ISIS are not a threat to the United Kingdom, bad government is

How many people have Islamic State murdered in the UK in set piece terrorist atrocities? None. Lets look at a few other statistics.

The last major terrorist attack in the UK by terrorists claiming to be Islamic fundamentalists was the  7/7 bombings in 2005. Since then, more people have been killed by dogs in the UK (16). That group were not ISIS relaetd as ISIS didn't exist then.

No one is proposing a "war on dogs" as they are more lethal than UK based Jihadi terrorists. There are however a few similarities between these killer dogs and the Jihadi's. The main one is that there are millions of lovely dogs that will never kill anyone but who get a bad name from a few, generally who have very stupid owners. My personal view is that it is bad dog owners rather than the dogs which should get the bad press.

Dogs have killed more UK citizens than ISIS

To me there is a huge similarity with ISIS. Just as bad owners create the small number of dangerous dogs, suicidal Jihadists are the product of several factors. The chief one is an extremely hard line interpretation of the Koran by Wahibbi clerics in Saudi Arabia. We blanche at the atrocities perpetrated in Syria in ISIS controlled land, but exactly the same sort of thing happens in Saudi Arabia and is sanctioned by the Saudi government, a supposed ally. On Friday the Guardian reported that a Saudi court had sentenced a poet to death for the crime of renouncing Islam. The wider picture is equally shocking, Amnesty International reports that 102 people were put to death by the Saudi government between January and June 2012 and almost half of executions in 2014 and until June 2015 are for non-lethal crimes. Beheadings are the most common execution method in Saudi Arabia, but some executions also carried out by firing squad. Many Public executions typically take place in the public square of a town or city. Whilst ISIS clearly are operating such practices on a larger scale, this is partly because the local population has until recently been of a lot more secular nature. The funding and support for groups such as ISIS is based in Saudi Arabia and the religious authorities would be in firm agreement with the interpretation of Sharia Law implemented by ISIS. When the US authorities were battling with gangsters in the 1930's they found that the way to stop their activities was to "follow the money". If you follow the money for ISIS, the trail ends in the bank accounts of wealthy and seemingly respectible Saudi backers. If ISIS really was a threat to our way of life, then surely this is the first place we'd seek to launch our war on terror. There would be no ISIS without money.

Daleks have killed as many people in UK as ISIS

Just how deadly are these Jihadi terrorists? The sad truth is that a few nutcases running around with bombs and guns does have the ability to cause mayhem and kill lots of people. But when yyou look at it, the ones in Paris were and incredibly stupid bunch. I was talking to a friend who is a police officer involved with counter terrorist activities. He told me a fact that, whilst rather macabre, I found quite amusing and reassuring. The bombers at Stade de France only managed to kill themselves and one passer by. Do you know why? Well it seems these terrorist masterminds had not actually bothered to get tickets for the game. They also turned up late, after the crowds had entered the stadium. What greater act of futility and stupidity could there be? Even by their own appalling standards, they were not martyrs, they were simply stupid men committing an act of mass suicide for no purpose whatsoever. If the level of people we have to deal with is so stupid that they can't figure out what time a football match starts and that you need tickets to get in, do you really believe that such people have the wherewithall to topple our democratic society? Does an ideology that has been less successful at killing people since 2005 than bad dog owners really threaten the people of the UK with anything more than isolated and random acts of carnage? Our security forces and Police have kept them at bay for ten years. They deserve massive credit for this although clearly we cannot let our guard down and let ourselves relax. But however you look at it, ISIS are not a threat to our way of life and they will never be anything more than capable of killing a few innocent people in a few public places in the UK. That is the sum total of their powers. There are however far greater threats to the population, that it seems we completely ignore.

 In 2013 1,713 people were killed on the roads (latest govt figures available). That sounds quite a lot doesn't it? But in actual fact this is a tiny number compared to the 9,500 who die in London alone from poor air quality. That sounds like quite a lot, but again is dwarfed by the 40,000 people a year killed in the UK by cold. Sounds quite a lot? What about the 100,000 a year killed by smoking?

All of these figures dwarf anything that a few nutters with Kalashnikovs and bomb vests could achieve. The appalling fact is that all of these figures are totally avoidable. With modern technology, it would be quite straightforward to pass legilsation that compells manufacturers to build anti collision techology into all cars and also that enforces speed limits, restricting cars to the speed limit for the road. I've no idea if it's true or company propoganda, but I've read reports that state that 90% of accidents could be prevented by technology.  It seems absurd that we pay billions to prevent terror attacks, but the government won't compel car firms to include technology that would save over 1,000 lives a year. If it was as simple as protecting unsafe drivers from themselves, I suppose it could be argued as a civil liberties issue, but it isn't. It is other road users, cyclists and pedestrians that suffer. It is not just the deaths. There are all of the people who require hospital treatment and long term life changing injuries. Reports list this as half a billion pounds a year for the 0-15 year old age group. When George Osborne talks about cuts in funding, why doesn't he ever consider cutting the cause of the costs? I can't see any reason why the UK doesn't lead the way, cut the death toll and save billions. It is a win, wi win scenario. 

Then there is poor air quality. In London this is caused by pollution from cars, lorries and buses. Again the technology exists that can prevent this. The problem has been known about for years. It is as simple as compelling manufacturers to fit it on all vehicles and after a suitable period banning non compliant vehicles fro town centres and pollution hotspots. Again there are costs involved for motorists, but they have no earthly right to poison the rest of the population. It is scandalous that 9,500 people a year die from completely preventable causes. Reports list the cost  to the UK economy of air pollution as £54 billion. This figure would presumably fix George Osbornes budget defecit for once and all. It would allow us to keep our libraries, invest in the Police we need to stop the few lone wolf nutters and we'd all be healthier. It really isn't rocket science, is it?

