Today, of all days, David Cameron has the chance to massacre Gordon Brown at PMQ’s. 

Its is clear there is a division at the heart of Government.

Alastair Darling, Chancellor claims that inside Number 10 ‘the forces of hell’were unleashed on him when he predicted a deep and severe recession and that Damien McBride & Charlie Whelan actively briefed the media against him.

Gordon Brown, of course, denies this,  ”I was never part of anything to do with this.  I would never instruct anybody to do anything other than support my Chancellor.”

So the question is, either Gordon Brown was in control and authorising his inner circle to brief and smear his Chancellor, (in itself the very worst of playground bullying), or, if Brown is right, he would never instruct his advisers to do anything but support his Chancellor, then the accusation must be that he had lost control of the heart of Downing Street and ‘advisers’ were going off doing their own thing.  What else were advisers doing?  Again a very damning position. 

This feels like the court room scene in ‘A Few Good Men’, when Jack Nicholson, (Playing Nathan Jessop), was goaded by Tom Cruise to admit that he had ordered a Code Red.  Nicholson denied ordering his Commanders to enact a Code Red attack on a Private marine, (like Gordon Brown today!).  Nicholson’s Commanders protected him and denied everything.  But Nicholson had to be seen as in total control.  When this assertion was undermined, ie he lacked control or knowledge of what was going on, he cracked.  Lack of control was weakness.  Gordon Brown likes to revel in power, he loves to be seen in control, he is itching to say he ordered a Code Red on Alastair Darling, he just needs David Cameron to rattle his cage hard enough and fire him up to crack. 

So which is it Gordon?

I look forward to DC having some mileage on this in PMQ’s.  DC has his moment as Tom Cruise in that famous scene.  I hope his opening gambit goes something a little like this:  ‘Would the Prime Minister confirm whether he authorised the ‘forces of hell’ on his Chancellor, whether his Chancellor is lying, or whether he was unaware of the briefings taking place by his senior advisers to the media, in which case has he lost complete and utter control of the Downing Street Machine’?

I would also love to see DC draw the comparison with bullying.  ‘Would the Prime Minister agree that one definition of bullying is using advisers to brief against your Chancellor behind their back’?

Should be a fun PMQ’s. 

How many people do you meet nowdays that call themselves Thatcherite?

A PPC said to me the other day whilst he is a Thatcherite by ideology he would never say it publicly as it may not go down well in the Party!  He though David would not approve!

Seems like Thatcherism is an ideology that is out of fashion.

But what does being Thatcherite mean?

It means you believe in limited Government, sound economics, spending only what you can earn & not getting into debt, rolling back the frontiers of the State, espousing liberty, enpowering the individual, cutting tax, incentivising the private sector and entrepreneurs, a strong Britain on the World Stage, a strong defence policy backed by a well equipped Army, Navy & Air Force, limiting the power & scope of Europe to a free trade area not a political superstate with a single currency………

Hhhhhmmmmmm sounds good.  Aren’t we all Thatcherites? 

Hello all.

I have been away….for some time.  Thank you to so many of you who have been emailing me and also keeping your views posted on Facebook.

I really needed a break from blogging.  But now I feel refreshed and with new perspectives to share and debate with you all.  I realise by taking a break that I will need to again start rebuilding my readership but word will get out….added with a bit of interesting PR.

So in the words of Take That….I am Back for Good.

Enjoy the ride………

Is there a case to be made for the legalisation of prostitution in a modern free society? 

Would it shock you that official best guesses are that there are over 80,000 prostitutes working in the UK today!  Wikipedia details that, in 2003, it was estimated that, in London one woman in 300 was working as a prostitute (compared to one in 35 in Amsterdam).

Prostitution is known as the oldest profession but one that still can generate the feeling of utter revulsion.  For many older readers of this blog, the word itself ‘prostitution’ conjures up seedy images of dirty old men in tweed coats, sneaking off into side alleys with ‘skanky’ looking women and performing unimaginable acts of depravity.  For others, the freedom of the individual is to the fore, whereby, two consenting adults should be left to do what they want. 

Where do you stand?

A controversial subject….for many taboo.  One in which very few blogs will pass comment.  So why this one?  What got me thinking about this subject?  Two things.  Firstly, the media publicity surrounding ‘Belle de Jour’ breaking her anonymity and ‘going public’ this past week and secondly a recent comment left by a reader, ‘Jenny’, on this blog site about how she was struggling to make ends meet in this recession and how she turned to prostitution to support her family.

