The Power of Paranoia

Accuse me of being a terrorism denier if you want; but is it just possible that the explosives found on planes headed for the UK and USA might be the figments of the imagination of the people who run the countries?

Currently the ConDems are facing a massive backlash from the huge portions of the general public; the cuts they're bringing in have been met with considerably more defiance than agreement. Over the pond, Barrack Obama is facing meltdown less than 2 years since winning the most powerful man in them world contest. What better way of detracting from the issues at hand than by bringing terrorism back to the forefront?

Of course, these incidents may well have happened; there are, after all, a lot of fundamentalists out there. However, the timing of this is so Falklands War its unreal. I just can't help thinking that there is considerably less threat out there than our governments let on. After all, terrorism is such an insidious way of not achieving anything, it is feasible that government spin doctors suddenly hit on this great idea to turn peoples' fears into a weapon of mass hysteria.

There is strong anecdotal evidence to suggest that the Falklands War was constructed by Thatcher and Galtieri because both of them were on the verge of being ousted from office. Just 4 months before the 'war' started, representatives from both countries met and the very amicable meetings could easily have led to the 'need' to do something to stop socialists from regaining power. Four months before the 'war' Thatcher was the most unpopular UK prime minister ever. She was so far behind in opinion polls, it was possible she might be responsible for the complete destruction of the Conservative party. Then this war comes along and she wins the subsequent election by a landslide. All it cost was the lives of some easily expendable lives - after all, that's what you join the army for.

The problem with having theories like this is you're branded a conspiracy theorist, nutter or somewhere in between...

Reality Bites

Apparently, I'm a 'Deficit Denier'.

This is the term used by Tory boys for anyone who either doesn't feel the cuts are fair or doesn't believe that Lord Snooty's plans aren't the best thing since torturing fags at Eton.

I don't think there are many people who are actively denying that cuts were needed. Britain, like most of the rest of the world, is in debt and something needed to be done about it. It's just an even more massive insult to intelligent people to be told by pompous 'I'm all right Jack' Tories that we actually know nothing.

On Nick Clegg's Facebook page there was, at first, a stampede of insults aimed at the political equivalent of a Transformer (he's a Tory in disguise!) and then, quite remarkably, a backlash against the backlash. Ironically, very few of the people defending Cleggatron were actually Liberals, most of them were Tories. One in particular, a guy called Andrew, was a self-employed financial advisor from Oxford who like Neil O'Brien, the Director of the Tory supporting Policy Exchange, was calling for more money to be taken away from the poor; because giving them less will encourage them to get jobs. An idea which would possibly work if there were jobs to apply for. Andrew also spouted on about people having to make difficult decisions and these cuts not being about fairness but about being in the national interest. Like most politicians, when casual readers of the Facebook page asked him for specifics or to explain himself, he suddenly was no where to be seen.

I've been slightly bemused by the way the press seems to have drawn a line under the affair. On Thursday there was 11 pages devoted to Lord Snooty; by Saturday, The Guardian's coverage had dropped to less than 2 pages. But, I realised that the editors probably felt having page after page of commentators forecasting the end of civilisation as we know it would probably not be good for sales. Obviously the Daily Mail thrives on such stories, yet amazingly they seemed to be in full support of Blackadder's sanctioned cuts. After all, of the 1.8million unemployed in the UK, probably 1.7999million are scroungers, fraudsters and are purposefully screwing the rest of us while laughing into their Pinot Grigios, watching their flat screen TVs and driving their Lamborghinis (without tax or insurance) around the filth laden streets of Britain's council estates...

The main thing we all need to understand is that a lot of these massive cuts will not happen for a few weeks or months. This allows us (and Dave Blackadder & Nick Baldrick) to prepare for the changes. It makes me wonder how this entertaining double act is going to deal with the mass unemployment that will undoubtedly kick in once Georgie's cuts kick in. I mean, even if the Private sector has faith in the future of this country, it's going to take a while for that to actually happen. It'll also be interesting to see how the ConDems deal with the fact that the so-called Export-led Recovery will only work if other countries decide to buy anything from us. It seems the ConDems are the only people in the country that haven't noticed that every other country in the world are having the same economic problems that we are.

