AUSTERITY, WHAT AUSTERITY ?

Listening to some of our politicians and political commentators whittering on about the extent of the 'austerity' being visited upon this country by those nasty people in Government, one may easily be driven to believe that we're in the middle of a massive squeeze on our pockets. These same people constantly harp on about 'Plan A' having failed and telling us that it is now time for 'Plan B', whatever either of these plans is supposed to be.

 

That there is a degree of Government tightening of the fiscal controls is undeniable but at the same time they are pumping untold billions into the economy via the wholly unproven mechanism of 'quantitative easing', a euphemism for printing money. The actuial consequence of all of this is an increase in employment, not the sharp decline that would be expected in a traditional economic downturn, though take-home wages certainly have been squeezed. Nonetheless, we do not have the starving millions on the streets that we might expect if we really were being subjected to severe austerity measures, as they are in Greece, Spain and one or two other Eurozone countries.

 

Politicians and their acolytes inevitably talk in political terms and for them it's all about whether they are supporters of the Government or of the opposition. The nonsense about 'Plan A' and 'Plan B' seems to have been an invention of the socialists, as is the drivel about the appalling austerity we're being forced to endure. In truth, we're little more than 2 years in to the current administration's term of office following 13 years of increasing mismanagment by the other lot which brought us to the point of total economis collapse, and I'm not talking about the banking crisis.

 

The Labour Governments of 1997 to 2010 followed the usual socialist policy of borrowing and spending vast amounts on the basis that something would turn up to plug whatever financial holes were created; while Mr Micawber was hourly expecting that something would, indeed, turn up, he also knew that spending more than you earned was the path to ruin. Labour apparently did not read 'David Copperfield' or chose to ignore Micawber's sound advice.

 

What was left in 2010 was the biggest Government mess ever, compounded by the effects of the banking crisis; the banks did not cause the Government's mess, but the Government certainly had a hand in the creation of the banks' one through its lax financial policies and monitoring. This was, of course, all in the pursuit of some idyllic world  in which we all becomne richer and richer while doing nothing of any tangible worth, a policy which was always going to end in tears.

 

Where we are now is at the sniffling stage. Those who had non-jobs in the public sector are the first to suffer and will soon be joined by those whose principle source of income is state benefits of one sort or another. Next will be those whose pay is simply not matched by their productivity or the value of the goods and services they produce, and their new cars, televisions, mobile 'phones and foreign holidays will have to go. By the time we get to this stage it will be all-out bawling our eyes out, but this stage is some way off yet. In other words, real austerity hasn't even begun.

 

Those who argue for a 'Plan B', meaning stop cutting government expenditure and start increasing it, are living in a fantasy land well beyond that of the cloud-dwelling cuckoos. For decades, we have paid ourselves too much for doing too little and the chickens are decidely coming home to roost; an economic correction had to come at some point and this is it. If we don't take the medicine now, but follow the socialist line of spending still more, the eventual pain will be a real live and full scale Depression which will teach us all the true meaning of 'austerity'.

 

Whatever the socialists are currently saying, they know full-well that more government spending will be disastrous; interest rates would soar along with inflation producing massive unemployment and a total loss of international credibility. We would be back to 1976 when dear old Denis Healey, another socialist, had to ask for help from the International Monetary Fund and had to accept stringent conditions as well.

 

Whether we like it or not, we're in for a lengthy period of economic retrenchment, not helped by the fact that most of the western world is in the same boat. The only good news is that we're not in the Euro.

ENTWHISTLE AND BBC AT THE CROSSROADS.

Listening to a discussion this morning about the BBC, it was easy to understand why this organisation is in such a mess.

 

The new Director General has been making nebulous statements about increased quality, reduced costs and heaven knows what else; his remarks tick all the right boxes, as required, without actually meaning anything specific, which is what he and his senior management would doubtless see as in their best interests. After all, if there are no properly measurable targets, there is nothing to be held to account for.

 

Once upon a time, the BBC fulfilled a role of huge national and international significance but it is now a pale shadow of its former self. Funded by the Government through the imposition of a tax dressed up as the 'Licence Fee' it has become a nonsense. Many of its programmes are merely advertising vehicles for whoever has released a new film, song, CD or DVD, book, play etc., etc. It is populated by a bunch of has-beens - as I write this, the television in front of me has a gaggle of newsreading women from the 1970s presenting yet another consumer programme. What their qualifications for doing this are and why they got the job must be 2 of life's great mysteries; given the BBCs penchant for being politically correct in all things, one has to assume that their presence on my screen has a lot to do with their a) being women and b) being over retirement age, neither of which seems to be an appropriate qualification.

 

When I was a child, there was one television channel, BBC1 which broadcast for no more than 10 or 12 hours a day; there were 3 main radio programmes titled the 'Light Programme', the 'Third Programme' and the 'Home Service', which were supplemented by the then great 'World Service. That was it. Today we have umpteen television channels - BBCs 1, 2, 3 and 4, CBBC, CBebbies, BBC News, and BBC Parliament, several of which broadcast around the clock; there are radio programmes 1,2,3 and 4, plus 1 Extra, 4 Extra, 5 Live, 5 Live Sport Extra, 6, Asian Network, and the World Service, plus a host of local radio stations on top of tall this, there's the BBCs website and online programming. Why all of this should be necessary in a world littered with commercial offerings in both radio and television is another mystery.

