need to provide a fiscal stimulus and I believe that everyone is agreed on that, even David Cameron, it won’t prevent the recession, but it may create enough of an impetus to save a few jobs and keep some businesses going if correctly targeted. However, it would appear that Gordon Brown intends to offer tax breaks in the form of increased allowances for low earners only. No widespread stimulus, just a further, last ditch attempt at social engineering, except this time, he can’t take anymore money from middle income earners, instead, he has to borrow it. Worst still, one of the reasons that Gordon Brown prefers to offer increased ‘benefits’ is he can always exaggerate the numbers, but this is not the time for one of his infamous smoke and mirror exercises. The economy will only get a boost if the money is real and tangible.

Gordon Brown has repeated many times that this is a unique set of events that requires a unique set of solutions and I couldn’t agree more. But he is just promising more of the same, take from one section of the community and pass to another, except this time, he wants to store the cost, so that middle income earners can pay it later. The man is a fanatic, he quite clearly has an ingrained almost psychopathic hatred of middle income earners.

What is needed is a simple and properly funded fiscal stimulus, which benefits everyone, not one section of the community. Everyone is suffering from the downturn in terms of the increases in fuel and utility bills, council tax, caps on wages, reduced pension benefits, insurance costs, travel, shopping bills, job losses, the list is endless. They all need to be able to see the benefit of a fiscal stimulus and the best way to do this is a reduction in the basic rate of tax. Everyone knows that Gordon Brown always exaggerates the affects of any government ’giveaways’ whilst moving swiftly over the small print that invariably takes back any benfits, with interest, so the reality is, most people have learned not to trust a word he says. Therefore, he more than anyone, needs to ensure that any stimulus is kept simple and results in people being able to keep more of their own money. This is no time for treasury tricks.

He also need to offer targeted assistance to small business, they employ 12.5m people and many, as a consequence, will not have huge cash reserves, nor can they go to the bank or shareholders. He ignores this area of business at his peril, small and medium businesses generate nearly 50% of UK Plc’s GDP, not an area to be ignored.  David Cameron’s suggestions are weak and will offer very little assistance to small business, I have already outlined what I think needs to be done for small business in a previous post.

The bottom line is many of the problems we are facing today are because Gordon Brown allowed, (inspite of warnings about the risks), this country to continue a relentless boom on the back of easy credit and rising house prices. He could and should have done something about it, but he chose not to. Our economy was booming and the relative tax take was increasing anyway, still he opted to introduce many, many stealth taxes. Often, but not necessarily, disguised as green taxes, but invariably targeted at middle income earners. This was not enough for the man Brown, on top of all that, he increased public borrowing during this period, spending like a man possessed, not saving anything for a rainy day. He was reckless in his handling of the economy and he allowed the public to become reckless, by not introducing measures to cool,things down, because it would have been unpopular and inevitably, would have required him to reign in his social engineering project.

As a consequence of this mans actions, not only has his reckless behaviour virtually bankrupted this country, it also means that Gordon Brown owes a massive personal debt to the people of this country. He can start to pay that debt by stop trying to be clever and spinning the numbers. He can help redeem himself in part by offering an apology to the people he has shafted in is quest to be the hero of the low income earners, by introducing a universal 5% reduction in direct income tax. This must be funded through capital project cuts and a good start would be all of these unpopular information technology projects that are invariably doomed to failure, always have substantial cost overruns and in most cases are not wanted by anyone and in particular the public. He must also tighten his belt on other forms of government spending, just like everyone else has to do in difficult times. Government has become a very lucrative place to do business, because many of those charged with negotiating terms are no match for the very professional, highly paid, highly skilled sales people on the other side of the desk. This has to stop!

New Labour’s social engineering project was a failure in terms of value, although I do accept that low income earners are substantially better off than they were when New Labour came to power. However, were it not for a booming economy, it could have been safely argued that Gordon Brown actually reduced the gap between low and middle income earners so much that they the differences are no longer discernable. Because as he boosted income for low earners, he took this money of middle income earners, pushing one section up and the other down. This will become self-evident as the New Labour Boom turns to Bust. Thanks Gordon!

