AUSTERITY IS A MYTH ; REALITY IS DIFFERENT.

I read an article recently which poured scorn on the notion that people in the UK today are having a hard time. After giving the matter a few moments thought, I can only agree that the so-called 'austerity' which we have endured is a myth and that, in reality, the vast majority of people are much better off than they have ever been.

Having said that, many will not agree. They will point to tiny, or non-existent, wage rises in recent years, ridiculous house prices, student fees and many other things to demonstrate how they're being hard done by. They will say that their future prospects are miserable, with the likelihood of lower pensions than their parents while also having to work to a greater age. To some extent, they have a point.

However, what they don't consider is the overall standard of living which they enjoy when compared with earlier generations. They seem to be oblivious to the need to make mature choices about their futures, in particular, with regard to the ways in which they manage their money. While previous generations had a tendency to prioritise spending on housing followed by essentials, today's generation seems to prioritise spending on leisure, pleasure and egotism. For many, possession of the latest technological gadgets, the latest 'designer' clothes, assorted body decoration and holidays in exotic places have taken precedence over buying a home paying everyday bills and saving for the future. They whinge about having to pay fees to go to university while doing nothing to help themselves and not even understanding the rules around the loan system.

They have money for smoking, drinking and all sorts of personal enjoyment, yet can't pay their everyday bills. Having spent their money on frippery, they then complain that they are poor and can't afford the deposit for a house or to save for the future. Basically, they seem to think that the world owes them a living while they appear to accept little or no responsibility for themselves. They are horribly decadent and their overall approach to life is not that far removed from earlier societies which had reached a peak and then suffered catastrophic collapse. They expect something for nothing, a return with no effort and that the state must support them in whatever they choose to do. They believe themselves to be 'deserving' and invulnerable.

Well, life ain't like that. The modern generation are infinitely better off than any generation that went before. They have access to things and riches that were unimaginable 100 years ago, even 50 years ago; if they choose to squander those riches that's their funeral. In this world, it's effort and forward planning that are rewarded and if they can't understand that, tough. Rather than whining about the injustice of their situation they need to 'wake up and smell the coffee'; they need to pull their collective fingers out, get up off their bone-idle arses and start seeing the world as it really is.

What price anything like that will happen, at least in the near future ? In the longer term, it's inevitable because, otherwise, they'll all be in cardboard boxes under bridges all over the country.

CHRISTINE LAGARDE : POLITICAL CRIMINAL.

Yesterday, a French court found that the former Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde, had been negligent with regard to a small matter of €404m (£340m) paid to a French businessman, Bernard Tapie, in 2008. Despite the decision, the court also decided that this negligence warranted no penalty and Ms Lagarde will have no criminal record.

Today, the Board of the International Monetary Fund, of which Ms Lagarde is now Managing Director, considered the outcome of the case but also decided that it had no bearing on her position with them and expressed its continuing confidence in her.

How on earth can it be that someone can be so negligent and yet escape both punishment and censure ? How can it be that someone who has been found guilty of such gross financial negligence can retain the confidence of an organisation which manages not millions but many hundreds of billions of pounds, dollars, euros and the rest ?

This is a classic case of the political world being very different from that inhabited by the rest of us. A cashier negligent over £400 would probably lose their job; a financial accountant negligent over £4,000 could well be suspended from their Institute; a finance director negligent over £40,000 might well go to prison. However, a Finance Minister and international financier, negligent over €400m receives no punishment and retains her position as head of one of the world's most important financial institutions.

How is this right ?

LIONEL BLUE : R.I.P.

Only a few days ago I wondered if we'd ever hear Lionel Blue on the radio again. Yesterday, I was saddened to hear of his death, aged 86.

Rabbi Lionel Blue was a regular contributor to Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day' for many years and it was always worth listening to his brief broadcasts. His homespun philosophy, frequent references to his childhood and grandmother, and blatant lack of religiosity meant that his message was always delivered with humour rather than with the unctuous earnestness of too many of his fellow broadcasters.

I do not share Rabbi Blue's beliefs, indeed, I hold with no religion, but he was, without doubt, someone worth listening to. Very often, his thoughts struck chords that resonated with the everyday lives of many people and his absence from the airwaves in recent years has left a void.

