So How Nasty Are The Tories?

This is in response to a comment by a reader about my ‘Big Society’ blog posting of February 13, 2011. Like most arguments from the Left or UKUnCut, the comment appears to take the default setting of ‘Oppose the Tories regardless’. The usual generalized assertions are made, however being from someone whose opinion I admire greatly, there is a great deal in it that I agree with. Excerpts from the comment are italicized and in orange. The comment in its entirety can be seen at the end of the said post.

David Cameron is not clear about what The Big Society is: Probably. The message does appear muddled and confused. You are right when you say the Big Society has always been here, quietly and not making a fuss, but around us and with us in our Communities and does not need reinventing. I agree. But it does need reinvigorating and reiterating. And it’s not big enough. The ambiguousness of the name doesn't make it an easy sell and I will admit, it has been a sitting target for naysayers and sceptics, who roll their eyes as they would over a pun in the Sun. But as you say, it has triggered a national debate about our communities and the part that we play in them, and for this alone, I am interested. Good. At least we’re talking.

You say that my interpretation of the Big Society is personal responsibility and a sense of duty. For so many, this is inherent in their way of life. It doesn’t need to be said that we engage with our children, our parents or our neighbours. In suburbia, maybe. There are sections of our society that include benefit dependent families but there are some people who would rather die than take benefit. Of course there are. I know some. And that’s the problem – I know some, not many. In my 11-years in the UK and because of the work I do, I would have touched 30,000 lives, directly or indirectly – I have found little evidence to suggest that a sense of responsibility exists. The benefit system is more hammock than safety net for more people than anyone from the Left will admit. I get the feeling we inhabit completely different worlds. The growing underclass of benefit dependants and feckless individuals, completely neutered by years of molly coddling by an all pervasive state is a problem you are probably sheltered from. I live among them. I work with them. I try and help them. The rot is deeper than you think and is quite perversely tolerated and even celebrated. Here’s an interesting take on one of Aesop’s fables to illustrate this.

We have always been in debt; borrowing more than we receive. Why? Does it occur to anyone to think why that is even acceptable? For how much longer is that sustainable? Shouldn't we stop to consider that? The government can’t make money – only the private sector can. We already pay £120 Million a day in interest payments. Each day we wake up and whether we achieve something or not, whether we produce anything or not, whether it’s a weekend or bank holiday, our government owes another £120,000,000.00 regardless of its ability to pay it. And that’s just to stand still. The money we owe stays the same. If we do not make moves to show we’re doing something about it, the credit scoring of the nation could be affected. This could mean higher interest rates and the £120,000,000.00 climbs yet higher. It’s not like the Left do not know or comprehend the scale. It’s just them thinking of the here and now. About themselves. Their generation. The next election. Each child under the age of 10 in this country will enter working age with a debt far greater than at any point in history. I think that’s mighty selfish of the wilful deficit deniers. Some estimates state that the first 2 months of the year everything we earn goes to the state. With each expanding deficit year, this will rise. How long before it’s 3 months, 4 months, or even 8 months? Now how would you define bonded labour? Or slavery? Okay, that’s a bit dramatic – but then isn’t living in the la-la land of borrowed money taking us there? It has to end before it ends us. The Left often accuse the Tories of living in a bubble, but they are closer to reality than you think. Actually it is the Left that are living in ivory towers – what are we waiting for? Divine intervention? Foundation X? Reality check please!

Vodaphone! Philip Green! I hear you say. Of course, how can there be a discussion about taxes without discussing the evil and greedy economic engines, which are responsible for all the real jobs in this country. If all, yes ALL tax avoidance, (which as I pointed out – is legal, not a crime and in accordance with the law of the land) were stopped by changing taxation laws, it still wouldn't make a dent in the size of our debt. We are living beyond our means on an unimaginable scale. And there’s also the risk of losing our competitive advantage to countries where a strong work ethic is not dulled by the ‘all must win prizes’ attitude in the United Kingdom. Actually we started losing that with the introduction of the National Minimum Wage. Strange beast, the NMW; it rises each year, adding to costs and therefore inflation, necessitating further rises, and the cycle continues. We’re world beaters in the international widget market, but it’s only a matter of time before the kids in Mumbai and Bangalore start making them in their college dorms. We have few industries with an international standing. Apart from financial services and banking. Ouch! Some research on how much the financial sector contributes to the exchequer will reveal a shocking number. Some wealthy individuals/corporations are socially responsible and give back to the societies where their wealth originated; some would rather play the game of avoidance. Good for the ones that do and more power to them. But for the ones that don’t this is a personal morality issue. Surely you’re not suggesting we force donations out of people. They’re saving as much as the law allows them to. Corporations are nothing but individuals in self-interest groups, and like any other self-interest group, they think differently. More on this further below.

Labour during it’s time, has introduced hundreds of initiatives (read: attempts at social engineering), most of them half-baked, untried and untested – and mostly theoretical, each one undoing the work of the other, each one undermining the individual, removing any sense of responsibility rendering them completely and utterly dependent on the state, each one allegedly fighting an imaginary or perceived malaise, depending on which vested interest peddled the case for it. The pervasive sense of automatic entitlement is a direct result of this. For example, are race relations any better as a result of the much championed racism ‘industry’? Many borrowed millions later, all we’ve achieved in this country is the creation of a class of politicians, public servants and self-styled community champions that suck the state for all its worth. No, they feed off it. Divide and rule, fine tuned for the new century. Paid for by my children and their children.

Against this backdrop, the spending cuts are essential. There may be room for compromise but for most part many of the baubles and things we cannot afford will have to go. Good ideas when we could afford them, but no longer viable when we can’t. Compromise does not mean the government should give in to all self-interest groups. You talk of people moving to "protect their local communities" as though they are being plundered. I think that is alarmist and irresponsible. There are cuts across the board and it is something we all have to live with. There will be pain, as there is with any kind of austerity program. When I have a low income, piano lessons for my daughter are the last thing on my mind. Rent, food and school are more important. You cite the example of the forests - a U-turn is not a defeat. The government floated an idea the public said no. There was no outcry when the Labour government sold large tracts, there was no consultation then. But then Tory-bashing is much more fashionable, isn’t it?  