‘Belle de Jour’

For those of you unaware of this story, ‘Belle’, was for many years a high-class London call girl / prostitute — who wrote an anonymous blog about her experiences, detailing her many sexual and emotional encounters, (some would say taking the Adrian Mole diary concept to the next step for liberated women!).   This blog was then turned into two best-selling books, ‘The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl’ and ‘The Further Adventures of a London Call Girl’. Belle’s books were re-energised two years ago, when they were turned into a highly rated TV series starring Billie Piper.  For those interested to look at Belle’s blog site, you can find it HERE and her Twitter feed HERE  

For those thinking this was some dirty, seedy diary, Belle’s behind the scenes insight into her life and views on men is not a blow-by-blow sex guide, but more akin to a camp & fun Sex & the City style adventure!  It must noted that reviewers of these books critically state that the style of writing is what engages readers and that Belle comes across in a ‘sassy, finger-snapping, girl’s best-friend style’.

What is fascinating in this story is who the real Belle turned out to be!  Now for some, the expectation was for a horrible, ‘ugly’, desperate woman that could be pilloried and held up as an example to batter the oldest profession.  Brooke Magnanti crashed through the barriers of anonymity and revealed herself to be the real ‘Belle’.  But Brooke is in fact, DOCTOR Brooke Magnanti, a research scientist at Bristol University.  Now why did Brooke, an intelligent woman with bright prospects turn to prostitution?  Her reply…..she became a £300 an hour high class escort to help fund her studies for a doctorate!  See her here on Sky News….

Now that is an eye opener.  A clever woman with a bright future freely took the decision to fund her way through college via selling her body for ‘protected sex’.  And today, no one harmed, she is proud to be a successful Doctor, (and writer!). 

Does Belle glamorise prostitution as some are saying today?  Opponents of prostitution, quite rightly, point out that Brooke or ‘Belle’ was a fortunate high class hooker and that ‘in real life’ there are many prostitutes who work in horrific conditions, ‘owned’ by a pimp and who earn little money and live a desolate life.  Which is true.  But supporters of legalising prostitution counter that the very seeds of arguing against the legalisation of prostitution are contained in the opponents arguments for banning it.  Yes it is a dangerous profession, yes Pimps need to be banned, yes disease is prevalent.   But are these in fact arguments that support and regulation solve and that making it illegal, drives it underground and hence into dangerous hands.

But Belle is not the only case.  Let’s take Jenny, who left comment on a blog about the depth of the recession.

 ‘Jenny’

Turning to Jenny and the blog comment she left.  Jenny challenged blog readers to come up for a better solution for her problems.  Seems like Jenny had a boyfriend who left her and their kids and she was left with a mortgage to pay and aforesaid kids to provide for.  She claims that there are too few jobs and that state benefits are pathetic. 

Let’s try and flesh this situation out some more and perhaps stretch this story to its limits as I don’t have all the details but it serves as a useful illustration.  Let’s take for granted that Jenny has a high mortgage, (perhaps negative equity), stays at home to bring up the children, whilst her partner works and brings home the money to support their lifestyle.  But that partner then ups and leaves.  Gone overnight.  The CSA start their work in tracking the father but that can be a slow process.  So this woman, faced with a mortgage, a lifestyle to support and more importantly children, for whatever reason turned to prostitution.  Rightly or wrongly, according to your position.  She claims that she could ‘work’ as a prostitute and sell her body for ‘mindless sex’ for £500.  (Higher than Belle!)

Now most people’s reaction will be first condemnation.  But then, when you think of it, when faced in a desperate position, did Jenny do so wrong in protecting, as she would see it, her family & lifestyle and indeed, maybe enhance it, (if you see money as an enhancer!).  Yes, there are moral decisions being made but perhaps those that an individual should take not society?

So are we at the point we should liberate our minds and re-consider prostitution?  Why would prostitution be legalised?

The case for legalisation?

So why legalise prostitution?  There are several key arguments propounded.

— Freedom of liberty.   Supporters say that it should not be in the remit of the state if two consenting individuals want to exchange money for sex.  As long as both sides are consenting, nothing is done against anyone’s free will.  Why should the State intervene?  The woman or the man providing sex is proving a ‘service’ that should be seen in the same way as a foot massage or facial.  The State they argue never knows best.