Then there are the 40,000 people a year killed by the cold. Unlike the first two categories, this doesn't need new technology and infrastructure investments to fix. This simply needs compassion. People freeze to death because they can't afford to keep warm. No one in a developed country should ever freeze to death. What many people don't realise is that the issue puts a huge strain on the NHS budget. AgeUK estimate that the cost to the NHS is £1.36 billion

Age UK’s new estimate of the cost of cold homes to the NHS is £1.36 billion.There will also be further avoidable costs to social care services and to informal carers. At a time when the Government is looking to the NHS to make efficiency savings, taking further action to enable older people to protect their health in winter will also bring savings for the public purse.

Such a death toll cannot be justified on any level. It is quite simple, anyone who has issues paying their energy bills should be given whatever assistance they need to fix the problem. Of course there will be costs associated with this, but I for one would rather pay more for electricity or more in tax than see anyone freeze to death. If we can afford billions to keep the population safe from a few nutcases, we can most certainly afford to keep our elderly citizens safe from the cold.

The last of the things which cause preventable deaths is smoking. It kills over 50 times more people than car accidents. The cost to the NHS is huge. But this is a very complicated issue. The vast majority of people who will injure themselves or die because they smoke are adults who have made the choice to smoke. We live in a free society and I don't believe we should be telling adults how we should live our lives. What worries me though is the fact that despite all of the health risks, smoking is still viewed as a cool thing to do by teenagers. How do we change this perception? I haven't got a clue. Tobacco brings in huge sums of money for the treasury, which is why I suspect that the government has no real interest in dealing with this toll. If cigarettes were made illegal, then people would still smoke, but the government would simply lose tax revenue, which is a lose/lose. It would probably seem even more subversive and cool for the teenagers of the world. A friend of mine had a novel solution to the problem, which I have no idea whether it is a good idea or not. He suggested that over 65's should pay less tobacco duty and pubs and clubs should have smoking areas reserved for over 65's. This would put more money in the pockets of pensioners and presumably by this age, it is one of the few pleasures in life. If we had a few sitcoms set in old folks homes, where the residents were happily puffing away and reminiscing about the good old days of steam trains and national service, then would the younger generation still think smoking was a cool thing to do. I spoke to a cancer doctor recently (I've spoken to a few). He joked that having seen geriatric wards and cancer wards he knew which he'd prefer, which is why he smoked.

What do you think are the main threats to the UK? As far as I am concerned it is not ISIS. If you look at it rationally, the bloke who sells you a packet of fags is more likely to kill you than ISIS. The bloke driving a diesel car is more likely to kill you than ISIS. George Osborne with his energy policies is more likely to kill you than ISIS. However you look at it, if you are sane, rational and intelligent, ISIS are not a threat to the ongoing national security of the UK. Sadly for us all, the same cannot be said about bad, unenlightened and stupid government.

The Friday Joke 05/04/2013

Philpott

T*ssp*t

Want to hear a complete joke?

The politics of division. It is pretty clear George Osborne knew exactly what he was doing and who he was targetting his "Philpott benefits" comments at. As far as I am concerned, these comments are despicable.

The reason that so many UK citizens are living on benefits is because of the failure of Conservative economic policies in the UK. Since 1979, we've had 17 years of hard right Thatcherite government, followed by 12 years of Blairite social Conservatism, followed by three years of lord only knows what with ConDem coalition. 

Philpott is a very extreme case. Most people on benefits do not have a harem of women under their control, going out to work and breeding like rabbits as they sit at home smoking weed and planning their next appearance on the Jeremy Kyle show. They are receiving benefits because they have been failed by the educational system of years of Conservatism, followed by the failure of the UK to manage its economy under both Tory and Labour governments. 

We are not in the economic quagmire because of benefit recipients, we are there because Tory and Labour governments allowed such a lax system of banking control to emerge that some of our banks allowed their financial position to disintegrate. A report in the Guardian today detailed how HBOS would have gone bust WITHOUT the banking crisis - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/05/bank-delusion-greed-hbos-fail . 

We may find Philpott revolting, but the area of the country where he lives has seen its economy decimated by the wanton destruction of the UK manufacturing base. If you embark on a program of wholesale destruction of communities and local economies as the Tories did in the 1980's and 1990's, this is where you inevitably end up. When Margaret Thatcher took power in 1979, Derbyshire was a thriving industrial hotbed of innovation. Rolls Royce are based there, British Rail had a massive centre building and designing some of the most innovative transport technology in the world. The area was also a centre for mining. 

Thatcher destroyed the mining industry, the Rail industry was hacked into hundreds of tiny pieces and the Derby works hangs on by a thread. Rolls Royce cars are now in foreign hands. Who's fault was all of this? The one group who do not want to accept any blame are the architects of the policy - The Conservatives.

If you destroy communities, decimate economies and remove any prospect of decent jobs, as far as I am concerned, you should shoulder the blame when a sub section of society decides to give up.

I have never claimed a penny in benefits and have always worked. I have paid a fortune in tax over the years and so I need no lectures off Tory politicians such as Osborne on any of this. He's been Chancellor for three years and the economy has gone into reverse. His only answer is to demonise the most vulnerable people in society and blame them for the ills of a society that himself and his peers created.

If under George Osbornes regime, the economy had picked up and their was a shortage of jobs for people looking, then he may have a point. His captaincy of the UK economy has been a disaster. That should be the end of the matter. By making inflammatory statements about Philpott, Osborne has (temporarily) silenced people who were talking about the possibilities of a "triple dip recession". He's also managed to associate millions of decent people, who find themselves in a difficult situation because of the policies of him and his predecessors, with the stain of the Philpott murders.

Would anyone suggest that because Lord Lucan, who murdered his nanny (mistaking her for his wife) went Eton, George Osborne and the thousands of other old Etonians may harbour similar personality traits? - of course not. 

It strikes me that there is a very pronounced Left/Right divide in response to Osbornes comments. Those on the right seem to think he was spot on and what he said was marvellous. Those on the left are outraged. I predict that within a couple of weeks Osbornes comments will have been forgotten. What won't have been forgotten will be the mess that Osborne has made of the economy. I believe that Osborne made the comments because he harbours ambitions to lead the Conservative Party and become Prime Minister. His comments were a blatent appeal to the hard right of his party. I personally think they show his complete unsuitability for the role. Then again, he wasn't trying to appeal to me, was he?

