Oh Maggie I wish I never saw your face….

Imagine if you can, a group of people, only vaguely interested in politics, that had never heard of Margaret Thatcher. What would they expect the first and only female Prime minister’s effect on women in politics and business to be?

If you told them that she had come from humble beginnings, the daughter of a green grocer, which group of people would they expect she strived to help?

Undoubtedly, one could be forgiven for hoping that the first and only woman leader of Britain would have aspirations to promote women and raise awareness of women’s issues- perhaps starting to at least chip away at the glass ceiling that has kept women below men in so many ways for so many decades.

Indeed, one could also be forgiven for thinking that the daughter of a Greengrocer, defying the class divide to reach the most powerful office in the land, might have been a ground-breaker for dragging the working class out of poverty and closer to the higher end of society.

One would of course be absolutely wrong. To start with the Myth that Thatcher came from a humble corner shop, was just that a Myth. Her Father was an Alderman, and a wealthy shop keeper that owned two shops. He went on to Mayor of the town that they lived in. Her school reports allegedly show that that her hobbies as a child were poetry and enjoying piano lessons. Hardly typical working class in 1940’s Britain.

It is the reality of her early life been constantly taught by her ambitious Father that looking after number one was much more important than looking after those less fortunate. Rather than giving the poor and the working class a hand up, improving working conditions for the employed, Thatcher set out to destroy the Trade unions, believing that the way to help the country was to help business men like her Father, that did the employing. She believed everyone could drag themselves up by the bootlaces and if they couldn’t then it was simply survival of the toughest (or richest). She carried out a plan to wipe out the unions she despised so much, wreaking havoc in doing so, not only crushing manufacturing but crushing communities up and down the country. She famously said, “there is no community”. Some argue that the mining industry might still might be flourishing today had she not set out on her campaign to dismantle one of the biggest employers in the country simply to expel the growing power of the NUM. Others of course argue that manufacturing was already dead, unable to compete with progressive world, held back by red tape and bitterness. Some also argue that the pits would be closed by now even if she hadn’t closed them when she did, as the highly dangerous, dirty old fashioned fuel has simply had its day.

All debates on these matters are of course hypothetical. We may never know the answer to any of those arguments.

What we do know is that Thatcher’s government did nothing to look after the victims of the closures. The miners, some of whom had been on strike for over a year, faced hardness never before seen in communities. Father and sons, brothers, friends found themselves at war with each other. Families found themselves hounded out of their homes because the Dad was a scab.

 Some communities still bare the scars of the vicious and violent times that Thatcher’s assault on them brought. Some are not yet even scars, just gaping wounds where a community once lived.

There was no provision for the people forced out of manufacturing and mining. There was no budget to retrain or re-educate. No assistance was given to help reduce the crime that inevitably followed the sudden mass unemployment and poverty. As those out of work reached 3million, the Government forged ahead with the 1980’s Gordon Gekko mantra, telling us that greed was good. Sod the needy, go and get it for you. To hell with looking out for each other and love thy neighbour- look after your self and love thy possessions. A mentality that some believe, may lead to the current economic crisis this country finds itself in.

As the first and only woman to ever lead the conservative party, and the only woman to be Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher deliberately ignored the plight of women because she didn’t want to be recognised as one. She had an all-male cabinet with barely any female politicians being promoted during her time in charge.

She did nothing to strengthen the rights of women at work or in the home. It was only after Thatcher was finally thrown out by her own party and they were eventually voted out of office, that women’s rights began to improve.

All these criticisms considered, it was a remarkable achievement for Margaret Thatcher to make the impression on world politics that she did. Known around the world as the Iron Lady she began to forge lasting friendships with USA, making a close ally of former Actor, President Ronald Regan and playing a lead role in ending the cold war. She stayed in office for three terms, holding the keys to number 10 from 1979 to 1990, the longest premiership of the 20^th century.

It is for these reasons that I find the protests and celebrations distasteful in the wake of her death. For a country that claims continually to be the conscience of the civilised world to have street parties and celebrate the death of an 87 year old lady is frankly obscene. I can understand the pit villages in the north of England have deep rooted hatred for what she did to their lives, their families and their communities. I can understand die hard trade unionists been inwardly pleased that she has gone. But for people to openly show joy at someone’s death does nothing to attract me to politics. It shows that some of the people in this country still are living in a third world yob pack mentality.  The current leader of the NUM appeared on TV to say “I have waited a long time for this day”. A man elected to office to represent those that voted for him, should have the self-discipline to display some humility, respect and compassion at the death of an old lady. She does after all have a grieving family.