Well I have argued that there needs to be a combination of monetary and fiscal cuts in order that the economy can receive a well needed stimulus, although I am not naive enough to believe that it will stave off a recession. This country is already in a recession, even if the official measures used to determine a “real” recession have not yet been met, all we can do is try to lessen the impact on people, jobs and business.

Gordon Brown has indicated over the weekend that he believes fiscal policy should include tax cuts and rumours abound as to the extent of such cuts, with estimates of £480 per person through to an annual estimate of £15bn in tax cuts. Whatever the case, there are two things which I am wary of. The first, that Gordon Brown has a habit of double counting and this is no time for a sales pitch. The economy needs a real injection of cash and the people of this country need to know that they have a little more money in their pockets, no sales pitch is going to change that, so Gordon Brown, beware of New Labour spin. The second is the form that tax cuts will take.

Some “experts”  have suggested a temporary cut in VAT. What are they smoking? Lets take a look at that proposal shall we? There is no VAT on food, council rates, children’s clothes etc., what many will call essential items. Where VAT is charged, how can we be certain that retailers, keen to impress their shareholders and hold onto their bonuses, will not take the opportunity to increase their margins? Thereby minimising the affect of any price reduction which ought to be brought about by a fall in VAT to the proposed 12.5%. Also, there is the cost to business, especially small business, they are the organisations and people that will have to deal with the major changes to their business that would be brought about as a consequence of a short-term change in VAT. Are these people really advising the government? I hope Gordon Brown is not listening, fortunately, not one of his strong points.

What we need is a simple, clear cut, obvious reduction is direct taxation. It must be one that is both tangible and visible, no messing around withallowances, tax credits and bandings. Instead, there should be a significant reduction in direct taxation and I have suggested this should be a reduction in the bottom rate of tax from 20% to 15 %, with all other banding’s remaining static, so the full effect benefits everyone, in a way that cannot be fiddled. Fiddling, with one or 2% will make little or no difference to the man on the street. There is no point in targeting cuts to the poorest sections of the community, because,put simply, everyone is affected, especially so called “middle England”, that has funded virtually every one of New Labour’s ‘feel good’ initiatives over the past 11 years, through proportionately higher taxes.

I doubt that it will be possible to fully-fund such tax cuts, which I think, at least for the time being, should be limited for a period of 3 years, to provide the personal reassurance that most people seek in their lives. However, in these uncertain times, I go against my instincts in terms of government borrowing if required to as a result of a ‘funding gap.  I would insist, however, that some funding is gained through cuts in non-essential government and believe me there is a great deal of that. For example, the Big Brother Britain database estimated at a cost of £12bn, should be cancelled altogether, the NHS database, estimated to cost in the region of £32bn, should be shelved in the short-term and re-considered in the medium term, based on a genuine cost versus return basis. Other database systems, that this government has so badly commissioned, budgeted for and managed should also be shelved until such time as the economy recovers, this would include everything related to ID cards. The cost of being part of the European Union is rising year on year, our ministers need to ensure that the European Parliament also looks at their costs in these difficult times, so that member countries can see a reduction in their ‘dues’. A good start would be to stop the European Parliament introducing draconian, liberty busting, politically correct rules and legislation, which costs money as well as stripping everyone of their national identities.

At this difficult economic time, we must also consider revising the $5bn overseas aid budget, this amounts to 1.5% of all tax receipts and cannot, therefore be ignored. Similarly, the public sector now employs some 1 in 5 of all those employed in this country, it has bloated and is arguably out of control. Equally, the cost of public sector, final salary pension schemes is paid for out of tax revenues, not a pension fund, therefore, the costs are enormous. This needs to be curtailed, the economy cannot afford such generous pension schemes, particularly when the private sector, who were hammered 11 years ago by Gordon Brown, have ‘pensions’ on average, worth just 1/15th of the public sector schemes.