Phillpott case - The most evil man in the UK?

Mick Phillpott today began a life sentence for the "manslaughter" of six of hos own children. As a father, I cannot begin to understand the warped mind that could even for one second consider anything which would put children at risk to get at an ex partner. There are many aspects of Phillpott's domestic arrangement which I find quite bizarre and it is clear that he only really cares about one person - himself.

I've not bothered to read the press coverage of the case. I have no wish to ever consider this vile and repugnant man again. His mere existence makes me ashamed of my own humanity and for being part of a race and a nation that could spawn such a monster. But having said all of that, Mick Philpott holds a mirror up to each of us. When we look in that mirror what stares back? We rightly despise Mick Philpott for his actions. We recognise his scant regard for his childrens safety and wellbeing and it is easy to condemn his actions.

As I would hope that everyone agrees that killing children is as low and as despicable an act as you can get, we have to say, as we look in that mirror, how many children die in the UK for preventable reasons? Whilst Philpotts actions are clearly vile and evil,  there were no warning signs that he was capable of such evil. There was nothing flagged up that said "Take action now to safeguard those children". We may have seen him on the Kyle show on TV and thought "there is something seriously dodgy going on", but no one would have anticipated the actions. It has been revealed that he had previously committed acts of violence against women, but this did not indicate a a threat to his children.

There are however all manner of things which we, as a society, accept that pose a clear and identifiable threat to children. Do you know what is the largest killer of children aged 5-15 in the UK? It is not Mick Philpott. It is not a nasty disease. It is speeding cars. The level of carnage inflicted on the youth of the nation is truly shocking, but somehow we are totally oblivious to this. If we read of a child run over and killed by a car doing 36 mph on a 30mph road near a school, do we condemn the driver or simply think "there but for the grace of God go I"? Because the truth is that every time we break a speed limit on a suburban road at a time of day when children are present, we run the risk of killing someone. No one ever gets into a motor car and plans to have an accident. No one ever plans to run a child over.

Before I wrote the Barnet Eye blog, before I knew of the shenanigans of Barnet Council, I regularly wrote to the local press about the policy of Barnet Council to rip out speed bumps. The previous Labour administration installed a whole host of traffic calming measures. When the Conservatives took power in 2002, they set about ripping them all out. The net result is that traffic accidents in Barnet have risen, relative to other similar London Boroughs. We are curiously myopic about the carnage of car accidents caused by speeding and careless driving. You may well say "how can the Barnet Eye possibly compare car crashes with the evil of Philpott?". I would respond by saying that given the massive number of children killed by selfish drivers trying to get from A to B a minute or two quicker, how can we possibly not take responsibility for our actions. If you have a car accident and hit someone because you were driving too fast, you were putting your own selfish desire to get somewhere slightly quicker than the law allows. If you kill or maim someone, you have done so because you are selfish. As a society we need to grow up and take responsibility. If everyone in the UK drove on suburban roads at or below the speed limit, then thousands of people would not get run over.

Now you may wonder what prompted such a rant. Let me tell you. This afternoon I was driving in Mill Hill listening to the coverage of the Philpott verdict. I, like everyone else was outraged at the details of the case. As I was driving I witnessed a speeding car nearly run a small child over. The car was probably doing 45 mph on a 30mph stretch near a (shut for holidays) school. A child of about 5 or 6 years old ran out in front of the car. As there was no oncoming traffic on the other side of the road, the car swerved and beeped and missed the child. I did not stop so I have no idea what the effect of the scare was on mother or child. What shocked me was that the car accelerated away from the scene, picking up speed to nearly 60mph before turning off. As I watched this awful scene, that all happened in the space of maybe 10 seconds, I thought "he nearly killed that kid and he didn't give a sh*t" given the way he sped off.

Now I don't know if the driver of the black mercedes who did that is a reader of this blog. I don't know if he gives a sh*t about anything or anyone else. What I do know is that someone who endangers a child for such selfish reasons clearly has a little bit of the "Philpott" about them. Whilst Philpott may well be one of the most evil men in the UK, each one of us individually has to take responsibility for our actions. I hope that the driver I witnessed today is a reader of this blog and feels thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

************************************

BTW I wrote this blog and then watched the News before proof reading it. On the news was a story where George Osborne seemingly attributed some blame for the Philpott case on the payment of benefits. Had I seen this before I wrote this blog, I may well have written a completely different blog. Osborne has shown what a completely clueless idiot he is with his comment. Being on benefits doesn't make people burn their own house down with their children inside, being a psychopath does. Did it occur to Osborne that maybe the reason Philpott was on benefits was because he was so evil and repulsive that he couldn't get or hold down a job. I run a firm and I employ several people. Each one undergoes an interview. In that interview process I try and ascertain whether that person is a team player, hard working, honest, reliable and likely to treat my customers with respect. If you didn't know about his arson, but had seen a few of the TV documentaries in which he featured, how many of those boxes do you think Philpott would have ticked?

Much as some of us may desire it to be different, we cannot deny anyone benefits because they are a repulsive individual with an unconventional lifestyle. If someone is so truly awful that they are unemployable, then they will have to live on benefits or starve to death. Removing benefits from the likes of Philpott would not make them any more employable. With millions on the dole, employers have the pick of who they want and the likes of Philpott will always be left on the bench. The only way that someone like Philpott would ever get a job is if the government compelled employers to employ the unemployable. No wonder the economy is in the state it's in if the Chancellor of the Exchequor can't figure that little puzzle out.

A complete abortion of a policy

The very aptly named Jeremy Hunt MP (pronounced with a silent "C") the Chancellor George Osborne, gave us a graphic illustration of  just how detacthed from reality (or at least the reality of the plebs they rule), they really are.  Firstly Jeremy Hunt explained his aspiration to reduce the legal limit for abortions to 12 weeks. Hot on his heels, George Osborne outlined plans to make it unaffordable for plebs to have babies.

