Ed Balls

Ed Balls, architect of our current financial destruction, today says that people fiddling their benefits claims should be dealt with harshly and we can but agree. He does however have a very different view of Mr. Ed Balls and his wife fiddling their tax and expenses.

He quite happily switches the claim as to which of his two homes is the primary one, to suit his advantage in each case. It's against the law but he is a politician and so it is never pursued. And that raises an interesting question. Whilst we are not surprised by the hypocrisy of this man, nor his intention to deceive on a number of issues, not least where he gains financially, but who lets him get away with it? Who knows and is in a position to act but doesn't and why?

You see, Balls cheats because he can and thus gains, but why would someone cover for him? Where is their gain? It is clear that the Establishment have some unwritten rules to protect themselves to our detriment and that is shameful. It is just the same as the BBC providing the opportunity and cover for Jimmy Savile and others to behave as they did. Provide the environment and corruption will flourish. A back-scratching elite.

Heads of state and Prime Ministers are keen advocates that killing other heads of state is wrong. No assassinations  This is not a noble principle but one based on self preservation. If you break the rule, then consider yourself a target. Strange how incentive works isn't  it? Or not.

Going back to Balls though. It is a good idea to never listen to a word he says and certainly don't trust any of it. He may be right sometimes but that will be him seeking advantage and doubtless someone reliable will also be saying it. He and his gormless wife are both irrelevant when it comes to ideas.

Self Interest

If you are like me, one of the things that will have infuriated you in the MP's expenses scandal was the way they kept saying they hadn't broken the rules and then we found out they hadn't. The fury was over the rules they themselves wrote for themselves. The reasoning was always 'well, you wouldn't expect us to have to....' and they then went on to justify expenses for things you have to pay for in your life, like commuting. What was really going on of course was a dispute over how you look at things. For instance, if your employer gives you a car to help you do your work, it becomes a 'benefit' and so, taxable. If they pay your phone bill, it is taxable. Gordon Brown really does rake in the tax every time we move. However, he gets a free house and he not only has a company car, he has a driver too. None of this apparently is a benefit. MP's get money to fund a second home and this also, is not a benefit. If everyone had the same rules as MP's applied to their employment, the country could not function. It is something we need to get very angry about and it needs to change. This does not mean giving them a pay rise either. Like it or lump it, the same as the rest of us.