Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer is short on money these days, and keen on making popular move to huge media fanfare, politicians such as Ian Duncan Smith give us the same nonsense that we heard for ages again and again already:

Tough measures are required to prevent fraud, they say. Fair enough, I say. Serious punishment of fraudsters and benefit cheats is another popular request, and, since those high earners making these suggestions know best how it is to live on the breadline, cuts and reductions to the benefit system are also a common suggestion.

Crucial is of course not the nonsense that is suggested, but what is not suggested.

You can search long and hard, up and down for a politician who would dare to suggest increased investment into benefit and welfare programs. Maybe not by way of direct cash payout, but surely those in need for help primarily need help to help themselves. These are the things a government is supposed to specialize in: Create jobs. Create incentives to recruit people. Provide infrastructure that enables people to go to work: affordable public transport or affordable quality daytime child care come to mind.

First of all, it seems we need to invest and buy our politicians some common sense, and the decency to be a government for the people, for all of them, rather than govern their own careers.

I think you heard this lament before. This won’t be the last time though.

All amounts to £6.2bn. £893.4bn on one hand, £6.2bn on the other – hmmm. That’s not even 1%, and a lot of damage is already done to important public services.

Would it not be much nicer to make huge big savings with few cuts, instead of negligible savings many times over and over and over again?

Take Trident for starters. Something between £76bn and £130bn, plus the running cost of £1bn per year. A costly thread to peace, without any contribution to our safety or to protecting our way of life. Scrap it!

That’s what I call savings, and made for a good cause, too.

The war in Iraq is comparatively cheap (£1bn per annum), but still big savings compared to the populist £100m here-and-there approach. Round-up these savings by withdrawing from Afghanistan, and not engaging in the next game of guns somewhere. The world would most certainly turn into a safer place at the moment that we stop playing God in the middle east.

I don’t mean to pretend that I can solve the problem of the £893.4bn deficit, but surely if anything can solve it, then this requires bold steps rather than pathetic £6.2bn and a little show for the media here and there.

Something tells me that this was bound to be a disaster, and guess what? It is.

The paper writes don’t fret. The children love them, but I wonder how much they paid those children. And, shockingly, those designers. Apparently, it’s all got to be a whirlwind mix of 3D rendering software and Teletubbies, rendered into larger-than-life plastic figures (and merchandise).

Maybe I don’t know what makes the 21st century’s children tick, but I thought a mascot ought to be something loveable. I guess that’s not true. I guess the truth is that the mascot ought to be good for merchandise and printing onto goods (within a sponsorship logo).

Anyway, I took a peek, and find one worse than the other. Check out the BBC’s Olympic mascots through the ages, or The Independent’s breakdown of Olympic figure heads. In my opinion, there are two clear winners, ahead of the field by orders of magnitude: 1972’s Waldi (Munich), which is said to have started the whole craze, and 1932’s mascot (Los Angeles), which doesn’t appear to be listed in most lists of historic Olympic mascots.

You’d think they should know by now to ask me first.

The article comments on the planned closure of public toilets, and conversion of a couple of benches (typically only used by people holding beer cans from breakfast time onwards). Both are owned by the Lidl supermarket chain, who wants to replace the benches with trees, and probably assumes that the Hanwell Public Toilet Scheme (another Ealing Council brainfart) compensates for the removal of their own public toilets.

The Lib Dems’ article is entitled Inconvenient Truth. I was looking forward to find a good old rant over the fact that Ealing’s current conservative council is asset-striping the borough, failing to provide basic public services (such as road surface maintenance or, indeed, the provision of public toilets, trees, benches, or aid for those in need), yet find it fit to refund £50 “overpaid” council tax to almost every household in the borough.

A great opportunity to make a point in case. Sadly, Nigel knew nothing better to say than “It is a shame to lose the toilets and seats, but especially as this area is not being put to better use apart from a few extra trees.”

Trees are important, Nigel. So are public services, and so is the care for this unfortunate ones beginning their day with a can of extra-strong lager.

It is early in the 2010 election campaign. Let’s hope Nigel picks up sense, strength, speed and arguments on the way.

I wished you had just advised the media about the fact that your private life is, well, private. You could have also added a comment about the hypocritical nature of all those reporters and commentators.

They all had sex. Most liked it. Many had sex in ways, or with partners such that they’d rather not talk about. Certainly not in public, and not behind closed doors in many cases.

The public uproar of high morals is hypocritical at best. I find it disgusting.