Shane Ward

Broken Britain. Pointless Politics.

2011-12-15T08:07:00.000-08:00

David Cameron, bless him, is a millionaire straight from Eton with influential friends and high powered connections. He has never known a day’s poverty in his life. He has not lived on a sink estate. He has not faced living in a gang culture. He has never known a dearth of opportunity. He is just the sort of person you would expect to have the right perspective of life to help tackle the troubles of people who live at the sharp end of it. No? Well he’s going to have a crack at it anyway.

Today (15 December 2011) starts the beginning of a brand new half a billion pound initiative to repair broken Britain. …or at least it is money to be spent around (not spent by, I hasten to add) 120,000 of the country’s most badly behaved families in an attempt to make them not so bad in the future. It all sounds so wonderfully brave and innovative. We save money in the long term by not having the police coming out to deal with their troubles so often, the ambulance turning up to deal with frequent mishaps, the kids go to school the adults go to work and everything in the garden will be absolutely ticketyboo.

There is, of course, a deep recession going on so money is difficult to come by. Local Government is shedding jobs like a winter coat in springtime to satisfy the demand for cuts in public sector workers while private business has created only less than 10% of the promised private sector jobs to compensate. So it comes as no surprise to find Mr Cameron announcing with pleasure that while Local Authorities would have to find 60% of the money for this initiative to even begin to take off, Central Government would ’match it’ with the other 40%. Sorry, did he say match? If one defines the word ‘match’ as ‘being equal to’ then alarm bells should be ringing at the treasury if the Prime Minister believes that 40% and 60% are equal. It also brings into question his perspective of other things, like responsibility and fairness and how on earth creating what would effectively be a social police force for socially displaced families is likely to achieve nothing more than limiting their involvement with other State departments.

David Cameron’s perspective of how to ‘fix’ these problem families centre around the typical conservative view of ‘rightness’, namely that the children should go to school, the adults should get a job and all the poverty, crime and dysfunction will disappear in a puff of magical right wing logic. What strikes me as the most bizarre observation in all this rolling up of sleeves to get on with the job of turning broken Britain around, and its full steam ahead towards a better and brighter future, is that David Cameron’s perspective is blind to the truth of the situation; he has to be because the cost of fixing it goes way beyond half a billion pounds and way beyond ‘educating’ a few families.

This scheme, which is nothing new as it happens because the Labour party looked at something similar before the Tories picked up the torch and put their own unique -watered down - spin on it, is clearly designed to get dysfunctional families to conform to the norms of society with an emphasis placed on the orderly fashion of education, employment, abiding by the law and being a considerate neighbour. It sounds fantastic – too good to be true. What it does not do is address where dysfunctional families are now and how they got there in the first place. In short, the scheme puts the cart before the horse because no sooner does the Government ‘fix’ one generation of misfits, there will be another generation just around the corner. Why is that? Because Britain has problems like everyone else in the world that cannot be solved as conveniently as politicians would wish. This scheme, fanfare announced in all its glory, is a great example of political pointlessness. If you are not going to tackle the real problems there is no point in tinkering around the edges.

Poverty is by far the number one issue in the capitalist system, and the UK is not alone in this. Some people have gotten so good at manipulating the capitalist system that they have accelerated its evolution towards its terminal conclusion. Where everything is made and sold on the basis of profit, and where there can only be a finite amount of money to play with, eventually just one person / company / corporation will own everything and the system must collapse. Not even the monopoly commissions can prevent big business and powerful individuals from hoarding money. They cannot be forced to spend what they don’t need to spend. And while this slow-release cancer causes pain and misery among the millions of ‘have-nots’ the rich and powerful stick their hands in their pockets and pretend it isn’t there.