— Safety for both the prostitutes and customers could be assured.   Prostitutes can end up missing, murdered, or severely beaten. If prostitution is legalized and regulated, the number of tragedies involving prostitutes can be lessened. Those in favour of legalizing prostitution feel that “violence, exploitation, and health effects suffered by women in prostitution” are not deep-seated in the trade but are the outcome of the behaviour of “bad pimps or buyers”; many feel that if “prostitution were regulated by the state these harms would diminish”

— Less disease.  Prostitutes would be checked for disease.   With proper and mandatory health care provided to prostitutes, the risk of disease can be lessened significantly. Prostitutes could be required to have mandatory disease testing done every six months.  In the age of AIDS and other sexual diseases, greater control and monitoring is propounded as a step forward. This way, if the prostitutes are clean then they cannot transmit diseases to their customers.

— Pimps would be eliminated.   The power of pimps could be lessened, and perhaps even banned, to ensure the safety and well-being of prostitutes. Pimps often beat, or even kill, their prostitutes, and Prostitutes could be required to be licensed and made to carry some sort of government issued identification card. The state of Nevada gave the right to each county to determine whether or not to legalize prostitution. Churchill county voted two to one in favour of licensed brothels, which were not to be placed on main streets or close to churches or schools. Prostitutes working in these brothels are required to carry identification cards and are usually fingerprinted (“Prostitution”). This is for the safety of the prostitute.

— Better stability of relationships.  Given divorce break up’s, affairs and cheating is endemic in society, would ‘mindless, uncommitted’ sex act as an outlet and ensure more couples stay together for their families?

— A multimillion dollar business would be taxed.  Just consider the amount of tax revenue missed out…… do the maths

                        Miss X charges £250 per hour

                        She sees 1 client in the afternoon and 2 in the evening

                        That’s £750 per day ‘earnt’

                        Miss X works Monday – Fri ie 5 days and pulls in £4,500 per week

                        She works, let’s say 48 weeks of the year, (takes 4 off like the rest of us).

                        That’s an annual salary of £180,000  untaxed……

                        So from a taxation point of view….who is being screwed?

— Prostitution would be removed from residential neighbourhoods.   The famous, ‘Not in my back yard’ argument.  Set, controlled, regulated, safe environments.

My conclusion

Do I have answer to whether prostitution should be legal in a free society?  I find this a tough subject.  My conscience wrestles between a strict moral code where it is abhorrent to the values I hold.  I can see the depths that some dive to and feel so low and desperate that they will do anything to support their families/earn a living.  I revile in reading about the dreadful conditions that these prostitutes have to reportedly work in, many bullied, (physically & emotionally), by pimps to make money for others that they never see.  So where do I stand?  Would I ever entertain the idea of using a prostitute?  No.  Never under any circumstances.  I have my own strict moral guide.  BUT….and this is a big BUT.  I love and revel in freedom.  I want more personal freedom….tough in a society throttling the very liberties we once enjoyed).  Everyone has a right to be different in society.  The State holds no legitimacy or right  to regulate others in personal matters.  My passion for the freedom of the individual knows no bounds.  I cherish individual freedom above issues of morality like this.  Why should I say that people should not be free to do what they want?  Consenting, (and that is a critical word), adults, engaging in a ’service’, harms no one else’s life, indeed the arguments above for legalising prostitution in fact help society….less violence, less crime, less sexual disease, more money for the state.  Therefore, my desire for liberty supports the legalisation of the oldest profession.

Don’t expect to see the legalisation of prostitution in the next Conservative Manifesto.  It is not a vote winner.  But true followers of a free society know that the fight for more freedom for the individual never ends as we ‘continue down the road to serfdom’.   What do you think?  Would you visit a prostitute if it were legal?…but more importantly would you frown on your friends if they did?………………………

Those that condemn….did you enjoy watching Pretty Woman at the cinema/DVD?  Watch Billie Piper on ITV as Belle?……………………..

In a recent comment to Scott Newton’s guest blog, “Why Cutting Income Tax, Cutting Red Tape and Deregulating Business is essential for the UK’s Future.” I promised to write more on UK Tax Policy.

I must add that these are my personal observations and are not intended to upset anyone…

…Including Scott who’s piece is right on the mark. (Well done Scott!)

For the past 4 years my company (www.ditg.org.uk) has been funded by the worlds largest ICT brands to establish a replacement for the Government’s Home Computing Initiative (HCI).

