Is this government a cult?

 A discussion on the Ship made me consider that this government might, in fact be a religious cult. Let me explain why I think this.

1. A charismatic leader. Well, some people think he is. A smooth talker at least. That is a good start, someone who seems to be able to convince people that black is white.

2. An unerring belief in their own ideas. Irrespective of how demonstrably wrong or mistaken they are, they still believe that the Tory Ideal for Britain. The problems are always something to do with either the precise implementation, or the refusal of other people to accept them properly.

3. Total dismissal of anyone who disagrees with their principles. We have most recently seen this in the gagging of government funded science, where scientists are not allowed to criticise the government if they are funded by them. But it is wider - they refuse to accept insight from anywhere that does not sign up to the Tory Way.

4. "It is the right thing to do" - I have heard this so often, it is becoming a Cameron mantra. But it is the justification for all sorts of things, and there is nothing to really say against it. "No it isn't" sounds like childish arguing, but often this is the appropriate response. It is a brilliant piece of strategy and a dangerous approach to governing.

5. "If you vote for anyone else, you will go to hell". We hear this - in various forms - so often. Labour will ruin the economy (like the Tories haven't already), anyone else is a waste, voting for the Tories is a vote for a Greater Britain. It is so like the language used in churches and cults - "Stay with us, however much we abuse you, because if you leave your worst nightmares will happen". It works in so many abusive relationships.

What do we do now?

Following a disappointing election result, the next question is, what now?

The simple answer is to protest still in whatever ways are legal, possible and sensible. We have lost the chance to make a point for another five years, but in that time, we need to electioneer for five years. The fight is not finished, it is just starting.

One of Camerons early promises was to scrap the Human Rights Act. I am pleased to see that this proposal has not made the Queens Speech, which means this is unlikely to proceed this year. The truth is that Cameron seems to feel that "human" is not sufficient to grant someone rights. This is wrong. People have rights irrespective of whether they are rich or poor, attractive or not, loveable or hateful. Scrapping the HRA would have meant that abuse of the poor by the rich - something that Cameron clearly supports - would increase.

One aspect of this protesting in whatever way possible is by telling the truth, not accepting the lies. One of the biggest lies is Austerity, but it is important to understand why it is a lie. The word was used deliberately because it has positive associations. When we hear the word, the association are with wartime austerity, the sense of "all pulling together" - that it is good thing we are all working towards as a nation, as a people.

But that is not what the current measures are about. They are completely different. We do not need "austerity" in this country, because there is PLENTY OF MONEY. The problem is that the money is in the hands of the wealthy, and not the poor. The problem is that the distribution of the wealth is wrong. If there was a more even distribution of wealth in this country, we wouldn't need "austerity" measures, because there would be plenty of money to cover the welfare of the needy. If we were to collect all of the evaded tax (that is, the illegally unpaid tax money), then the welfare budget could be increased, not cut; the NHS could be better funded. Even more, if we were to introduce measures to enable affordable housing across the country (and especially in London), we would enable the next generation to have some hope of being able to live.

In truth, if we were to take one of the principles of austerity, and focus on those things that we consider important as a nation: not just pandering to the rich, but supporting the welfare state, the NHS, enabling education for all, a belief in the value of all people. If we focussed on making that happen, we could do it. What is more, I think those values are some of the core British values. I might include a welcoming of strangers, those in trouble, those in need.

So what can we do? Tell the truth, because it is very clear that this government does not tell the truth - they lie to us. Some of their lies are just political manipulation of figures (which means we have to find the truth behind them), but some are just outright lies. Countering these, telling the truth is important. Getting the real story out is important.

That EU Clawback debate

There has been a whole lot of discussion about a bill sent by the EU to Britain for £1.7Bn. The whole issue reads rather like a comedy sketch.

Firstly, the fact that this bill arrived unexpectedly - which suggests that the government are not in charge of their own budgets. OK, unexpected bills arrive for everyone, but if we are in control of our lives, our budgets, we should be prepared for these expenses. I prepare for the car bills, the society membership bills, I even try to prepare for the possibility of larger car bills, even expenses for the house. OK, they might be larger than expected, but I make some provision, some preparation.