Lionel Blue will be missed.

POST-BREXIT DEAL TO TAKE 10 YEARS ! ?

Anti-Brexit forces continue to try to spread stories of alarm and despondency in their efforts to thwart the result of last June's referendum.

Today's news carries a story to the effect that the UK ambassador to the European Union, Sir Ivan Rogers, has 'warned' the government that it may take many years for a 'post-Brexit' trade agreement to be finalised; he's even suggested that a deal may never be reached. Here we go again.

Rogers is understood to be a fairly strong Europhile and supporter of the Union, and his words should obviously be heard in that light. He is reportedly expressing a view garnered from meetings with various EU officials which is also highly dubious; these very same EU officials have a vested interest in setting down a strong negotiating position in advance of the talks which will begin once Article 50 has been triggered, so they are hardly likely to be saying that everything will be simple.

The truth is straightforward. No more than 2 years after the triggering of Article 50, the UK will leave the European Union. If, at that time, no trade agreement has been reached World Trade Organisation rules and tariffs will apply; the prices of German, French, Italian and Swedish cars offered for sale in the UK will go up by 10%, as will the prices of wines, cheeses, clothes and much more that the UK imports from members of the Union. At the same time, the prices of UK goods and services sold in the EU will rise in similar fashion.

As the UK buys much more from the EU than it sells to it, the EU will bear an additional net cost of billions of Euros. EU manufacturers will see their sales and profits fall as UK citizens buy their cars from the US, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea and elsewhere. European wine growers and others will see mountains of unsold goods piling up while UK consumers switch their allegiance to tariff-free imports from the US, Australia, New Zealand, China, India and so on.

What nonsense. Failing to reach a sensible agreement is in no one's interests and the ambassador's reported remarks are nothing other than scaremongering. Of course, the negotiations may be complex and may have their difficult moments but, in the end, a deal will be done and in a reasonable time, because it must be done. The EU also has far too many other problems to allow Brexit to become an everlasting issue.

Quite simply, there is no choice.

BREXIT TIME LIMIT SET ?

As the opponents of 'Brexit' line up, one Michel Barnier has put in his pennyworth today.

Barnier has been appointed to lead the UK's exit negotiations for the EU. Various reports have suggested that he's a bit of a 'tough nut' and will not make things easy for the UK. Today, he's had a go at putting some flesh on the bones of his strategy and, on the face of things, it doesn't make happy reading. The time available for negotiation will be short, a mere 18 months, he says, and 'cherry picking' won't be allowed. It's also been said that there will be no discussions about arrangements AFTER the UK leaves until after the end of the 'leave' negotiations.

Barnier reckons that the 2 year timeframe set out in Article 50 of the EU's constitution includes the time needed for any agreement to be ratified by the various organs of the Union as well as by the government of the UK; hence, he says, the UK will only have 18 months to agree a deal. What he seems to be forgetting is that there will be 2 parties to the negotiations and it won't only be the UK which has a limited time to reach agreement, it will be the EU too. Barnier's remarks seem to suggest that he sees the process as coming down to the EU making an offer which the UK will be obliged to accept due to lack of time - more fool him. The truth has to be that, if his timescale is to be met, both sides may have to compromise, but neither more so than the other.

The comments about 'cherry picking' are just window dressing. Thus far, the only people who have actually suggested that this is a real issue are representatives of the EU and some of those who continue to fight against 'Brexit', using this red herring as a frightener.

The final matter, that of what will happen after the UK leaves the Union, will only be an issue if intransigence triumphs. If EU leaders decide to be particularly difficult, this could become an issue, with nasty barriers suddenly erected in the way of trade and economic co-operation, migration, security, research and development and so on. While this could happen, only a bunch of idiots would actually let it, and the likelihood has to be that there will be agreements in place covering most areas at the time of the final divorce. The alternative would be for a catastrophic mess affecting major European industries producing cars, wine, cheese, clothes, shoes, companies involved in tourism and finance, institutions carrying out research and development and much, mush more. Quite simply, the consequences of being stupid are far too serious for anyone to be stupid, whatever bombastic rhetoric they may spout for public consumption..