HCI was budget measure implemented by Gordon Brown as a Tax Incentive for employees. Under Section 320 of the Finance Act, employees could acquire up to £2500 worth computer equipment from their employer Income Tax exempt. In turn, employers enjoyed an exemption on Class 1A National Insurance on the amounts salary sacrificed by the employee.

This created an industry worth £450 Million to the UK and about 2500 related employment opportunities.

Unfortunately, the exemption was removed in Budget 2006. (It was proving too successful?)

This resulted in one of the longest cross-examinations during the reading for a finance bill in recent times. (Well worth a read on Hanson – see the below link).

The Government cited “abuse” as the reason for removing the benefit and pledged to “refocus efforts on those most in need”. Check out the written evidence taken at the time:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtreasy/994/994we14.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtreasy/994/994we08.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtreasy/994/994we06.htm

YOU MUST READ THIS NEXT ONE, IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY HCI, BUT IS A GREAT READ.

IT ALSO SHOW THAT INSPITE OF WHAT YOU MAY THINK, WE DO RETAIN A AN OPEN AN UNBVIASED RECORD OF PUBLIC COMMENT AS PART OF UK POLITICS.

IT IS ALSO HILARIOUS:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtreasy/994/994we07.htm

Just in case you don’t want to click off the blog – here is a taster:

“The rhetoric of “transformation”, “reform”, “investment”, “transparency”, “devolution”, “prudent”, “cautious”, “audited” and “world class” is so indulgent and self-congratulatory that one wonders if some drafters inside the Treasury are parodying ministers.”

Professor David Heald, Comments on Budget 2006

Ouch!

At the time the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats both lobbied against the decision and the recorded debate on Hansard is a fantastic read. It is also a good introduction to political punditry and how Politician’s really debate:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060502/debtext/60502-22.htm

(The unanswered question for me was always how you can abuse a taxation system that assesses individual taxation in arrears…but then I am bias and this blog isn’t about HCI!)

So with this background you would think that it would be easy to gain Parliamentary support for a refocused replacement scheme developed over 4 years at a cost to the IT Industry (not the tax payer!) of over £2.6 Million.

Not so…

In practice the differentiation between the Parties on the issue of supporting a tax incentives is in practice not all that large. (Sorry Scott)

ALL Ministers (despite what the expenses scandal suggests) are concerned as to how to pay for any incentive, will it fit with policy…

So why post this blog at all?

Well my personal concern is not about the detail of Tax Policies, nor believe it or not HCI.

My concern is the Conservative approach. Will it win us the election?

Have a look at the following comparison of Labor and Tax summary statements.

John questions whether there is enough clear blue water between Labour & Conservatives on Tax policy……you decide!

Treat yourself and see if you can spot the difference!

Conservatives:

“We will freeze council tax for two years by reducing wasteful spending on advertising and consultancy in central government.”

Labour:

“We are reducing the amount of central prescription so that local authorities and their partners are better able to respond to local needs and demands.”

Conservatives:

“We will introduce a £50bn National Loan Guarantee Scheme to underwrite
bank lending to businesses and get credit flowing again.”

Labour (DirectGov):

“The government is announcing that it will offer capital and asset protection on those assets most affected by the current economic conditions. This will reduce banks’ uncertainty about the value of past investments, so providing them with greater confidence to lend in the future to creditworthy businesses, homeowners and consumers.”

Labour (Policy):

“Working with banks, Labour is providing loan guarantees to businesses to help them get the credit they need.”

Conservatives:

“We will provide tax cuts for new jobs with a £2.6bn package of tax breaks to get people into work, funded by money that would otherwise go on unemployment benefit.”

Labour:

“Extra cash to encourage employers to recruit people without jobs.”

“Stepping up the training and support people need to get back to work.”

Conservatives:

“We will cut the main rate of corporation tax to 25p and the small companies’ rate to 20p, paid for by scrapping complex reliefs and allowances”

Labour:

“Allowing businesses facing difficulties to spread their tax payments on a timetable they can afford.”

Conservatives:

“We will give small and medium-sized businesses a six-month VAT holiday, funded by a 7.5% interest rate on delayed payments.”

Labour:

“We have reduce VAT to 15%”

Conservatives:

“We will cut National Insurance by 1% for six months for firms with fewer than five employees, paid for from the above changes to the company tax regime.”  

Labour:

“When it is affordable, we will re-link the basic state pension to earnings.  We aim to do this by 2012 or by the end of the next parliament at the latest.”