Spreading the pain (as opposed to spreading the debt) is not always easy in a democracy. Local authorities and government departments, QUANGOs and charities, unions and community groups are all run by people. Collectively they become self-interest groups. This is where it starts going all wrong. They start acting in self-preservation, whatever the cost, regardless of whether their actions bear any resemblance to realities on the ground. Their only purpose becomes their continued existence and overriding importance. Like religion.

Take the case of Local Authorities or even the NHS. They’ve lost sight of the fact that they are a customer focused business (for want of a better word). More money is spent on the managerial, administrative and back office functions than on front line services. Strangely, the wages at the sharp end (the customer facing roles, loss prevention, etc) are significantly lower than the pen-pushing, bean-counting jobs. When the axe falls, where are the cuts made? The front line of course! So when your local hospital cuts a few nurses out of their staff, it wasn’t David Cameron who made the decision – it was management looking after itself.

It’s same with local authorities. Some have even seen salaries at the top rise while making cuts further down below. See examples here, here and here. There is suggestion that some authorities are using this opportunity to cut essential services, knowing fully well the blame will fall on the government. I believe that to be true.

Contrast this with what I have done. Business is down to 40% mainly due to spending cuts. The directors including myself have halved our wages. There have been some redundancies – mostly back office and management staff. What has remained intact are the teaching and training staff and their salaries – the lifeblood and sharp end of my business. Some of them have taken on additional responsibilities, picking up new qualifications and skills because of it. I have increased my workload to fill the gaps, roped in my wife and son to chip in when they can. We’re saving on paper, electricity, have asked the landlord for a rent rebate – and he said yes, we have asked the Labour controlled local authority for a rates rebate – we’ve heard nothing yet, I don’t think we ever will. We’re going to come out of this alive and well, leaner and meaner, better skilled and much, much stronger for it. Without whinging.

Oh, and my second centre is in a different borough, where the Tory-led council is running a scheme whereby new businesses get an 18-month holiday on business rates. This could help me pay for a member of staff I would not have hired otherwise.

There are aspects of societal decline that you mention such as binge drinking & cheap television that, for me, began with the greedy “gimme gimme” nation of the Thatcher years. It may be linked intrinsically to accessibility, but not wholly. I blame the lack of responsibility, a whole generation failed by the watered down education system and the ease with which is it possible to survive without working – for generations. If Cameron wanted to be truly paternalistic, no, he doesn’t. He shouldn’t. If anything, he’d like to dismantle the nanny-state. People need to start thinking for themselves. Up till now they’ve had no reason to. Molly coddling hasn’t helped. Perhaps tough love will. Hence the Big Society.

Career politicians cannot truly represent us, until they have been one of us. If a less elitist man, who’d shown empathy with the working man through his background and his working life, rallied our country through tough economic times by calling for us to all be in this together and to engage more in our communities, then he would have more credibility. As it is, his words ring hollow. I disagree. I am of the opinion that due to the influence of more centrist Tories, the LibDem partners in the coalition, the vastly influential lobbies of self-interest groups and an extremely narrow election win in a nation hooked on sustenance by the state, David Cameron is not going as far as he probably could. Or should. He has a huge task on his hands. And no, he does not have the heritage of the Thatcher years to address. There’s a more urgent legacy that needs undoing. Labour’s. Besides economics is just one of the functions of a leader. I’d rather have a well-educated, erudite well presented statesman and diplomat represent me and my country in the world than any rabid communist.

Be careful what you wish for though, a less elitist man, who’d shown empathy with the working man through his background and his working life would be nothing like David Cameron. Anyone who after a ‘working man’s life’ worked his or her way up to being leader of the largest party in the country and then ended up as Prime Minister, would not be as kind and forgiving. The scale of waste and irrelevant spending would shock someone with more modest origins. Like a certain greengrocer’s daughter for example. Or think Alan Sugar, think Apprentice, think “You’re Fired!” Yes, yes I know he’s a Labour Peer. I’ll bet inside he’s more surprised at it than I am. What would follow would make David Cameron’s cuts look like keyhole surgery.

The world you describe exists, only it’s in individual bubbles, within little gated communities in expanses of green far removed from the kind of communities I know live. I say live, ‘exist’ is probably more fitting. They’re like zombies, numbed by what the state has done to them. I read many, many reports on poverty, economic dependence, worklessness, etc that cost thousands to produce and none of them look anything like the grey gritty street they’re meant to be about. Much doesn’t get said due to political correctness and fear of being branded either a racist or worse, a right winger. These sanitised reports then inform policy. Flawed, useless, expensive policy. Paid for by debt.

I take on board your suggestion of further exploration of the UK; I could use the experience and the education. It would greatly enrich my kids’ experience of the country that is now their home. It’s something I have thought of for a long time and something I will definitely do.

When I can pay for it. 

A Twist In The Paradigm

December 17, 2010: Christmas cheer, holidays, the shops heaving with goodies, strains of "Do they know it's Christmas?" in the distance. Like every year, the air was festive. Economic downturn or no economic downturn, Christian or non-Christian, it was Christmas, and we were going to have a good time. Africa, was the last thing on anyone's mind. Even though the song mentioned it. Three times an hour, every hour, on every station and music channel.


On that day, Mohamed Bouazizi, a twenty-six year-old vegetable seller, the sole provider for his family, set himself alight in protest against the heavy-handed treatment and humiliation at the hands of municipal officials in Sidi Bouzid, a Tunisian town, around 190 miles from Tunis. This desperate man's desperate attempt to make a statement about the system reeking with corruption and a government with no regard for it's people became the Arab world's Mangal Pandey moment. Bouazizi succumbed to his burns a couple of weeks later and Tunisia erupted. Protesters filled the streets. Hundreds died. Within days the president was ousted. And then it began in Egypt, then Bahrain, Yemen, Morrocco and now, in perhaps the most dramatic way so far, Libya. Many fear this is only the beginning; and they could be right. 


Like the events of the late 80s that led to the end of the cold war and the falling of the Iron Curtain, there will be far-reaching effects. The world as we knew it in December 2010 no longer exists. 


