What Spending Cuts?

On 29th April 1945, Adolph Hitler committed suicide in the bunker in Berlin. The time had come that even he realised that his grand scheme was dead. Two days ago, Gordon Brown committed political suicide after his meeting with Gillian Duffy in Rochdale. Mrs Duffy will pass into the history books as the woman who precipitated Gordon Brown's political demise. The pensioner with a history of working with handicapped children and a life-long supporter of the Labour Party had just popped out for a loaf of bread when she saw a crowd and in the middle of it all the Prime Minister. She talked to the Labour candidate for Rochdale and he must have thought that Mrs Duffy was an ideal real person to talk to the Great Leader. What followed, it is now generally agreed was a defining moment in this election. So many people thought that Mrs Duffy had done absolutely nothing wrong and that she asked some quite reasonable questions - and yet Gordon Brown, with his microphone still switched on, questioned why he had been forced to meet that woman before calling her a bigot. Is this what the cossetted London political establishment thinks of anyone who questions their actions? Everyone has commented on the shock and dismay shown on the face of Mrs Duffy when Gordon Brown insulted her in the way that he did. After that the damage could not be undone. The return to Rochdale and the 40 minutes spent with Mrs Duffy just made the man look ridiculous. It has been pointed out that GB spent 15 minutes signing the Lisbon Treaty, 20 minutes talking with President Obama about world affairs and 40 minutes talking to Mrs Duffy about this monstrous gaff. It is now revealed that Mrs Duffy will not vote at all - even after the insult, she cannot bring herself to vote for the Tories.

In tonight's TV debate Gordon Brown performed quite well but he still comes in third in the polls. Cameron was much better and I think he may now just have done enough to have most seats after the election next week. Athough I still find it impossible to see him as a potential PM. In the debate and later on Question Time Joe Public tried to get something said about the cuts that any government will make in order to balance the books - and they got nowhere. There was much swapping of numbers like £6 billion for this and £10 billion of efficiency savings for that and more waffle. The magnitude of the problem is on a whole different scale. The government owes about £850 billion; in the next 12 months it will spend [unless cuts are made] about £600 billion and to do this it will borrow another £150 billion. Our debt will rise to £1 trillion; interest on the debt will be £30 billion; and these figures do not take into account the public sector pensions deficit [£1 trillion] and PFI debts [£200 billion]. The cuts in spending and/or [probably not even "or"] tax increases will have to be on a massive scale. And if the Labour government thinks that it can ring-fence the NHS and schools and the police, then spending cuts in other departments will be cuts almost to extinction. One day we will know but so many people don't want to know. They will follow the Greek model and carry on to oblivion - and there is much evidence that the main parties will go down the same road.

/

Bigot-gate

Labour have lost this General Election. Whether Cameron's Tories will actually get most seats - they cannot get enough for an overall majority - depends on the vagaries of the first-past-the-post electoral system but it was Brown that lost it. Yesterday, Gordon Brown had his Ron Atkinson moment. Many will remember that almost exactly six years ago, at the end of a Champions League semi-final football match between Monaco and Chelsea, after the broadcast had ended, Big Ron's microphone was left switched on and commenting on the under-performing French defender Marcel Desailly, the much-loved pundit was heard to say that Desailly was "what is known in some schools as a fucking lazy, thick nigger." The off-the-cuff overheard remark was enough to instantly end Ron Atkinson's career on mainstream TV - which was a pity; he was a well-informed, experienced commentator with some amusing turns of phrase that made listening a pleasure. But he transgressed and that was it in this world of political correctness. He lost his contracts with several newspapers as well and overall, this one comment cost him more than £1m. It was not enough for him to apologize. And after keeping quiet for some weeks, Desailly brushed off the comment - after all, he was a highly paid footballer and Big Ron's remarks did not change that.