Conservatives:

“We will abolish Stamp Duty for nine out of ten first-time buyers and raise the Inheritance Tax threshold to £1 million. Both of these changes will be funded by a flat-rate charge on non-domiciles.”

Labour:

“Extending the Stamp Duty holiday for properties under £175,000”

“Extra mortgage protection to help families stay in their homes”

“Helping savers by increasing the threshold of Individual Savings Accounts to over £10,000”

Now hopefully some clever contributors will now explain to me the differences in the comments…WAIT, some I can see! (And before you comment, I know that the Conservatives have shown how they will pay for it !!)

But you know it all does kind of sound the same to me…and taxation detail is part of my day job…

…So what hope does the deciding electorate have?

I do sincerely hope the Tory manifesto has some really clear taxation differentiators in it.

Otherwise I might get confused and vote for the wrong Party.

Here is a thought…committing to bring back s320 income tax benefits for computers would be a start.

Hey look, it is my daily bread…      

John Laity…..

I don’t know about you but I am getting bored with the constant references to the Bullingdon Club.  Seems that Labour will refer to it in their election campaign in an attempt to discredit former Bullingdon members David Cameron, Boris Johnson and George Osborne.  Such tired, boring politics wont wash with the British People who care for issues and how their lives will be affected not old University high jinx!

So what is this infamous Bullingdon Club we hear of so much?   Well, it is a socially exclusive student dining club at Oxford University, without any fixed abode, well known for its members’ wealth and destructive drinking nights. Membership is by invitation only, and stupidly expensive for most, given the need to pay for the uniform, dinners and breakages.  The Club’s modus operandi has often been to book a private dining room under an false name, as most restaurateurs are wary of the Club’s reputation for causing considerable drunken damage during the course of the dinners. However, it depends on the character of the membership at the time — which necessarily varies from year to year — whether the famous ‘destruction’ is an intentional act of wanton vandalism or a side-effect of drinking prodigious quantities over a lengthy period of time.  Members are well known to trash a restaurant and then pay cash for damages, plus extra, when leaving.

Labour’s goal is to portray Cameron as elitist.  A toff with a silver spoon in his mouth.  Aloof.  Out of touch with the ordinary man & woman on the street.  The Bullingdon Club is one way to do this, hence the photo of Cameron and Boris in penguin suits, looking arrogant and elitist is like political dynamite to them.  Our future Prime Minister and current Mayor of London in sleek, expensive dinner jackets, (fyi Bullingdon members dress for their annual Club dinner in specially made traditional tailcoats in Oxford blue offset with ivory silk lapel revers, brass monogrammed buttons, a mustard waistcoat, and a sky blue bow tie. There is also a Club tie, which is sky blue striped with ivory. These are all provided by the Oxford branch of court tailors Ede and Ravenscroft. The full uniform costs around £3,500), positioned in strong ‘elitist’ poses, Boris sitting on the step looking straight into the eyes of the camera and David, looking wistfully into the distance.  After this group pose, reports regale the press of a wild night out on the town with damage to an expensive restaurant.  Boris was caught by the Police after smashing a window with a plant pot, (and spent a night in the cells).  No information comes to light of any high jinks that Cameron got up to, (he apparently went home early).  Channel 4 considered it such public interest entertainment that they created and funded a tv version of their antics viewable HERE  (If you want to see the original Bullingdon photos of Cameron, Boris and one with George Osborne, Google Search images of the ‘Bullingdon Club’).

David Cameron (Johnny Sweet), top, second left, and Boris (Christian Brassington) in More 4’s docudrama about their Oxford days

Frankly who gives a damn apart from those people who oppose those who have been priviledged to have generated and passed on wealth to their children.

My defence of the Bullingdon Club comes not because I have been a member, (far from it as I am the classic product of a working class family, moving on up through an average state school).  But neither am I jealous of those who have created or enjoyed wealth.  Consider this.  If you won the lottery today or built a business that was worth millions, would you seek to look after your children’s future, as well as building on your wealth?  In most cases yes you would.  So if you could provide your children the best in education, which is generally what all parents want, where are the best institutions?  Most would say Eton School and of course then Oxford and Cambridge University.  These choices are perceived by many as the ultimate goal for their children’s education.  Yet many feel the need to criticise those who can afford to go there, (whilst hypocritically they would do the same if they had that money).