Much of the post-WW2 Arab world had become the ulitmate dystopian nightmare. Despots, flush with petro-dollars, kept the citizenry in check with brutal force and a brand of religious zealotry that debased and twisted a great religion into a control mechanism. For five decades the subjects remained subjugated. No one had counted on any kind of awakening. No one had counted on the power of the internet, on the realisation among the youth - who grew up far removed from the post-colonial influence their forefathers - that the extreme poverty, harsh oppression, rampant unemployment and widespread corruption were not normal. Flawed as they might be, images from the west, music, cinema, literature and ideas of freedom and liberty and democracy began to trickle in. Just as the spread of English in the Indian subcontinent acted like a unifying force, allowing the exchange of ideas with people from far flung corners of the country and helped galvanise its independence movement, the ease of communication with the internet played a role here. As did the awareness of their own image in the world. Apathy was replaced by anger and that anger was set alight by one burning man.

We're being beamed images of the stories as they are developing. Stories of joy and stories of absolute horror. We're watching one dictator fall after another. We're watching a people, a proud people take their destiny in their own hands. And we're watching western governments trip over each other looking like bumbling idiots. Each day is a developing story and there are now more questions than answers:

How much further will this spread? The youth in other countries around the world - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Burma, Uganda, Zimbabwe, North Korea, China, and even Pakistan are watching. You can feel the buzz and excitement in online forums and social networking sites. Click here for an interactive map showing the countries affected. They destroyed images of Gaddafi's Green Book in Libya. There are people itching to rip up a Little Red Book somewhere. Yesterday I received an invite to a Causes Page in India demanding the naming and shaming of corrupt bureaucrats and officials. It already has 39,000 followers. The Big State is looking shaky the world over.

What will happen next? Will true democracy take root? Do the people have the strength to see themselves through the difficult journey that is to come while each nation finds itself facing new realities? A similar revolution was once described as 'the best of times and the worst of times'. Which will it be here? Will we see human dignity returned to every man, woman and child? Will the Arab world emerge from the shackles that held it back for decades? 


What about the West? Where do we fit in? Do we fit in at all? We've always championed democracy, well guess what? It looks like we're going to get our wish. The developments render all prior calculations and assumptions useless. The old order has changed and is fast yeilding place to the new one and for once, we're not going to be calling the shots. Everything we stand for, every institution we believe in, every value we hold dear will be tested. I hope our leaders and politicians do the right thing. And I wish I knew what that was.


What of the vaccum in the power base? Will we see see the decline in the twisted religious fervour so favoured by those who sought to maintain a grip on their people? Or will we see the regions spiralling into the nightmare that my beloved Afghanistan is being skewered in for the last 33 years? I remember that revolution well, jubilant crowds shouting "Azaadi! Azaadi!" (Freedom! Freedom!) in the streets of Kabul waving little flags. Just like they are doing in Egypt today. I was 10 then. Yep, my revulsion of communists (Big State, control, control, control) runs deep. There was no religious sloganeering at the time of the Saur Revolution. All that changed a couple of decades later.


And what about security? There can be no talk of security without addressing a significant threat: stockpiles of tens of thousands of weapons, and the possibility of their proliferation into the hands of those who seek to harm us. The irony of course is that we made and peddled most of the ordnance.


What about petrol? Well, to be honest, I don't care. Free markets adjust and correct themselves. They always do. Besides, Crossrail is coming. I am sorted.


The only thing that matters now is peace and stability. There's a whole new generation of people within sights of its first taste of freedom. Let's hope it happens with the least amount of bloodshed. I choose to be optimistic. We could be looking at the beginnings of peace in the Middle East.


While barbarism continues to kill in the Middle East, nature unleashed her fury on Middle Earth.
New Zealand is experiencing what is being described as it's darkest hour. A-Six-Point-Fiver has left a nation devasted, dozens dead, hundreds injured - a stark reminder of our insignificance in the grand scheme of things. I remember Rob from my Ahlman Academy days. He was from Christchurch. I wonder if he lived there. He would be 40 now, probably with a family - kids as old as mine. It's been 30 years. I hope you're okay Rob.

What's A Labour MP To Do?

You would think they'd learned something by now...

Q: As a Labour MP, what must I be doing?

1. KEEPING A CLOSE EYE on the developing situation in the Middle East. This may be momentous. Democracy could finally be coming to the area. This could be good for the world and us. Or it could go horribly wrong. The world is changing fast, keep bloody up! Galloway will probably want to come back. Come up with a rehabilitation plan for the poor chap.

2. INCREASING AWARENESS of the importance of the National Census (March 2011) amongst their constituents. The census is the single most important source of data the government relies on to plan spending, research, etc. Okay, we never did like your ID Card idea, that doesn't mean you sulk. I thought you guys loved data! Think of all the discs you could lose! 
3. REASSURING BUSINESSES - the drivers of economic growth, that they will be supported and then actually supporting them. Show up at their openings, negotiate rates relief with local authorities on their behalf. Encourage them. Walk your High Streets. Buy stuff.
4. ADVISING LOCAL AUTHORITIES in their constituencies on how best to cut costs and manage within current constraints. The road ahead will not be easy. Get off the bench and help. Use your expertise. What a minute, expertise? No, no, no! You'd better just sit this one out and let the boys in blue handle it. Smile a little, that would help muchly.
5. COOPERATING. Or learning what that means. "It was only days ago that we voted Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat. Now we must put our differences aside and work together." Someone must have said that. Someone always does. Mean it. You landed the nation in it, the least you can do is help those that are working to sort it. Or get out of the way. And while you're at it, tell Crow to cool it. He's not Hoffa.


Q: What must I not do then?
1. ARGUE over whether a lawfully elected government has any mandate. Yes they do. The Queen invited him over to Buckingham Palace, remember? Now shush! 
2. HORSE-TRADE or otherwise waste time over AV-No2AV. Yep, A £250 Million spend is all we need right now. Do we even have time for this? Sort your mates out, we'll take care of the yellow corner. In case you hadn't noticed, no one gives a flying flipper.
3. ATTACK & VILIFY companies that operate within the tax laws. These were laws you made. And you can change them. You're MPs, remember? There's due process. Follow it. That's what we pay you for. A mob does not make rules. Put your union thugs away please.
4. WHIP PEOPLE into a frenzy over non-issues. We're not selling the forests like you did. We floated the idea, people said no so we shelved it. You didn't even bother to ask. High horse. Get off.
5. DENY any of the last 13 years. Stop it. You look stupid when you do that. We have records. We know. Everyone does.
6. APPEAR ON TELEVISION. Please don't. Unless it's on HIGNFY. So we can take the Michael. And give up on QT now. Enough. The BBC isn't your mouthpiece. Well not for long anyway. Chris? Sort it.