Both of these numpties have managed to sum up the complete lack of understanding of the lives of millions of citizens of the UK. First lets look at Mr Hunt and his suggestions for abortion policy. Lets ask ourselves why women have an invasive procedure which  is deeply stressful for many people and as with all medical procedures carries a degree of inherent risk. The reason is because something has gone wrong. We incorrectly label people who believe abortion should be unlawful as pro life and those who believe abortion should be legal as pro choice. Mr  Hunt does not recognise the fact that no one is pro abortion. It is no more a recreational activity than chemotytherapy. People have chemo therapy because they believe it may solve a problem for them. As I understand it there are two mainstream ethical viewpoints with which we approach abortion. The absolute sanctity of life perspective, most commonly associated with the Roman Catholic church, who believe abortion from day 1 is immoral. The other position, which is the generally accepted one in the UK is that abortion is allowed until the point where the foetus becomes a viable baby and is likely to have a degree of consciousness. As this is virtually impossible to actually measure, an arbitary limit of 24 weeks has been agreed. I personally have no idea whether this accurately reflects the age at which a foetus experiences pain or not. I suspect that Mr Hunt has no better an informed view than I have. My guess is that you could ask 10 experets this question you would get ten different answers.

Mr Hunt has chosen twelve weeks. My guess (again I'm not an expert) is that a foetus at this stage is unlikley to have any great degree of consciousness. I suspect that Mr Hunt has based his opinion on  the morality rather than the scientific evidence. I have no problem with people saying "I am fundametally against this on principle". I have a big issue when people don't say this but they try and use dodgy information to distort an argument. I am never going to have an abortion, so whatever I say is pontification. I beleive any argument should be honest and it seems to me that Mr Hunt is not being honest.

Then we have Mr Osborne. Having his colleague, who is the health secretary, express an aspiration to massively reduce the number of abortions in the UK, Mr Osborne announces a policy which will force many couples who want children to have abortions for economic reasons. Mr Osborne wants to make parenthood an exclusive hobby for the well to do. If you get pregnant and you are on benefits,  they will be cut off, leaving  you  and your baby impoverished. Rather bizzarely, Mr Osborne doesn't wish to cut child benefit for people who are better off.

What is most repulsive is the scenario where a couple in work concieve. They are all very happy and then on the 12th week of their pregnancy, the breadwinner loses their job. Do they have to have an abortion under Mr Osbornes rules. What if Mr Hunt gets his way and they are banned? How long do you have to be out of work before you get banned from procreating?

Like Mr Hunt, I would love to see a dramatic fall in the number of abortions in the UK. Where I differ from Mr Hunt is on how this should be achieved. I'd like to see better sex education for young people. I'd like to see more help, not less for people who want children and cannot afford them, due to the economic policies of this government. If you are putting off having children, due to the economic uncertainty, you might find that by the time the economy has recovered, you have left it too late. This country will have a massive problem with an ageing population. If we don't have a new generation of young people, then we will either require mass immigration to care for us or we will simply be left to rot.

What we need is proper policies to address benefits depedencies, based on education and training rather than marginalisation. Mr Osborne is seeking to demonise parents on benefits. I cannot think of anything more repulsive. I await with interest the response of the religious right to this attack on basic human rights.

Why the Tories should sack Cameron and appoint Boris ASAP

Regular readers of this blog will be shocked at what I have to say or wonder if it is some sort of bizarre joke. As it's not Friday, I can assure you it isn't. I take no pleasure in writing this, but sometimes you have to face reality and speak the truth. The UK is faced with a massive economic crisis. It is 100% clear that David Cameron and George Osborne have not got a clue how to address it. That would be bad enough, but they seem to be hell bent on a set of policies which will drive the UK into a steeper decline.

Every Conservative I've spoken to recently has acknowledged three facts

1) Cameron isn't up to the job
2) Osborne hasn't got a clue what he's doing
3) The undynamic duo haven't got a clue what to do next

Cameron and Osborne have a mantra that there is "no plan b". Well there damn well should be, because plan A clearly isn't working. What is even more bizarre is the fact that there are a whole raft of highly unpopular policies which run counter to Tory mainstream thinking and are alienating huge swathes of Tories in their heartlands. To name but a few

* HS2 Rail link
* Heathrow Expansion
* Police cuts

They cannot blame these policy disasters on the Lib Dems. In fact, there are no policy disasters that they can realistically blame on the Lib Dems at the moment. Many Tories mumble that if there wasn't a coalition things would be better, but they can't name a single economic policy of the government that they can blame th Lib Dems for. They hate the Lib Dems for the fact that they are pro European, but even the most die hard Tories doubt that the policies towards the EU would be any different if Cameron had a majority.

Even more worrying is the fact that Cameron and his cronies seem to have no connection with ordinary families. This first became apparent when he failed to win a majority in 2010. Gordon Brown was as popular as the Pox, but Cameron couldn't even get a majority, despite Brown and Bust. The reason was clear, he was Tony Blair without the brains. Whatever one may think of Blair, he instinctively read the electorate correctly, that is why he won three terms. Labourites hated Blair for his lack of ideology and Tories hated him for spanking them three times. The electorate loved him. That was why he won. These days it is hard to find anyone with a good word for Blair, but when he was Prime Minister, we knew who was in charge and we knew that he had credibility. Blair made monumental cock ups, the greatest of which was his support (a la dodgy dossier) for the Iraq war, but he was a proper prime minister who won elections. I was not a Blairite, but like millions of others, I voted for him three times, because he was clever enough to ensure that he seemed like the least worst option.

Which brings us back to Cameron. The Tories have to ask themselves "Is Cameron likely to be the people's choice as least worst option?" Well he wasn't when Labour were lead by Gordon Brown in the middle of a massive economic crisis. Given that Cameron and Osborne have created an economic crisis of their own, they convince no one. Labour have a rather unconvincing leader of their own in Ed Milliband, but even he seems to have the measure of Cameron. Given the likely devastation of the cuts still to bite, there is likely to be an even more gloomy outlook when the 2015 election kicks off.