 

Mr Entwhistle, the new DG whose name seems to be drawn from the cast list of 'Last of the Summer Wine' has so many obvious targets for cost cutting and rationalization that he should have no trouble whatsoever in putting the BBC back on to the right path. We are often told these days that something is 'not fit for purpose' or that is has to be 'fit for the 21st century'; these and other meaningless phrases can and should be seized upon by Mr Entwhistle. For the BBC to be fit for a 21st century purpose, it should rid itself of all of the commercial and pseudo-commercial content which can be left safely to commercial broadcasters. It should stop the game of trying to compete with commercial broadcasters with its ridiculous and pointless morning chat shows and it should stop trying to provide individual services for just about every minor interest group in the country.

 

My recipe for the BBC is a simple but radical one. Get rid of the television channels, CBBC and CBeebies; these channels already have an amount of airtime on BBC2 in the mornings and some minor additional programming here should more than suffice as replacement. Merge BBC News and BBC Parliament into one online channel. Close Radio 1 which is nothing more than an advertising platform for music companies and leave this to comemrcial enterprises. Combine Radios 2 and 3 and get rid of Radio 6. The Asian Network should either be closed or added to the mix of Radios 2 and 3 - there is no place for separate community style radio stations in a national broadcaster. All local radio stations should be handed over to commercial broadcasters.

 

If Mr Entwhistle and his Board really want to make a difference and bring the BBC up to date, these are the types of changes he will have to make. Does he have the will ? Does his Board have the gumption ? If they go down this road they will have an almighty fight on their hands but, in the end, the BBC would emerge as a far stronger player producing genuine quality programmes. The alternative is a continuation of the decline in quality which has been seen in recent years and an eventual sale of the whole lot to Sky or some other commercial enterprise, which will then close most of it down.

HILLSBOROUGH : A CATALOGUE OF INCOMPETENCE, LIES AND DECEIT.

Back in April 1989 I had only recently moved from the northwest London area of Pinner to Hinckley in the midlands. I did not support either of the teams involved and was not a fanatical football supporter anyway; I had no particular connection with or knowledge of Sheffield.

However, when I heard that 2 of the victims of the Hillsborough Stadium disaster were teenage sisters from Pinner, it made the tragedy much more personal to me than it would otherwise have been. As the horror story unfolded the news was full of reports blaming anyone and everyone for the events of that day, 15th April, though what I remember most is the tragic story of the 2 girls, Sarah and Victoria Hicks, girls who had trodden the same streets that I did.

The publication of an independent report yesterday finally seems to have shed some real light on the tragedy. The Hillsborough Independent Panel has reviewed a vast amount of documentation and its findings are damning indeed:

Crowd safety was compromised at every level;

The response of the emergency services was slow and inadequate;

There was poor co-ordination and leadership of the rescue attempts;

Many of those who died may have had a chance of survival if the emergency response had been better;

Some authorities attempted to create an unjust account of events that sought to blame fans for the disaster;

The police spread "despicable untruths" about the behavious of some fans as part of an effort to "develop and publicise a version of events that focused on allegations of drunkenness, ticketlessness and violence";

Police officers carried out PNC ('Police National Computer') checks on those who died in an attempt "to impugn the reputations of the deceased";

 

Additionally, it's said that police officers 'doctored' statements in order to create a picture of events which supported their claims about the causes of the disaster and have continued to stand by these falsified documents ever since.

 

That our police service is far from perfect is something which many people know only too well. The often overbearing and aggressive manner in which some officers behave even when dealing with the most minor of situations has no doubt been experienced by many of us, although I've also experienced the other side of this coin - friendly, helpful and supportive officers who engender confidence and trust. However, the Hillsborough disaster seems to have brought out the worst in many of the officers who attended the stadium on that day; the Panel's findings indicate examples of lying, deceit, falsification of evidence and perverting the course of justice. It is a shocking report.

 

Many are now calling for new inquests to be held on the victims and for any implicated police officers who can be identified to be appropriately charged. To these calls, I can only say "Hear, hear!", and hope that those 2 girls from my small town, Sarah and Victoria Hicks, will finally receive some form of justice. 

WHO IS CHARITY REALLY FOR ?

I've always had the view that many supposed charities are nothing of the sort but are really just a mechanism for those in charge to con members of the public into paying them large salaries. Last Saturday, an article in the 'Daily Telegraph' provided some evidence for this viewpoint in respect of at least two well known charitable organisations.