The Big Society

http://www.ecochiccollection.co.uk

The Big Society. *eyes roll*. Many call it vague, many call it a smokescreen for cuts and a PR stunt, and many call it a borrowed, socialist idea. Many just hate the mere suggestion of it simply because it came out of Tory HQ. And no one seems to understand it, let alone explain it. Including those who stand behind it.

As with most ideas, especially unquantifiable, abstract ones, this is fairly easy to attack. And boy do they do that. But why? What exactly is this idea that provokes so much hatred and so many colourful words by allegedly educated and intelligent readers of the Left wing press?

The Big Society idea, as I understand it, is more than just about decentralisation, the voluntary sector, spending cuts, shedding the flab from government, axing QUANGOs, cutting red tape and bureaucracy and volunteering. To view it as just 'getting everyone to work for free' is too simplistic, makes for good anti-Tory sloganeering and is completely incorrect.

The argument that the voluntary sector will collapse due to the cuts is complete nonsense. Three quarters of the voluntary sector manage very well without funds from the government, so they won't be affected. As for the 25% that will, shouldn't they be taking a long, hard look at why they're not sustainable without state handouts? And yes, I insist on calling them handouts. Don't they know that the state borrows funds to give to them? I am assuming that the reader knows that the government borrows more than it earns. A third more than it earns. Oh, and the bit it does earn comes from the hated and vilified businessmen, bankers, kebab shop owners, waiters, taxi-drivers, cleaners, shopkeepers, etc.

Then there's the argument that more and more people will be expected to work for free. Actually, no. There's nothing new about that. Volunteers are always in short supply - with or without the cuts. With or without the Tories. With or without unbridled and reckless government spending. With or without the vote-securing-free-baubles-giveaway culture so favoured by Labour.

The best one is that we'd have to run our own post offices, clean our own streets, run our own schools, man our own libraries and police our own streets. Nothing could be further from the truth. One, you don't have to if you don't want to and two the government isn't pulling out of any of these services. Granted, there will be cuts and reductions, but many of us have switched to supermarket's own brand toilet paper and coffee. There will be a shrinkage in many things, until we can buy them with money we actually have.

People love to square up the Big Society against Margaret Thatcher's 'There is no such thing as society' quote, adding to the confusion. Well, for a minute, let's see what Lady Thatcher actually said:

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it.  'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and them, also, to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

Changes the entire context of how the quote is used, doesn't it? I'll bet most people screaming down from the rooftops or commenting under articles in the Guardian didn't know this. Or deliberately chose to remember the one line that suited them. Selective memory or plain ignorance. Just like selective phrases in a religious book justify blowing up a crowded commuter train.

While the Daily Mail-esque hysteria about spending cuts and disbanding officialdom rages on, life has to go on. People need to work, eat, raise their children, take out the trash and pay their TV licence fees. So what of the Big Society then? Well, I for one get it. In my own way of course. I think the Big Society starts with the building block of society - the individual. Me. You. Each one of us.

Lady Thatcher's comment above says it all for me. As a nation, we've grown accustomed to a perverse sense of entitlement which overwhelms our sense of duty and our obligations. Our obligations to our parents, to our families, to our neighbours and our communities. For me the Big Society is about personal responsibility and a sense of personal duty. How am I raising my children? Do I know where they are at any given time? Do I help them with their homework? Do I even know they have homework? Do I sit with them through the night helping them study for their exams? Do I ask them about their day? Do I tell them about mine? Am I instilling good moral values in them? Do I teach them to be able to fend for themselves? Do I teach them that they're not entitled to things they do not earn through their own merits? Do I know who my neighbours are? Do I even care? Do I know more people on the street I live in than people I know back at the office? Do I speak to my parents often? Do my parents know they can count on me? Does my neighbour know they can count on me? Do I offer my seat in a bus or train to someone else? Do I help someone cross the road? Do I look at a given situation and ask myself, 'I wonder if I can help?' Do I even give a monkey's about anyone else except myself? Do I avoid the race to keep up with the Jones's by maxing out my credit cards?

I would answer yes to all those questions. That's MY Big Society. And it costs me nothing. I don't have to give up my job either. Nor do I have to 'go and work for free'. It starts with me. This is how it will be built. From the ground up. One brick at a time.

The Big Society idea should strike at the heart of the general apathy that has resulted from decades of cheap entertainment, failing schools, less than mediocre education, levelling of society - downwards, low or no aspirations and no expectations from our youth. We've cocooned ourselves into our little comfort zones, drip-fed with daily doses of 39p-a-litre cider and Goody-Jordan-Katona. That's just about as far as aspiration extends in today's Britain.

The use of profanity and name-calling in an argument is admission of a lack of belief in your convictions. Which is why the debates I get into with people whose ideology is diametrically opposed to mine tend to be like an argument about Darwin and evolution at Sunday school. A few facepalm moments soon descend into "...but the Tories are nasty..." There have been moments where I have cringed at the apparent lack of common sense among some of the most educated and well-read people I have ever known and I wonder. An unlessoned, unschooled immigrant kid gets it. Why don't you?

Most of the so-called intelligentsia accuse the government (Read: Tories) of being out of touch with normal, everyday folk. So are they. Many of them don't even recognise my description of the fragmented uncaring society we have become. In their hypothetical world, almost exclusively formulated from 'evidence' resulting from anecdotes and armchair economics and sociology, there is no room for tangible, practical ways to deal with a problem. But that is to be expected in a nation where many teachers head straight from university to teaching school to classrooms with no practical life experience whatsoever, where community leaders and politicians play by sound bites rather than the hard, practical, real-world decisions they should be taking in favour of populist rhetoric backed by borrowed money. We're headed nowhere. And fast. The Big Society needs to wrest control from this headless, brainless, nameless regime of rule-books and 'frameworks' and theoretical systems that warp the natural order of human behaviour, relationships and progress turning them into neutralised, complying sheep. Throughout history in moments of crisis, people have demonstrated the best of human nature. And the worst. The question is, what are we going to this time? Should we attack, vilify and maul what seems to be the only sustainable and practical way forward? Or should we pull together, do some work to earn our keep?

