Hard Working Families

I am sure (pre-punditing the budget are we - economics ed) that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne is going to use that phrase during the forthcoming Budget this Wednesday.

Now, don't know about you, I have always wondered what this phrase actually means

To start with, that does, "Hard Working", mean?

• Does this means people who do their contracted hours of employment? 
• Does it mean people, who work more than their contracted hours (overtime) of employment for extra pay or for no extra pay?
• Does it mean low paid people who cannot survive on the minimum wage and so have two jobs, for example 80 hours a week security guard, the 80 hours a week cleaning woman (Reinemachefrau, name that film - entertainments ed). 

Even Wikipedia struggles to come up with what this phrase actually means.

Could we assume that, "Hard Working", means having a job that requires some kind of physical effort i.e. strength. But, this cannot be the case as, most if not all of the heavy industries of the past, that required physcial strength, rather than intelligence, have withered overthe past 50 years or so, for example coal mining down from 718,000 in the 1940's to 12,000 or so today, manufacturing jobs down from 8.7m to 2.5m.

Most jobs today are in the service sector, around 75% of the workforce, with its mostly 'clean', knowledge based office jobs, so how does, "Hard Working", fit in with this?

Are the, "Hard Workers", the ones that eat their lunch at their desks? No, they are just web browsing

Maybe, the "Hard Workers", are the workers that are more productive than their compatriots? If so, how is this determined, and more importantly how does Mr. George Osborne know who they are?

Is there a box that employers have to tick as part of the, "Red Tape",  that clogs up the arteries of UK business, for instance,

Please indicate for each member of staff whether they are a:

• Hard
• Medium
• Soft

worker?

Sounds more like they are boiled eggs! (I prefer hard boiled, mashed up with a little mayonnaise, black pepper, salt and a dash of chilli, then spread over a freshly baked pannini, hold the cress, hmmm - food ed)

Maybe the, "Hard Workers", are  just, "Hard", as in tough, people you wouldn't want to get the wrong side of, perhaps, they are the bullies, who force the rest of the workforce to keep their noses to the grindstones, (are you by any chance referring to Managers? - ed).

What is most interesting, (oh no, not that word again - ed), is that it isn't just about the workers, it is, "Hard Working Families", so presumably that includes the children as well?

Yet, again, where does Uncle George get the figures from?

Do teachers have to assess on some kind of regular basis whether the child is hard or not, and submit this information to whatever the name of the Department of Education is called this week (for non-UK readers, Ralph and Esmerelda in particular - the name of the government department that handles education is renamed on a regular basis to what end I do not know, here is the history of the department and it shows nine different names over the past 174 years, with the time between changes decreasing, much in line with the decreasing levels of literacy and numeracy in the country! - ed)

So I am totally bewilderd (are you sure - ed). I have no idea what kind of criteria the politicians use to determine that a family is hard working? I cannot for the life of me think of anything that is sensible? I can think of some rather silly criteria, but I would be worried that whaever silliness I think of might actually turn out to be the case!

So over to you, Mr. George, give us a plain spoken English version of a, "Hard Working Family", so we have some idea what on earth you and the rest of the politicians are talking about.

Afterthought
Maybe the Chancellor is simply trying to discriminate between those that work for a living and so generate taxable income for him to spend rather than those who do not generate any taxable income.

But even then, even if you don't generate any taxable income, you spend money that does generate tax for the government, see post Taxing Matters to see how much!

Spending Matters: The Deficit and National Debt

Some time back in the dim and distant past, there was the post Taxing Matters. It showed all the places where 'Da Government' (tm) were taking our tax pounds from.  This was going to be a post about where 'Da Government' (tm) spend out money, but as I have been writing it, it has morphed into an article about Government overspending (the deficit) and the accumulation of this into the National Debt and how that relates to us mere taxpayers.

Some definitions:

The deficit is simply how much more the Government spends each year than they receive in tax. (With you so far - ed)

The deficit is funded by borrowing money (ok - ed)

Each year of deficit is added together and is called the National Debt (Phew, that was understandable - ed)

For the year 2011-12, the amount of money that the Government received in tax is the gigantic figure £550,000,000,000, how much, £550bn (only approximate you know, they really can't get more accurate than that - ed). How are we supposed to deal with a number that big? How does it relate to our daily lives?

What is most surprising, is that even this enormous number isn't enough. 'Da Government' (tm) are spending more, yes more, they actually spent £690,000,000,000 aka £690bn (approximate as well - ed).