Like-wise, the thousands of young people venting their frustration and anger for the Late Mrs T on social networking sites such as twitter and facebook when many of them have never even heard of her is just tasteless pumped up bandwagon hype.

Every news paper and every news channel has been dominated by her death, ignoring all other issues .

Thatchersteria is set to reach a  pulsating crescendo at the weekend when ding dong the witch is dead is expected to reach number one in the charts following a campaign by people who mainly weren’t born when she left office. More bad taste and not even clever. Surely Rod Stewart’s Maggie May would have been a more appropriate protest song- Maggie May have been the first woman PM but did nothing to help her sex. Maggie May have claimed to come from humble beginnings but had no understanding of working people. Maggie May have been the best thing that ever happened to her party but she caused the ultimate annihilation of the working man.

Maggie May have died just in time to save George Osborne from losing his job as public fury grew at his attacks on benefits claimants in the days after child killer Mick Philpotts conviction.

Maggie May have died just in time to take the sting out of the growing campaign against the bedroom tax.

On Wednesday, millions of pounds will be spent laying the former leader to rest. Hopefully then we can put her and the cynical garbage been spouted by all parties about her behind us and get back to real life.

Oh Maggie I wish I never saw your face…….

Vile product of privileged middle England:

Child killer, Mick Philpott was an unemployed, benefits claiming, abusive ex- convict, living a life of a celebrity, enjoying a reputation created in reality TV offices. After several appearances on programmes such as Jeremy Kyle, Philpott 56, enjoyed a reputation of a bit of rogue, living his sordid fantasy with a wife his mistress and many of his 17 children in a council house. He was thought to be claiming up to £60,000 a year in benefits.

Is it the fault of TV executives who chose to put him on screen despite it been clear that he was completely devoid of any morals or is it the fault of the benefits system that allowed him the luxuries he enjoyed without forcing him to work?  Or is it simply nobody’s fault but Mick Philpott’s?

Yesterday, the Daily Mail bigots declared in its obscene headline that Philpott was a product of the welfare state – implying that the actions of an evil man who killed 6 of his own children was typical of people on benefits.

For decades the rich, privileged, middle class, well bred, privately educated journalists have tried to paint a picture of working class Britain, that bares absolutely no resemblance to anything few actual working class people have ever seen.

Multi- millionaire Chancellor George Osbourne could barely conceal his glee when appearing on TV to state that Mick Philpotts’ conviction justifies changes to the welfare system.

   I have lived on council estates for 42 years. I have never met anyone who has burned down their house. I have never met anyone who has 17 children. I, have never met anyone who lives with his wife and mistress nor have I ever met anyone that has appeared on Jeremy Kyle. Mick Philpott was not the norm. Mick Philpott was, thankfully, an exception – a very bad exception.

Last year when heavy snow made the steep road on which I live, impassible, it was not the council that came to clear it, it was the residents. Young, old, employed and unemployed, whoever was able, did what they could. Men and women together shovelled the ice and snow until road was clear and passable so that the elderly and the vulnerable could get about safely, so that the children could get to school. While the able shovelled the unable brought out cups of tea (and cigarettes for those that smoked) and sandwiches and biscuits. It took a couple of hours of hard work in freezing cold temperatures but we came together as a community to help each other achieve a common goal. It made me proud to belong to such a community. Neighbouring private estates were left untouched for days but on my council estate the working class men and women had joined forces and to completely clear all traces before the gritters even arrived.

That community spirit which made feel proud to be a part of, did not represent the picture that the Daily Mail journalists and deluded politicians want us to believe in. The benefits culture where shirkers are laying in bed watching their plasmas is simply not what is happening. The workers leaving home in a morning are not passing the closed curtains of people better off without a job. They are usually passing curtains that are closed because the unfortunate souls living behind them cannot afford to put on the heating, and have no reason to get out of bed because there are no jobs. Many of the scroungers living a life of luxury on benefits that the Daily Mail describes as scum, are recently unemployed  as a result of bad Government policy. Many more are employed but claiming benefits because they do not earn sufficient money to pay extortionate fuel bills and put food on the table for their families. Many of these low paid, forced to claim hand outs, workers will be even worse off if Tory plans to reduce minimum wage and do away with workers rights are pushed through.