Gordon Brown's Atkinson moment occurred in Rochdale yesterday, when, as part of the meet the people approach to electioneering Gordon Brown was introduced to Gillian Duffy, a 70 year old pensioner and a life-time Labour supported who raised with the PM quite reasonable questions about the vast national debt and uncontrolled immigration - which is a problem in Rochdale. There was no major confrontation and Gordon, the Great New Labour Leader departed in the official car with the famous concrete smile on his face. In the car, having forgotten that there was a live mic still clipped to his collar made remarks about the disastrous meeting with the "bigoted woman". He was in what appeared to be a foul mood and the remarks were broadcast to the nation. Reporters spoke to Mrs Duffy and asked what she thought of her meeting with Gordon Brown. Initially, she was quite pleased to have had the chance to talk directly with the PM but when the reporters told her what the PM had said in the privacy of his car - and allowed her to hear the actual recording - she was very visibly upset. Later, when Brown discovered what had happened he issued an apology and went back to Rochdale to meet Mrs Duffy again in her home - by now surrounded by thousands of media people - and spent 40 minutes alone talking to her and apologizing to her face-to-face. When he came out - without Mrs Duffy - he repeated his apology and said that he had misunderstood what she had been asking. A remark that is hardly believable. I was inclined to think that this was one of those unfortunate occasions when someone says in private something that they did not realise was overheard, which they later regret and that everything would blow over. But now that I have seen on TV just how much Mrs Duffy was upset by what Gordon Brown said only seconds after he left her in the street, this is something that will not go away. It re-enforces all the feelings that the electorate has that politicians - and in particular this government - are all out of touch with ordinary people, treating them as no more than election fodder. Throughout this election campaign all parties have sought to avoid discussing the two questions that most tax the nation - the national debt and immigration. How can we decide who to vote for when they tell us nothing about what they will do? However, I think this day will mark the beginning of the end of Gordon Brown's political career. He has his good points but bed-side manner is not one of them. Like Ron Atkinson, an off-the-cuff remark will have catastrophic consequences.

We will see.

/

How Do I Vote?

It's only a week and a day before we have to vote in the General Election 2010. Who do I vote for? I am less than impressed with all the parties involved and at root I don't believe any of them have a clue how they are going to get the debt under control. Now that Greece is heading for the final curtain - which may collapse the whole Euro currency, we have reason to be afraid that the debt problem is likely to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. Instinctively, I would prefer Gordon Brown as PM but we are told that he is prone to wild temper outbreaks and is impossible to work with. But most of the rest of his cabinet are pretty useless and untrustworthy. Look at them - Mandelson, Miliband [David], Balls, Johnson et al - with Alistair Campbell manouevering in the background. Dave [call me Dave] Cameron oozes wealth and privilege and is surrounded by a clique of Old Etonians - all very rich. And Nick Clegg is even richer and totally soaked into the European Union - which to him is some earthly Nirvana. And his amnesty for illegals is totally unacceptable.

I was reading one of Jeremy Clarkson's pieces from a past edition of the Sunday Times in which he praises one Tony Benn. I do not think of Clarkson as a Benn lover but he points to some of the achievements of Benn's period as a minister. He was the man who pushed and pushed to get Concorde built. Financially it was a disaster but what a wonderful feat of modern engineering - which even the Americans have praised. It was Tony Benn who dragged the hovercraft onto the world stage and made it into a working serious machine. Tony Benn helped create ICI - not a bad yardstick for successful British companies until it was wrecked by accountants. Then as postmaster general, Tony Benn got the Post Office tower built - another engineering achievement. Now Tony Benn has become a national treasure but we ought not to forget these achievements of his time as a government minister. What will we remember the present collection of minister for? Now, everything is decided on a money basis - I suppose this is not surprising from a government that has cosied up to the City for 13 years. Lord Adonis has come out with proposals for a new high speed railway system. They should get on with it - as I have said before. Find Brunel and make sure that it is built entirely by British engineers and manufacturers. That will do more than any fiscal juggling to revive the manufacturing economy so shamefully wrecked by Thatcher and Blair - they sound like a music hall turn - and in some ways they were. Let us do something worthwhile rather than tinker with the accounts. Do what Canada has done and cut government spending. Most of the so called "waste" is bureaucracy and paper shifting. The amount of documentation needed nowadays to get anything done is quite staggering.

Now, how do I vote??????