This means they spent £140bn more than they took in taxes! This was financed by borrowing £140bn from the markets (I wonder who that is, not us is it - oops - ed) to keep to their existing spending plans. So they are spending 25% more than they are receiving, that is simply totally outrageous!


In more human terms, it is like a tax paying citizen getting a net £30,000 salary but spending £37,500. Can you afford to spend 25% more than you earn?  If so, presumably not for long!

What is more, this £140bn doesn't go away, it is added to the pile of debt, that we, yes, you, me, and our non-tax paying, non voting children, will have to pay back at some time in the future, this leads to what is called The National Debt.

Hang on a second, 'Da Government' (tm) are racking up debt that we then have to pay back? Unfortunately yes, it means that the politicians, remember these are the people who got a mandate from the electorate (or not as in that particular argument - ed) are spending money all of us haven't even yet earned, let alone paid tax on!

Now, of course, this massive over spend is never shown in the above light, i.e. how much more they are spending than they are receiving,  no, that would be too easy. A number like 25% overspend doesn't go down well, too big a number, so what the politicians do, and not just ours the whole darned lot of them, they use an internationally recognised comparison designed to make it look not quite so bad (simply brilliant - ed)

How do they do that then? They compare this yearly deficit against the UK's yearly GDP (the GDP for the year 2012 was about £1,533,000,000.000 or £1,533bn), why? It makes the overspend seem much smaller! So, as far as ' Da Government' (tm) and the international financial markets are concerned the deficit, this 25% overspend is in fact calculated as (140/1533)*100 which makes for around 9% deficit for 2012. Now 9% sounds much more managable than 25%, don't you agree?

What about the debt? Well, The National Debt, that is the total amount of money that the Government owes well to be more precise the total amount of money to be paid back by current and future tax payers (all of us voters, those non-voters, and even those without a vote - ed) was by 1st April 2012 about £1,278.2bn and increasing each year as each year's deficit is added to that figure.

My oh my, that sounds like a lot of money! So the 'Da Government' (tm), yet again get away with comparing this enormous number against the UK GDP another enormous number, because it makes for a percentage figure that is internationally recognised (hurrah - ed). As of Q1 2012  the National Debt was 86.8% of GDP.

On a more human level this is like the UK tax payer on a net salary of £30,000 and having a total debt of £26,040.

So, if the government stopped all spending, and used all government tax receipts to reduce the National Debt to 0, it would take about 2 years 4 months. Well obviously this is unacceptable to the populace, as we quite like our NHS, schools, libraries, police, armed forces, civil servants, pensions, welfare, government ministries, secret services, government waste and so forth and so on. The country would not survive if they stopped spending on everything!

What is perhaps, less obvious but even more disturbing is that we are paying interest on the money that the Government has borrowed? Eh, what do you mean. I mean that the markets that loaned the money to the Government, want some interest on the money they have loaned, and they will want their capital back at some point to.

Really? They want interest and their original money back as well, how come? Well, it is just like if you took a loan from the bank, you will have scheduled payments over a number of years to pay back the loan. But, in fact it is more iniquitous than that. The money that has been lent (remember by the markets - ed ) is paid back interest only, that is the full original amount has to be paid back in a lump sum at the end of the period, usually 15 years in the case of the UK.

In 2012, this interest only loan was costing £43bn. Yes, £43,000,000,000. Quite a big number. If compared to the taxes actually raised (£550bn - ed), this gives us a percentage figure of (43/550) *100 = 7.82%. (Not how the government calculate it  - they, yet again, compare this to the UK GDP and come out with a percentage of 3% - economics ed). Whichever way you put it, the interest still has to be paid and the capital has to be paid back.

If we put these astonishingly large figures in the more human understandable terms of our £30,000 a year tax payer, it would mean that they would be paying interest only of £2345.46.

Hang on, I think I understand all that, but how do the Government pay back the capital that those market chappies lent us? I mean is there a massive balloon payment at the end of the period, where all of the capital that was borrowed has to be paid back, well yes there is! Well done, you are starting to get it.

Now, you will like this (not a lot - ed). When the time comes, the Government will simply borrow more money from the markets and use that to pay back the capital on the original loan! So one outsanding loan's capital is paid off by taking out another loan! Brilliant, who would have thought that!

Now, naturally this cannot continue indefinitely, can it? We shall wait and see.

A more balanced view (really - ed), that is looking at historical graphs of government spending, the various changes in the deficits (and surpluess sometimes - economics ed) and the National Debt in the UK (since the 1700's) show that deficits can be brought under control, and that National Debt can be reduced.