This silly argument came up on BBC Question Time last week.  Yvette Cooper snapping at the heels of George Osborne.  Quite rightly he retorted, why should he be embarrassed by the success of his father in building a business, employing lots of people and yes, making money, (the whole point of business).  Success it appears breeds contempt.  It breeds jealously.  Yet many crave to be in this position yet condemn others if they cant have it.

Let’s tackle the high jinks that the Bullingdon Club got up to.  Those casting their stones at David, Boris and George should consider that most people have done things they regret in life.  University days, not just at Oxford or Cambridge, see many wild nights, with students, (yes future business leaders, politicians and …. parents), doing things that are unacceptable and they later regret.  That is part of growing up.  Learning through experiences and mistakes you make.   Go to any University town in freshers week and there will be shenanigans that turn your hair grey.  Critics say that this is all a question of a persons core ethics, their ‘character’, ‘their upbringing’, ‘their suitability to hold public office’, hence we should have the right, of a future leader to know everything.  Frankly….silly, childish student day pranks do not matter.  What matters is how a person intends to lead. What will they do for the poorest in society?  How will they create and spread wealth?  Can they create jobs?  How will they improve our schools, our roads, our hospitals, our national defences, our position in the world?  All this matters to people, not whether someone was a member of the Bullingdon Club.  Not whether they smoked canabis at school!  Not if they have got drunk and jumped into a river on freshers week!  If they commiteed a heinous crime, yes we have a right to know.  Did people decide they would not vote for the Mayor because when he was young he was merry and threw a plant pot throw a window?  Of course not.

But it is too much to hope for debates on issues by Labour.  They will use this old brush to try and sweep Cameron away from reaching Downing Street.  It will backfire on them and make them look the childish politicians they are.  And of course, their ‘greatest leader’ of recent times enjoyed himself at University as well. Tony Blair had his wild side……

‘Boys will be boys’….’students will be students’!

As John McCarthy says: ‘An excessive knowledge of Marxism is a sign of a misspent youth’.

A young Tony Blair in his underpants played by actor, Christian Brassington (NB he plays Boris above!)

Like watching a car speeding headfirst at 90mph towards stationary traffic ahead, so we witness Post Officers voting to strike this Christmas.   An act testament to corporate suicide! 

Dave Ward, Deputy Leader of the CWU, (Communications Workers Union), the man elected to protect Post Office members will precide over the insane position of the post office workers committing a very public suicide.  As workers vote to strike, the sad truth is that their actions threaten the future of the post office, millions of jobs and their Union leadership don’t get the gravity of the action they prescribe.

As companies, small business, individuals fight o overthrow the effects of the toughest recession since the 1930’s, the actions of Post Office workers act as a kick in the teeth of the man & woman on the street.  Many businesses, small, medium and large are depending on Christmas sales boosting revenues enough to keep their business solvent.  Note I say solvent, not making profits, just staying afloat. 

Strike action this Christmas will be the tipping point for many busineeses and individuals to investigate alternative ways to get their deliveries out.  A large proportion may decide never to return their business to the Royal Mail.  Rival delivery operators will rightfully be rubbing their hands in glee.  A large scale move away from the Royal Mail will end the critical mass the Post Office depends on, hence ending the viability of the Royal Mail.  The very jobs a Trade Union seeks to protect will be undermined and lost to an act of madness.

Post Office workers need to search their soul.  Do they really think that in the midst of a devastating recession, at a time which brings some much needed relief and joy to the population, (aka Christmas), that they will win public support.  There is more chance of Sooty the Silent Bear winning the singing competition the ‘X Factor’ or Roland Rat dancing to victory in ’Strictly Come Dancing’.  Recent National Post Office strikes have shown that workers quickly return to work as their pay becomes the priority as their wallets empty and their families have less food on the table and recent history shows they win little concessions for their efforts.

Of course the Royal Mail needs to be modernised.  The whole organisation is in a dire mess, with a pensions deficit throttling its stability, (estimated to be £10 billion in deficit).  But strike action is not the answer.  We live in a digital age where email and instant communication is a priority.  But many businesses still depend on traditional post like Ebay and Amazon.  Both are now reviewing the best methods to get their goods out at Xmas. The Post Office could have a very healthy future but until the industrial militancy to any modernising moves is ended, the Post Office will sink like the Titanic.

Dave Ward, see the light, look after your workers, dont allow the biggest corporate suicide to take place.