We’re all in it together – NOT!

I’ve mentioned the Barnett formula before and it really gets on my wick. Even the person who ‘invented’ it agrees that it is no longer fair or relevant, but no-one seems prepared to do anything about it.

In case you don’t know what it is, it is something dreamed up in the 70s to ‘balance’ government spending throughout the United Kingdom.

Personally, I think that as we are all citizens of the UK, we should be treated equally regardless of which bit of the UK we happen to live in. There are many things wrong with the way we are treated in different areas, but for this note, I’ll concentrate on the Barnett formula.

Any ‘balance’ there might have been was knocked completely out of kilter by the bribes promised to Scotland leading up to the recent referendum. The powers and money previously devolved to Wales and Scotland were totally wrong IMHO, and the Barnett was perhaps the biggest problem of all.

Based on the latest available population figures, the extra amount [compared to England] spent by the government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a staggering £16 Billion! This amount is broken down as follows:

 

Scotland                            £8.6 billion

Northern Ireland         £4.3 billion

Wales                                 £3.6 billion

Is that fair? NO! Is it justified? NO! Are we all in it together? NO!

The sooner England gets fair treatment within the UK, the better!

They’re at it again! (Politicians, of course)

Today, on BBC TV news, we had another instance of politicians making up policies for their opponents, instead of just telling us what they themselves propose.

 

I’ve commented before that politicians shouldn’t be allowed to make unchallenged statements about what their opponents are planning; how would they know? They should stick to their own policies and stop making up scare stories.

 

Today’s news clip showed David Cameron pledging to raise the inheritance tax threshold for properties up to £1 million, specifically saying it would be limited to that figure. This was immediately followed by Harriet Harman saying that the Tories wanted to give tax relief to owners of properties valued at up to £2 million. How does she know? Answer: she doesn’t; she just made it up, exactly like Brown, Balls, etc. did when he was ruining our economy when they were last in power.

I don’t recall who was in the equivalent Lib Dem clip, or what was said; after all the broken promises, reneging on agreements, etc. during this parliament, I wouldn’t waste my time listening to them.

 

WTF is a “supermodel”?

I’m probably not the person to talk about this (but it won’t stop me!), as I have no interest whatsoever in “fashion” in the sense of clothing et al. However, as I read newspapers and listen to and watch the news, some fashion models are known to me, e.g. Kate Moss & Naomi Campbell, although it’s for the ‘wrong’ reasons as I know them for their poor behaviour in public rather than as a fashion model.

 

Many years ago, there used to be a small number of people who were referred to as “supermodels”. They were almost ‘household names’ because they seemed to be the best at their ‘profession’. These days, however, the label “supermodel” seems to be applied to every model who gets her name in the papers or on social media. I’ve never heard of most of them, in any context, and don’t even know if they are models in the traditional sense.

 

In my dictionary, “super” means such things as ‘excellent’, ‘wonderful’, ‘superb’, ‘brilliant’, etc., so how the hell to these unknowns qualify as “supermodels”?

One current model I am aware of is the one currently married to (but splitting from) David Walliams, and I note that she was referred to as a “model”. Could that be why she and David are having marital difficulties – she simply isn’t “super” enough for him?

In other areas, such as sport or entertainment, the people who are referred to as “superstars” are usually instantly recognised by, and well-known to, the public around the world. Can we stop misusing “super” and for these people and refer to them as what they are, namely publicity-seeking, wannabe models?

 

Political Poppycock

As we move to wards to the General Election in the UK, we will be increasingly bombarded by promises of what this, that or the other political party will do to improve our lives.

At present, we seem to be in a “scare” phase, with a number of politicians (Labour seem to be the worst offenders) telling us of the dire consequences of electing their opponents.

Why do our media allow them to get away with it? They should refuse to print or broadcast statements such as the Labour ones about what the Conservatives are “planning” to do (and vice versa) unless they have clear evidence that this is the case. Our media should instead insist that THEY tell us what THEY are planning to do, and how THEY would finance it, not some scaremongering garbage dreamed up (i.e. fabricated, i.e. UNTRUE) about what their opponents “plan” to do!

If untruths, half-truths and downright lies were posted on “social media” about an individual or organisation, there would be an uproar about it, so why are politicians allowed to get away with it?

Anti-Social Media (1)

I’m sure I can’t be the only one who is pig sick of continually seeing reports across the media about people being “trolled” on “social media”, not to mention all those people who are offended on behalf of someone else, by something someone has posted somewhere on “social media”.

There’s an old Tommy Cooper joke where he goes to the doctor and says his shoulder hurts when he lifts his arm above his head. The doctor’s excellent advice? “Stop doing it!”.

So, it you don’t like what you read on “social media”, stop using it and all the “pain” and “problems” will go away! Simples!

As the (1) implies, I have further thoughts on this topic and will comment further on another occasion.