I wait for the barrage that will follow this post. But please, if you must, let this be about what YOU think YOUR contribution to the Big Society is going to be. Not the bankers. That’s a different argument altogether. YOU.  

I'll talk to anyone who doesn't understand what I have said. I'll explain and I'll explain again. Some will get it. Some won't. Some will be too proud to admit they get it. Some will deny that they ever got it. Some will try to change the argument into something else. I'll lose some people off my friends' list on Facebook, some people will stop following me on Twitter. No matter. Those would be the weakest links. 


Well, goodbye!

Jodie & Poppy

Yesterday, 'Jodie & Poppy' were trending on Twitter. This is why. Make of it what you will.

Poppy: Oh my God I've got a lump in my throat.

Jodie: I know. I've got a lump in my throat.

Poppy: That is so... well tragic!

Jodie: That's how come there's a buffet... Cos normally it's just bar food and peanuts.

Poppy: Aww... that said, I like peanuts.

Jodie: I like peanuts.

Poppy: You have got to be careful with them though, ain't ya?

Jodie: Oh, yeah. Cos of choking and your anaphylactic.

Poppy: You'd move, wouldn't ya? I would if it was... you know, my baby.

Jodie: Yeah. Shall we move? We could go somewhere else, couldn't we? I could call Darren.

Poppy: Oh no, don't call Darren. Cos he's coming here now. Y'know, it's nice here, ain't it?

Jodie: It is nice here.

Poppy: I bet it's really nice when they ain't having a funeral.

Jodie: That's cos you look below the surface, Poppy. I said to Darren, "If you want your cunning plan to work, I need to have one of my deep friends." I said "Cos Poppy will not just look at a buttoned-up collar and oily T-zone and straight off think minger."

Poppy: Aw... Is Tamwar a right minger?

Jodie: Tamwar's got a lot going for him Poppy. He just needs to find someone what don't judge a book by its cover.

[Zainab comes in]

Jodie: Just don't look over there.

Poppy: Why what's over there?

Jodie: His mother.

[Zainab looks around and leaves]

[They sit down and the conversation continues...]

Jodie: Cos apparently she - Zainab - she owned a post office or something and he - Masood, he's only a postman.

Poppy: Oh! [swooning] That's like a match made in heaven.

Jodie: That is a match made in heaven Poppy. Cos if you work together, you're bound to have something to talk about, aren't ya?

Poppy: Oh yeah! You're gonna be having dinner and you're gonna be talking and talking, ain't ya? And... you're never gonna run out of stamps!

Jodie: And now he's bought her a restaurant.

Poppy: No!

Jodie: I know!

Poppy: Oh! That is so [swooning again] well romantic!

Jodie: It is. I said to Darren "That is well romantic, that is." I said "Cos romance, that is the key to a lasting relationship." Cos I read that in a book.

Poppy: Yeah! I read that!

Jodie: I said and the thing is, cos you know I've been waiting to have my moment? I said "All respect and that, if an elderly, middle-aged man can buy his wife a whole new business after years of marriage and kids, and having a son what's gay..."

Poppy: What? I thought Tamwar just had a T-zone!

Jodie: No, this is the other one what's gay.

Poppy: Oh...

Jodie: I said, "Darren..." I said "I think we need to look at the whole plate and sink business."

Poppy: [incredulously] No!

Jodie: Well, you know it's been really bugging me?

Poppy: Well I know it's been bugging ya. What did he say?

Jodie: Nothing.

Poppy: He never said nothing?

Jodie: He didn't say nothing Poppy. My heart was in my mouth. It was in front of the whole lot of them, he just got up and I thought "This is it. This is make or break, this is." Cos if he throws a wobbler now, I'm gonna to get strident. I'm gonna mention the towels, and the feet, and most probably them noises. And he just looked at me. And he gave me this tiny little smile. And he puts his own plate in the sink.

Poppy: By himself?

Jodie: By himself.

Poppy: Aww! Love him!

Jodie: Well, I've learnt from my mum.

Poppy: You see, that's what I want, Jod. I want that - a proper relationship. That's.. that's like talking without words, that is.

Jodie: Well, I do love him. But if you start off a doormat, you end up the loo roll.

Poppy: How is your mum?

Jodie: Lovely. How's yours?

Poppy: Yeah, lovely.

Jodie: How's your dad?

Poppy: Yeah.

Jodie: Hows your dad?

Poppy: Yeah...

Jodie: I wrote THE Christmas card.

Poppy: You done THE Christmas card?

Jodie: I wrote it, "Dear Dad, you are my dad, and you'll always be my dad, because you're the only dad I've ever had, and I know you may not want to hear this, what with it being written in a Christmas card, and you being Jewish, but I think you should get over yourself. Just snap right out of it. Stop. Just stop blaming me for something which I can't help. Cos being a dad, it ain't about biology, its about loving and I miss you and I just want you to get that into your thick, thick head."

Poppy: You never sent it?

Jodie: No, I never sent it, Poppy. You can't make a person hear if they're blocking their ears, Poppy.

Poppy: Yeah. I read that.

[Darren arrives and they get up to leave]

Poppy: Dog & Duck's nice.

Jodie: Dog & Duck is nice. Coach & Horses. I like the Rose & Crown.

Poppy: Then again, I like the Rose & Crown.

Jodie: You choose Poppy. Full lunch menu. Wherever. On Darren.

Darren: That weren't part of the cunning plan.

Jodie: It weren't a cunning plan. It was just a plan. There weren't no cunning in it.

Ten New Years Revolutions for 2011

This is taken from Old Holborn's blog.

As the United Kingdom edges closer to becoming a third world country; anger, frustration, and cynicism continue to mount in the minds of the British population. This pessimism seems warranted as authentic political solutions appear to be in short supply in our corporate and welfare state.

