Breaking the cycle

In case you haven't noticed, I am more than a little sceptical about the coalition governments plans to fix our economy. More than this, I am not convinced that any current political party - or coalition thereof - understands what our economy needs long term for real growth based on wealth rather than pseudo growth based on debt.

I believe that we are set for a decade of, at best, stagnation and inflation - stagflation they used to call it - and, at worst, a full blown, full on depression that will have profound and long term consequences for this nation, its people, their living standards and prosperity. Nothing I have seen from government or read in the media has changed my mind about this - indeed, I've read various articles from various sources which tend to support my view.

However, even if I am wrong and this coalition does manage to stave off the worst case scenario in the short to medium term there remains the problem of what happens in the future when we are back to where we were - say - in 2000?

This coalition - from both the Lib Dems and Conservative flanks - have made much of how they are a "progressive" government. Both the Prime Minister and his Chancellor have claimed that they are progressive politicians and dedicated to the causes of progressivism - and, by implication, the fallacies that ideology is based on.

Consequently, there is no reason to believe that once the economy is "fixed", they will not resort to throwing money into schemes and ideas which progressivism favours - and all that entails. For me there are two major problem areas with this - welfare and manufacturing.

The problem regarding welfare is perhaps the most obvious. Progressivism insists on certain universal "truths" which are either uncertain or patently wrong. For example, the belief that crime is linked to poverty and that if you give people enough money they won't commit crime is clearly daft - but it is considered a "truth" by progressives.

Hence they pour billions of pounds every year into "supporting" criminals and their lifestyles in the vain hope this will solve the problem. It doesn't, of course, because crime is not caused by poverty but by greed, avarice and laziness - and welfare supports all of these traits.

That's just one example of many, but the point I'm trying to make is that to genuinely have a hope of fixing Britain's problems in the long term we need a government committed to breaking the cycle of dependency which so many people in Britain have fallen into. That needs a government that is tough and, above all, socially conservative - because any government that subscribes to the social liberal position is going to fall into the same traps as previous social liberal governments.

There isn't a hope in hell that this coalition will have either the will or the strength needed to break that cycle so the only conclusion that can be reached is that, even in the unlikely event that they do sort out our current problems, they will only make the same mistakes as Brown, Blair and Major.

Remember, before the "credit crunch" struck and the reality of our "economic miracle" was exposed, Cameron and his party backed the Labour government spending plans completely. It was only after the dire situation was revealed that the Tories decided to change tack - and then only marginally.

They do not have the answers. They don't even understand the questions. All they have is the same misguided beliefs that Brown and Blair had and the result will be exactly the same.

Disaster

Opportunity knocks

In a comment to the previous post, Steve suggests that it may take two generations or more to rebuild our nation once the progressives have finally disappeared up their own backsides - as they very shortly will. To be honest, up until a few years ago I shared this view, but my viewpoint has changed somewhat due to events.

First of all, let me say that Britain - or an independent England - will never be the nation it once was in terms of economic and political clout, but it doesn't need to be. The main reason for this is that the economic power base has shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific and this is unlikely to change back again quickly. So whatever happens, we can never be anything other than on the periphery. That doesn't really matter - and in many ways it is no bad thing.

What matters is that we restore our nation to where it was before the progressives took over and that can be done in a very short space of time. It always has been possible to reverse the damage done by the progressives, but the longer they held power the harder it would be - as long as things remained stable.

But thanks to the economic mess that the progressives - both here, in Europe and in the USA - have wrought, things will not remain stable - and this is the crucial point. While there was the semblance of normal economic stability (I say that because it is now apparent that the economic "miracle" of the progressive era was founded on substantially dodgy ground) it would have taken decades to reverse the damage.

We have become so dependent on the state in so many ways that it would have been impossible to roll back these barriers. That was always part of the plan of progressives - make the people dependent and then they will never give up those things on which they depend.

However, so great is Britain's public debt liability that total economic collapse is now not just a possibility, it is an inevitability. To understand why that is, I suggest you read this piece on the American Thinker. They are obviously talking about the USA, but the same things apply here in Britain.

When this happens all of the structures that the progressives put in place to protect their dominance will come tumbling down. It will not be pretty and it will not be easy, but it will happen and when it does it will be end of the progressive era for good.

From that point on, the rebuilding can begin under social conservative leadership. It will be hard work and it will require strong governance, but the rise will be rapid and in ten years we will have restored our nation to a self-reliant, independent, fully functioning country once more.

The problem for social conservatism has always been the existence of the dependency culture. The economic crisis that is about to hit us - much much harder than the depression of the thirties - provides an opportunity which must be taken.