Work and Pensions Secretary Ian Duncan Smith says the poor are over exaggerating their plight and that he knows because he has lived on the breadline, being unemployed twice. Living on benefits for a couple weeks after years serving in the military earning a decent living, and being the son of a Navy captain, is not the same as living in absolute poverty because you don’t have any friends or relatives who are well off enough to bail you out. His ludicrous claims are yet another example of just how far out of touch with the lower classes the middle classes and political classes are.

A survey on the BBC website, this week claimed to be able to judge your class with 5 simple questions based on whether you own your house, if you have a job and if you go to the theatre. Absolute nonsense! If I work 70 hours a week as a security guard on minimum wage and my wife works part time in a chip shop giving us a combined income of about £26,000 allowing us to visit an art gallery once every three years does not make me middle class. The media and the politicians of all parties have sought for decades to make working class a dirty tag to be ashamed of, telling us all that we should aspire to be middle class. If being a judgemental, bigoted fool that discriminates and looks down his nose at people worse off than himself, that points the finger of accusation at the decent majority when the bastard minority act appallingly, is what being middle class means than I don’t want to be it.

I will take the security of a council estate where jobless neighbours knock on your door at midnight to ask you if you realised that you’ve left a window open. Where elderly people and fit and able people do as much as they can to help make each other’s existence a better experience. I will continue to work while ever I am able and pay my way honestly and decently while striving to provide financial security for my family and I will gladly continue to be working class. The outrageous sewing's of hatred and conceit from the middle classes this week should make decent people sick. Tarring all people on benefits with the same brush as Philpott or trying to justify benefits reform because of him is akin to saying all Italian footballers must be fascists. Owen Jones, the baby faced (working class) author of the best- selling book “Chavs” used the comparison of Dr Harold Shipman being held up as a benchmark for the middle classes.. It is of course a ridiculous idea. The fact is that some wealthy, well educated people with good jobs will commit awful crimes. There will be middle classed monsters and there will be poor, unemployed benefits claiming monsters. There is no connection between a man’s class and a man’s ability to be a monster. Likewise, there is no link to a man’s class and a man’s ability to be an honest decent compassionate human being.

 

      How should we care for our aging population?

Yesterday I bumped into a man I worked with twenty five years ago. I’ll call him Ted. Though I couldn’t remember his name, I recognised him instantly. He had hardly changed from the man I knew a quarter of a century ago, a little greyer and a few more wrinkles but easily identified as the man I remembered to be outspoken, strong willed and opinionated. Apart from the colour of his hair and the extra lines there was one difference that I didn’t spot until I spoke to him. The vague lifeless look in his once sharp, alert eyes revealed the biggest change. He of course did not recognise me- I was a teenager when I last saw him. I introduced myself and reminded him of our work together. It was clear that Ted did not know who I was, but he seemed happy to talk; Happy to talk to anyone. He had, he told me retired at 65, three years ago. Since then he had moved into what he called an old peoples bungalow. He went on to say that he was the youngest man on the street and often never saw anybody for days. He missed the banter of work and missed the friendly cheek of the kids on his old estate. Occasionally, weather permitting in the evenings, he treats himself to a cigar, which he smokes outside his bungalow but sees no one passing by as the other residents of the street are unable or unwilling to venture outside.

That was when I realised the empty look in his eyes was loneliness. A man who led an active life, enjoying work for the social aspect as much as the moral belief that a man goes out to work and does his share, now beginning to crumble like the ancient building we worked in, decayed by lack of use.

As I bid him farewell, to go about my busy life, I couldn’t help but wonder if he had known he was giving up when he moved to his bungalow or if he had hoped to make a new life, new friends to face new challenges with. I wondered if he would have moved had he known. As I did the maths, working out how old he would have been when I worked with him, I felt utter sadness as I realised he would have been about my age now.

Is that what I have to look forward to? Is that what we all have to look forward to- Isolation, boredom, fear and loneliness? He was fortunate that he was still well enough and fit enough to get out for his weekly trip to the pub for a lunchtime drink, or two.  Others are of course less fortunate. The mind, if not used and stimulated will, sadly begin to grind to halt and seize up, like an unused machine.

It is wrong that one of the most developed and civilised countries in the world, allows its elderly to rot in solitude, gradually losing the will to continue until they are no longer able.