The democratic political system is now clearly run by crony cartelism. The multinational banks have hijacked the economy and are openly looting the public. Mounting and impossible-to-pay off debt is crippling government. The entire spectrum of our rights continues to degrade. Crimes that would land regular citizens in jail are now openly being committed by the elite and their organisations with no justice. And perhaps most telling, the power structure is establishing a control grid to eliminate due process for the Internet and beyond to stifle any dissent.

Given the current situation, it can seem impossible to affect real change. However, the exact opposite is the case. The only reason the system is maintained is because the majority still acquiesce to it. However, change won’t come by electing new establishment politicians, because no matter how noble they may be they still must play the corrupt game. Change won’t come through violent protests or offensive cyber hacktivism, as that only invites and justifies the creeping police state. We must stop accepting and supporting the system, individually, in order to change it.

Because our representative democracy has become a fraud, and the media and courts are clearly shills for the oligarchs, our only action appears to be non-violent rebellion; one person and community at a time. We can expose the crimes and immorality of the corporate state through civil disobedience and conscientious objection. We can punish multinational companies who commit flagrant fouls on humanity and the environment by boycotting them. Additionally, we can peacefully regain our liberty by becoming less dependent on the system for our basic needs.

Here are ten solutions through non-violent activism:

1. Buy Local Food: One of the most powerful cartels that has their tentacles into government is the food cartel. Sainsburys, Tesco, all are either politicians themselves or in party funding up to the eyeballs. Boycott them. The best way to conquer this cartel is by eating local; produce your own food, join and contribute to local cooperatives, and engage your neighbours and community for more local food solutions. Local co-ops are also a great place to trade locally crafted goods and even services.

2. Become More Self-Sufficient: Our modern society has made us dependent on something or someone other than ourselves for most necessities such as electricity, food, water, medicine, security, and education. This dependence puts us at the direction or disposal of the cartel state. Therefore, the only entity that has the power to grant us liberty is ourselves; and we can take back our independence through self-sufficiency. Being self-sufficient means learning skills that will help you and your family survive economic downturns or other emergencies. These skills may also help you to be less dependent on your job as they’ll make you a useful independent producer. Lead your neighbourhood and community toward production and away from dependence.

3. Get Healthier: The increasing pace of life seems to offer a wealth of distractions from the importance of living a truly healthy and free life. Our modern world offers easy choices like fast-food in place of fresh produce; TV in place of reading, exercise, or meditation; Internet social networks in place of meaningful personal relationships, etc. Identify the areas lacking in your own life and resolve to make the necessary changes that will increase your physical fitness, mental acuity, and your spiritual evolution. These three areas are what truly sustain us in both good times and bad — not smart phones, Xboxes, X Factor, and the virtual world.

4. Buy Silver and Gold: We desperately need a monetary revolution before the Euro experiment completely collapses. Like all revolutions this must start from a groundswell of rebellious action. A good place to start is to convert your devaluing paper money to physical gold and silver. This will punish the banks, as well as protect your assets. Furthermore, if paper monies continues to collapse, silver and gold may well become a viable currency in society once again. Buying junk silver is something anyone can afford to do and is highly recommended.

5. Expose the Agenda: The “agenda” is one of consolidation of wealth, power, and control in every facet imaginable. The international elite are approaching near one-world control, which they call full spectrum dominance of economies and societies. In other words; national, local, and individual sovereignty is all but gone. It is extremely important to engage your local community, especially community leaders and police, to reiterate their obligation to serve us, the local community , and not to follow illegal Statutes. Above all, do not give in to the temptation of apathy as you begin to learn more about the systems of control. These systems first count on your ignorance, then they count on laziness. Finally, say what you stand for such as peace, liberty, and genuine justice with even more force than shouting about what you oppose.

6. Boycott: In the U.K it has become obvious that a system has taken hold which is economically designed for one thing: consumption. This is the value that each person has been given from birth. So, one key way to assert your power and value in such a system is to vote with your wallet. Every purchase you make either contributes to, or boycotts this corporatist structure. Become aware of who the real owners are and what inhumane practices are behind the products you purchase, so that you can make intelligent choices that support your health and promote justice. Additionally, it is important to learn the true contents of the products you buy, so that you don’t fall prey to slick advertising and corporate misdirection.

7. Local Politics: Forget wasting any of your energy and resources on Westminster politics — they have sold out long ago to the higher authorities that fund their multi-million pound campaigns. Instead, get involved in council politics and community initiatives. The future will be built from the ground up, starting right in your own neighbourhood. Local politics is where you can affect tangible changes. Each minor victory will send shock waves to other small communities and the country as a whole, so be sure to document the steps you have taken to achieve victory, then share your story for others to emulate.

8. Military refusal: Do not contribute to fraudulent wars, and do not succumb to the pressure of feeling “unpatriotic.” There are countless groups of Afghanistan war veterans who have seen through the government lies that have led to unnecessary deaths, as well as the financial destruction of the country. There is, in fact, no more patriotic action that can be taken than to demand that our military be used properly to strengthen the country, rather than to weaken it. For some, there is absolutely no excuse for war, ever, and merely the act of showing up contributes to this affliction. It is a profound resolution of courage to live by your convictions. So, if opposing the fraudulent wars is your main issue, file as a conscientious objector and contribute to peace instead of war. As Gandhi said, “There is no path to peace; peace is the path.”

9. Don’t Use Banks: The banks have proven to be some of the most immoral, dare we say “evil,” institutions on the planet. Besides their Ponzi-style Wall Street casino and mortgage/foreclosure fraud, they also profit heavily from wars, misery, and debt. We can at least vow not to take on any new bank financing of any kind — mortgages, credit cards, or car loans, etc. Where possible, bank with local building societies instead of the big banks that make up the cartel. I don't even have a bank account any more. I refuse to play.

10. Tax Resistance: Becoming a tax resister is a hardcore action of civil disobedience that comes with serious consequences. It is your duty to AVOID taxation. It is conscientious objection to theft by the State. You earned it, you keep it. If you disagree with what the State does, stop feeding it the money it needs to do what it does. Wear the badge of tax avoider with pride.