I'd rather it hadn't happened and I'd have preferred it if it wasn't necessary - but it has and it is and when opportunities like this present themselves we must grab it with both hands. Even if we don't and the opportunity passes us by I still believe that we will roll back the damage of the progressive era. As I said in the last post, the coming generation show every sign that they are not keen on the progressive ideology - but that way will be slow and just as arduous.

If we miss this opportunity then we will be struggling for the next 50 years to overcome our problems, but if we take it when it comes then we will have restored our nation to the peaceful, independent, self-reliant and contented nation it once was inside of two decades. Who knows, I might actually live to see Britain great again!

Fair questions

Both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats have put "fairness" as their overarching principle in their manifestos.

Sounds good in theory - but what does it mean in practice?

Is it fair that a straight A student is denied a place in their chosen university because the state decrees that that child comes from the wrong background?

Is it fair that a hard working couple with a couple of kids have to pay for a service that only lazy, itinerant, selfish criminals use?

Is it fair that pensioner who fought for his country in WW2 is not allowed to enjoy a cigarette with his half of bitter in the local pub that he has frequented for forty years? And is fair that that pensioner - who has paid more than his fair share in tax for his smoking habit - is denied health care because he enjoys a perfectly legal pursuit while violent junkies addicted to illegal narcotics are given free health care, expensive treatments and substitute narcotics for their indulgent and illegal behaviour?

Is it fair that a man who has scrimped and saved for years to buy his own home is forced to sell that home just to pay for the care that the lazy, frivolous and wasteful get for nothing?

Is it fair that public sector workers receive pay increases higher than the rate of inflation at a time when private sector workers - whose taxes pay for those pay rises - are facing pay freezes and even pay cuts?

I could go on and on - but my point is simple.

Labour and the Lib Dems have no real interest in fairness - like so many other words and phrases it is just something they bandy about because they know it sounds good. Their only interest is in penalising the hard working, the self reliant, the responsible, the law abiding and the conscientious to fund their every expanding client state.

It's no wonder they scoff - they aren't the ones paying!

The bunch of Moslems who hurled abuse and defamed British soldiers returning from active duty scoff at their £500 fines and use the television cameras to claim that they will continue their foul and vitriolic abuse of British men and women no matter how many fines they get.

Seeing how they are all living on benefits and that, ultimately, it is us - the British taxpayer - that pays their fines this is hardly surprising. Personally, I can't afford to keep paying the fines for other peoples wrong doing.

Welfarism at work. Don't you just love it?

Hit the selfish where it hurts

I was absolutely flabbergasted to hear that a 22 year old single mother of four kids all aged under 5 who abandoned her children while she indulged herself in a 24 hour drink and drugs binge has escaped prison. It sends out the wrong message to both the general public and other young single serial mothers who see children as an easy way to obtain benefits, money and free housing.

All her children should be taken into care and this self-centred woman should spend the next two years in prison. Her home should be given to someone more deserving and she should be told that she will not receive a single penny in benefits ever again. Why should she when she just spends it on getting drunk and shovelling illegal drugs into her body? Why should anyone who spends the money taken from hard working tax payers on selfish hedonistic pleasure get any benefits?

Most people, including me, don't have a problem with a welfare system that provides relief for those who have a genuine need, but far too often and for an increasing number of people it is seen as a way of life which enables them to live a life of indolence and selfishness.

What we need is a welfare system which is compassionate to those in genuine need and uncompromisingly harsh on those who try to play the system. These selfish people are taking money away from the genuine needy. When they are caught out doing so they must be told that they will never ever get a single penny of state assistance ever again.

Role models

To be quite frank, I'm utterly bored with the various rows over MPs expenses. It's not that I don't think what they are doing is morally wrong if not necessarily illegal - it's just that I don't understand why anyone is in the least bit surprised by it.

In the grand scheme of things, an MP claiming for a bath plug or a bit of seedy porn isn't going to bankrupt the nation - but what might do is the fact that the same sort of thing is happening on a much larger scale in our public services and welfare system.

Of course there are probably true instances of fraud amongst the MPs just as there are really people cheating the benefits system and council workers ripping off the council, but for the most part those in the system are just playing the system - just like the MPs.

And just like the MPs, they use the same defence. They insist (often quite rightly) they are not breaking any rules or claiming anything they are not entitled to. Just as an MP doesn't feel the need to buy their own TV when they can get one quite legally for nothing, many people don't feel the need to get out of bed and do a job of work when they can get money, housing and all sorts for sitting around watching TV.

It's the prevailing culture of our times.

Less than half the population have a job

From The Times.

Only 48 per cent of the population have a job, accounting for just over 29 million workers.

And more than a third of those are people working in the unproductive public sector.

However, the number of people paying income tax will fall in the next few years, with unemployment expected to increase even after the recession is over. Pensioner numbers will continue to rise, adding further pressure to finances.

As the article points out, this will put enormous pressure on government finances - and ultimately borne on the shoulders of the dwindling private sector tax payer.