On a moral standpoint; how long is it going to be before the conscientious Liberals (because there must be a few of the left) realise that the unfairness of making the poor pay for the mistakes of the bonus greedy bankers has placed them in an untenable position; one which is likely to see them all out of work and joining the swelling ranks of unemployed and hopeless people?

Of course, there could be a school of thought in Westminster that is actively waiting and hoping that there is some form of civil unrest; because governments love the peasants revolting, as it suddenly gives them the moral high ground regardless of how wrong their policies are. Violence solves nothing and neither does industrial action. If there were mass strikes once the cuts start to bite you might get a high percentage of the populace actually supporting them; but once the rubbish starts to pile up, or the buses stop running, or X Factor isn't on the screens, the support will waiver and crash. Just look at France: 79% of the population supported the industrial action; but once the petrol started to run out and the bins started overflowing with effluence, that support has dropped to 59% and it will continue to drop; because, essentially, the majority of people will only support something as long as it doesn't impact on their own lives for long.

So, the long and the short of it is, the ConDems know that however much a percentage of the country will moan about it; the support and sympathy of the rest of the country will not stick for long. The reason for this is because about 25 years ago, a very evil woman destroyed community spirit, made the unions out to be the spawn of Satan and turned a large percentage of the country into greedy bastards.

***

Speaking of Maggie: Go here - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/thatcher-gaining-strength-from-nation's-misery-201010223185/

When this woman finally dies there is going to be some crazy things happen. There will be a goodly percentage of people who will demand that she is given a state funeral and that she is honoured in some way - maybe a statue in Trafalgar Square or even Parliament Square. These people will campaign tirelessly for the woman to be given the send off she deserves.

On the other hand there will be a goodly percentage of people who will spontaneously break out in celebration; these people will organise street parties and the streets will be over run by people for whom that day has been a long time coming. It might be viewed by people as a horrendous display of disrespect to the dead; especially one who achieved so much for this country. The people celebrating her death will undoubtedly campaign tirelessly for the woman to be given the burial she deserves - either dropping down an abandoned colliery or left in a dustbin on a council estate in Toxteth. Perhaps they could just cut her body up into pieces and give parts to any one who can prove that she was responsible for the downfall of whatever part of the country they live in.

Straight Answers, Please

The cuts have been made. There's no changing them now. The poorest 10% and the richest 2% will pay the highest percentage of the debt. There's no changing that.

The question that is being asked more than any other question is whether or not this deficit strategy is fair to the poor. I have heard this question posed to numerous ConDem MPs and do you know, not one of them has answered it with anything other than rhetorical 'we're all in this together' styled answers. Therefore, NOT ONE OF THEM HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION!

We had David Blackadder and Nick Baldrick in Nottingham today avoiding answering the question. We had the Transport Secretary on Question Time not answering the question. we've had Tory sympathisers all over the country claiming that people don't realise the mess we're in. But NO ONE IS ANSWERING THE QUESTION!

The poor are, over the next couple of years, going to be royally shafted, while the rich will have to limit Jacosta and Tarquin's allowances by a couple of hundred quid a year; they might not be able to afford a new pony. Daddy might not be able to buy a new Porsche.

Neil O'Brien, the new Director of Policy Exchange, on BBC News today claimed that taking money away from the poorest people in the country was a good thing. He claimed there was no point in throwing money at the poor because it doesn't help them. All credit to BBC newsreaders Ben Brown and Ellie Crisell for managing to stay professional in light of unbelievable pompousness from a man who undoubtedly earns more in a year than a minimum wage cleaner in Middlesbrough earns in 5 years. At least he didn't try and hide behind rhetoric, he just came straight out and made people realise he was a fascist.

It still doesn't answer the question of why no one in government is answering the question of how this is fair on the poorest. Is it their fault that the world economy is such a mess? It certainly isn't the former Labour party's fault, despite every Tory and their suck arse Lib Dem fags blaming them. Yes, Labour might have handled it differently; it might have taken twice, possibly three times longer to cut the deficit; but they wouldn't have ignored it and the poorest wouldn't have to take the most burden.

There are some good things that will come out of this.