All that remains to say is I wish all our readers a healthy, happy, prosperous New Year. Whatever you want, you are the only one that can make it happen. It starts with YOU. Be the change.

Merry Christmas & A Prosperous 2011!

Or if you prefer...

Best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral, winter solstice holiday, practised within the most joyous traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, but with respect for the religious persuasion of others who choose to practice their own religion as well as those who choose not to practice a religion at all; plus... A fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the generally accepted calendar year 2011, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions have helped make our society great, without regard to the race, creed colour, religious, or sexual preferences of the wishees.

By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms:

This greeting is subject to no further clarification and while it may freely transferable with or without any alteration, the sender's right for its withdrawal at any time with no explanation is reserved. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others and is void where good tidings are prohibited by law. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first. Warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher. Any injuries or distress caused are purely tough luck.

Dear Luke Pearce

This is in response to a letter by Luke Pearce to Sir Philip Green as published on Labourlist.org

Dear Luke Pearce

You do make a poor argument. You will undoubtedly carry out your purchases from another, possibly very similar business to the Arcadia Group, which will have their own ways of minimising the impact of taxes on their bottom line.

As with all outgoings in a business, tax is just another expense. This, combined with other expenses affect the cost of products, the wages of staff and the profitability of shareholders (many of which, if not most are ordinary people like you and me), who actually own the business. Sir Philip Green's job is to minimise these costs to be able to (a) provide a return to shareholders, (b) keep prices of his products low and competitive and (c) generate enough money to be able to pay his workforce in line with or above market rates.

The assertions in your letter seem to suggest that Sir Philip Green should voluntarily pay more tax than he legally owes. Why would anyone in the their right mind structure their business in a way to maximise costs? How absurd would that be?

Please note the distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Tax evasion is non-payment of taxes due and a crime. Tax avoidance is a way of structuring your finances in a way so that you don't pay more than you have to. As allowed by law.

Sir Philip's partner, born in South Africa and a resident of Monaco is not liable for taxes in the UK. You are assuming that £285 million is untaxed. That's wrong. It IS taxed. In Monaco. Are you suggesting Her Majesty's Government tax people who are not British and not resident in Britain?

As a public servant, you are not driven by the need for growth and profitability as people who risk their all in running a business are, but I am sure you understand what it means to reduce costs. You do it too, when you shop around for food, clothes, mortgage deals, benefit entitlements, etc. Or buy cigarettes and liquor from trips to the European mainland. Okay, I'll admit there's a difference in scale but the principle is the same.

I don't see how you see yourself as 'shortchanged' and a victim. Was it your money that he earned? I wonder if you have ever voluntarily paid more tax that you were legally obliged to. I think not.

What if I suggested that every time you make a purchase, donate a percentage of the cost to the HMRC? It's the same thing - if Sir Philip Green pays more taxes, his products will cost more. Eventually it is YOU, the customer who will have to pay more.

On another note, you were able to shave off a whopping £120,000 or 45% of your non-staff and overtime budgets. I can only imagine the amount of flab there might have been for you to be able to almost halve that. And I suspect you already know you're going to better that.

If you must protest, then do so to bring down taxes in this country so we are competitive internationally. And if we're all in this together, surely there are 'culprits' other than Sir Philip Green's wife (who dutifully complies with the law of the land), who you could be targeting. For example, that great bastion of the left - The Guardian Media Group's parent company is one half of a joint venture that is incorporated in the Cayman Islands. Eden Bidco, the holding company formed by the Guardian Media Group and private equity house Apax last year to acquire Emap, is also registered offshore.

I wondered if you knew.

Yours sincerely

A very concerned citizen

Graduates, here's one view

Graduates are ten-a-penny these days and half of them cannot spell to save their lives. University has become one big 3-year long drunken haze for most young people. I know, because I've hired a few over the last few years. Imagine, a literature graduate who didn't know where "One may smile and smile and be a villain..." came from! None of the people protesting seem to have done the sums on the new proposals. That's how bad their level of functional maths is... Pay for it and only then will you make it pay for you.

There are of course a lot of graduates that actually go to university for the right reasons and none of this is about them.

The Liberal Democrats' pledge does not matter. It really does not. They did not win the election, so they can't be held to it. What they have done in terms of concessions from the Conservative manifesto is laudable. If anything, Liberal Democrat voters should be proud. A lot of things have to be cut, a lot of sacrifices have to be made. Some of it WILL be driven by ideology, some by pragmatism and some simply because there is no room for any kind of manoeuvring...

They would have probably kept the pledge at the cost of something else - HAD they won outright, which we all know was highly unlikely. So why is university funding a more emotive issue than cuts in primary and secondary education or weekly bin collections or cuts in speed cameras? Well that's because some interest groups are more easily led (and mobilised) than others. Students are a classic case. They say that if you aren’t a liberal at 20 you have no heart. And if you’re aren’t a conservative at 40, then you have no head.

The tragedy is that most students in the UK have no idea what it's like to want an education so badly that you'd walk bare feet for 10 miles and study under street lamps. What they're objecting to is freebies being withdrawn. Like a spoiled child. The truth is nothing is free. Someone ends up paying for it. The old system makes posties and cleaners pay for educating doctors and diversity officers. What do they get in return? Nothing. Nothing at all.

Yeah, the argument is that we need doctors, we need teachers, doctors, dentists, etc. But we pay them handsomely for it, through our taxes or incomes. Should we pay for their degrees too? I don't think so.

This isn't about Tory-Labour-LibDem. It's about being so fanatically socialist (liberal?) that peoples' sense of responsibility is usurped and they end up completely impotent and dependent on the state. I'm no Neocon, but I don't think a race towards the lowest common denominator is the right way for any society.

I talk from experience in the real world. Actual people, actual capabilities, actual claims of competence. And actual let-downs. A few days ago, I got into a discussion with a sales assistant who said her 3-year, £18K, 'Meeja studies' degree was a way of 'finding herself' and a hobby', and I'm thinking - "I helped pay for that? Sheesh!"

A few days ago, I was debating this with a group of young people, one of which was a protester. I asked him if he'd read The Browne Report. His answer? "Wots dat?" A truly jaw-dropping, facepalm moment.