We are planning some significant work on the house, and have worked very hard to make sure that we have the money for this, including some spare because the final bill might be a little larger. That is preparation and planning. I cannot say that I always do it, but I try to stay on top of potential expenditure, expected bills. Apparently better than David Cameron does.

David Camerons response to this was childish - he simply stated that "we will not pay this". What is interesting is that many people in this country find that they have large bills unexpectedly arrive, or income that is dramatically reduced. The poor in this country struggle with the vicious attacks made on them by - David Cameron. When they say "we will not pay this", they are demonised, called slackers, incompetent.

So George Osborne has been to Europe to see what could be done. He comes back saying that he has negotiated an incredible result - we only have to pay half of the money, and we have more time to pay it. Which is, of course, a whole lot of manipulative deception. As it has turned out, he has not got any reduction on the amount to be paid - it is just that he decided to count in a rebate that we were already going to have. Despite David Cameron's claims that "we will not pay", George Osborne has "negotiated" to actually pay all of the bill. Strangely, I have had negotiations like that, and come out feeling like I have lost, rather than won.

He has managed to get an agreement to pay half of it later. He tells us this is "installments" but it is just a deferring of half - the sort of deal most people could get on a large bill if they were struggling to pay it. OK, it is a deal, it is an improvement on having to pay it all in one go, but I would hardly call it a substantial victory - it is the sort of deal one suspects we could have achieved without a lot of fuss if we had just asked.

Recently, I had a dispute with a mobile phone company. At the end, they sent me a bill that I told them I should not have to pay, because I had previously asked them to cancel the account. If I had agreed to pay half the bill in six months time, I would have been very disappointed. I had the final bill cancelled, which I consider a reasonable and fair result - not a major success, just a reasonable conclusion.

George Osborne has claimed that "The truth is we have achieved a real win for British taxpayers" - that is a lie. He has agreed a minor rearrangement in the terms of the payment. We will not pay any less than we would have otherwise - so David Cameron is shown up as a liar. George Osborne is show up as someone who sill spin minor failures as substantial successes. The truth is that this governments management of the economy and the country is appalling, and incompetent. That is what this farce demonstrates.

Yes, I am not fan of this government, of their politics and their actions. So I will tend to see events in a bad light. I suppose it is up to you to decide whether I am portraying these actions in a deliberately bad light, or whether it is this sort of manipulative spin is the reason that I find the less blatant or obvious deceptions to show them in their true light.

I believe that this government hates us - the ordinary, not-hugely-wealthy people in this country. I don't really understand why, but I believe it is true. That is a bad state of affairs.

Democracy

The worst system of government possible, except for all of the other ones that have been tried - according to Winston Churchill. I am not sure I entirely agree.

Of course, democracy is the touchstone for Western imperialism across the world, the establishment of a "democratically elected government" being the indication of an acceptable, reasonable and stable regime. Which is why the west like to deal with non-democratic regimes across the world, because they are far more corruptible.

The problem is that in the UK - and the US, although I understand their system very little, so I will not comment on it - we do not have a democratic system. The other problem is that I am not convinced that rule by committee is actually the best solution.

So why do I say that the UK is not democratic, given that we are often seen as the heart of modern democracy? The problem is, we have a FPTP voting system, which means that a government can govern without the majority of the population having voted for them (in fact, it is possible to form a government without the majority of the voters having voted for them). It means that targeting can make a difference, because not every vote is worth the same.

It means that if I vote and my selected candidate does not get the most votes, my votes are irrelevant, they are not being represented. Even if my chosen candidate does get elected, if their party does not get the most MPs, my vote will not count in terms of government. Of course, all of the parties are aware of this, and so they manipulate their resources towards achieving target constituencies, towards those few votes that can make a difference.

The other reason that we are not democratic is that for true democracy - for everyone to have their say - there needs to be a wide spread of representative views. At the moment, we don't have this - the two main parties are both right wing (or centre right I would concede for Labour). Because of the FPTP system, the minor parties do not have a chance of power, meaning that those of us who are of a socialist leaning do not have anyone to vote for. I do support the Green party, who are (in my opinion) the only viable socialist choice, but the systems we have - the undemocratic systems - mean that my views - and the many others who support the Greens - cannot get our views represented.