• Nick Clegg will never serve as an MP ever again. His goose is well and truly cooked!
• The Liberal Democrats will never be given the opportunity to govern anything again.
• The Tories will never taste power again until we're all long dead and buried.

If only two of these three things happen, it will be a good result.

I intend to write Mr Clegg a letter in the next few days. The letter will be as restrained as I can muster, but the upshot of it will be that I voted for him because I thought he'd make a difference. I never expected the difference he would make would make me feel as though I've robbed this country and its children of their futures. I shall point out to him that the coalition does not have a mandate to instigate the kind of damning changes it intends and I shall ask him if he would like to explain to me in simple terms why the poorest 10% of people in this country are being expected to burden the brunt of these cuts and whether or not it is fair.

I urge everyone to do the same. You can contact him at House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.

It might interest you to know that once upon a time you could email Clegg directly from his web page; this facility has been disabled. It might also be of interest that you could leave remarks on the Liberal Democrat Facebook page; anything disparaging is being removed. It might also interest you that if a general election were to be held tomorrow, Clegg would finish 3rd in his Sheffield seat and the LibDems would lose 48 of their 51 seats. He must be proud of the work he has done. Frankly, I'm surprised at him, I'm anything but surprised at Cameron; he is just a pompous arse who doesn't give a toss about any one.

If it's broke, don't fix it

We all know something has to be done about the budget deficit. We're all aware that Labour had a large hand in putting us into a lot of debt; but arguably, had they not borrowed loads of money a lot of the remaining infrastructure of this country would have crumbled into nothing and our children would have been educated in Portacabins and our sick would have been treated in crumbling ruins. Only a Labour government would have ensured that there was something of a legacy for the future.

Admittedly, they took us into a war that we should have avoided and Tony Blair proved to be as dislikeable as Margaret Thatcher; but arguably every government does things that the majority of voters will not agree with. Just take the current proposed austerity measures; there are few people who don't agree that something needs to happen; it's just that very few people seem to realise that what is about to happen is going to have repercussions that screw up your grandchildren's children.

George Osborne doesn't live on an estate run by a housing association, nor does he need to top up his money with child or housing benefit. regardless of what happens to the rest of the country, he'll be alright Jack...

Except... the current Tory section of the coalition are not stupid. I think many of them realise that this is it. This is the last 5 years any of them are ever going to see in power again.

I blame Labour for this. The party knew they had little or no chance of winning the general election, especially with Gordon Brown leading them. Regardless of how brilliant the man was with our economy, there was no way to fix it. And before any of you suggest that Brown was a brilliant chancellor, just dig out the copy of The Economist that suggested he was responsible for preventing a massive financial crash throughout most of Europe. He stopped Britain from being washed away in a flurry of debt and greed; well, he didn't actually stop it, he just put off the inevitable. So, when it became obvious they weren't going to hold power, or even the balance of power, they screwed it up for the new team. It's a shitty thing to do, but it's also what successive governments have constantly done; they make the incumbents' job impossible for the first few years and with a bit of luck the new government will be ousted before they make any significant changes.

Osborne inherited not just a poisoned chalice, he inherited one that was rotten to the core and probably unfixable. So what better way of dealing with it than screwing up the country to the point where whoever gets in power after the ConDems, won't be able to do a thing about it? There will be nothing left to try and fix or even try and rebuild. There won't be any money to reinstate any vital public services, without plunging the country back into the same mess its in at the moment. Once Osborne wields his axe that'll be it. It'll be goodbye to anything that resembles a public service.

He is going to systematically destroy anything that needs government money and with the private sector having zero faith in their ability to fill the void, we'll see 5million plus unemployed with no hope and no future. But that won't be the end of it: you see Cameron and co can truly believe that the private sector will fill some of the void, but whatever happens, even in the most optimistic worlds, they won't be able to fill it all. So we're going to have a lot more people trying to claim benefits and there won't be any money to pay them. How do you pay an extra 2 or 3 million people JSA or Income Support when you haven't got any money? Come to think of it, how are they going to get all those people off of DLA and Invalidity Benefits when there won't be any jobs for them to do. It's well and good saying that you want to get all those malingerers off of benefits, but they have to actually have something to do. Or are we going to see the new government reinvent things like The Youth Training Scheme or The Community Programme? You remember them (and if you don't); they didn't work. All they did was artificially take a million people off the dole so that the Tories could say how good they were.