The Government simply has to:

• stop spending more than it is receiving in tax, i.e. reduce the deficit to 0 and preferably run a small surplus (so stopping the increase in the National Debt and in line with that stopping the increase in Government spending on the interest only loans that finance this deficit)
• put money aside each year to pay back the loans capital

The most interesting question is how they go about doing this! You might think that all of the members of the House of Commons be they in Government or in the Opposition could agree with those two simple statements. Actually, no they can't. Amazing isn't it.

Afterthought

The UK National Debt is a very easy website to read, lots of nice graphs, with far far less of the ranty comments that I tend to make gives a plain spoken, serious look at the whole malarkey.

The Guardian has a couple of useful pages, one on government spending,  and one that give you figures for government tax receipts (our tax pounds - ed) and some wonderful graphs for where the government spends our tax pounds.

The UK Public Spending website is simply  fabulous, not only does it have all the data, but it lets you create your own graphs to help you grasp all the figures in ways that are meaningful to you.

Return of Charlie The Dog - Heather, Don't Look

Well, it appears that Charlie the Dog is going to make himself known to us today. The picture was finished a while back, but my Sister-in-Law Heathers' Birthday is not until November, and I just cannot wait any longer (why is that - ed)

Well, the picture has moved from the mantelpiece and up onto the top of a cupboard. It is no longer visible, and I miss him, (really - ed). Well I miss him looking at me in his languid way, as he asks,

"Have you finished painting me yet? I simply cannot hold this position any longer."

Talking dog eh? No, no, no, that is what I imagine him saying, he didn't actually sit for me, just got some emailed photos to aid in his creation.

The photo that I worked from

Ready, steady, sketch

Trying to get the hair colour

Fluffing up the hair

Attempting to get that nose right

Bit of shading and outlining the background and more nose fiddling

Attempting to get the floor sorted, yet more nost fiddling

Finished article, as you have to stop at some point, still not happy with the nose.

 You may recall from the original article, that one of the photos I received was a little scary. This one gives me the frights (you are just way too sensitive - ed)

Democratic Deficit: Mandates a-go-go

You may wonder, what right does  'Da Government' (tm) have to levy taxes on us at all (ok I wonder? If I don't will there still be a post? - ed).

Well, unfortunately for us, we keep giving 'Da Government' (tm) a mandate at the infrequent elections they deign to let us have. Once they have this mandate (and my word it is a powerful money raising device - ed), they then have the democratic legitimacy to raise money from us via taxes, spend it as they see fit and create new laws to encroach on our freedoms with barely a murmur from us once the election is over.

"Hang on a moment", I hear you say, "But I didn't vote for this latest lot of good for nothings, I voted for the other useless bunch of nerks!".

But you must understand, it doesn't matter that you didn't vote for them, or that you didn't vote at all, enough of the other guys and gals did vote for them! Now, you've had your vote (so give us your money - ed), so now the winning party can do what they like to you and in your name, (secret courts anyone, suppresssion of the press, raising taxes, misspending your hard earned money, killing non-UK-voting foreigners in the name of our/their freedom and security etc - ed)

Now, obviously this mandate (No! Not man date Esmerelda, my lovely Australian reader, mandate a political concept - it has nothing to do with your dating life - ed)  is a powerful thing. It could be seen as the ultimate power pill, once you've got it, the UK is your oyster baby and my oh my don't those politicians just love it.

So you could argue that each vote cast creates an amount of political power (nano-mandate - ed), so the more votes a party garners then the larger the mandate they can lay claim to if they manage to win the election.

You'll just have to bear with me whilst I explain the profoundly unfair democracy we appeared to be lumbered with i.e. a paliamentary majority voted for by a minority of the population which then gets to inflict on us their whims and wheezes, thanks to this mandate.

So, as ever, it is not that straightforward (really - ed). What we need to remember is this; given the proportion of the voting population who actually vote and then taking into account the percentage of the vote cast for the winning party (or parties - given the current coalition - ed), you will almost always find that the party winning a UK election were given this mandate by a minority of the total voting population (Note: anyone under the age of 18 obviously doesn't get a say in matters, because, because, well I am not sure why, but they aren't allowed a say, and if they get shirty about it they will be sent to bed early without dinner, or worse, sent to the naughty step - ed).

So the winner of the most recent UK election (or non-winner in the case of the 2010, there was no outright winner, just a no-score draw - ed), now has a mandate and can, not only change the laws of the land, but also gets to run the country!