If my views are not represented - and the 7% or so of others who support the Greens - then we are not democratic. It is not that my views are not represented (if I hold very radical views, it might be that they shouldn't be represented) - it is that the many who share my views do not have representation. If these are shared by a significant proportion of the population - and 7% is a significant proportion - they should be represented.

As I am writing this, UKIP have just achieved their first MP. This is being hailed as a significant achievement by them, and the media is full of this. It was significant that when the Greens achieved their first MP at the last general election (general elections are harder than by-elections), there was nothing like the same media coverage. This is not a gripe about media coverage of the Greens, it is a reflection of the piteous state of democracy today, where MP can win elections because of media manipulation and the personable nature of Nigel Farage (and likewise with David Cameron, but not Ed Milliband). That is the problem with the form of democracy we have today.


But why do I argue that "democracy" might not be the best solution? That seems like a very radical position to take. The thing is, the nature of the democracy we have means that those elected can enjoy their time in power, and not actually have to take responsibility for whether they do a good job or not. It is more about how the party does nationally, what the resources that are put into the constituency is and a whole lot of other causes that have little to do with how well they do.

I want to question whether a benign dictatorship might not be a better option. Now this is quite shocking, because "dictatorship" is a bad word. In truth, most of the dictatorships we ever hear about (in fact, most of them whether we hear about them or not) are not that benign, and when they have complete power, but are not answerable to their people, they can be (and usually are) very dangerous. In truth, a single person in power, is liable to be corrupted. Of course, our MPs are liable to be corrupted, and have shown themselves to be corrupt in many cases.

But this sort of absolute dictator, imposing their own views on the people, is not what I have in mind. It is someone who has the power to put into place their policies, but who also has to take responsibility for them, because they will be in power long enough to have to deal with any problems caused by their decisions. They should be working for the good of their people - all of their people. They should be paid well enough, and not be allowed to take any other job, either while in power or after. Their term should be long, but not unlimited, and their successor should be elected (democratically!) without them having any involvement in this.

OK,. this is not a full or perfect system. How you ensure that they remain benign? How you manage abuse of power - if they are responsible to a group, how do you appoint the group? And keep them accountable? In fact, the truth is, there might be a better option. But I do think that we need to have this discussion, because at the moment, our version of democracy is not working. I can envision a benign dictatorship that would be better, and the UKIP victory makes me even more convinced that out current system does not work.


In the end, the cradle of democracy is behaving more like a teenager. And it is not pretty. In fact, it stinks like a teenagers bedroom.

The problem of Bread

I have just finished reading "The Conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin. He is an important author in the anarchist/communist reading library, and so I was interested to read what he had to say. However, this book has clarified to me one of the core problems of an anarchist/communist revolution, as he desires. At the core, it is the fundamental failure of the communist ideal, but adding in the anarchist beliefs, and so insisting on no rule, no control, simply exacerbates this problem.

The problem is that it relies on people behaving in the right way. At one point he talks about expropriation of all property, and inviting everyone to take a property that they need rather than the hovel they already have. To the question of "surely everyone will want the biggest and best property", his answer is to trust to the good will of everyone to take only something that they need.

There are a number of ways of addressing this and exploring why it is a mistaken belief - why people are clearly not fundamentally good and altruistic. He draws examples to illustrate his belief from the altruistic behaviour of people when there is a crisis or accident, and I would not wish to dismiss these cases, these situations, or to ignore the core goodness that these show. However, these are different situations - communities do often work together to help everyone in a crisis. We do care for our neighbours, because we all live in a community (however large or small). I know that in our road of 6 houses, we will look out for each other, assist if necessary, be prepared to go out of our way to be neighbourly.

However, the Christian message is very clear that we are not at a core level good. This is not a question of Original Sin, which is a doctrine I have real problems with - it is the Christian understanding that we are all "sinners", we all fail, at some level and some point, to live up to our own ideals, never mind Gods.

This means that, if it were to come to a property grab, we would not be lovely and altruistic. If it was about enabling an individual who was homeless to find a properly, we would support that. If it is about what we can get, we would tend to go for the best we can achieve. We are selfish at some level, and would want to get the best we can - maybe on the basis the someone has to, and we would use the space for something good and wholesome, maybe we would justify our greed, but we would still be greedy. That is part of the human condition.