George Osborne knows that he has an impossible task and he is acutely aware that aware that this is his once in a lifetime chance to have some power. He is also aware that this being his only chance and that he has no real way of solving the problem, so he's going to make sure whoever inherits his job won't be able to change anything. He won't even have a guilty conscience, because he's going to be okay regardless of what happens.

Now, I don't have a miracle cure. There's no point in saying, "So what would you do, Phil, if you're so bloody clever", because my cures would rankle as many people as they'd please. I would however not renew Trident; I would pull our troops out of anywhere they shouldn't be; I would employ intelligent people at the tax office to claw back all the billions of pounds that the richest people avoid paying, through one scam or another. But after that I'd be hard pressed to think of anything to cut; you see the problem is that this country needs £150billion spending on it to rebuild its infrastructure and make it a better place. I just have to accept that we're going to be the first generation for almost 70 years that will be worse off than our parents. I have to accept that the kids who are currently going to school are going to be devoid of anything by the time they leave school; devoid of jobs, money, a future and hope. I have to realise that one day very soon there won't be anything left that is supported by a government.

I have to accept that this country, whoever's in charge is so deep in the shit it might possibly never get fixed.

I have to accept that the current government are going to be the people who make this nightmare scenario a reality.

I have to accept that even though it isn't mine or your fault, that me, you, your children and your children's children are going to have to pay for it.

I have to accept the fact that many people will think I'm scaremongering and won't believe it, even when reality bites them on the arse and I'll have to accept the fact that a lot of people will also be alright Jack.

Bin There Done That

You do realise that at some point in the next few years the most obviously seen of your council services - refuse collection - will no longer be part of your council tax - the council will subsidise it but you will have to pay whatever private company collects rubbish to take away anything that isn't recyclable or can't be composted.

Many people might think this is a good thing; a way of encouraging people to be more conscientious about their waste disposal. But the reality is that in many places, there are occupants who don't understand, will not be educated or simply don't give a shit.

The entire business of waste disposal is ludicrous; it should be something the council should always supply; it should attempt to educate people, but it should also be about providing the most direct service that council tax payers see for their money. To charge people, like they do in the USA, is actually a very good way of causing massive unnecessary conflict.

Take this scenario: your black bin - the one that contains all the stuff that can't be recycled or composted - is weighed every time it is collected; at the end of a 3, 6 or 12 month period, you receive a bill. It will have averaged out your waste across a period of time and this will be the tariff you pay for the following year - although black bins will still be weighed. The poor, the devious, the scoundrels, the ignorant will be faced with huge bills and many of them will know this and they will resort to a number of ways of 'cutting their bills'. They will surreptitiously put their own rubbish in the bins of others; they will fly tip; they will cram rubbish into the bottoms of brown or green bins, in the hope they can fake the bin men; but if you contaminate recycling bins with non-recycling goods, the entire bin becomes rubbish.

Short of issuing everyone with padlocks for their bins, which have to be opened the day or collection; or getting each bin men to empty the contents of each bin into the back of the wagon before it's crushed, so they can sift through it - which won't happen because of HSE rules; them logistics of doing this is ridiculous. It will cause fights between neighbours, breakdown communities, lead to witch hunts and ostracism and causing more money to be directed to stem the flow of antisocial problems as a result.

I see enough ignorance and thoughtless retaliation to know that rubbish is a contentious issue and even the most slovenly and unhygienic of people still want some of their rubbish to be taken away. Remember the human conditions people on those Life of Grime programs lived in? That will grow; people won't throw things away because they won't be able to afford to or because they're scared to open their bins because every one else will use them too.

I've also noticed in some places; not Northampton as such, that public bins are not being replaced and in some cases not being put in to new parks and community areas. Dog bins, yes, but litter bins - no. We can take our rubbish home with us. we can move it all around rather than actually dispose of it. Out in the far reaches of the region there is a plan to build a big incinerator which will dispose of 60% of the rubbish and generate not only 15% of the electricity, but about 300 new jobs. The locals are opposed to it; not because it is a pollution threat, but because it will be an eyesore... Nimby-ism strikes again, but do you see the point? Most people are nimbys and rubbish is a real nimby issue.

