A place of last resort for scoundrels

THE Houses of Parliament in London may once have been known as the cradle of our democratic liberties. Now, however, the HP Sauce buildings by the River Thames are best regarded as being a place of last resort for scoundrels.

In my lifetime, at least, the public perception of the validity and probity of politics and politicians has never been so low. I believe that they are now held in utter contempt by large sections of our society.

Banks, bankers and our financial institutions have been widely vilified as being the progenitors of the near financial ruin of this country, the legacy of which is currently visiting hardship upon millions of citizens whose only “crime” was to place their trust in those institutions to conduct their affairs responsibly and in the interests of those who trusted them.

But, in my view, the true responsibility for this catastrophe lies not with greedy bankers or stock market traders, but with government. We, the people, elect governments to oversee and manage our communities and our lives on our behalf, and on behalf of our children and our children’s children. The previous two administrations have miserably failed to do so.

I CONSIDER this to be a self-evident fact. The last Labour Government, through maladministration and profligate spending, sowed the seeds of the crisis, whilst the present Tory

Most of the bunch who strut in the corridors of power at Westminster widely disapproved of the recent one-day strike by teachers and public sector workers over proposed alterations to their pensions – alterations that would cost them dearly. The strikers were condemned, almost out of hand, as being entirely unreasonable and, by their action, putting at risk children and the economic future of UK Ltd.

As the satirical magazine Private Eye noted a couple of weeks ago, “6,162,000: public sector workers (civil servants, local government workers, NHS staff, members of the armed forces, teachers, police, firefighters, judicial and atomic workers) who the Government proposes should lose their final salary pensions schemes and move to career-average schemes,” whilst, “650: public sector workers (MPs) who the Government is not proposing should lose their final salary pension schemes and move to career-average schemes”.

I am tired of being told by politicians that “we are all in this together”; that if we are to bring back some degree of financial stability to this country, then “we most all share the burden”. That “we must all play our part”. When I listen to this sanctimonious, Churchillian-like drivel, I am minded of a comment made by a granddaughter when my wife, Ann, was saying her prayers. “God bless mummy and daddy...” ending with “...and all my friends at school.” The little girl opened an eye and said, concerned, “Not all of them, granny.”

The same seems to apply to our MPs who have to struggle by on salaries of a mere £75,000 per year bolstered with substantial expenses and copper-bottom pension plans. It’s the old axiom, “Don’t do what I do, do what I say.” Is it little wonder that so many people distrust them? They so easily apply double standards when it is convenient for their self-interest to do so.

NEITHER does government seem able or willing to ease the financial burden on those of us who live in remote, rural areas such as the Far North.

Out here beyond the split stane in Sutherland, we are being crucified by the ever-rising cost of fuel, whilst the Government continues to take tax of about 75 per cent of the cost of every litre bought at the pumps.

Then they “raid” the petrol companies to be able to claim a “victory” for the motorist by reducing the price of petrol by a paltry amount – at no cost to the exchequer, of course. If government can do this on fuel, why can’t it force energy suppliers – central heating fuel, gas and electricity companies – to restrict their prices, which are presently driving tens of thousands of households into fuel poverty?

The most recent bill from Scottish Fuels for 1000 litres of central heating oil to hit the Castle Sandison doormat was for £717, rapidly approaching 100 per cent more than it was a few years ago.

A glossy booklet accompanied the invoice, explaining the company’s terms and conditions.

I was informed, “It is important that you read and consider the enclosed conditions as they will form the basis of our dealings with you in the future.” Twelve pages of closely-packed print amounting to approximately 15,000 words of intricate, barely comprehensible legalise.

Perhaps I am being too harsh on our dear leaders. Maybe, even as I speak, they are busy introducing meaningful measures to restrain banks and bankers, restrict over-inflated fat-cat salaries, usher in a new era of truth and accountability for parliamentarians and the civil service, bring MPs into line with the rest of us on pension schemes, insist that energy companies reduce their prices.

Maybe they are, but I’m not holding my breath.

Do you want to respond to this article? If so, click here to submit your thoughts and they may be published in print.