But it is not just the Christian message that tells us this is a flawed approach. The core problem that the communist writings explores is that some people earn money form other peoples work - they are fundamentally greedy or lazy, wanting the riches but not wanting to do the work to make it happen. There is an underlying assumption to this that it is a certain class of people who are like this, wanting something for nothing, whereas the good honest workers, who are oppressed by this system, just want a decent days pay for a decent days work. This idea occurs in The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists too, and other works expounding radical left-wing politics.

The truth is, as we can see quite clearly from those who have raised themselves into positions of power and wealth, that this is not just a few who are avaristic. It is all of us who, given the chance, would tend to grab more and more. And, as these writings make clear, if some people take more, this is always at the expense of others. In a global economy, we may delight at being able to get school uniforms for £5, while ignoring the fact that this almost certainly means slave labour has been used to produce them. Somewhere in the world, people suffer for our advantage.

That is why I cannot support that approach to reform - the communist/anarchist approach. That is why I temper my anarchism, and why I am a socialist, not a communist. In the end, I don't believe this approach would work, because it is failing to take a realistic attitude to human failings. It is idealistic, and assumes that everyone could be won over to the ideals, not just the results.

Change is needed. But change has to be realistic, not idealistic. That is a real problem, a real challenge to any political philosophy. Otherwise all that happens is that a different groups of selfish, power-hungry people obtain the power.

Lies, Damned lies and Statistics

As I write this, the latest unemployment figures have been released, indicating a reduction in overall unemployment, and specifically a reduction in youth unemployment.

I will return to these later, but it reminded me of something I came across in my research, which is that people tend to achieve according to whatever statistical measure you use. This means that if management see reports to indicate progress - however they understand that - those reports will tend to show good progress, because everyone want to show good progress. This is only a problem if the reports are not reflecting what management think they are.

So, if I am judged on the number of hours I work, I will probably work longer hours. That doesn't mean that I getting more work done, just that I am recording more hours. The fact that I could, possibly, achieve more working less hours is irrelevant because, according to those in charge, "achieving more" is the same as "working more hours".

This is not an issue as long as those in charge know that this is what they are measuring. Of course, as so many failed projects shows, this is not by any means always the case. So many failures are caused by this mismatch of managerial expectation and reality, because some people assume that information means one thing, when it doesn't.

So, back to the unemployment statistics. The thing is, Tory governments (especially, but not exclusively) have, for many years, taken these as the indications of the success of their policies. This means that they find a range of ways to reduce these figures - without necessarily meaning that people are in any better situations.

So moving people onto training schemes - some of which are good, others are not - keeps the figures down. Reducing the availability of benefits can also be used to reduce the figures. And how many of these people - especially given that the reduction is most significant in younger people - are in zero-hours contracts, or jobs paying less than a living wage?

This government has stated - wrongly - that people in work are better off than those not in work. That only applies if they are in reasonably paid work. Reducing the statistics while not actually helping people is deceptive. What I would like to see is how many people are existing on less than the living wage - that is far more of an indicator of how people are doing. I suspect the group of those working but on less than living wage (calculated on a weekly, received money rate, so zero-hours people can be based on how much work they actually get) is far higher now than it was a few years ago.

I do not want to dismiss the fact that some people who were unemployed are now in viable jobs. That is a good thing, and I want to see more of it. What I don't want to see is people being forced into unsuitable roles and low-paid jobs just to satisfy the politicians need to show certain statistics are down.

What is more, I know that the government will use reduced unemployment figures to "prove" that they are "doing a good job". That is, of course, the problem with statistics - they are presented as unarguable and unanswerable when they are anything but. They do not prove anything, except that the statistic being used has changed. It is academically poor to presume a changed statistic demonstrated something without looking at the whole picture.

So when the government claims that it is doing a good job because the unemployment statistics show this, remember - they don't. And they aren't.

Wither socialism?

I have just finished reading a couple of the classic texts on socialism - The ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressel and The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell. What struck me about these - worrying - is how contemporary these descriptions and assessments are.

So Tressel points out that those in work are still in a state of poverty, that simply being in work does not lift them out from this state (contra what George Osborne is constantly saying).