Just over two million people in the UK are currently unemployed, about 6.5 per cent of the workforce. But the independent Centre for Economics and Business Researchthink-tank reckons that unemployment will peak at 3.5 million in the last quarter of next year.

This is blatant number manipulation. Does anyone really believe that the total number of people of working age in Britain - a nation of 60 million - is just 31 million people? Of course not - there are another five or six million who are officially sick or disabled and unable to work.

After 50 years of free national health care we appear to be more sick and more prone to disability than ever before. The only conclusion you can draw from that is that the NHS is a badly failing system.

Or that there are an awful lot of cheating bastards out there.

Actually, my money is on a bit of both. The NHS is over-rated - mainly viewed through rose-tinted nostalgia goggles. It did, once, appear to be quite good - but that was only in the early days when it was still running on the infrastructure it inherited from the previous health care system. That was largely gone by the early 1970's.

And there is no doubt that a lot of people are swinging the lead - but, to be honest, it's hard to blame them when they can lead reasonably comfortable lifestyles on benefits without ever having to get up for work.

Reality cheque

The excellent Janet Daley puts into words what I was thinking this morning regarding North Korea's missile test and various leaders condemning this as "unacceptable".

For that matter, what does he propose doing right now about North Korea? There was lots of heavy talk about how unacceptable that country's belligerent tour de force had been in firing what could have been a nuclear-armed missile over Japan – but talk, as they say, is cheap. What might the "punishment" be for such a "violation" of the coming nuclear-free world order? And who would be responsible for administering it?

Exactly. If you find something unacceptable you do something about it - or you tolerate it. Toleration does not imply acceptance, but if you tolerate something long enough it becomes considered acceptable. The fact is, NK's nuclear ambitions (as well as Iran's) may well be unacceptable to the leaders of the world, but the North Koreans know that there isn't a single thing they can do about it (as does Iran).

Their best buddies, the Chinese, will block any attempts to force through any serious UN Security Council resolution. The best they can hope for is slightly toughened sanctions - but as all these do is hurt the average Jong Public in the NK street I don't think the leaders of North Korea will worry too much. Besides, anything they need they can get through China - no questions asked.

They know that any military action will not get UN support - and without that (for some reason) that means there can be no widepsread public support for military intervention. Furthermore, with the US economy in freefall and their military already overstretched there is little the USA can do militarily. Which brings us to the next, excellent point Daley makes.

Post-war Europe has built its comfortable, deeply cushioned, welfare-state social democracy with the money it had once spent on armaments. Beating their swords into benefit payments has worked very nicely for all those peace-loving Europeans who turned their backs on militarism even as the Cold War raged. But it only worked because America was providing the arms and the defence protection that Europe highmindedly disdained.

Comfortable, deeply-cushioned and still completely unaffordable even with the money we once spent on defending ourselves. As Daley points out, Obama now wants that feather bed for his people and the message to Europe is clear - the US are not going to continue to pick up the tab for protecting Europe much longer.

Europe will have to fund its own defence and that is one big reality cheque.

Cuts to the police reveals the leftist mentality

What public services do you use? No, roads and streetlights don't count - they are public utilities, not services. You don't "use" the guys who mend the road, the council does.

I mean what public services do you directly use?

I reckon I'm like most people and all I really use to any regular sort of degree are the bin men, schools for my kids, our local GP and the Royal Mail. I've never had any need to use countless hundreds of other services that the government provide - drug counsellors, five-a-day co-ordinators, youth offending outreach workers and so on. I've also been quite fortunate to never have needed to use the Labour Exchange - or whatever it's called now - but I suspect over the coming months and years millions of Britons will find out what that is like for the first time.

Bins, schools, health, post. That's about it for me and most people as far as "front line" public services are concerned - plus one other.

The police.

Whenever people like me suggest that the public sector has grown out of control in recent years the lefties always counter with the "what schools and hospitals will you cut?" question. The answer for most conservatives is, of course, none - there is ample scope for the public sector to make cuts without touching the services that most of us use on a regular basis.

I now realise why they ask that question. They are not being disingenuous as I originally thought - they genuinely believe that the first place you need to make public sector cuts is in the services we most use.

Why is this? Well, socialism is all about victims as groups rather than victims as individuals. Hardly surprising I suppose, given that it's all about "collectivism". The whole leftist movement is based on identifying various victim groups and then supporting their cause.

Originally it was the cause of the working man, but leftists soon cottoned on to the fact that any "victim group" is worth supporting - it's not about the who, it's about the how. The more victim groups they can identify and support, the more support they get in return. The more support they have the more they can build the society they envisage.

