Years ago we deposited real money into banks who gave us a receipt, we are now so used to using these receipts as 'money'
That we believe it to be Money, but it is not, it is simply a receipt, Meanwhile, Gordon has sold off the Real Money to ?
Leaving us playing with just the receipts.
http://planetquo.com/The-Law-Is-An-Ass-And-You-Ar…

My understanding of a serious politician's "vision" is that it comprises a series of clear statements of principle on the proper role of the state and the way in which the state should fulfill its role as thus defined.

There are some areas in which the state must always be supreme, most notably defence and immigration. But in many other areas of life a balance must be struck between how much the state seeks to do and how much is left to individuals. What is to be the state's role in the economy, education, transport, health … and the list goes on and on.

I am still waiting. I have not heard Mr Brown set out what he perceives to be the proper role of the state in any area. I remember an attack on plastic carrier bags; he might be right, he might be wrong, but it is not a matter of "vision". I remember British Jobs for British Workers; that is a non-starter for reasons already well rehearsed in this blog although it does contain at least a hint of "vision". And now we have cash payments being offered for good behaviour in the way one might reward a previously inconsiderate dog when it finally chooses to do its business outside rather than in the middle of the tufted Wilton; it is hard to discern a "vision" here.

Any former Chancellor who moves into Number 10 and is then faced with economic problems is bound to suffer in the public's estimation. Many questions have been raised about Mr Brown's character and the mere fact that such matters have been aired is bound to have a further adverse effect on his standing. But I cannot help thinking that the continuing failure to explain his "vision" does him more harm in the eyes of the public than anything else.

Combined with a succession of events in which the government has been reactive rather than proactive, the failure to explain his "vision" must cause many to conclude that he simply does not have one.

The Government would sooner issue new laws than go through the pain and effort of dealing with the few people showing bad behaviour.

I know personally of some firms who issue new companywide guidelines (on claiming expenses, say) rather than dealing with individual employees who break existing rules.

In reality most people living in social housing are fine people, trying to lead productive lives. There are a few disruptive badly behaved lawbreakers – why not sort the bad ones out quickly or does this mean making a judgement?

In reality most young people go out for a night and cause no trouble. A few get drunk and violent – why not lock them up for a few days or does this mean making a judgement?

In reality, or so I am told, most MPs claim only appropriate expenses. A few appear to be committing fraud – why not prosecute them or does this mean making a judgement?

Not only must individuals be prepared to take responsibility for themselves, but society in general must also take responsibility for actually enforcing laws. People will be happier knowing that there are limits and that these will be enforced (as long as they are fair).

If you are poor, an increase in income does not help. It's all taken away in tax, national insurance, withdrawal of benefits, withdrawal of housing benefit, etc., etc.

And, if you are in social housing, you are probably in an estate surrounded by people with the same problems. You can't move because, wherever you would like to move to, there is a long, long queue for social housing.

So you learn to limit your ambitions and to live only for today. And your children learn the same lesson and don't try to do well at school.

I seem to recall that you said something about this over ten years ago.

The sad truth is that the benefit system, however well intended, is now the major cause of poverty in this country.