It is a fact that on average we are all living longer. It is a fact that many of us will have less money than in years gone by with no financial provision for our retirement. It is a fact that there are few affordable properties that are suitable for the elderly to live in. It is highly likely, that many of us will end up like Ted.

There are though, some organisations who want to change that likelihood. Organisations like Care and Repair, a not for profit home improvement organisation who are trying to create an environment where the elderly can live an independent life in a home which is healthy, safe and secure. Care and Repair are not the only people providing these services but we need many more. We have a moral obligation to help our aging population live out their final years in safety and security, with dignity and  in good health.

 So what should we look for to define healthy, safe and secure? Alarm bells and wardens are not enough. Single storey homes with ramps are not enough. Action groups organising events to provide sociability are not enough. We need all of these things and more. We need to provide a culture where old people can still contribute to their own life as well as others’.
It is unacceptable for men and women, many of whom have worked hard most of their lives, some of whom have fought wars, all of whom deserve to be treated like human beings no matter how old they are, to be stored like cattle in centres or care homes or on estates for elderly. To be healthy they need to be active. Some of them of course are unable to walk very far or are simply too weak to be physically active but there is no reason why their mind cannot still be stimulated. They need to have active brains and they need to feel useful. No one should feel like they are a burden and no one should feel alone. I’m not going to say it is the responsibility of government to provide the care Ted needs. Nor will say that charities or the lottery should take responsibility.
We all need to take responsibility, not just for the old but for ourselves. After all, we will all, if we are lucky be old one day.

                  CHILD POVERTY IN OUR BIGGEST CITIES.


Last week’s child poverty figures showed Deputy PM Nick Clegg’s Sheffield Hallam constituency had the least poor children in the country. A family is classed as living in poverty if its income is less than 60% of the national average income, £359 per week.
In contrast to well off Hallam’s less than 5% in poverty, the highest in the country was Manchester central, with a disgraceful 47% of its children living below that level.
Belfast, Glasgow, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Liverpool, and Birmingham were all in the top 10 poorest cities.
There is an obvious Northern pattern to the table but just looking at constituencies does not paint an accurate picture.  Many of our biggest cities experience a massive divide with areas of affluence at one end and their neighbours living in absolute hardship.
The total amount of children said to be living in poverty in Sheffield in another study, is actually a much less respectable 22%.  This not only highlights the massively varying level of deprivation in a small area it shows the difficulty in calculating poverty. While some surveys simply use income, others take into account things such as crime, education, health and well-being and environment.
The undeniable fact is that while some families in well off Hallam constituency live in relative luxury, just down the road in Sheffield central some families live in absolute poverty in almost all of the categories named above. The majority of homes in Hallam are privately owned or rented from private land lords while the other side of town is made of neglected council properties, built close to motorway and experiencing some of the highest levels of crime in the country.
A report by charity, Save the children revealed that in Manchester, England’s poorest city, claimed a boy of only10 years old was forced to go out steeling to provide food for his younger siblings. His mother, an alcoholic was at home wheelchair bound. The story was revealed in the Manchester evening news and claimed school children are sleeping in houses with no heating, waking up to no breakfast and going to school tired hungry and not in proper school uniforms.

A separate story in the same paper published in September last year told that Manchester has more multi-millionaires than anywhere in Britain outside of the capital. It went to say that Manchester boasts fine dining, designer shopping and internationally recognised cultural events. 
Census results announced in July showed the population of Manchester had grown by 1/5 in the last 10 years.
In December 2011 unemployment had risen to 82000. Youth unemployment in the city was higher than the national average.

In Bridgeton, on the east side of Glasgow, 85% of adults are said to be claiming benefits.  A Sunday Times rich list printed in April last year revealed 5 billionaires lived in Scotland.

Liverpool another northern city in the top 10 child poverty areas has widely varying income levels. One area, Wavertree has an average income of £21767 while the Walton area has an average income of just £16027. 

With such massive differences up and down the country in almost every major city in the UK, how the government talk of fairness? The “we’re all in it together” mantra has not been muttered for a while but it is clear from policy, slashing local governments funding and punishing the unemployed and most vulnerable while giving millionaires a tax break,  that they still believe that the poor don’t matter.