Only on a Blue Watch

The RMT are calling for civil disobedience. UNISON want a series of crippling strikes. The entire Trades Union movement appears to be gearing itself up for a year of hell.

But something is different. This isn't the Poll tax riots or the civil unrest of Thatcher's era. This has more of the middle class march against the Iraq war, back in the early part of this century. You remember the one where the majority of the marchers were not mohicaned punks or covert BNP activists, but the well-to-do families from the better neighbourhoods, who were appalled that Tony Blair could lead us into a war with Iraq. A war, no more justified than the Falklands War (but none of middle England went to the streets for that one).

How many threats of civil disobedience did we have when Labour were in power? How many riots were there? Strikes, yes, but most were over fairness rather than survival. Whenever Westminster gets the whiff of something blue, the part of the country with a moral backbone grows indignant and does a Peter Finch from the film Network and they stand up and say, "we're not going to take this any more."

Only with a Tory led government would we have leaders of unions advocating action against our elected leaders.

The government and its group of advisers are the only people who believe that the impending cuts will not affect the poor. Every other fiscal think tank and organisation are wringing their hands and forecasting mass starvation for the poor. One of them is bound to be closer than the other. I said six months ago that if the Tory's got a whiff of power there would be civil unrest and now it seems I'm not the only one. I haven't done anything to incite it; I've been strangely reticent in my off-white ivory tower; preferring to sit and watch the ConDems flounder and fail. So if isolated little me can have a prophecy about the future...

One of the union leaders made a very good analogy on the TV this morning. Why is the benefits fraud department spending vast amounts of money assigning 'agents' to watch the houses of people who may or may not be perpetrating some kind of benefits fraud, when the tax office could be looking at ways of stopping the top 2% of the richest people in the country from housing their money in Cayman Island bank accounts and avoiding paying any tax whatsoever? Just one of these rich Tory benefactors, the ones who have as say in the running of the country, but don't contribute anything to it, would accrue more money than a thousand fraud inspectors tracking a thousand benefit fraudsters. I'd never advocate benefits fraud, but surely people like Lord Ashcroft are far worse?

What amazes me more than anything else are the Liberals. I cannot believe a centre left party would have sold itself down the river for a hint of power. If I was a prophet regarding the looming of civil unrest, let me don my wizard's hat and cape again and look into the crystal ball again...

In the summer of 2011, with public transport at a halt thanks to strikes; nurses threatening to go on strike as hospital waiting lists increase, the police federation challenging the 'no strike' clause in their contracts, with firemen reduced to putting out fires only, with a reduced staff in front line positions constantly under threat and in need of justifying their existence, a number of Liberal MPs will walk to the other side of the house. There will be a massive upsurge in internal dissension amongst the Liberals ranks and the coalition will fall apart. The Tories will attempt to run the country via a minority government, but by the end of the summer another general election will be called and while this one will also have no overall winner, it will be Labour with the balance of power. The Liberals will be reduced to a handful of seats in the south west and Scotland. The divides inside the Tory party will become all too clear, once they realise they may never hold majority power again and they tear themselves apart. Labour will raise taxes on the rich, find the cuts in other ways; the right wing papers will forecast that all of our rich and clever people will leave for other countries, but few will, because everywhere else is just as bad!

I don't know if its my age or if it really is this sense of doom pervading my life and those around me; but I've never known people to have such a gloomy outlook. There's this resignation amongst a lot of people that there's nothing we can do and even if there was we wouldn't stop it. I try to be positive about the future; but look at the jobs section of your local paper - you'll be lucky to see more than half a dozen pages of jobs and all of them are on or about the minimum wage. Look at the number of empty shops and half built sites that are sitting dormant, because no one has any faith in them succeeding and no one has any money to spend in them. If your kid is in a shiny brand new school, then praise the Lord, because the ones who are still sitting in drafts and watching the rain come in through holes in the ceilings are going to stay that way. But, there is a bright side, someone will make a mint out of our forthcoming misery, someone always does.