What students SHOULD be protesting against is the level and standard of education (dumbed down GCSEs to break records each year, Mickey Mouse degrees that mean nothing in the real world).

Do you speak-a my language?

A few days ago I was on a train out of Paddington towards Oxford on my way home, when I overheard an interesting conversation.

A few seats away from me, sat two young east European women, they couldn't have been older than 25. They were discussing their day, who said what, who did what, etc. Nothing out of the ordinary, except they were struggling to speak in English. I of course assumed English was the only common language they had - they were probably from different countries.

A middle-aged Asian man sat opposite them, ogling at them, wishing he was a couple of decades younger and some 25 kilos lighter. I didn't think he was paying any attention to their conversation, but then he interrupted, "Excuse me, where are you from?" He sounded like James Caan from the Dragon's Den.

The girls weren't surprised, nor did they pull a face and ignore him. Instead one of them replied, "We are from Lithuania."

"Oh, that's nice. Both of you?"

"Yes"

"I'm an English teacher in Reading."

Okay, he wasn't ogling. Nor was he wishing he was younger and lighter. Something had caught his attention - the same thing that caught mine. He continued, "You are obviously finding it difficult to talk in English, so I thought you were from different countries and English was the only common language between you."

I turned my Kindle off and tuned in with my full attention.

"Oh no, we speak many languages - Rashan (Russian), some German, some Polish, and Lithuanian."

"I'm curious, why struggle with English when you can speak in your mother tongue?"

"We try to speak English so it can become better."

"That's very impressive. I wish some of my students would do that. Did your teacher ask you to do that?"

"No, but all Lithuanians coming to London speak in English as much as possible. We try not to speak Lithuanian or we will not learn."

And at that point we'd reached my stop. I got off, smiling at the man I had wronged. I think he suspected what I was thinking because he scowled back.

Walking home I was thinking about this little exchange. "All Lithuanians coming to London speak as much English as possible. We try not to speak Lithuanian or we will not learn."

10 years of working with large numbers of immigrants, living in a community that is so insular and isolated, with levels of integration close to zero, I couldn't help comparing ourselves with the east Europeans. Admittedly, we have a strong work ethic, but it's about far more than that. Adapting, learning, integrating, assimilating have a lot to do with the way you behave, the way you conduct yourself and who your friends are.

I often joke that after 10 years of living in England, I would expect my dog to bark in English. Unfortunately many people I love and care about don't get it. Not because it's hard, but because they don't care, don't need to, don't want to and the laws of the land don't require them to.

Sadly, the only people reading about this little episode and my thoughts on it will be the ones who don't need the lesson contained in it. This more than anything else has led to the fragmentation of society, creation of ghettos and no-go areas and fed the general contempt people have for others not within their culture. A common language is a unifying force for any country. Somehow our politicians and leaders have forgotten that regardless of where we come from, we are one nation, and if we are going to be this one nation, there has to be something that binds us together.

There is a lot more that unites us than what divides us. I wish I could spread this message further.

Going West

I've moved home. After 10 years in the East End of London, I have finally taken the plunge and gone west. It's a bit manic now, but I will try and find some time to write some more about the where, the what and the why. Especially the why.

Funding Education: Getting businesses involved

I've just had a brainwave... let me explain; I'll try and keep this simple.

It is a well-known fact that the private sector has a far better record of resource allocation and optimization than any centrally planned structure. I think a system that enables and encourages individuals and businesses to fund higher education (i.e. university) by using money that is otherwise headed for the taxman, could work very well.

For example:

Let us assume I am a businessman, running a small business and my projected Corporation Tax for the year is £30,000.

I pay for the university education of an individual to the tune of £6,000 per year for three years. This amount that I pay comes straight out of the Corporation Tax due, reducing it to £24,000 for the year. Of course the net result for me will be nil, so as an incentive my Corporation Tax is further reduced by a percentage of the funds I commit towards university fees. This could be from a scale ranging from 10% to 50%, dependant on the student's circumstances (various criteria apply, explained in next section*). Let's assume the reduction is 40%. This would further reduce my tax bill by £2,400. Instead of 30,000 I pay £21,600.

Everyone in the loop benefits:

(a) Me: I pay £2,400 less, but because I am paying for a child's education, I will choose who I sponsor carefully, I will ensure they do well by providing all the support I can provide - work experience during the course and possibly an apprenticeship or even a job at the end of the degree to gain real world experience from the word go!

(b) The student: Completes a degree with no debt. Has the backing of a business, opportunities of learning practically alongside the academics and a route into employment. The student is better able to make the connection between learning and using their skills in the right context.

(c) The Government: Doesn't have to wait for the individual to earn a certain amount before they start paying back the student loan. There is no student loan! Admittedly, the treasury recieves £8,400 less, but surely this £8,400 has just been spent in the most efficient way possible, with little beaurocracy, no wastage, is targeted at an individual who will make full use of the opportunity and helps create a route into the world of work. No government intervention required!

Now this is just me. Imagine this multiplied over thousands and tens of thousands of businesses and companies.

This can be devilishly simple to implement, possibly through the university admissions systems (UCAS?). Again, no additional government intervention required. For maximum benefit to the sponsor, to society and to individuals, there would have to be certain eligibility criteria to adhere to. Students from poorer backgrounds, areas high deprivation, generational unemployment, lack of education within the family (uneducated parents, etc) should attract a higher rebate (see * above), while those in better circumstance would attract a smaller deduction.

I don't know if such a system exists or if there are serious flaws in my idea, but it sounds good to me!

Taxes cuts for the rich. Really?

I read this explanation of tax cuts some years ago and I thought I'd share it with everyone...

Whenever a new government announces tax cuts we hear this a lot: "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" The leftie press kick up a frenzy and the average wage-earner simply accepts it to be a fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by £20." Dinner for the ten now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men; the paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% savings).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% savings).

The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a quid out of the £20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a quid, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, lefties and pinko-commies, sandle-wearing tree-huggers and armchair economists, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating at restaurants overseas without you.

I found this video from How The World Works.

'Ten Cannots'

by Rev. William J. H. Boetcker (1873–1962)

1. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
2. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
3. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
4. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
5. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
6. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
7. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by initiating class hatred.
8. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
9. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

LibLab, take heed.