The trouble with that is, once you've exhausted the basic victim groups - working man, women, blacks, homosexuals and so on - you start running out of victim groups to support. So they invent new ones. Drug abusers are no longer self-harming idiots - they are "victims" who require "front-line" services. Criminals are not morally reproachable, but victims of their circumstances and in need of "front-line" services.

All this means that when a recession strikes and there is a need to cut public spending, they just can't bring themselves to cut spending on their favourite victim groups - firstly because they really believe their own bullshit, but also because that is where their key support now lies.

So instead of cutting the myriad of services which most of us will never have any reason to use, they cut the services which we will.

Why can't we just get on with it?

While Britain grinds to a halt just because of a little bit of snow I can't help wondering why and when we became so incapable of just coping with it.

Despite what the news might be saying, this snowfall is by no means "extreme" as some have been suggesting. We regularly get snow in February - it is not in the least bit unusual. What is unusual is the utter inability of Britain - particularly the public service sector - to just get with it.

One in five people reputedly failed to turn up for work yesterday. I suspect a large proportion of those were people who either get a bus or train to work. From what I gather, the problem with providing train services wasn't the snow - it was the lack of staff. Not sure what the problem was with the buses - though I've heard reports that the bendy buses were jack-knifing all over the place in the icy conditions and also that they were also suffering from a lack of staff.

I'm not that old, but I can remember considerably worse snowfalls and conditions than this back in the sixties, seventies and even the eighties. In the early 1980's I remember a time when my little Riley Elf wouldn't start one particularly cold, snowy morning (the only time it ever let me down, by the way) so I had to get the bus to work. Off I trudged to the nearest bus stop (all of fifty yards) and the double decker Routemaster turned up a little late and a little full, but otherwise no problem.

Yesterday, virtually all the local schools were closed down. Why? Not once in the sixties or seventies was my school closed because of a few inches of snow. We used to have days of lying snow and every day I'd make my way across the snow covered fields to my local primary without any issue. The teachers would all be there as usual; we'd play in the playground making snowmen and having snowball fights and, if the heating was playing up, we'd huddle up in our coats in the classroom during lessons.

I'm sure that there are numerous excuses people will give about why we don't cope anymore, but fundamentally I think far too many of us have just given up trying. The British tradition of stoicism has disappeared from our society and the root of that is the culture of dependency created by years of welfarism, knee-bending to the EU and UN and the erosion of self-reliance.

Echoes of Tebbit

Our work and pensions secretary, James Purnell (no, I have no idea either) has parodied Norman Tebbit's "on yer bike" moment.

The defiant minister insisted there were half a million vacancies in the economy and that taxpayers should not have to support people 'playing the system'.

Although I believe he is quite right, I do think it is a bit rich for a member of the party which has spent decades and countless billions of tax payers pounds encouraging people to do just that.

Of course, the modern myth is that Tebbit suggested that people who were out of work should get on their bikes and look for it - which isn't actually what he said at all. Tebbit was actually responding to a suggestion that the natural reaction of the unemployed was to riot when he said ....

"I grew up in the '30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking 'til he found it.".

... but that didn't stop the liberal left misquoting him repeatedly.

You could ask a similar question of Purnell today - something like .... isn't it true that if you give money to people just to sit on their backsides all day then the natural reaction is to find ways to make the most of that?

He's an MP - he should know that is true.

Timing is everything

Having had the best part of a decade of relatively affluent times in which they could have introduced "welfare reforms" with relatively painlessly and with relatively little opposition our blessed government decide that the best time to do that is just as we are about to enter the deepest recession for 50 years.

The time to have encouraged people to "get back to work" was when there was plenty of work available. Instead they decided to import millions of foreigners to fill the jobs that were going.

I also seem to recall a certain Anthony Blair promising before he was elected that he was going to introduce radical welfare reforms. I recall him encouraging his ministers to think outside the box and even appointing the excellent Frank Field to implement those reforms.

And I seem to recall Blair going sacking Field the moment they were in power for daring to do what his party leader actually asked him to do.

And they wonder why the public don't believe a word they say.

Modern Britain in a nutshell

This story from The Telegraph.

She knows her daughter hangs out with friends in the street, drinking cans of lager and smoking pot, but says she is simply glad Sam is not "a proper drunk" and has not graduated to harder drugs.

The kid is 13 - so not graduated to harder drugs yet. Or at least, not as far as the mother is aware.

Mrs Holt, a jobless single mother with two other grown-up children who smokes 20 cigarettes a day herself, said giving them out as a reward "works".

"I don't see the point in punishing her. If I ground her, I'm just punishing myself because I have to put up with her in the house," she said.

So better to shove her out on the street where others have to put up with her. Can't have poor old jobless, single mother Mrs Holt (Mrs?) being upset can we - she might forget to claim a benefit.

Her daughter lost her virginity at 12, has had four sexual partners in one year - but only sleeps with "boyfriends".

That's alright then.