At the end of October, the country is steeling itself for measures that most believe will affect us all. Because many councils and organisations are already shedding jobs in anticipation of this, by November I expect the largest unions will have mobilised with the intention of disrupting as much of Christmas as is possible. It will be horrible for people; no post, no trains, no buses, maybe no refuse collection, high prices and this time, there won't be that many dissenting voices, because everyone earning under £50k a year is going to feel it and that means most of us are going to feel it.

Hell and Hand-baskets

It's funny. We had a recession and I didn't really notice it much. I only really started to notice it when we were, allegedly, coming out of it.

Since June, I've been broke. Incidentals did it and as a result a time of the year when I normally don't spend much money, I've had to spend even less. The prognosis doesn't look all that rosy either...

Compatriot and Everton supporter, Roger Trenwith highlights the plight of some of the town's heritage in his Brouhaha blog over at http://toysoutofthepram.blogspot.com/2010/08/animals-shirts-all-stuffed.html?spref=fb. Museums, like libraries and stuff of that ilk, are going to change beyond our recognition over the next few years. It seems highly likely, because regional museums cost money and we're being reminded almost hourly at the moment that there isn't any (and this is before October when we really find out who isn't getting what), there is a good chance that the whole dynamic of museums will change.

Listening to an interesting radio phone in the other day, which was outlining the aim of the government, through its Big Society, to get more people doing stuff for nothing - or volunteering if you want to use the correct word. Now, I've been working closely with the Voluntary Sector for the last ten years and I suppose for the unenlightened I should point out that the Voluntary Sector is run by paid people. It isn't a misnomer, because there are many people who do volunteer for things; it's just that it's run by people employed and therefore paid from monies that come from all manner of places; places that are likely not to have money any more, or for a long time.

The aim of the phone in was to show how the government would get more people taking control of amenities they feel are being inadequately maintained or run. If you didn't like the way your local service was being run you can take it over and put in the people who would deliver it better and at no cost whatsoever to any one, because you'd be volunteering to run it or help run it. Yes, the logistics would mean that councils would still own museums and would have a token member of staff to do all the necessary things such as ordering, banking and the like; but that person would be assisted by an 'army' of able bodied and willing volunteers...

Yeah, and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

Don't get me wrong. It's a valiant idea, but one that really, truly, shows how politicians are completely out of touch with life outside of their big eff-off mansions or their London homes. There is also some truth in it as well, the smart people at ConDem HQ have figured that with so many people losing their jobs over the next couple of years, then we can make this deal with the long term unemployed - go and do 30 hours of voluntary work a week, at your library or museum or even cleaning out bins and you'll get your dole cheque at the end of the week (now, of course, paid directly into a claimant's bank account!).

Last week, someone in the Guardian pointed out that if all the museums in the country charged £1 entrance fee and all under 14s go free, it would generate over £1,000,000 a day or getting on for £500m a year. Half a billion quid raised through sensible pricing of our heritage. Yes, there will be a drop off in attendees, but even if that figure dropped by a quarter, it's still 3/4s of a million quid a day, which is a lot more than they get at the moment. Yes, it's an extra tax in many ways, but its one you choose to pay rather than having it forced onto you.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies has ascertained that it will be the poor who get royally buggered by the austerity measures being put into place. The government were quick to disagree with the IFS. Funny how they hold the right to disagree with them when they don't like what they say, but are quick to get behind them when they say something positive?

In truth, I think any household that has a combined income of under £50k a year is going to struggle to make ends meet. I expect that 1 in 5 of those households will see a sudden drop in money thanks to redundancies or lay offs and no replacement jobs. Many experts are saying these austerity measures could have to last 10 years, which seems like a prison sentence to anyone, especially if you're one of the people who ain't going to come out of it smelling of roses. The problem is, a lot of people are looking at the bigger picture and none of them appears to be the government. We're having it rammed down out throats that we have to make cuts and tighten out belts, but what happens when all these measures destroy the lives of people? If the private sector doesn't pick up all the public sector cast offs then there will be an influx of people all looking for work and having effectively been removed from society, they suddenly can no longer use the things they once did and this will have its own knock on effect. The flood of people onto the jobs market will be so keen that it could have a totally detrimental effect on the private sector; especially peripherally.