/

Dust Over Iceland

In my last post I said that the last two weeks had been interesting and I cannot avoid commenting on the volcanic dust saga. It all started with an eruption by an Icelandic volcano that was unknown, unmemorable and unpronounceable. For exactness I will tell you that the volcano was [and is] Eyjafjallajoekull. The eruption started on Thursday 15th April and rapidly it became a problem. Iceland exists as a result of volcanic eruptions and is permanently sizzling away with hot springs and occasional spectacular volcanoes. The problem with this eruption was apparently, that the volcanic lava was blasted up through a thick layer of ice and snow and that this caused secondary explosions of water into steam and formed a vast cloud made up of particles of very abrasive sand which, it has been alleged, presented a serious risk to aircraft jet engines. Examples were given of previous incidents of aeroplanes getting into trouble when they encountered volcanic dust at high altitudes. The dust cloud drifted south and east and ultimately caused governments to shut down the airports across most of Europe this side of Moscow. Of course the total ceasing of all flights left potential passengers stranded overseas in foreign lands or unable to depart the UK for holidays or business trips. Many world statesmen were unable to attend the funeral of the Polish president killed in the recent air crash when going to Russia. Many people were, we were told, "devastated". Devastated these days is a modern word for mildly inconvenienced. Governments probably over-reacted but if the technologists believed there was a serious risk, then it is difficult to see that governments had any option but to introduce a complete shut down until more was known. After five days most airports re-opened and still the cloud rumbles on - though with less ferocity. Iceland is notorious for having dodgy volcanoes - as well as banks. One of the worst recorded eruptions was at the Laki volcano during the summer of 1783. This eruption was about one hundred times more powerful than the recent eruption and over a period of five months blasted 120,000,000 tonnes of toxic gases and ash into the atmosphere. This drifted southwards and covered the whole of Britain with poisonous gases that caused choking and ruined some of the harvests. By the end of the year about 23,000 people in Britain alone had died of respiratory diseases as a result. In some parts of Eastern England almost whole families of labourers were wiped out. The biggest sufferers were young men employed in agriculture and working hard outdoors breathing in great lungfuls of the toxic mixture. The people knew something was wrong; they could see the dark clouds and could taste the pollution - but no one understood what was causing their problems. The increased death rate was one of the worst in modern Britain. Could that happen again? Yes! And then people could re-learn the true meaning of the word devastated.

Iceland is a troublesome little country.

/

Who Will Govern?

I have been away for almost 2 weeks so I have not been able to comment on recent events. But what an eventful 2 weeks this has been, what with a General Election campaign and all flying being stopped by volcanic dust. First I have to have my say on the election.

First some background information. Since 1951 there has been a steady fall in the percentage of the electorate bothering to vote at General Elections. It was not always clear why this happened but politicians were ever ready to say that it was voter apathy. I was never convinced that this was true and there had to be other reasons. Another interesting factor was the percentage of those voting who voted for either the Tories or Labour. In 1951, it was 94%. Again the percentage has declined ever since. In 2005, only 65% of voters voted for Labour or the Tories. Our first past the post electoral system works fine if there are only two parties but as the support for other parties grows the system becomes less and less satisfactory. Now we have reached a level of total absurdity made worse by a new electoral phenomenon - there are three parties running neck and neck.

The present government is pretty unpopular for all sorts of reasons - I have gone through most of them before but I will list them again - Iraq, Afghanistan, the financial collapse, the public debt, unemployment, high taxes, attacks on civil liberties, MPs expenses, waste and a general level of incompetence and remoteness that has wrecked our democracy. Through all this the support for the Tories has been less than enthusiastic and they and their leader, David Cameron, have rarely climbed above 40% support. They cannot avoid the impression of being a party controlled by a clique of Old Etonians - rich Old Etonians. In 2005, Tony Blair won the election with a decent working majority with only 35.5% of the vote and since only 65% of the electorate voted, we have a government in office with a clear mandate to govern but with the backing of only 24% of the electorate. Or put it another way; 76% of the electorate either did not vote at all or voted for other parties. Many think that their vote does not matter and in about 80% of constituencies that is still true. Become MP for a safe seat and you are there for life no matter how useless you are.

With the election called for May 6th, the Tories were still only garnering the support of about 39% of the voters and that would not be enough for them to win an overall majority. Labour were on 30% [or thereabouts] and the Lib Dems on about 21%. The campaign set off like many another with senior party members and ministers trekking around Britain for photo opportunities with selected "ordinary voters". Then came the brand new TV debates between the "three" party leaders. Here, Nick Clegg of the Lib Dems was given equal billing with the other two and suddenly two party politics became three party politics. New boy Nick Clegg was a clear winner of the first debate - he could relax; he had nothing to lose. Now the polls are showing support for the Lib Dems is up over 30% and the other two parties are about the same but with Labour coming third. Now it looks very likely that no party will gain an overall majority. But such is our daft system that if Labour has the fewest votes [say 27%] they will still have most seats; and if Tories and Lib Dems have about 30% of the votes, the Tories will gather 2½ times as many seats as the Lib Dems but still less than Labour. So, if we have the Lib Dems in a coalition government, do they join the party with the most votes or the party with the most seats? A coalition conundrum.