Which brings us to what any sane Tory would be doing. Cameron had an open goal in 2010 and he blew it. Who is a credible alternative? As far as any Tory I've spoken to is concerned, there is only one. Boris Johnson has been running London for 4 years. Much to the surprise of left wing commentators (like me) he hasn't made a complete cock up of the job. He managed to oversee a triumphant Olympics and despite the woes of the Tories nationally, got re elected comfortably.

He knows that the policies of HS2, Heathrow and Police cuts are plain bonkers and he believes in economic stimulus via large infrastructure projects. During his time as Mayor, he has come to see the value of a bit of joined up thinking, which is why he is lobbying for control of commuter rail routes. He has seen the dangers of overzealous outsourcing at the Olympics with G4S and has even done his bit to boost the UK's manufacturing sector with the Boris bus. Many people have derided the Boris bus as a vanity project, but it has created jobs and is far more environmentally friendly than any other similar vehicle on the road. Had it been a Labour devised project, the Tories would have lambasted it from start to finish, but Boris gets away with such largess.Any visit to the Conservative Home blog will confirm this.

The man question for us is whether Boris would make a better Prime Minister than Cameron. He has two main qualities which would help him enormously. Firstly, he's clever than Cameron. Whilst Cameron seems perpetually mired in dithering, Boris seems able to see a path and then follow it. Whilst many of us don't agree with his decisions, he sees them through. The second quality is that he's far lazier than Cameron. This may seem like a perverse attribute to label a quality, but as a Prime Minister it surely is. Workaholics end up like Gordon Brown, mired in detail and unable to delegate. Boris doesn't do detail, he gives people a job to do and lets them get on with it. He is quite prepared to use whatever tools he has at his disposal to reach an end, whilst making sure he isn't associated with unpopular decisions. A classic example of this was his appointment of Brian Coleman at the LFEPA. Boris didn't want to be associated with clobbering the fire service, so he stuck a loudmouth Tory bogeyman in charge. Colemans obnoxious personality was so overbearing that Boris took no flack at all for the massive attacks on this highly popular service. For a while, I couldn't understand how Boris tolerated Coleman, until I realised just how useful he really was.

Of course Boris isn't an MP and any process to replace Cameron would be extremely high risk, for all concerned. Realistically, even if a bunch of Tory plotters hatched a plot tomorrow, it would probably be 18 months before they could install their man. Just in time for the 2015 election. I suspect that there are moves afoot and they want to get the worst of the cuts out of the way and let Boris come in when there is a perceived upturn around Spring 2014. I think this plan is a bad one. Cameron and Osborne are clearly inept and I suspect that by 2014 things will be even worse. Another suggestion is that if Boris took over, the Lib Dems may pull the plug on the coalition. I personally doubt this. If they did they would alienate right leaning Lib Dems. Having permanently scared off left leaning Lib Dems, they would be well and truly finished. It is clear that Lib Dems have only one place to go and that is onwards on the current path.

I suspect that Boris would have most of them for breakfast. I suspect he would actually work with Vince Cable quite well. Cable is clever and useful to him. Cable knows that Boris gives him an opportunity, because if Cameron goesm Clegg won't be far behind. A Johnson and Cable team would draw up a list of infrastructure projects that both would back and put the differences on the back burner for a year until after the election.

Now you may wonder why I am backing such an unholy alliance? I am not. I think it would be a complete disaster for the UK. Unfortunately with Cameron, Osborne and Clegg, we don't have a disaster, we have a complete catastrophe. Labour has spent two years refusing to face up to a horrible truth. If they could dislodge the Lib Dems from the Tories and form a government, they could conceivably prevent both disaster and catastrophe. Could they prevent a Boris led Tory party? I am convinced that only a nasty accident could stop that. I just think that it would be far easier to stop the Boris bandwagon from a position of having rescued the economy than with him installed as incumbent PM on a rising economy. This blog, written in the week of the Labour Conference, isn't aimed at Tories (though I suspect more than a few will agree). It is aimed at the Labour party. If they don't wake up to the horrible reality which is about to unravel, Boris will do to them what he did to Ken Livingstone in May this year.

If you are in a car accelerating towards the edge of a cliff, you can do one of two things. You can change direction or you can cover your eyes and pretend it isn't going to happen. Both Tory and Labour parties are currently in this position. Sadly, whilst they are driving the car, we are all the passengers.

George Osborne and the Tory Economic disaster

We've had two years of the coalition Government and George Osborne as chancellor. How has he done so far? I doubt that anyone beyond the face grinning back in the mirror thinks he's been anything other than a complete disaster. Earlier this week a Tory backbencher gave an interview to the Sunday Times saying Osborne was lazy and useless. For those of us trying to run small businesses, his policies could not have been worse. Despite countless billions being supposedly pumped into the economy, it is virtually impossible to get credit from the bank. Having recently undergone a massive redevelopment of my studios I can vouch for this first hand. Despite having a rock solid business case, no debt and an existing cash flow which would support the loan, even if we failed to generate any new cash from the development, RBS spent a year mucking us around before saying "No". Their grounds "If you had a tenant like Tesco's moving into the site, we'd lend you the money, small businesses are risky".

I'm not the only person who has suffered this fate, people up and down the country tell a similar story. The only people the banks seem happy to lend to are businesses that don't actually need any capital. It wouldn't be so bad, but the government bailed these banks out with our cash. The bosses of these organisations are still raking it in. Osborne has been doing the job for two years and he's done nothing about any of this.