You and the wife are quite comfortable, the two kids are at a reasonable school, the dog is healthy, you have two cars and a small mortgage. You in your private sector job and the wife in her public sector one. She becomes a statistic and your income is down by up to 50%. If she gets a severance package you're all right for a while, but when that runs out and she still hasn't got a job things start to change. You might have a small mortgage, which is always going to be manageable, but the second car has suddenly become a luxury and even though you need it; in case the wife gets a new job or for running the kids to school, it's an expense that you could really do without.

Then there's the fortnightly meal at your favourite restaurant or pub; that's going to have to be cut back to once a month or even completely - and while you're just one couple not using your favourite restaurant, you might be one of several customers who can no longer afford this particular social luxury. Hubby can't afford to go to the pub with his mates once a week and that's a tenner the publican isn't going to make and his beer prices are going up and his food customers are dwindling - hubby and the wife aren't going any more and neither are others. Suddenly the landlord is also struggling and of course the knock on from his struggles hits other companies.

Hubby also can't afford to play golf on a Saturday morning and his wife can't go to the gym, because she can't afford the once very affordable £50-£100 a month membership fees. The kids, both still at school, need feeding, clothing and entertaining and the 17-year-old one wants driving lessons. While he or she is learning with dad rather than with Red or BSM, the dog is run over, costing over £500 to fix, because they couldn't afford the insurance payments after the wife lost her job.

Dominoes. The economy is a precarious game of dominoes. And when the stakes are as high as the ones being talked about, one person can have a direct effect on a local business, which in turn has an affect on local trade, which impacts on regional trade, which in turn does the same for national. So, when you think you don't make a difference, you possibly do.

The shop I once owned almost beat the last big recession; but I became dependent on regular trade. I knew John Q was going to come into the shop every week and spend £50, you start to budget for it. Then John Q lost his job and suddenly he was spending £5 and not £50. You can argue that its bad practice, but it isn't; it's human nature. Newsagents know that all the people who get papers delivered will pay at some point - its guaranteed money; it's how they work. It's how a milkman works; it's how supermarkets work, obviously on a grander scale, but it all boils down to the expectation of people coming in because previous trends dictate.

The pessimist in me feels that we're all staring down the barrel of a gun and we're a different kind of society to the ones that saw mass unemployment in the 70s and 80s or the ridiculous boom bust survivors of the 90s. I don't think people are adverse to peaceful rebellion and longer and the unemployed become desperate, especially when their poverty starts impacting on the lives of their children.

If you think I'm scaremongering, you might be right, things never fall apart that badly, do they? I was chatting to mate of mine the other day, he's a policeman, has been for a long time. In fact, he's coming up for retirement soon and he'd take it tomorrow if it was offered. The reason is simple, he said to me. He doesn't want to be a copper any longer because he doesn't think it will be a safe job soon and he feels he may have to do things that he now feels he can't. He doesn't think he's alone. I spoke with a woman who holds a very high position in the Borough. She has been doing what she does for a long time and knows the inner workings of this kind of thing; she thinks that the world is going to change so drastically over the next couple of years that its going to leave some people shell shocked. She doesn't believe anyone is safe, not even front line jobs and services. She envisages councils being stripped back to the barest of bones, all services farmed out to either the private sector or centralised like the probation service. This is a woman who grew up in an unemployment hot spot and thinks she's seeing history repeat itself.

I was too young to fully appreciate the mess the country was in during the 70s; I was too preoccupied with sex and drugs and rock and roll in the 1980s to really let my years of unemployment and desolation concern me (until it was too late); I suffered the 16% interest rates, almost losing my house and being made bankrupt in the 1990s and yet I never lost my optimism. I always thought that the change was just round the corner, that there was hope. I look ahead to 2011 and beyond and I feel empty, worried and a wee bit afraid. It wasn't our fault we're in this mess, but we're the only schmucks that receive the bill.

It's a pretty bleak outlook when the one bright side you can see is that millions of others will be in the same boat.