Mere mortals like me, do not get provided witha detailed set of fiancial accounts for UK Plc, therefore I am unable to go through each and every expenditure line, but one thing is certain, you can guarantee that there is waste and excess in a public sector the size of ours and it needs to be dealt with. The way any businesses would do at a time of crisis. The adult population are better positioned than the government to determine where any additional money is spent, which is why any tax cuts must be via direct taxation, not indirect taxes, lets face it, it is our money in the first place. But whatever happens, it will never cost as much as the headline figure the government use to sell the cuts. Because, if people buy, companies prosper, business tax revenues are preserved or rise, VAT is paid, more people are employed, therefore less benefits are paid out, even if people save, many of them will be taxed on the interest. The government never loses.

For the record, I do not believe that bringing forward public sector infrastructure projects is the right way to go. The impact would be very limited, and the benefits disproportionate to the costs. Most of these projects would be PFI initiatives and, mark my word, history will look back at these PFI contracts and wonder why it was, that a government was awash with tax receipts, would enter into contracts which are akin to a consumer buying their houses at credit card rates, rather than on a traditional mortgage.

David “the cupboard is bare” Cameron, with his austerity speech, which I am sure he thought would make him look clever and responsible is in a tight corner. Traditionally the Conservative party has been the party of tax cuts and enterprise, he has fallen into a trap and it was one of his own making. David Cameron thought we needed to be told how bad things were, we didn’t, because we can feel it! A good leader must never, never back himself into a corner, now he must either eat a bit of humble pie, or, more likely for a British politician, he will come out with a fudge. Either way, he made a mistake and he will pay dearly for it. He will not be forgiven for allowing Gordon Brown, one of the most despised men in this country, get away with using former tory policies, at a time when people want them most.

Let me provide David Cameron with one piece of advice, something that he will not appreciate from his privileged upbringing. There is no point in having a balanced budget if you die of starvation in the process. Government takes our money at will, then they spend it on their favourite pet project or group, without consultation, in the process, they keep as much as 35% of our money on ‘administration costs’. If government were an investment fund, it would need a bailout every year, in fact that is what they get, it is just government take our money when they get a bit short, forever dipping into our pockets when we are not looking, a kind of distraction theft. I have always voted conservative in the past, but this lightweight, ill-considered leadership provided by David Cameron frustrates the hell out of me, he just doesn’t seem to have a clue.

Now come on guys, whatever your party colours, pull your finger out. Do what is necessary to help the people of this country, interest rate cuts were the first part, the second is a reduction in direct taxation and the third to reduce wasteful public expenditure. To have a short term impact, the second was contingent of the first, but the second should not be contingent on the third, because the third must always be part of responsible government. Stop whining about losing your seats or creaming yourselves over the thought of winning the next election by default, not one of you has earned your pay yet, so you are all, still very much on trial. If you don’t grow up, we could see quite a few members of the Monster Raging Loony Party, as people register their protest. Still, from what I can see from the current crop of MP’s, it couldn’t be much worse.

Rant over, but have left in typo’s, poor grammar and other errors so you can see just how much I have smashed into this keyboard, off to PC World now to see if they have any cheap keyboards.

Yesterday, I wrote an article suggesting how this government could reduce taxes to help stimulate growth in the economy. This was partly a Keynesian approach, given I argued that it was possible that these tax cuts could be self-funding, if my proposals worked. The reason for this was, if we do nothing, there is likely to be a significant surge of people claiming benefits, rather than generating income for government coffers. My proposal was, if the government was going to borrow to invest, they would be better off doing so, with a natural stimulus, rather than bringing forward capital building projects which would only benefit a small section of the economy.

My proposal, amongst other things, was that government should reduce the basic rate of personal tax by 5%. Over a period of 3 years, this would cost around £45bn, less than 10% of the cost of the banking bailout. However, by allowing us to retain more of our own money, we could decide how and where we would spend the extra money we were ‘permitted’ to retain. If we were to spend it in much the same was as we did before the crash, my argument was and is, that more small and medium sized business would survive and therefore more people would remain in employment. I noted that some 13.5m people were employed by small businesses and these same companies accounted for, just shy of 50% of UK Plc’s output. However, I also noted, that the Keynesian approach was that government should adopt a balanced budget, that is to say, they should cut back government spending in certain areas, to allow them to invest in other areas. Having read my post this morning, addressing the usual, inexcusable typos, I decided that I should expand on my own theory.