Even worse, for many small businesses is the effect of the VAT hike Osborne imposed in his first budget. VAT was increased from 15% to 20%. That effectively means that for may companies, especially in the services sector, you have to hand over 5% extra of your turnover to the Government. This means that you either put your prices up and scare off customers or you absorb the cost and get hit in the pocket. Take my business. We run a music studio. Typically a session in one of our rooms will cost approx £50 on a weekday evening in a larger room. George Osborne gave us the choice of putting up the cost by £2.50 - well above the rate of inflation or absorbing the cost and taking a hit in the pocket. A fifth of the cost to our customer is now VAT. As a business large enough to have to register for VAT, we give George a fifth of our turnover. We are competing with many studios who are one man band studios in single lock up garages, so we are in effect 20% more expensive. Many other businesses tell the same story. I was picking up a takeaway in Mill Hill on Wednesday and the boss of our local Indian restaurant was bemoaning the VAT hike and George Osborne. He pointed out that petrol costs are virtually all made up of tax. In short, anyone running a business gives 20% of their turnover to George Osborne in VAT, they give 4/5ths of the cost of their petrol to George Osborne, they pay corporation tax, employers NI and Business rates. We have a virtually incomprehensible tax regime. My company also has to deduct money from employees for the CSA, in effect doing the governments job for them, even though my employee's offspring are nothing to do with me. We have a plethora of rules and regulations to satisfy. When we opened our new building, we spent hundreds of pounds on signage, telling people such things as that they are about to enter a room with loud noises in.

And what has happened to the economy under George Osborne? It has sunk into recession. In the past, governments would spend years blaming the previous administration for such disasters. George Osborne can't because everyone knows that it is his fault. Yesterday I got a call from the Liberal Democrat Party. They were doing a survey as to why members had let their membership lapse. I said "The policies of the coalition government, do you want me to elaborate". The bloke on the other end of the phone said "No thanks".

Having run a business for 33 years, I can offer George Osborne (who has never run anything successfully) a little bit of advice. If you have any money at all for quantative easing, tax cuts or anything else, spend it on measures that will get the economy going and generate wealth. The ridiculous cut to the top rate of tax hasn't done this. The billions spent on quantative easing won't do this. Do things which generate economic activity at source. There are two things which will instantly help.

1) Cut VAT as much as possible. This will benefit businesses and consumers. It will ease families weekly shopping bilss and help the cashflow of ailing businesses.

2) Cut fuel excise duty. This will cut the transport costs of businesses, make commuting cheaper, reduce the costs for bus and train companies and give us all a few quid in our pockets. A 10p a litre cut in excise duty would give the economy a massive boost.

Both these measures would put cash in peoples pockets and boost businesses. Companies will be less likely to cut staff and more likely to hire them. That will reduce the burden of social security costs and further improve the state of the economy. It would also be nice to see a lessening of red tape, although I personally won't be campaigning for this, for the simple reason that every time the government (of both parties) say they will do this, they actually generate more red tape.

What I would do is remove the requirement for companies to collect money for CSA and other such things. I don't believe that this is in any way fair. I actually think it violates the rights and privacy of my staff. I've had three occasions where I've had to explain to staff that I am legally required to deduct money from their wages to support their offspring. As we are a small company and I know the staff well, they are completely humiliated by having to explain to me that they have been unable to agree child support arrangements with former partners. I don't think that it is the role of a company to have to pry into the lives of their employees.

Sadly there is no indication whatsoever that George Osborne gets any of this. What is George Osbornes recipe for economic recovery? Extra tax on cornish pasties. Has there ever been a more useless chancellor. I must confess that I was under the mistaken impression that having Vince Cable in the cabinet may inject a degree of sanity into the more bonkers realms of the Tory party. The sad truth is that the whole bunch have shown themselves to be inept. In the grim dark days of Gordon Brown's premiership, the then Chancellor Alisdair Darling cut VAT from 17.5% to 15%. That single measure prevented me from laying off one of my part time staff. Of all the many billions spent by the government on quantative easing and other "measures", that was the only one which actually benefitted my business and the businesses of anyone I know. I have come to the conclusion that, whether by accident or design, Labour is actually better for small business than the Lib Dem/Tory government we are currently lumbered with.

And if you are minded to disagree with my analysis, please preface your comment with how this government has been good for the company which you are running and what George Osborne has actually done for your business.

Why the fuel panic is a victory for David Cameron

I am amazed at the critical coverage that David Cameron is getting in the Tory press for starting a fuel crisis, when tanker drivers are not even on strike. Sure it is inconvenient, but anyone with half a brain should see exactly what Camerons game is. At the moment, tanker drivers are working normally. Forecourts are running out of petrol, so there is plenty of overtime to be had by the drivers. Very useful considering they may lose a few days pay when they strike. By getting everyone to have a full tank, Cameron has ensured that it will take a couple of weeks of striking before there is any real effect at all. The panic is all about breaking the strike and ensuring it is ineffective.

There is another side to it as well. One which will give David Cameron another victory. Great Britain is teetering towards recession. This is defined as successive quarters where the economy shrinks. All economic activity is fed into computers at the treasury and that determines how much the economy has grown or shrunk. One of the biggest figures in the math is the amount of fuel sales. Given that the panic has moved a couple of weeks worth of economic activity from April to March (ie from Q2 to Q1), this means that the first quarter will get an unexpected boost. If the economy was marginally in negative growth for Q1, this could well push it back out of recession, albiet on a technicality. It may well be that  Q2 is worse as a result, but as the technical criteria for recession is successive quarters, has David Cameron managed to avert the bad headlines with a "cunning plan".

You may say "why bother". Well, it's down to politics. If Boris loses the Mayoral election in May, then that will be a huge black mark over Cameron. It is clear that if the economy is in recession, after two years of George Osborne's policies, this will not help Boris. If the economy "unexpectedly" grows, then Boris can claim "green shoots" and pretend that Osborne's policies are working.

Would Cameron be so Machiavellian to spark a crisis to help the election chances of Boris? Well I can't remember a Government ever encouraging panic buying before. So as you sit in your car, queuing for petrol, reading your BackBoris leaflet, just make sure you remember who to thank, when the economy figures are released.