 

Anthony Daniels, a former doctor, penned a piece about children in our society and the way in which supposed poverty has been used at the excuse for most of their ills from obesity to lack of education and bad manners. He particularly pointed at 'Save the Children' as one major 'charity' which uses the poverty tag in order to gain public sympathy

 

Daniels claims, probably quite rightly though I have no independent knowledge, that 'Save the Children' is simply a part of what he calls a charitable-bureaucratic complex that infests our society. Of the money it spent in 2009, £88m was on humanitarian assistance while a vastly disproportionate £58m was on staff wages. Worse still, this grotesquely bureaucratic organisation is headed by a man who was previously Communications and Campaigns Director for Gordon Brown, so simply a 'PR man', on a salary approaching £140,000 per year while a further 164 staff were paid salaries of more than £30,000 per year. All this in an organisation supposedly dedicated to eradicating 'child poverty'.

 

Almost one third of the total funds raised by 'Save the children' in 2009 were spent on fund-raising; is this really what people think they're contributing to when they put their cash in the envelope or tin ? Daniels also commented in passing on another, smaller, charity which is far worse; the 'Child Poverty Action Group' managed to spend £1.55m of its total income of £1.99m on wages, that is nearly 80% of its total revenue. How can this possibly be considered to be a charity, unless it's one for its staff ?  

 

'Save the Children' receives substantial funds from various governments including our own which contributed £19m in 2009. The European Union also paid over £12m, meaning that organisations that take our taxes happily chucked over £30m of our money into the 'Save the Children' kitty.

 

Charity is no longer what it once was, small organisations run by volunteers and other well-meaning people on small salaries. Today's charities are often huge bureaucratic organisations, sometimes multi-national in scope, which operate as much for the benefit of their employees as for whatever cause they're theoretically supporting. They have hordes of directors and other people in corporate roles, jobs more typical of industry than of charity and governments seem to be quite happy with all of this, allowing them an assortment of special arrangements and tax breaks.

 

WHY ?

 

TAX CREDITS CAN BE A CON.

I've just heard a Labour spokesman, Rachel Reeves, make a statement that I find mindbogglingly incomprehensible. Talking on the 'Daily Politics' the importance of people being better off in work than on benefits came up and Reeves immediately referred to the importance of tax credits in achieving this. Tax credits were, of course, an invention of that failed Chancellor and Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who just happens to be a member of the same party as Reeves.

 

Now, I have looked in some detail at the way in which tax credits operate and the way in which they also affect 2 other principal benefits, those for housing and council tax. The simple truth is that these 3 sources of income are structured and intertwined in such a way as to render it impossible to gain from working more hours once you have achieved the minimum for tax credits which is currently set at 24, at least if you're on a relatively low wage. The way that the system works actually means that for anyone who receives all 3 payments, which must be a very large number of people, every extra pound they earn from additional work is taken away by reductions in their tax credits and benefits; there is, in fact, a perverse disincentive to work longer hours or earn any more.

 

There are some slight 'wrinkles' in the system which mean that tax credits are not usually reduced within a year in which a claimant's pay rises, but this is countered by the savage actions of local councils which grab back whatever they can whenever they can, frequently, it seems, following a deluge of incomprehensible paperwork.

 

The system as it is currently structured may encourage people to go to work, but it provides no incentive for them to work more than 24 hours nor to earn more than the minimum wage. It simply encourages people to seek out menial, low paid, employment and, once they've found it, does nothing more. Whether or not Iain Duncan Smith's much heralded 'Universal Credit' will address this issue has yet to be discovered but there can be no doubt that the present system has failed miserably and is in need of replacement.

 

Reeves might do well to find out  bit more about how the tax credit system actually works.

CHARLOTTE GREEN & HARRIET CASS; TWO GREAT OLD PROS !

This morning I've heard snippets of a story from the BBC which is also about the BBC, though without so far hearing the full context. The story is one which will cause considerable pain to many.

 

It appears that one consequence of the Beeb's ongoing internal reorganisation is to be the demise of 2 of its most long-standing newsreaders, Harriet Cass nd Charlotte Green, both of whom seem to to have been around for ever. Indeed, one presenter stated that their combined service added up to well over 70 years.

 

In this age of local accents and dialects not to mention the rise of 'celebrity' newsreaders such as Fiona Bruce who think themselves so much more important, to hear the tones of Harriet and Charlotte has been a pleasure. Every time some other presenter announced that it was time for the headlines, to be read by Harriet Cass or Charlotte Green, one's spirits soared. Both speak with mellifluous tones, clearly and precisely. They have shown no propensity to pretension and have, for me at least, remained wholly unknown except for their voices; ohh, those voices !.

 

Charlotte, of course, has had a couple of  'moments' which will no doubt be remembered long after she's gone, and she's also been a wonderful voice on the long running radio programme, 'The News Quiz'. Harriet, I think, has kept more to her role as a newsreader and announcer, a role she has fulfilled professionally and beautifully for many years. The 'Shipping Forecast' really will never be the same again.

 

To say that the departure of these 2 ladies is a tragedy would be to overstate things, but they will be sorely missed. Unlike the egregious bunch of television presenters who all seem to see newsreading as merely the first step on a ladder to celebrity status, these 2 stuck close to their roots and were all the better for it.

 

Farewell, Dear Ladies; your headlines will never be forgotten.