Win Free Training For Life

Win Free Training For Life

No country for ordinary men

No country for ordinary men

I increasingly hear from our government that the changes made due to the financial crisis, particularly in this budget are fair. So I ask myself what is fair about Britain? It seems to me as an ordinary working man on the average industrial wage that one person’s definition of fair might not be universally appreciated. Do we live in a fair society? Is it fair for everybody? To be honest the answer I arrive at makes me question my own sanity because what I think is fair seems to be redundant, and increasingly irrelevant.

Is it fair when bankers cause the country ruin and leave every one of us with debt (that will hang around the next three to four generations), continue to have massive bonuses for playing with our money? Bankers I thought are public servants not private entrepreneurs? Can any of us opt out of the banking system? Can I go to my employer and ask to be paid in cash in a brown envelope as in days of old?  What if we decided to do this would the government permit it? I honestly don’t think they would. They would list many valid and sound reasons why this would be impractical. So we really have no choice but to go with the flow and leave our money in the bank until we need it.

The fact is we have no choice but to use banks. So banks are a public service for the good of the public. But this seems to be lost the higher up the pay scale you go. The bankers at the top seem to have forgotten that the money they use to fund their massive bonuses is not their own. It is public money that we have all placed in their banks. We do not see the benefit of their dealings. I do not receive a dividend cheque twice yearly, do you? My money is used to leverage more money and I do not even get a by your leave or thank you. We are told that the banks are private businesses (well some of them) but they are not. They do not produce anything. They do manufacture anything. They play with other people’s money that is all they do. And that money is mine and yours that we have no choice but to leave with them.

How many banker bosses have had their pay froze to 1%? How many fat cats are feeling the cuts to our public services?  I thought that those are the top are paid well because they carry the weight of responsibility when things go wrong? How many bankers have been punished for this mess they have left us in? I do not know one who has been punished? I only see more bonuses for ineptitude. Is this fair? We are told that we are all in it together but when I hear about tax cuts for the rich and pay freezes for the poor and working classes I find it hard to square this circle. Is this fair?

I see politicians making decisions that have real and damaging impact on the parts of the society that they will never share and I ask: Is this fair? Ian Duncan Smith or George Osborne will never have to get by on jobseekers allowance. They will never have to pay the room tax. Yet they tell us it’s fair to impose these changes because we (I use this word in its loosest possible sense) cannot afford to continue to pay for them. At the same time we are expected to believe that cutting the tax of the wealthy will bring in more money, and that we can afford. Why can’t we tax the wealthy so they have no choice but to pay? Why do we permit rich people to make charitable donations out of our tax revenues. Surely tax is a public duty  and charity is a personal decision. Do these individuals have the right to take what is public money and use it for tax avoidance. Do get a slap on the back and awards for their charitable work when all the time they are doing it with our money? 

Can I go to my accountant and avail of tax breaks? Can I decide to avoid any taxes by donating to my chosen charity? Can I negotiate my PAYE contributions? Do I have the option to have my wages paid into an off shore account and claim non domicile status? Are any politicians on the minimum legal wage or tax credits? When I see these men going to Europe to bat for the bankers am I really expected to think that they are doing it for me? Do they really care about ordinary people? Are they interested in what is fair?

So what recourse do I have? I can cast my single vote in a system that is weighted in favour of the political establishment. I certainly cannot afford to employ a barrister and challenge the government in the courts. And now they have taken away legal aid and they tell us it is fair. Is it really fair to bar the law from the most vulnerable and needy? Again we are told that we cannot afford to subsidise legal aid. Well I have a suggestion: stop paying Barristers exorbitant rates. Most barristers make more for sending a letter (a letter that they did not even type let alone post themselves) than the average worker would make in a week. Is this fair?

Why are certain professions allowed to cream off the wealth of this nation simply because they are clever or they are good with numbers? Bankers, barristers, bureaucrats all siphoning off the wealth of this nation and we are told that because the government cannot afford to pay them their obscene wages that the poor must just do without. These private enterprises (I use this term again in the loosest possible sense and without more than a little cynicism) that profit from our public services, do so with impunity. It seems that the only time that government steps in to make changes is when there is a profit to be made. This has happened to the legal profession where the only part available to the ordinary person are the ambulance chasing industry and that is because there is a healthy profit to be made. Now it is more than likely to happen to the Public health service.