His workers are also on zero-hours contracts - when there is work, they get paid, when there isn't, they don't. He raises the challenges that this makes to their situation, in particular, that when they are working, they are usually paying their debts from when they weren't, meaning any attempts to climb out of poverty is thwarted.

The discussion of how the management insist of skimping on work to save money (that is, to increase the profit the management are making on it) is very familiar.

The comments about how the working people would rather vote for and support the status quo, despite the fact that it oppresses them, rather than change, because they are deliberately uneducated, and the fear-mongers do their work, reflect very strongly why right-wing and fascist groups often do well (UKIP, for example).

The question or challenge is, against this background, how can political groups that genuinely represent socialist attitudes can get some traction?

One route is the way the Labour party has taken, which is to abandon most socialist principles in order to keep votes and obtain power. That is not a route that I consider reasonable or viable, because it dilutes the core principles.

It does seem that, as with the Philanthropists, the workers - however you want to define them - are aspirational, and so will support the conservative political groups, because they hope to improve their lot, become more affluent, and they don't want to damage the class that they aspire to be in.

The problem is that socialism has a bad rep. At the more radical end, the groups who are communist in essence have a real issue, because the essence of a communist approach (according to The Communist Manifesto) is the nationalisation of property. For people in the UK, where property owning is a very important part of our culture, this is not something that we will accept readily. This is not a political objection, a problem with this approach from idealism, it is a cultural issue.

In the UK, we have a distinct cultural approach to life. We are passionate about our island nation, and maintaining the distinction we have - sometimes amounting to racism, but often simply national pride. We also have a tradition of "a mans house is his castle" - the idea, very deeply rooted in our psyche, that there is some piece of land that is for us and our family. However we claim the place, this is important, which can be shown from the tendency for people to make their properties different, distinct, personal.

But a cultural rejection of communism does not mean that socialism cannot win ground. It does mean that it is far harder. However, we are, I believe, also a generous, caring and supportative people. If you move into any rural community, you will find a natural distrust of strangers. However, for those who have been for a time, these communities will help, support and care for their own. In essence, this is the core of socialism.

So I want to leave with a question - how can socialism be re-inspired, re-enabled in the UK? Maybe the answer is a more localised form of socialism - it is also a cultural facet that we don't trust other people to look after us, especially if they are all the way down in London. Maybe the answer is education?

The worry is that, if we don't restore a socialist political force in the country, we will end up in the same situation shown in Philanthropists and Wigan Pier, where the choices are between two conservative parties, there is no voice for change. Because change is something we need, in a country that is suffering and struggling.

The real problem with politics today

I am a big fan of Umberto Eco's work, and have recently finished reading Turning Back the Clock: Hot Wars and Media Populism. This is a collection of talks and essays, covering a range of topics including some interesting discussions on politics, with a focus, naturally, on Italian politics (which, in all honesty, is probably the most interesting area of European politics over the last decade or two).

One of the points that he makes is the importance of controlling the media. Berlusconi manipulated the media - dropped bombshells as appropriate times (good days to bury bad news), but also, Eco explains, manipulated events to ensure that bad news was buried, because other events were taking the headlines.

It is interesting in this country that Cameron manages to put all of the blame for problems on the LibDems. He also manages to be consistent for a day or so, which (as Eco explains) is all that is needed, because very few people actually expect consistency. Very few actually follow the news seriously. I am not unusual, I don't think, in getting my news in 2 minute sections on the radio, along with the BBC news site. My news input is actually very little, and very easy to manipulate because stories that are not "right" can always get left off.

The interesting thing is that media manipulation is not just about ensuring that your party views are always shown positively. It is about controlling the criticism as well. Two of the critical critiques of the political arena today are "Have I got News for You" and "Mock the Week" (there are others, but these are probably the main ones). These are significant making a criticism, but they are clearly defined as comedy shows, and so a lot of  people don;t take the critique seriously. People like Boris Johnson make themselves objects of ridicule, so that nobody takes their policy declarations - which are important - seriously either. that is master manipulation, and is very dangerous.

Another aspect that is, I believe, significant is the reality TV phenomena. The problem that these shows cause is that they diminish the significance of voting. Most of the time, the public treat "voting" as choosing a favorite from a TV show - and the x-factor and Strictly experience is that voting for the idiots is funny. The hype around it makes it seem like the voting is Very Important - there is a hype pretty much as significant as the hype around proper elections. I believe that many people get confused, generally subconsciously.