“Children in poverty” is in itself a misleading name- there are not many children in poverty with well-off parents. The way to tackle child poverty is surely to tackle all poverty. It has been said many times in the last couple of years that the cuts and the austerity package is necessary because there is no money left. That is simply not true. We have continued to print money. It doesn’t disappear when spent, it transfers ownership. The problem this country has is not that it has no money, it is that many people have little money while a few have lots and lots of money. Unfair distribution of wealth, unfair opportunities,  unfair lack of opportunities, unfair cuts and unfair government policy is the problem this country has. The rich are getting ever richer and the poor are getting neglected and abused.

 

 

This week the Tory lead government announced plans to cap the cost of care for the elderly at £75,000. Jeremy Hunt, Conservative Health Secretary announced the cap along with plans to increase the means testing threshold to £123,000 claiming it would benefit 100,000 people.
The fact is, the majority of people who have to go into care homes only live on average for around five years. This means they will never reach the £75k and still have to pay the fees themselves.
This is quite simply a policy to save well off pensioners having to sell their expensive homes to pay for care, protecting the inheritance of their families. It does nothing to improve the standard of care and does little for the people who are actually receiving the care.
Hunt says people will be able to take insurance policies to cover the cost up to the point of the cap but many people currently planning for old age can barely afford to eat and pay their heating bills let alone pay insurance policies just in case they need care later.
The few people who will benefit do not know they will benefit because of the very nature of the care, so are unlikely to take out the insurance.
It is a shame when elderly people are forced to go into care homes because they are no longer able to look after themselves. It is a greater shame when they are forced to sell their children's inheritance to pay for the care. It is a tragedy that we care more about the inheritance than we care about the standard of care, the elderly receive in these homes.
Many elderly people who can still look after themselves face loneliness and poverty. They get little help other than a free TV licence and a bus pass. Often, many of them are afraid to leave their home- worried that they might be attacked or they might fall. Many of them will go days without seeing another human being. In an increasingly digital age, they find them selves isolated and lost, unable to keep up with modern life. They sit in solitude afraid to turn up the heating-instead wearing coats indoors to combat the cold suffering from ill health or fading mental health, too proud to ask for help.
They shouldn't need to ask.
If, God forbid, either of my parents had to go into a care home because they were too ill to look after themselves, my first thought would be that i hope they are cared for in there. Priority would be the well being of the patient. I would not be worrying that my birth right was going to taken away.
I'm not saying all nursing homes are badly run nor am i saying that they all neglect their patients but it has been well documented that many elderly people in care suffer abuse and neglect as cost cutting leads to corner cutting.
Instead of safeguarding the inheritance rights of the wealthy, the government and Mr Hunt need to look at ways to improve the care and ensure a quality of life and dignity is maintained for elderly people of all classes and pay brackets.
Why should the rich be entitled to keep the family home while less well off tax payers pay for the care? Surely in a fair society, those who can afford to pay for their care, even if they have to sell assets, should.
 Like wise, those who cannot afford to pay for their care should still be afforded the same respect and we as a society have a responsibility to provide it.
Schemes like direct payment should be expanded to ensure every single old person is able to access care whether it be at home with help from personal assistants  or in a nursing home.
We are constantly told that we have an ageing population and that we are living longer and longer. Money needs to be ploughed in now to guarantee that those needing care can access care.  Investment is needed in ways to support the elderly at home. Local authority care homes are needed that cater for people who have no assets, and private care homes that charge extortionate rates should be rigorously controlled to ensure they provide a service for all.
In a world where people with disabled partners or children fighting wars to protect our country are punished for having an extra bedroom, it is ludicrously hypocritical to spend money protecting well off families inheritance.





elerly care , inheritance , Jeremy Hunt

                        If you can, you should!