For example, my pet hate is the government’s proposed Big Brother Database, which I think is a massive attack on the civil liberties of every person in this country and an unforgivable intrusion into our right to privacy. That said, this government, if it goes ahead with this initiative, is expected to spend some £12bn on this massive Big Brother Database. Now quite apart from the fact that we know this government has never yet managed to bring an IT project in on budget, the figure that needs to be allocated is huge.

Therefore, the question I wanted to ask was:
Which would you prefer a Big Brother Database that infringes our civil liberties and intrudes on our privacy at a cost of £12bn or an immediate 4% cut in the basic rate of income tax for at least 1 year? From 20% to 16%? - I know what my answer will be.

Then I went on to look at other large government capital expenditure projects, this time I focused in on the much criticised NHS Database Project. It is worth noting that the original cost was estimated to be £2.3bn, by 2006 that had rocketed to £12bn, with some independent estimates suggesting it could cost as much as £32 billion. Most medical professionals question the viability of this project, the public have barely been consulted on such a massive project and even though some £2bn has already been spent, there is little to show for it. So, lets be generous, and take a middle figure between the governments estimate of £12bn and the independent estimates of £32. This leaves us with a likely cost of £22bn.

Therefore, my question is:
Which would you prefer, to shelve or cancel the NHS Database or receive an immediate cut in the basic rate of income tax of 5% for at least 18 months? The reason I have said ‘at least’ is because if this additional money prevents people losing their jobs and claiming benefits, then it would be possible to extend the period of the tax cut, perhaps indefinitely.

So what of the ID Database Project. Yes, I know, this government is completely obsessed with databases, it is a pity, they do not also consider the massive security risks associated with having all of this information on computers. However, I digress, this particular project, is simply aimed at having all of our personal ID information in one place. The cost, an eye-watering £5.4bn.

So, once again, my question is, which would you prefer, an ID database where only the government and its agents see the benefit, or an immediate cut in the basic rate of income tax of 2%, for a least one year, from 20% to 18%?

My basic premis is that this government has an obsession for massive information technology projects, most of which have been so poorly considered, specified and planned that they are either doomed to failure or massive cost overruns. This governments track record of waste is well documented and appalling. Most of these pet projects are not wanted by the public and it has to be said, the vast majority will allow government to know everything their is to know about every single legal citizen in this country. Because this government is obsessed with using IT to spy and control its subjects. At this time, the biggest threat to our security (apart from the government itself) and our well being, is the state of our economy, not terrorism. Yet no-one from government has suggested shelving, postponing or cancelling any of these Big Brother databases. Even though, combined, these 3 projects alone, will cost a staggering £40bn. If the government were to add an extra £5bn, we could all benefit from a reduction in the basic rate of income tax of 5%. From 20% to 15%, for a period of 3 years, if we are lucky, this would be able to see us through this period of recession. In addition, as I have argued earlier, if this money is invested into the economy by us, then jobs could be saved, government would benefit from the revenues brought about by indirect taxes, business taxes and fewer unemployed claiming benefits.

So, my final question, is which would you prefer? Government to spend £40bn on 3 highly questionable information technology projects at a time of this massive economic downturn, or more money in your pocket. £40bn on IT projects, or a 5% cut in the basic rate of tax for 5 years. QED!

Footnote:
I have also argued strongly for a significant, simultaneous cut in the Bank of England bases rates from 4.5%, to 2%, with all taxpayer funded banks being ‘required’ to pass on this cut to their customers. This will reduce the number of repossessions and/or increase the amount of money available to us, to reinvest into the economy. I am sure there will be economists out there that can or will pick holes in my arguments, well go ahead, someone needs to come up with some ideas, because it is pretty clear to me, this government hasn’t got a clue, the Conservative Party has backed themselves into a corner with their negative, one size fits all ‘austerity’ assessment of our economic future and none of the other parties have any influence. Sad, but true!