It Ain't All It's Cracked Up to Be

So there's the seasonal concession out of the way, now on to the serious business. It might be a little stale in places, but I've finally been moved to speak on another issue as well, so I think I can safely separate the two.

First off is the crisis sparked off by a few ill-chosen words spoken by Francis Maude concerning the proposed fuel haulers' strike. I'll not speak to much to that, it's been done to death; I will instead focus on the apparent weaknesses alleged to be plaguing the Cabinet. There is a link between this and Francis Maude in that he should be kicked upstairs and left there while someone else takes his post. The partnership of Cameron-Osborne should remain, but I do wonder how long we ought to endure having a part-time Chancellor who also has a hand on the wheel of the party.  Said wheel is also in the semi-tenuous joint grip of Baroness Warsi and Lord Feldman. This should not continue either; purely for the reason that Feldman seems to be terminally camera-shy and Warsi's best talents are not among the society hitters but where she's needed most, the great Tory desert of the north. What is needed is someone who can fully devote every working hour to listening to the parliamentary and grassroots elements of the party with good media-savvy and the freedom to speak frankly to the Prime Minister on the important issues solely affecting the party. Two part-time peers and the Chancellor are not the best way for us to achieve this.

So to another part of the news and this from my ever-reliable Telegraph which (shock!) dared to criticise government policy on cutting housing benefit. After a lengthy Facebook discussion on the issue and hopefully making my position clear, I hit upon an interesting idea. You might have to bear with me, as it might seem it flies in the face of my deeply-held principles of not having a centralised economy, but it's a fuzzy area. Here it is.

Now, we are contributors of aid to all parts of the world. Coming from the government, this largely means that it is donated in cash terms. I remember reading an idea that really resounded well -- giving aid in kind. We stop giving the cash directly and instead produce useful equipment to send abroad all tied up with cast-iron guarantees that ultimately renders the African dictator we're dealing with responsible for its whereabouts once it hits the tarmac at the other end. We can do this by offering British companies the chance to bid for bespoke contracts for each recipient country we deal with. As an additional incentive, wherever a factory is built, the government can then offer to build housing for each worker in those factories. At a stroke huge numbers of jobs are created and with enough industrial land going spare, we should be able to find sites for this to happen.

But how does this solve our housing crisis and relieve us of the housing benefit problem? Simple. The housing that is built for factory workers means fewer people on benefits and paying to live in their own house with the salary they earn from the government-contracted factory. This then fuels the growth of communities, as services will need to be provided for the workers in the factories. If it could work in Port Sunlight and Bourneville over a century ago, why could it not work now?

I admit it seems a bit far-fetched and simplistic, but why could it not work, with a bit of tweaking? For any government to do this would ensure their party's re-election for a long while after. It may happen, it certainly should happen.