Barnier has made a point that the EU is fully prepared for the forthcoming negotiations, implying that the UK is not. In truth, neither side is really ready as neither side expected the situation to arise. It is new ground and both sides are equally at sea. They have no choice but to be sensible and reasonable and making noises about rigid time limits does not help.

POPULISM : THE NEW DIRTY WORD.

These days, when the voters of several countries appear to have turned their backs on the 'liberal elites' who have run things for many years, we are told that this is 'Populism'. This seems to be a highly condescending way of acknowledging that the people have spoken, while also making it clear that their view is wrong.

The members of the 'liberal elite' hate the very notion of the common people being listened to at all, other than in largely meaningless elections; elections of themselves are fine, but when the only serious candidates are all from the same basic stock, they become pointless, simply a means to continue in the same old, time-worn fashion.

In the UK, the people voted to leave the European Union but there are those who really don't want to listen; they are doing whatever they can to prevent the 'will of the people' from being enacted. The political party most responsible for the vote to leave, UKIP, is branded 'populist'.

In the USA, Donald Trump, a supposed right wing 'populist', defeated the establishment's choice, Hilary Clinton, and will be his country's next President. The establishment is united in its condemnation of almost everything which President-elect Trump says or does.

Now, in Italy, Prime Minister Renzi has lost a referendum vote on changes to his nation's constitution; the outcome has been branded as a victory for 'populist' ideas. In Austria, the defeat of a right wing candidate in that country's Presidential election has been deemed a vote against 'populism'.

The establishment, composed mostly of like-minded people of a mildly socialist inclination, brands anything vaguely right wing as being 'populist' in an attempt to make it seem uninformed, uneducated and wrong. Thankfully, it seems that at least some of the people have finally decided that enough is enough. Let's hope that a few more follow suit.

BREXIT : WILL IT EVER HAPPEN ?

Despite the result of the referendum last June, I begin to think that the UK will never actually leave the European Union. In traditional anti-democratic style, there will eventually be a second referendum aimed at achieving the 'right result'.

Those who are hell-bent against the UK leaving are using every possible tactic in order to try to prevent it. In the first place, they have invented the terms 'Hard Brexit' and 'Soft Brexit', neither of which has any greater meaning than the straightforward 'Brexit', in order to give them a basis for their arguments. They are revisiting the arguments put forward before the referendum, specifically those which continually tried to scare voters by stories of the horrors to come; before the referendum, it was the horrors to come if people dared to vote to leave, now it is the horrors to come if we dare to leave the single market.

We are told, repeatedly, that those who voted to leave didn't understand the full effect as the 'Brexit' campaign never set out a true manifesto. Indeed, on this morning's 'Sunday Politics' programme, Nick Clegg attempted to make this point even though there was ample evidence presented to show that both campaigns had set out, very clearly, the implications of a 'Leave' vote. Clegg even tried to play down his own vehement and absolute comments about the referendum being a once in a generation opportunity and that a vote to leave would be absolute. Now, of course, he's actively campaigning for 'Remain' again, with demands that the UK must stay in the 'single market', accept free migration, remain subject to the European Court and so on; he's even saying that he may well vote against the triggering of the infamous 'Article 50', and that a referendum on the terms of leaving would not be a second referendum, but the first on that basis. His logic is so twisted, his language so disingenuous and his general attitude so undemocratic that the very sight of him makes me want to throw bricks at my television. This is a man who is so determined to maintain all of his 'gravy train' options that he will do anything at all in their pursuit; he was, of course, a member of the European Parliament for a few years and is now most reluctant to bite the hand that previously fed him.

Clegg aside, those who want our country's independence back face a massive task. Our own parliament has a majority against 'Brexit', the House of Lords in particular. The courts are involved and may well throw a spanner in the works; they could even refer the final decision on the triggering of 'Article 50' to the European Court, which really would be a smack in the eye for those who voted to leave. A General Election may be the only way for Theresa May to proceed and, even then, she could still be stymied.

Whoever thought that democracy had anything to do with the will of the people better think again.