In most, if not all other, serious grown-up countries in the world this is not that unusual (are you sure - ed), but what is unusual about the UK's democratic system is that

• the Upper House is toothless (and it is not just the age of the members that makes this so - ed)
• there is no separation of powers (one government to rule them all - ed)
• there is a lack checks and balances (surely we have the scales of justice and all of those powerful select committees - ed)

How can this be? This sceptered isle, this magnificent country with such a deep rich democratic history, the land that contains the Mother of all Parliaments, just how can this be so?

I mean (rant mode engaged - thrusters ahead full - trekkie ed) effectively we have a unicameral system, (actually bicameral - as there is the House of Lords - ed), as the House of Eleven Lords a Leapin' is toothless as it cannot stop 'Da Government' (tm) from pushing through legislation that it wants, (three strikes and we override any sensible suggestions you may have to improve our legislation, and we will it the law anyway - na na na na na - yaboo sucks - we have a mandate - political posturing ed).

So what the Government wants it gets! In fact, the House of Lords will not even veto any Government legislation that was written in the winning party's election manifesto (the little known, and of course as befits our great nation the unwritten Salisbury Convention - ed). Does that make you want to actually read the party manifestos come the next election - it should do!

Now you (obviously I am not - ed) may be surprised about how toothlessness the Upper House is. But this has been a deliberate policy by all political parties to ensure that the Lower House (House of Commons - politics ed), is the source of all political power in the UK.

I mean, let us look at the facts, reform of the Upper House was first mooted over one hundred years ago (yes, really - historical accuracy ed) and this democratic deficit and its potential check (checks and balances anyone - ed) on the untrammelled power of The House of Commons has been kept on the back burner with no serious attempt at reform for a very long time

Ok,  there was some attempt in the early years of the Blair Labour administration, but at the end of the day no-one in the House of Commons seemed to want to have the Upper House actually voted for, as that would give it some of that voter generated political legitimacy and more importantly a large dose of mandate and that could not be allowed under any circumstances (would be like turkeys voting for Christmas - ed)

So, no Government wants this reform, as it would weaken the supremacy (as it is known - ed)  of the House of Commons.

I mean, honestly, what is the point in going through all of that election malarkey if you don't get a free hand to legislate as you see fit and run the country to boot (does make you wonder where the other hand is, in the till perhaps? - ed).

So, to sum the above up, a minority of the population give the winning political party a mandate to do as they see fit and the rest of us who didn't vote for them or in fact for anybody at all, are bound nevertheless to pay the taxes and abide by the laws that the new Government enacts (shurely shome misthtake - ed).

Afterthought

Here are the figures for the UK election in 2010:


Total electorate: 45,673,633 (approx, hard to find the actual number for 2010)

Eligible but non voting: 15,985,633 electing 0 MPs
Tory:  10,703,654 electing 306 MPs
Liberal Democrats: 6,836,248 electing 57 MPs
Labour: 8,606,517 electing 258 MPs
Others: 3,541,185 electing  29 MPs

Total who voted for the coalition parties: 10,703,654 + 6,835,248 = 17,539,702
Total  who didn't vote for the coalition parties: 15,985,633 + 8,606,517 + 3,541,185  = 28,133,135

So: (17,539,702 / 45,673,633) * 100 = 38.40% of the total electorate voted for the coalition.

So, the current coalition's mandate was given to them by less than 40% of the electorate, so most of us didn't want them, but we got them irrespective of that. Some democracy, eh!

Nano-mandate [Thoughtlet]

Definition: Nano-mandate: the amount of political power that a single vote generates at an election.

Note: The sum of the nano-mandates a party wins at an election create a mandate, from which the  winning party derives its political legitimacy to enable it to carry out the work of government.

You read about the new South American Pope here first!

Seems that I had a good guess that it would be a South American for the next Pope. Not a young man by any sense of the imagination, but with a birthday of 17th December 1936 he is a spritely 76, four years above the average for the College of Cardinals.

It is interesting to note, that the College of Cardinals, are allowed pick someone outside of their own number, if they so wish. Never been done, can't for my life see as to why that would be.

The other thing to note, is that South America is home to 40% of the world's Catholic's, according to Michael Hirst of the BBC and more pertitently is a place where the Catholic Church is still held in some esteem. 