There is still one more debate to go but unless one of the leaders makes a serious mistake - unlikely - there will be a hung parliament. When questioned the electorate have said that this is what they want. They want all parties to stop bickering and get together to sort out the serious problems in front of us. For once we may have a government with the support of more than 50% of the electorate. Of course there could still be some tactical voting to keep certain candidates out. The electorate are very good at massaging the electoral system to get the least bad result. Almost certainly the voting system will now have to change. These are exciting times and although I am less than enamoured with Nick Clegg - who, incidentally, is just as rich and privileged as Cameron and Co - I have to give him credit for transforming this campaign and preventing the two party juggernaut from making its customary progress through the voting booths.

/

The Voter's Dilemma

With the Election coming up I have to decided who will get my vote - or will I just chicken out and vote for none of them.. The trouble is that to vote for any party suggests that I agree with them, when, for the most part I do not. When I look at the New Labour Party and its proponents like Mandelson and Alistair Campbell, the chief spin doctors who treat the electorate with arrogant contempt, I see a party devoid of all principles and concerned only with holding the reigns of power. For thirteen years they have been mesmorized by excess wealth and the money-making gluttony of The City. They have thrown money at public services but achieved less and less with each colossal hand-out. And every step was decorated with crackpot dogma and political correctness - like using children to interview their own teachers and assess their suitability for the job. It is the bureaucracy of the loony bin. But then most politicians do not inhabit the real world. It now seems that there is another power struggle going on in the party to make sure that New Labour wins over Old Labour and if Gordon Brown loses - which they expect - they want to replace him with David Miliband. What on Earth makes them believe that the country will flock to a party led by David Miliband? He looks and sounds like a second rate 6th form prefect. And he comes from a wealthy background. Perhaps not as rich as Cameron but certainly not poor.

This government ploughs new depths of awfulness at it seeps into oblivion. Roy Hattersley called it "The Long Parliament". Like the parliament in the middle of the 17th century which Cromwell eloquently condemned, they have been here too long. I am coming to the conclusion that the Tories will win but I have little faith in them doing anything like a real good job. The only thing I can claim if I vote for the Tories is self-interest. It's not a good reason for voting for any party but I don't think that parties do high moral principles anymore. There was a cartoon in The Independent on Wednesday which illustrated with great force the dilemma facing the electorate ]see above].

Whatever we decide, it will be good to get rid of the excesses of the present parliament. I can quote Cromwell - "In the name of God, Go!"

/

Who Will Lead Us After May 6th?

This General Election campaign 2010 is only 5 days old but so far it has been absolutely awful. Three days have been spent swapping insults on the matter of up-coming National Insurance increases - is it the right thing to do; how it is a tax on jobs; how it is opposed by business leaders - many of whom contribute to the Tory Party; and so on. It is all waffle. In the last financial year the government borrowed £168 billion; it is currently borrowing 25% of everything it spends; more than 20% of those in work are employed by the state. The accumulated National Debt is £848 billion - about 60% of GDP. Even in the boom times between 2002 and 2007 this government increased the debt from 29% of GDP to 37% of GDP and since 2008 the debt has spiraled out of control. Almost.! The cost of interest payments on this huge debt is about £30 billion per year. Even these appalling figures don't tell us everything. The government has huge commitments which do not show on the balance sheets for public sector pensions and the hidden cost of the PFI schemes - wondrous projects that allowed us to build hospitals and schools in a way that kept the costs off the books but which cost us very much more than they would have done had we built them in the old-fashioned way using properly accounted money from the exchequer. The burden of these astronomical debts is absolutely crippling. Irrespective of all other incompetence, whoever takes over the running of this country has to come up with some very severe schemes and programmes to get things under control - otherwise, we really will be bust. We are not far off bust already and that is why this is so important. A few pennies on or off NI contributions next year is neither here nor there. But none of the political parties tells us anything. The three economic spokesmen have agreed that there will have to be cuts deeper than anything Mrs Thatcher did - but still no details. We can't carry on like this. And for all those politicians - and there are plenty of them in all parties - who think that Mrs Thatcher was some political wonder-woman, I think it is important to remember the catalogue of decisions made by her government which were wrong from day one and which have crippled the nation ever since. Her most catastrophically wrong decisions concern energy. We generated a large percentage of our electricity from coal - and we still do - but because this blasted woman did not like Arthur Scargill and the power of the unions, she embarked on the ludicrous policy of shutting all the pits - bringing in a right-wing American industrialist to help do it. Now, although we have coal reserves that would last for about 400 years buried under this country, we import coal for our power stations from Poland and the USA. At the same time the ridiculous woman encouraged power generators to burn gas to generate electricity - so we squandered away our gas reserves as well. Now just to keep the country going we have to import gas from Norway, Russia [God help us] and others. It is absurd but the damage is done and it is permanent. In spite of the uncertainty of our gas supplies, we also have the lowest storage capacity for gas of any country in the major countries of the EU. I hope all the stupid people who supported Mrs Thatcher will remember this. I will talk later about the Poll Tax, privatisation and the transfer of so much of our essential services to foreign companies - something that Harold Macmillan likened at the time to selling off the family silver. As a PM Mrs Thatcher was almost as bad as Blair and that is saying something.