This is, I believe, one reason that UKIP did quite well in the EP elections. They were the funny party to vote for, for those who really had no idea who they wanted to represent them. And (whatever he says) Cameron is delighted that they did well, because it enables him to position himself as less draconian as UKIP, while moving further to the right because he can argue that this is what the electorate clearly want. They have served him very well. this is one form of his manipulation of the media and the political system.

Finally, the lack of Green Party coverage means that the socialist end of the political spectrum are criticising the BBC. This enables him to privatise it more and more, arguing that it is clearly not fulfilling its needs to be independent, while enjoying the fact that its lack if independence is helping him. Of course, as it is privatised, this will make it less independent not more - but, as Eco explains, this is simply manipulation. This is also shown in the presentation of the NHS, where they are clearly blamed for problems that might be related to privatised companies. The results of this will be that to resolve the perceived problems, the solution is to privatise more, rather than less and enabling it to work. This is manipulation of the highest order - and it is happening daily.

In the end, the problem with politics today is that the politicians are very manipulative, and they have learnt that by manipulating the media, that is all they need to do. By manipulating the media, we are all manipulated, we are all forced into positions that we may not want to agree with.

I hate being manipulated.

David Camerons new-found faith

David Cameron has been, of late, making some interesting comments trying to align himself with Christianity, expressing his support of Christianity. While I am sure that some people will jump on this as a clear sign of a) Their prayers working and/or b) their personal politics being now acceptable as a Christian, I am rather more cynical.

I should point out that I would be as cynical were it any other party leader or senior politician, and would apply the same critical judgement against them. I should also make it clear that any criticism is of Cameron as the PM, not him as an individual. At the end of the day, I do not know Mr Cameron, and cannot say anything about his personal devotion or beliefs. All I can comment on is his public statements and his public profile.

For many years, politicians have been critical of bishops and other clergy who stray into the political arena, arguing that they should stay out of politics. The usual rebuff to this is that a proper understanding of Jesus teaching means that it has to be political - you cannot follow Jesus teaching without being political.

There is something in his latest declarations that seems like him returning the favour - a politician getting involved in religion, and defining the playing field.

That does worry me.

There is something in his statements of "I believe in Christianity, and I believe that this faith tells me that my policies are right". He aligns himself with Christianity, and then redefines what this means to support his beliefs and statements. He is arguing that yes, faith means involvement in politics, but it is his sort of politics that is appropriate.

The other - related - problem I see with this is that what he says about his faith doesn't actually seem to be reflected in his actions. I am quite prepared to accept that his faith may be genuine - as I have said, I don't know. He does seem to be attending church, and doing at least some of the things that might indicate an awakening of faith in him. But his words do not demonstrate that.

The truth is, I have been in churches for many years, and I know that there are lots of people in churches who can say the right things, do the right things, be, to all outward appearances, a good committed church person. But Christian faith is not about church attendance, it is not about the things we say.

It is about what we do.

What I see in the actions of this government, led by David Cameron, is not the demonstration of the Christian faith. Of course what Christian faith in action looks like is a hotly debated question, but there are some significant aspects that echo throughout the bible: caring for the poor, the unfortunate, the disabled, the needy; not treating the wealthy and powerful with deference; honesty and fairness in dealings.

These are not things I see in this government. Whether it is Cameron or someone else, words do not make a Christian. I try to judge people by their actions, by what they do, not what they say. Whether they claim commitment to a particular faith or not, what people do tells me what is real about them.

So come on Cameron, lets see something. Or give up the political wooing of the religious right.

This government.

I don't often do explicitly political posts, but I have been driven to post something about the current government, their actions, and the effects on people.

There are a number of statements that David Cameron - and other members of his cabinet - have made that are typical of a manipulative leader - of which I have met a few, usually in churches. He makes statements that everyone can agree with, and then interprets them is ways that most people would disagree with. Then, if you disagree, the response is "so you don't really think that xxx" where xxx is the broad statement that everyone would agree with.

Let me take an example. One of the recent ones is "nobody should get something for nothing". Now in truth, I would totally agree with this, as it stands. People should not get something for nothing - some of us work to earn a living, to have to pay for all the stuff I want. So yes, it does seem unfair if some people get stuff they want without having to work for it.