The world financial crisis has left Britain skint, unemployed and suffering. High rates of unemployment, lack of money from the banks, low demand, increased debt and no growth has seen the master plan of George Osbourne proven to be failing again and again. When forming the government the two parties claimed they were coming together, in the national interest and the priority was the economy. Almost every measure the Con-Dem's have taken has punished the poor. Though they said we were all in it together, and it only fair that we all share the burden, the bulk of the cuts they have introduced will hit the poorest the hardest. Cuts to local governments have meant cuts in services, many of which are vital to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.  While protecting the grey vote- effectively refusing to even consider taking away free bus passes and heating allowances from well off pensioners, some of whom don't even live in this country,-social services, the police, the NHS and schools have all seen their budgets squeezed to breaking point. The bloody minded stubbornness and refusal to change strategy has seen the very debt the Government promised to reduce actually increase.
 The triple dip recession has meant redundancies have added to unemployment queues. The insistence that we all must work longer, extending the retirement age will inevitably mean that there are less jobs for the young.  The increase in tuition fees has led to a considerable drop in young people enrolling at university. So just what is the government going to do about the long term unemployed young. Many Tory MP's have stated that the savage cuts are necessary to avoid our children paying for our debts. The fact is that the next generation faces a future where the norm is never to have had a job. There is a real danger that the poverty and boredom faced by these people will leave many unable to cope with adult life and many will suffer from depression and other mental health issues.  Instead of dealing with these issues, the government have carried on regardless, announcing cut after cut.
The opposition, has apposed every idea the millionaires row that is the cabinet has come up with. Miliband is not in favour of capping benefits, not in favour of bedroom tax not in favour of anything, including offering an alternative. With less than two years until the campaign for power begins, the public deserves to know what is on offer yet Labour refuse to confirm one single cut they will reverse if they successfully regain the keys to Downing Street.
This year almost £210 billion will be spent on benefits. This is undoubtedly unsustainable, that is under today's model.
Osbourn wants to tar everyone with the same brush, accusing everyone on benefits as shirker's and scroungers.
There is clearly a big difference in someone working 40 hours a week to keep a roof over his families head, claiming benefits to top up his low wage and career job dodgers- never worked and never want to work.
Today in a land mark ruling judges decided that the Tories back to work scheme was unlawful.
The plan was, people who are claiming job seekers allowance, should be forced to work, for their benefits.
A student and an unemployed former HGV driver had their claim upheld by an appeal judge that the governments flagship back to work plan was legally flawed. 
The 24 year old student who worked as a volunteer in a museum had to give up her role to take up a placement in Poundland, under a scheme called the sector based work academy.
The 40 year old unemployed man was told his JSA could be stopped if he refused to take part in a community action programme. His lawyers claimed this could have meant him working 30 hours unpaid.
Now, while i think that if companies like Pundland and Tesco can find free work for thousands of people while maintaining massive profits, then they can surely justify employing more people and paying them an actual wage - that said why on earth should some one be allowed to sit on their backsides all day and collect benefits when are they are quite capable of working?
No one has the right to simply live as a leech- sucking life out of society while putting nothing back in.
Instead of promoting free labour for wealthy corporations, it is fair for the government to say if you are able to work, you should expect to do something in return for your money.
The cuts to essential services mean thousands of old age pensioners surviving on just state hand outs are left vulnerable and lonely, many of them not seeing another person for several days at a time. Obviously the more vulnerable need protection but why is unacceptable to make unemployed  men  and women visit some of these people in their homes for a few hours a week. Even some disabled people could mange that. This would be useful in helping many disabled people to feel valued and worthy.
 For the lonely, elderly, unstable and  infirm this could be priceless. It wouldn't lower the benefits bill but people wont mind a huge benefits budget if the recipients are giving something back.
The squeezed budgets of local councils will mean services such as removing graffiti and cutting grass verges and other green areas will undoubtedly suffer.  Young healthy  out of work people should be expected to do those sort of jobs for a few hours a week. For many young people who have never had the responsibility of a job, the experience and learning of a work ethic would irrefutably benefit them when they are finally able to get paid jobs.  Many bright former students who have good qualifications but are unable to find paid work could help in local schools as classroom assistant or mentors to young people easing the burden on the education bill.
It will need a brave government to introduce such proposals and it would need a responsible opposition to accept them.
Along with proper apprenticeships and training programmes, business could be encouraged to employ the young by reducing minimum wage and no national insurance contributions for those  under 22 years old ( after all, they will now be working 10 years longer than previous generations).                 
These are the only measures that can truly be called fare.
Hard labour for free giving rich businesses more profits is clearly not fair but for those that can then surely they should put something back into society in kind.