Politicians are supposed to be public servants acting in the interest of this nation but are they really? How many politicians have you heard asking for a cap on Barristers rates or any radical changes to our legal system to make it more accessible to the average person? How many politicians in government supported the cap on bankers' bonuses?  How many politicians have put forward the idea of a public duty tax (a tax for those firms/contractors who significantly benefit financially [more than £100,000 per annum] from the public purse). These are tough times and politicians should be making tough decisions but are they. Who benefits from their decisions and who suffers? Do the rich suffer? We have an unaffordable welfare budget yet why are we still paying benefits to the rich pensioners?  More than half the welfare budget is paid to pensioners and this is irrespective of whether they need it or not. Is this fair? 

Why can’t the government force these who make most from our public services pay back into the system?  Why can’t the ambulance chasers be forced to pick up the tab for the legal aid budget, they certainly make enough from personal injuries to fund it.  Why can’t barristers be forced to take on a fixed proportion of pro-bono work? Why do we tolerate a system that creams off the most attractive business and gives nothing back? Is justice all about profits? Is this fair?

Politicians make cuts on services that are far away from them they make savings on programs that will impact them least politically and personally. This has become a nation of private interests, with backroom deals, and slaps on the back. What will George Osborne do when he fails to win the next the next election? Shall we be surprised when he gets a lucrative position on a board of some bank or other? Or Boris Johnston shall he be claiming job seekers allowance when he finishes as Mayor of London?  How did these people get elected in the first place? Are they really the best we could do as a nation? How democratic is the UK really. How many politicians are speaking up for the majority of the population?

If private pensions are low well let’s lower public pensions to the same rates. Why is it always a matter of rushing to the bottom? Why are private pensions low? Could it be that after the boards and shareholders have taken their cut that they cannot afford to adequately pay the employees who actually paid in the money in the first place?

Why do we have an insurance system that has shareholders? In my naivety I thought the idea of insurance was to protect those who pay in when they need it. But it seems we have an insurance system that takes your money, shafts you when you need them and then charges you many times over for the privilege to  renew. Is this fair? The bodies that are supposed to protect the consumer have no real powers. The ombudsman is restricted  to impose pathetic awards of £50 to £2500 (the highest only in cases where a spouse is beaten up so badly that they spend several days in hospital due to the insurance company’s ineptitude). What kind of watchdog is that? No wonder the insurance industry is happy to entertain such a toothless body.  Now the government has done away with the FSA because it failed to do its job. Who can tell these private multinationals (that we are all required by law to pay into) that it is not their money but that they hold this money in trust for us. Who can curb their lusts and greed? Who has the guts to take them on for the benefit of ordinary citizens? Do we need a superhero? Or could the government actually do its job?

In terms of housing why can’t the government impose a tax on private landlords who profit from public housing benefits? Many of these houses were purchased from the government in the first place. Why is it right that because someone has the money to buy several houses that that person can then profit from those who cannot afford to buy one? Do we all not need somewhere to live? Should housing not have special protection from private interests? Why can’t there be a tax on second homes so that the property prices are not inflated by property speculators? Do the government not realise that housing is a necessity for life and not a commodity to be used for corporate speculation. If a person has the money to buy a second home then they can afford to pay the tax on that house. What has happened to the mansion tax? Why shouldn’t those who have more than they need not contribute to those who cannot afford to buy even a home, never mind a holiday home. There are so many partially occupied and unoccupied houses in this country that if a second house tax was introduced it would instantly make such a large amount of low cost housing available that I would sort out the housing crisis in one fail swoop and help bring down house prices so that the people who need them the most could actually afford to buy them. Instead we have corporate interests been encouraged into the housing market. Is this fair?

We are told by David Cameron that we are all in it together. That Britain is fair. I would seriously have to question this. From where I sit it seems that Britain has slavishly followed the American model all the way to the bank and everything in this country (that can make a profit) has been privatised from energy to insurance. All are sold to the highest bidder with one aim: to make rich people richer. If you have money then this is very good but if you have not what provision is made? The government is left with the bill for the poor and the not so profitable enterprises and these are the ones that are been cut. Is this fair?

 It seems we are in serious danger of losing sight of what is a public service. We hear again and again that private is good public is bad. Well if everything has a price then this is true. But is that the type of society we really want where everything can be measured in pounds shillings and pence? Is this a country run by the rich for the benefit of the rich? We need to stop and really examine what is a public service, and what is in the public interest. If a private business makes money as a result of a public service then that person/company should be required to put something back.

Instead the government is increasingly just governing the poor and forcing the ordinary working people of this country to pay for the mistakes of the rich. It tells us we have to do our part while at the same time pandering to the rich. Telling those who can least afford it to get by with less while the rich are handed more and more. The gap between rich and poor is growing ever wider and we need to stop and ask is it a fair society we are building? Is this is a country for ordinary men and women?

Liam Hayes