Then he does something ridiculous by applying this to those on welfare payments. The vast majority of whom have made their national insurance contributions, which are the payments that they have made for the benefits they should be receiving. While it is true that they may receive more than they have paid in, that is the nature of insurance. The idea is to give people a safety net when things are difficult - and at the moment, the economic situation means that jobs are hard to find and easy to lose. This is the time when we should be increasing the welfare bill, because there are more and more people in need of this.

This actually leads to another of the mis-information that this government constantly gives out, which is that the welfare budget is a major part of the government expenditure. The truth is, it isn't. Yes, it sounds a lot when you see the total figures, but it is not that much in real terms. There are other ways in which the government could find this money, that would impact far fewer people in far less severe ways. In fact, if everyone were to claim all the benefits that they were entitled to, and all those who fiddle the system were stopped, the welfare bill would go up. Benefits are actually underclaimed, not overclaimed.

Of course the other side of this is that this statement came from a cabinet populated by millionaires who have inherited their wealth, who have received expensive education from this money, and have therefore received something for nothing. This is the most astounding hypocrisy. For then to say this and not realise why this is so hypocritical indicates to me some serious lack of appreciation of most peoples situation.

"We are all in this together" - that was one of Camerons first great statements. What we understood was that everyone would be contributing to the recovery, which is perfectly right. Of course what meant was that he was going to implement the most aggressive, right-wing, anti-poor policies ever, while pandering to the rich. In fact, everyone has paid and contributed, however the poor have been squeezed significantly more than the rich. That is completely upside down - the people who should be contributing most are the richest, and in particular those who got us into the mess in the first place. that is not the welfare claimants.

"The taxpayer should not fund people living beyond their means" - once again, this is a statement that it seems everyone can agree with. Of course our taxes should not be funding people to live lavish and expensive lifestyles. Cameron meant that taxpayers should not be finding expensive benefits claimants lifestyles. Once again, of course, the truth is not as it is presented to us. One or two people scam the benefits system to live an extravagant lifestyle. It is perfectly right that they should be caught and stopped. The vast majority of claimants are not living extravagant lives, and should not be unnecessarily punished.

Any yet there are some 600 people in Westminster who are living beyond their incomes, on very high levels of expenses (the sorts of levels that many people even in business would be appalled by), who are clearly living "beyond their means", and getting money from the taxpayers to fund it. It is also the case that tax system tends to favour the wealthy and rich businesses, enabling them to profit from not paying as much tax as they should. So many of the richest people are having their lifestyles supported by the taxpayer. If you have not seen JK Rowlings excellent comments on paying tax, she is awesome, and the only one of the top 10 richest people in the UK to take this attitude to tax. So yes, the taxpayer should not fund people living beyond their means. Especially those whose means are significant.

A more recent policy statement continues this direction. The idea that young people under 25 should not receive benefits is preposterous. It may be perfectly OK in nice safe middle-class families, where young people can stay at home without problems, because there are plenty of rooms in the house, and plenty of money to look after them, whether they have a job or not. However this is a strange and privileged view of society, and one that very few people see around them. What about the family who have no spare room, because the bedroom tax has taken it from them, and who have no jobs in the household, because they have all vanished.

Once again, the idea that people on benefits should do work "like picking up litter" is another example of a lack of appreciation of the reality of the situation. Who do they think picks up litter at the moment? In fact, any of this work will take jobs and money from people who may be doing these jobs because it is all they are able to get these days. When the job market is so squeezed, the answer is not to demean those on the more menial jobs, and try to take them away by giving them as unpaid forced labour to those who are unable to obtain a job.

It struck me that the capitalist approach is, on the whole, that if you want things, you should pay for them. And yet, it seems that the policies of this Tory government is precisely the opposite, whereby those in privileged positions seem to expect those who are unemployed to do work on their behalf for free. The workfare schemes were similarly un-capitalist in principle.


The policies of this government have been very damaging to the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. That is a abdication of the purpose of government, which is to look after everyone in society, from the rich to the poor, irrespective of whether they like or agree with them.