At the other end of the scale are the millions of people who have nothing. Not only do they not have the advantage of rich parents / contacts etc, they are born into a societal structure that knows it cannot compete with the expertise of consumerist gurus, clever product advertising and mind manipulating media all hell bent on worshipping the altar of money and getting as much of it as possible. One of the most precious of commodities is truth and there is precious little out there. The truth for many dysfunctional families is the daily struggle to make ends meet and to keep a roof over their heads. The social context in which to describe the problems are very complicated, and maybe if a report made by the individuals (who will be charged with trying to make the money offered by Cameron worth spending) helped to quantify the source of these problems, it might lift the blinkers from politicians and business alike; but I am not holding my breath on that one.

The child we want to send to school to learn is fed on the cheapest rubbish available because it is all the family can afford. But why does a responsible Government allow poisonous substances to be fed to our children at all? Adults may choose to drink alcohol or smoke. Both are poisonous to the system and there are some things that history proves would simply go underground if a prohibition were placed on them. But we don’t allow our children to drink alcohol or smoke tobacco because we know it would be bad for them. Poisoning our children is surely something that should be banned no matter how it is packaged. Fast food restaurants are bad enough but supermarket shelves are also stuffed full of additives, e-numbers, high sugar, high salt, high fat that is the real reason behind childhood obesity, attention deficit, anti social behaviour and lack of concentration at school. All of these packages of poison were not available in the mid 20th century, where most right wing politicians like to point out at how good everyone was back then compared to today. They could only buy fresh food – the good food. But the good food today is too expensive for poor families. Even if we forced the food industry into a universal colour code system to identify healthy and unhealthy food, families in poverty will still struggle to afford to make the changes because they can’t negotiate on the rent, gas, electric, water rates and so on. Even poor families need some societal conformity but the cost of telephone, TV, Internet access adds to the pressure to economise on choice of food.

Mr Cameron’s scheme will not address families where mental health issues are present. In many cases the carers must be full time family members who therefore cannot escape the poverty trap. Ordinary families, without looking after people with mental health issues, disability issues and health problems that prevent them from working, have to deal with the stresses and anxieties that go along with living in a poverty state. For families where one of the above issues is an added problem, there is no solution, no support and no avenue open to them to escape it. Once again the issue of poverty is the touch paper to which all dysfunction that impinges on society beyond the confines of the family home begins.

Recreational drugs is a big issue that I have discussed at length, so to avoid repetition please see http://ec.europa.eu/justice/anti-drugs/files/contribution-ward-shane-uk_en.pdf which is an open letter to the European Commission in advance of their border control strategy for drugs and contraband.

Likewise the lack of work opportunities for people with criminal records is discussed in full on http://shaneward22.blogspot.com/2011/09/discrimination-against-ex-offenders-in_15.html

The above list is far from exhaustive but in these three issues alone exist fundamental issues that David Cameron’s scheme will not tackle – and why it will therefore fail to make the slightest impact. Perhaps there are some who prefer the way broken Britain limps along and are happy to let the masses scrabble around in perpetual ignorance, while the pointless politics of left and right wing thinking vie for supremacy over each other. In my humble opinion, Mr Cameron’s scheme is just another distraction from what really needs to be done.

What I believe should be made public, and it would seem to be one of the best kept secrets in the UK, is the formula that the Government uses to work out welfare benefit. The letter accompanying the award for Income Support, for example, says that the amount payable to an individual is the lowest amount the Government believes is required for a person to live. Who knows if the formula for benefit has ever changed from its inception in 1946 but what I can say for certain is that the poverty of many families – and their subsequent reaction in the form of criminality, anti social behaviour, lack of education and work opportunities – are inherently linked to causes that David Cameron wants to ignore. To steal one of Al Gore’s catch phrases, there are some inconvenient truths that must be addressed to solve the problems that David Cameron says he wishes to eradicate. And it won’t be achieved by throwing money at the squeakiest cogs. Perhaps instead of looking at how society demonstrates symptoms of dysfunction within the current models and try to make them conform to those models, we should perhaps be looking at the models themselves to see how they cause dysfunction. David Cameron, like all staunch right wing supporters, is happy to tell everyone about grasping the nettle of a problem to solve it. Well this problem is particularly thorny and no one has grasped it.