Interesting to think, that in South America, men are seen to be authority figures, leaders not just in the home, but at work and in society as a whole (patriarchal societies, perhaps - ed). They really don't go for that namby pamby Western Liberal, metrosexual type of man down there (are you sure? - ed), which is why they have chosen a Pope from that region. (? - ed)

So it appears that there will be no liberalism (big or little 'l' - ed) in the Catholic Church whilst he holds the position, and 

• there will be no move on woman priests  (no change there then - ed)
• no sensible talk or action on the use of contraception, remember every sperm is sacred and is a potential tithe earning Catholic sinner (ouch - ed)
• there will be no seaching enquiries into the sexual antics of numerous priests and their associated coverups (no change there then - ed0
• there will be no enquiry into the allegations of bribery and corruption at the Vatican (no change there then - ed)

The song remains the same even though the chairs have been shuffled!

Afterthought

Sorry for going on about the Pope so much recently. The post on Government Spending is proving to have a rather difficult gestation, it is taking as long as it takes, and now matter how many extra resources I throw at it, it ain't going to appear sooner than it does.

I could argue that it is there or thereabouts, and needs some very colourful graphs as the figures readily available from 'Da Goverment' (tm) are so very interesting (aha that 'interesting' word again - ed)

For those that have not realised it, no Government, not a single one (not even Mrs Thatcher's Governments - economics ed) has reduced public expenditure when denominated in simple pounds. 

Why, mainly because you have to take into account inflation and the iniquity of fiscal drag (the Government gets more money automatically as average wages go up - as the tax bands are not automatically uprated for inflation - economics ed).

Even the so called, "massive cuts", that we are having now, are cuts to planned higher levels of spending, not actual cuts, i.e they are reducing the rate of increase to less than inflation, so your next tax pound that the Government gets will buy fewer services (unless deflation kicks in - economics ed).

The crux of the matter, is that as the economy is flat lining, the tax revenues have flat lined and so there is no 'natural' year on year growth of the Governments tax revenues, so they are having to make some tough decisions.

The real question, and one that no Government has ever faced up to, is, "What is the Government for?". Now a debate on what Government should or should not do would be thinking about. 

Anyhow, this afterthought seems to have become a pre-post to the forthcoming post and I really can't let it steal the thunder.

[David stands up and moves his hands away from the keyboard. Now breathe, deep, long slow breaths, this is not the article you are looking for, move along - ed]

Latest Painting - Michael Saunders RIP

We have a lovely picture of Mike Saunders on the wall of our grandly named front room. The room with the restricted natural light (thanks to a natural light bulb, all is not lost - ed), and freezing today with the bitter wind chilling the house no matter how far I ratchet the thermostat up (thanks to snug, close fitting and reassuringly new underwear my vitals have not been lost to posterity, though finding things in the last chilling toilet break was much more difficult than I would have hoped - ed).

Why did I mention Mike, oh yes, well Mike was/is my father-in-law, Bridget's Dad, who unfortunately for all concerned, passed away in October 2010, hence the RIP in the post title. Anyhow, last week I had suggested to Bridget that I do a painting of her Dad, well after the flood of tears had passed (and that was just me - ed) - I wanted to find a photograph of him to base a painting on. With me so far?

Well, to try and keep to the point (yes, please do - ed), we visited Bridget's Mum (my Mother-in-Law, Jo - ed) to drop off a slightly early Mother's Day card last Saturday and I managed to remember to ask to see a particularly good set of  Black & White photos of Mike, which I borrowed to choose a portrait to paint. Strangely the one l liked best and the photo that was to become the basis for the painting was Jo's second favourite, the favourite all ready on the wall and so not in the set!

Now, if you have been following the trials and tribulations (did you mean the trouble with tribbles - scf-fi ed), of my painting endeavours, you will notice that I tend to do IN YOUR FACE bright colours (ooh you're so clever David - sarcasm ed), so the challenge was to do a Black and White painting (surely there must be a Shades of Grey reference coming up - ed). Nope, not one, sorry to disappoint you.


Anyhow, to cut the wiffling to a minimum, below are the various stages of the painting, from sketch , to what I think is almost but not quite the finished article.

Initial Sketch

Fill in backgroumd - not a roaring success

Add some detail

Broad brush the clothes - fiddle backgroud

Fill in beard in prep for detail

Detail beard some more

Almost, not sure, the finished article

 Afterthought

Probably about time I let the whole world see my paintings, so if you are interested below is the link to the secret hiding place on the web (not so secret if it is now accessible on the interweb - ed)

Click David's Paintings to see them. As I do new ones, and just noticed the Sand, Sea and Fallen Tree is not there as yet, I will put them in the same place, probably.