Au revoir, Adios, Auf wiedersehen, Peut etre non (maybe not)

Two years ago the Europhile Conservative party joined forces with the pro-Euro Liberal Democrats to form a coalition that they said was to act in the interest of the country. They were both lying. The Tories would have had the same agenda even if the world debt crisis had never happened. They would still be cutting benefits, they would still be dismantling the NHS and they would still be looking after the interests of their millionaire donors.
The Lib Dem's completely forgot their manifesto the second they got a whiff of power. The pledge they made to students not to increase university fees sacrificed for a seat at the top table.
Little surprise then that spineless PM David Cameron was this week bullied into announcing there will be a referendum on Europe, providing of course the Tories win the next election..
This speech was not in the interest of this country. It was quite simply, in the interest of the Tory party. Running scared of the threat from second hand car salesman, Nigel Farage's UKIP party, Cameron had to promise the referendum or risk losing massive votes to Farage. The historic in- fighting within the Conservatives, posed a bigger threat to Cameron's Premiership than Ed Miliband could ever dream of.
Now that  UKIP's one and only policy has been adopted by Cameron the threat appears to have been averted, for now.
In December, Labour leader Miliband made a speech announcing his plans for One Nation Britain. What we have had from him is one Notion Labour- oppose everything whether you agree with it or not and absolutely never offer an opinion on what you would do.
They opposed benefits cuts, while admitting that it needed reform, they opposed every tax the con Dem's has announced but refused to say they reverse any of them if they were elected next time.

Cameron said in his speech, that he would renegotiate the terms of our EU membership and if we didn't get what we want then we would have a straight in-out vote.

In the aftermath of the speech, Labour demanded to know under what circumstances would Cameron pull us out. Obviously, it would be impossible to tell the world what you are going to ask for and what you will accept and still expect to get any of your demands. It is dishonest, misleading and irresponsible of Labour and the media to demand answers to questions that have not even been asked yet.
The fact is, very few of the people who would be voting in the referendum do not know the facts. There has been no honest debate on the pro's and con's of stying or going.
 There has been scare mongering - Pro Europe liberals have been telling us that the markets will crash , investors will flee the country and we will be completely powerless to ever recover from the recession, which is very much in danger of becoming a treble dip recession.
The Euro sceptic's tell us, we can survive perfectly well on our own, while other adopt a more matter of principle approach, claiming its time we had a say. Others claim that rules made in Brussels, such as the working time directive and the human rights act and Health and Safety are killing our economy.
The truth is that no one knows what we would be having a say on. Europe is changing before our eyes, forced into a closer fiscal union in order for the single currency to survive- the EU of two years in the future, could look a completely different picture to now. It is already in statute that if significant treaty changes happen then we will vote. It is widely considered by many in this country, that government is sovereign, which means effectively, that it applies  its laws as it sees fit.
We don't know what the implications would be if we chose to ignore some of the directives. It is said that if for example we ignored the ruling on prisoners votes that Britain would face hefty fines. What though, would be the consequences if we also chose not to pay the fines?
What would happen if we just said no to the laws of  Europe?
We do not know the answer to these questions, nor do we know if the EU even wants us. What is clear, is that there is little support for Cameron in the EU after he flounced out last time. France and Germany have refused to back his argument that everyone has the chance renegotiate. Unfortunately, a necessity of bargaining is to have something to offer in exchange. Right now Britain has little to offer. We have no money, we a dwindling armed forces, we have no aircraft carriers and are committed to spending billions on renewing Nuclear defence despite the fact we will never ever use it. So how exactly Mr Cameron thinks he can negotiate anything remains to be seen.
The irony is that while this debate rages and dominated all the headlines, the cuts to benefits, the cuts to armed forces, the cuts our health service, the cuts to the police force and the cuts to our pay goes unreported. It would be very sceptical of me to suggest that this is an intentional consequence of Cameron's speech but still it a view that has credibility, considering the austerity package, sold to us to save our country, is not working, and everyone is saying so.
The unintentional consequences could see Cameron not even leading the party at the next election. He has been shown as indecisive and easily pushed around by back benchers, and looks increasingly weak when asked to defend the parties policies. The government is borrowing more than last year. The debt is increasing not decreasing. Growth has been flat lining for months and is showing little sign of improvement. The only success the coalition has had is the success it doesn't speak about in public- the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. the elite are doing fine while the people the Tories hate,  benefits claimants and the working class are getting screwed.
The EU referendum is nothing but a smoke screen that is highly likely to never happen. A smoke screen that is more about Westminster than Brussels.
 All the polls suggest  Labour will win the next election, despite having no policies and a weak leader. Labour will no doubt, continue to do what they did in 13 years in power last time- do little to support the core values the party was founded upon. Working people.
Unless something miraculous happens and the Tories win a big enough majority to rule on their own, the referndum will never happen.