Lets face it, George Osborne hasn't got a clue

Normally I steer clear of national politics on this blog. Once in a while, it all gets too much and I have to say something. It's just that sometimes, it becomes so abundantly clear that the government has not got a clue about the real economy that something has to be said. Last week the Government and the Bank of England decided to commit another £75,000,000,000 to quantitative easing. This is being sold as "pumping money into the economy". It is nothing of the sort. If the government really wanted to pump money into the economy, they would simply cut fuel duty. Everything we do in the UK would be positively affected by this. It would be cheaper for people to get to and from work. It would be cheaper for companies to move their goods around the country, allowing a reduction in prices, which would stimulate sales. It would mean that every household in the country would have more money in their hard pressed budget to spend on goods, or paying their debts or paying the hidden taxes, those of us in Barnet are being clobbered with, or simply pay their winter fuel bills and keep warm.

You may be shocked that someone who supports a green agenda would suggest such a move? Surely high fuel taxes protect the environment? When times are good this argument can be made, but unless we take drastic action, we'll have a double dip recession and many ordinary families will be forced into poverty.

If all of the money being wasted on quantitative easing was spent on a simple cut in fuel duty, every part of the economy would be improved. At the moment this cash is simply going into bank coffers. As the vast majority of us keep our money in banks and spend it via various electronic methods (cards, net payments, ATM withdrawals), the banks would still get their hands on the vast majority of the cash, but we would be in control of how it was dished out, not them.

Sadly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne has never had a real job in the real world (to quote Councillor Brian Coleman). He's only ever worked in a series of political non jobs. As such he doesn't seem to understand that transportation is what makes the economy work. If freight companies profits improve, they can reinvest in new fleets, which are leaner and greener, using modern technology. This country needs to completely overhaul it's energy policies, but this can only happen with a healthy economy. With the idiotic policies of Osborne, chucking good money after bad, this will never happen.

I would personally like to see a Royal Commission set up to ensure that over the next 15-20 years Great Britain becomes the most energy efficient, eco friendly and clean country on the planet. I would like to see us lead the way in clean energy technology, effective mass transport systems and energy efficient homes. None of this will happen with an economy in stagflation, which is where Osbornes policies will take us. We've spent a small fortune on the Libyan war. When Libyan oil comes back on line, there will be a drop in the world oil price. Will we see it at the pumps? No chance, because the stealthy Tories see it as a good source of revenue. It is beyond their wit to see that they could kickstart the economy and then pay for all manner of environmental initiatives out of the proceeds of economic growth.  By my maths £75 billion of quantitative easing is worth approx £2,500 per household in this country. Why is it beyond the wit of a Tory Chancellor to let us decide how that cash is spent, rather than the banks and bankers. I would guess that a fuel tax cut that put £500 in every families pocket would create infinitely more wealth than this bonkers scheme and would generate far more economic activity, at a fifth of the cost to the taxpayer.

Is there any chance that George Osborne will actually wake up to the fact he's driving the economy over a precipice? Is there any chance that he'll realise that he's chucking good money after bad with his policies? No chance. It is a well documented fact that certain Tory ministers are partial to this blog. Is there any chance that they could possibly have a word with dopey George and get him to actually do something sensible for the economy for a change?

Why did you get married?

What is the most stupid, crass and wasteful tax proposal you've heard recently? Which one do you think is the biggest and most pointless waste of money? There is only one which really gets me spitting blood. Let me tell you why. Normally I leave this sort of thing alone, but when something is plain stupid, you just have to say.

Last week I celebrated my 15th wedding anniversary. Over the 15 years we've had some difficult times, most notably losing my mother and both of my wifes parents in the space of 18 months. It is hard to say whether this brought us closer together as we were pretty close together to start with. Why did I marry her? Because it was clear to both of us that we much preferred being together than apart (we tried that as well before we got hitched). The Shadow Chancellor George Osborne has come up with the idea of an "incentive" for people to get/stay married. He's going to give them a cash bung via the tax system.

Now excuse me for asking, but isn't there meant to be a crisis in public finances. Isn't there meant to be a squeeze on the cash the Government have to spolsh around? There are many levels which make this proposed "incentive" a bad idea. The biggest one is that it will have no effect whatsoever on whether people who really like each other get or stay married. It might mean that people who have split up, stay officially married until they meet new partners, to make a few quid. It's not inconceivable that a few people who don't even know each other and have no intention of having a relationship get married to get their hands on the cash. What will it acheive? Will it stimulate the economy? Unlikely. Will it create New jobs? Unlikely. Where will it come from?  A tax on banks. Aren't these all skint and desperately trying to rebuild their balances sheets? Aren't most of them owned by the taxcpayer, so the dividends go to the treasury anyway.  Will George Osborne wake up one morning to find that all he's done with his bank tax is deprive himself of dividends?

There are plenty of other things he could have done, if he really though that taxing banks was the best way to stimulate the economy. Here's a few suggestions, feel free to let me know which ones you think might have been a better option.

a) Repaid some of the National debt, reducing the amount of interest we'll have to pay in future.
b) Electrified or built a new rail line, generating jobs, improving infrastructure and making our nation greener.
c) Built some new prisons so we could lock up more criminals and reduce all of our insurance bills and let us sleep sounder at night.
d) Given small businesses employing less than five people a tax break if they took on extra staff.
e) Built offshore wind farms to produce cheap sustainable electricity and lessen our dependence on erratic foreign supplies.
f) Given a tax break to people buyimng electric cars, to improve the economy and develop jobs within a green industry.
g) Built new council houses to help deal with the crisis of housing in our country
i) Reduce the Tax on home grown wine to stimulate the local industry

Now I've just picked a random list of proposals from various parties and candidates which I've seen over the last few weeks. I support some but not all of these proposals. Please let me know if there is anyone out there who thinks that George Osbornes proposal is better for us than any of these and why. This marriage tax bung is stupid and wasteful and just shows that George Osborne isn't up to the job (By the way, on my wedding anniversary I saw Ken Clarke being interviewed on BBC News Channel after our nice meal out, seems from his comments he's with me on this one and thinks Osborne is wrong). If you are planning to vote Tory as you think they know how to run the economy properly, think again. Whilst many Tories are posting web stories saying "Vince Cable isn't quite as marvellous as you may think" none of them have actually managed to say they have the slightest belief that George Osborne know better than Vince Cable. The reason? because they'd look like idiots before the world if they did.