Can I spot among the three men vying for the job of PM in this General Election someone who will lead and inspire this country again? Errr...............No!

/

More Advice From Experts

Many of us who have been associated with the Bodybuilding community have had less than over-whelming confidence in the medical profession. And along with them, those who advised us on diets. Bodybuilders make very specific demands of diets. Any diet should be capable of producing a bigger more muscular body. Of course most serious bodybuilders use performance enhancing drugs - mainly anabolic steroids - and this much frowned upon by the medical profession. That same medical profession that is working towards a male contraceptive based on testosterone. If they prescribe it, it is OK; if bodybuilders prescribe it themselves, it is bad. Every bodybuilder has, at some time or other, been given a lecture on the health hazards from steroid use - even though there is little evidence of serious problems for most users.

In the last 24 hours I have seen reports from the medical and nutrition establishment that have told me that :

1. Testosterone supplementation for middle aged and elderly men is advantageous because the boost to blood testosterone levels reduces the risks of diabetes and heart disease. In the past the opposite had been proposed. Extra testosterone in older men will also boost libido and that will make everybody feel better.

2. The best breakfast in the morning is an old fashioned English breakfast with eggs, bacon, sausage, beans, tomatoes, etc. with toast. The high fat intake will boost metabolism through the day.

3. Taking five portions of fruit and vegetables each day will reduce cancer risks. Current thinking is that this high vegetable/fruit diet will make almost no difference to cancer risks.

So, if you want to learn about diet and gaining and losing weight, ask a bodybuilder. He or she will tell you something that works and when linked to a training programme with weights will make you healthy as well.

Do not forget that it was amatuers that built the Ark and the professionals that built the Titanic.

/

A General Election

Today, Gordon Brown finally announced the date of the General Election for May 6th. So now we will be bombarded with spin, the like of which we have never before experienced. It seems from the BBC men and women stumping around the country that people are showing considerable interest but still are far from certain for whom they will vote. It is not surprising. New Labour had made a God awful mess of running the country and we are now saddled with debts beyond all comprehension. Then there are the matters of Iraq, Afghanistan, immigration failure [on an awesome scale], pension failures, failure to protect savers, surveillance, destruction of civil liberties, ID cards, excessive benefits payments to vast numbers of the economically inactive and so on. At the same time they have chucked vast sums of money about to bale out the banks run by modern day robber barons who have had no controls imposed on them as they stoke up their ludicrous remuneration packages like never before. Then there is government waste in the health service; the failures of an educational system that produces results on paper achieved by children who can hardly read or write but get the right to choose their own teachers and decide what they will be bothered learning; and there is waste on the bureaucracy needed to support the legislative diarrhoea that they have suffered from over 13 years. I could go on and on. The Blair/Brown government of the last 13 years remains in my mind as far and away the worst government of my life-time. The Tories ought to be miles ahead in the polls. But they are not because many, like me, do not have any great faith in David Cameron and we just feel that he will be Blair Mk2. At the same time, we have to ask if we really want our country run by a cohort of Old Etonians each worth a few million quid and without any real experience of doing anything other than political spin.

Locally, Mrs Muppet has decided at the last minute to throw in the towel, clearly expecting to lose. Her majority of 37 is not defendable. So the local Labour Party has now to choose a new candidate. Three local Labour stalwarts have put their names forward and central office has parachuted in two more. I assume from the names that the two from HQ are from one of the lists of the politically correct and ethnic diversity. I wouldn't vote for either of them and the three locals are not impressive. I think Tory candidate Henry Smith will have an easy ride to a 7000/8000 majority.

We will be swamped with propaganda. There will be a great deal of noise and fire but little illumination. Somewhere along the way we, the electorate, will decide and remember just how atrocious the spin doctored New Labour has been and we will elect a Tory government. I think we will get a re-establishment of that old adage that it is governments that lose elections, not oppositions that win them.

/