As I alluded to earlier, I have seen some of these tactics in the church, where manipulative leaders abuse those they are supposed to lead, and fail to support those they disagree with. They also fail to support those who are most vulnerable, those most in need of help and support, those most in need of the church. This is a disgrace, a failure of leadership, a failure of responsibility. Whether in church or nation, all good people should stand against this.

Entwistle and the BBC

Well I did promise a non-church post, but had to post about the Synod decision. Anyhow, a few weeks ago, George Entwistle resigned as the Director General of the BBC, in the wake of the Savile enquiry and the Newsnight programme. This raises some interesting questions.

Firstly, while it did seem initially that this was an acceptance of failings within his area, the financial settlement does cast suspicion on his motives. He has server a few weeks and been rewarded by half a million quid. It seems that he had other motives, and his resignation becomes blurred, with his motives being rather more flexible.

However, the real problem is the negativity attached to the BBC in all of this. Let me make clear, the poor journalistic decisions of one program are serious and need addressing: what is more, the possibility of the BBC having covered up the Savile scandals is problematic. There is some badness, some rot in parts of the organisation. As there is in all organisations.

The other side of this is that the BBC has produced over time some remarkable material. The dramas that they have produced in that last 2 years are a testament to the creative minds that exist in some parts of the organisation. The BBC website is a testament to what can be done with vision and imagination. The news output is also, as a rule, something we can be proud of, a source of largely independent information provision, that is highly regarded across the globe. Of course it is not without bias, but it does tend to be less so than many other news organisations. In many areas, it is the news source most trusted.

The danger is of tarring the entire corporation with one brush. No it is not perfect, but if we lose the BBC, we lose something extraordinary, something that is core to our culture. We lose something that is critical to the wider world too, the place that we, as a nation, hold in many other cultures. Yes it is critical to identify and root out the problems, the areas that threaten to tarnish this great organisation. But we must not lose the BBC, and all it stands for. If we do, we lose everything.

I like Nick Clegg

Well that got you reading, at least. I feel that I should qualify that a little, however.

I think Nick Clegg is a great speaker, a really personable talker, and someone who could be a wonderful politician. Unfortunately, the world has not been nice to him.

The leaders debate, before the last election, he won hands down. He was clearly the most reasonable and sane of them all, which is why he attracted a lot of attention.

However, he believes in coalition, because that is at the core of their politics. He entered into a coalition with a firm belief that he could make it work.

He failed, probably due to naivety more than anything else. He ended up dealing with David Cameron, who was in no mood to compromise, and he has not been able to use his coalition position to do anything at all really. He has been outmaneuvered by Cameron, and has ended up supporting a minority government who have policies that his party opposes. What is more, he has ended up being the blame takers for everything, which is exactly what the Tories wanted.

His apology this week has been rather dismissed, because he apologised for making a commitment that he couldn't keep. He should have apologised for not keeping the commitment, but he didn't, and he should know that in coalition he will not be able to keep all of his promises. Or, in fact, any of them.

But despite this, I like Nick Clegg.The problem is, we lack any decent politicians at the moment. Cameron is an arrogant prat, who has shown that he is in power to help the rich and squeeze the poor. If he were to do the two things he should - taxing the rich, and regulating the banks - he would be able to reverse all of the cuts he has made. Of course he won't because he does not believe in supporting the poor, just the rich. For this, I hold him as contemptible.

Ed Milliband is completely unbelieveable as a leader of the country. In fact, I struggle to remember his name, he is so forgettable. The problem is that there are no others senior members in the party who could lead, and this is the core problem with Labour at the moment. I know that others will not agree, but I think that Gordon Brown was the only person who could have lead this country out of recession. Doing that was not going to be popular, but necessary.

So against the opposition, I think Nick Clegg is the most likeable of the main party leaders. And this is why, many years ago, I went a different way - I support and am a member of the Green Party. One major reason is that I do not think that economics should be the core decider in politics. I believe that we need to get away from the Left/Right division and follow something different.

Politics - especially party and national politics - should be about making things better for everyone. It should be about using the power that you have to make the country the best one for everyone. Exactly what that means is a case for argument. But it seems that the last 10 years or so we have had very partisan politics, and we have damaged our country in doing so.

I believe - and this summer of sport has encouraged this - that we can be a great country. What we need is politicians who can make this happen, not line their own pockets.