Disturbing vision of the future

As regular readers of the blog will know, in September I quit the Labour party and joined the Lib Dems. I thought I'd better find out a bit more about the party, so I took myself up to Birmingham to the Party conference. I've never been to any party conference before, so it was a new experience. Now I'm not going to bore you silly with my musings on the experience, but I will tell you something rather important. On Saturday, I suddenly had a terrible vision of the future. Since then I've been filled with a real sense of dread. Why, you may ask? Well I was sitting in the conference hall listening to Lib Dem Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable. As I listened to his analysis of what needed doing, I was suddenly struck by the horrors. I hadn't really given much thought to the economic situation in the country. Sure, I know there are problems, but this was the very first time I'd heard them spelled out in detail in terms I understood.

Now everyone knows that Cable is probably the only politician who's had a good credit crunch, but having listened to his speech, I understood why. Due to the timing of the election, the two main parties and their lackies in the press are selling us a big porkie. Unless you've sat and listened to a speech such as Vince Cables, you probably don't realise. You know how in cartoons, dogs run off the edge of a cliff and don't realise. Their legs keep going, then they stop, look around and drop like a stone. With regards to the economy, the British public are like the doggie with the legs still running, but with fresh air below us.

Whoever gets in, I suspect that shortly after the election, we'll get an emergency "austerity" budget. The big question is who will be setting it. The odds are on George Osborne. Sadly Mr Osborne has shown no evidence whatsoever that he actually has what it takes to do the job. Every time he's been asked to make a judgement call, he's got it wrong. As to Alisdair Darling? It is fair to say that he's not done a terrible job  with a very poor hand. The trouble is that he's weak and is likely to be replaced if he pushes for sensible measures, not to Gordon Browns liking. As Brown got us into the mess with his management of the economy, can we have any real confidence that the reforms necessary to fix the economy will be made? I doubt it. The only person who anyone really thinks knows what needs to be done, the only person who has called it right all the way down the line is Vince Cable.Whether you are a Tory, Labour or a Monster raving looney, if you've followed what's happened in the credit crunch, if you are honest, you will know that Vince Cable is the guy who's called it right. My disturbing vision of the future? Osborne or Darling announcing their austerity budget on May 7th (or shortly thereafter), whilst Vince Cable gives a withering analysis of why it's going to sink the economy.  I doubt anything I write in this blog will change this awful fact.

George Osborne on Newsnight

Did you see George Osborne on Newsnight being interviewed by Paxman.This is the bloke who could possibly be the Chancellor in May next year. I'm biased being a Labour supporter, but  I thought he was appalling. Paxman grilled him on how he was going to plug the budget defecit. Osborne was asked how savings of £7 Billion could plug a hole of £90 billion. Osborne could have said that the Tories will create an environment where business could thrive and the economy grow. He didn't. All he said is that there are billions of pounds worth of savings to be made in departmental budgets. Given that civil servants run these regardless of the party in power and we've heard this all before, can we believe any of it?

It strikes me that his new stealth tax rises are targetted at rather soft targets. Raising the pension age will hit a narrow and vulnerable band of people. Freezing public sector pay for those on over £18,000 will again hit hard working front line staff. You can be sure that the execs on £150,000 a year will get a "SPECIAL BONUS". When questioned by Paxman he said "I've not written the budget yet". He trotted the old line "We've been less dishonest than the other lot" several times - Sorry that should say "we've been a bit less vague about cuts".

The only way we'll ever plug the hole in the budget is to get the economy working so businesses generate more money and jobs. Everyone moved from the dole office to the labour market stops being a cost and becomes a source of revenue for the Government. If Osborne had a clue, hed get rid of red tape that makes it expensive and undesirable for people such as myself to hire staff. If companies employing less than 20 people were given an environment where they could flourish, rather than the current one where you get a massive new book of Income tax rules, an ever growing list of rules and regulations and massive costs and problems associated with employing people, then many people claiming benefits could be found work.

Another thing which Osborne hasn't addressed is those people claiming benefits and working illegally. I've seen estimates that this is costing the country up to £5 Billion. Whilst this problem will always exist, why not have an amnesty. Anyone who has been working and claiming benefits can be told that if they come forward and stop claiming benefits, for a six month period there will be no fines and no jail. After that it will double. That way many people would see it as an opportunity to start a clean slate and go legal.

One last thing. Why not give a six month break on business rates to all new start up companies. For many of these it would make a huge difference. I'd also like to see startup companies given a break on the minimum wage. If a firm could pay 50% of the minimum wage in their first year, then companies could get off the ground and attract people on the basis that if they make a go of it, they'll then get a decent wage after a year. I know many people who would start businesses tomorrow, but cannot afford the startup costs as prescribed by the Government. How come a Tory shadow Chancellor talks about none of this. Paxman hit it on the head when he asked him if "Someone who has worked for the Conservative Party since he was 23" had the right experience to do the job of running the economy? I'll leave you to guess what I thought the answer was.

Planet Earth to George Osborne

George Osborne really hasn't got a clue, has he? He has a plan. He's going to reassess all of the people on incapacity benefit and cut it for those found to be malingers. Billions will be saved as the lazy are found out and have their benefits chopped.

There's just one problem with his plan. The system is not designed to get people back to work. Doctors are not encouraged to get people into rehabilitation schemes and people are penalised for trying to get better. As a result, everyone plays the game.

George's plan may save a few quid but the concept that all of the recipients of Invalidity benefit will turn up at the doctors and say "I'm better, cut my benefits", is quite frankly bonkers.

As to the plan to freeze the pay of public sector workers. Does this apply to Councillors allowances. Anyone on over £18,000 a year will have their pay frozen. He talks of public servants earning more than the Prime Minister. What about people such as Tory Melvin Cohen who's just been awarded a £7,500 allowance for a few hours work attending meetings. I'm all for cutting a few taxes, but the the Tories should get their own house in order first and sort out the greedy councillors who stack up allowances like alcholics stack up drinks at the bar.