Discrimination Against Ex-offenders In Employment

2011-09-15T14:11:00.000-07:00

The BBC reported today that 73% of looters in the so-called ‘riots’ occurring in many UK cities were young people with criminal records. It wasn’t surprising that some politicians seized the opportunity of the riots to roll out their favourite pet theory on how the world can be made a better place (for some anyway). Various ‘solutions’ have been rolled out and they are all doomed to failure. Only someone who has nothing to gain by the solution would be without bias enough to find it. Otherwise there is an added ingredient (predominantly self interest) to be included that was never in the problem. This is often why no Government initiative ever works (see current stupidity on nudging as an example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14927871 ).

When I worked in a jobcentre, I met a young man who defended his girlfriend from an attack made by an ex-lover. His actions were in keeping with any person looking after his family but the court deemed his action against the ex-lover as excessive and he was jailed for grievous bodily harm. He had no criminal record before and none since. Never the less he discovered what his actions cost him in trying to live afterwards in the society that wanted him to be a productive, law abiding citizen but denied him the opportunity.

One of the first things that happen to you when you get a criminal record in the UK is an almost impossible uphill struggle to get a job. Without work, an ex-offender is cast adrift without money or future prospects. Now if having served a sentence for a crime committed was supposed to be payment for breaking the law, it does not make practical or economical sense to exclude an ex-offender from making a valuable contribution to a tax-paying society, but instead forcing him into a position where he (it can be ‘she’ also but the majority of ex-offenders are male) must claim benefits from the state, experiencing perpetual rejection from the labour market.

The law justifies, and rightly so, denying people convicted of certain offences the right to gain employment in certain jobs; the obvious examples would be paedophiles banned from working with children or sex offenders working with vulnerable people. Prospective employers request information from The Criminal Record Bureau, known as a (CRB) check, to ensure this is the case. In other areas of employment, however, where a CRB is not required, it should be possible to find employment. But because of the way application forms demand in advance to know if anyone has a criminal record of any kind, they are automatically sifted out of the interview stage.

So the guy I mentioned earlier has the same chance of getting a job as a convicted paedophile. No matter how I consider this point I always arrive at the conclusion that this is fundamentally wrong. Not only wrong, it is discriminatory and denies all ex-offenders of the opportunity - not to put their past behind them but - to work towards a better and more productive future.

Employers are sifting out all applicants with criminal records ignorant of what they had a criminal record for. The applicant’s skills, qualifications, experience and aspirations to be a productive member of their society counts for nothing on the recruitment table.

Now when you consider that one in four young men in the UK aged between 16 – 24 have a criminal record, (up to 73% in one could argue feature in the 2000 plus arrests) is it any wonder that many of them participated in a looting spree for goods that they could never possibly find a job to get the money to pay for legitimately. Is this not just a case of human nature expressing itself in an unfair system?

There are politicians and experts of this and that, spending money on committees and think tanks, trying to come up with a solution to prevent riots like this from happening again. Among the solutions included are the notion of water cannons, rubber bullets, harsher sentences, eviction from council houses and a whole raft of ‘tough on crime’ ideas. These kinds of solutions can only suppress human nature into finding more cunning and subversive ways of making a living in a world that does not offer sufficient opportunities. The most common way of making money outside of the system is, of course, drug dealing and one wonders how complicit we have been as a society in ‘nudging’ ex-offenders into the only types of career opportunity available to them by denying them work opportunities that should be open to all.

The laws on equal opportunities must be reflected in our treatment of ex-offenders as much as we do race, creed, colour, sexual orientation, disability (although one still experiences lip service at times just to appear to stay within the law). Ex-offenders, by their very treatment by us, are become a group that can be classified as being treated differently. So if equal opportunities exist to prevent discrimination against certain groups, then ex-offenders must surely have the same protection.

To address equality in employment, the law must first prevent employers from asking a blanket question about criminal records before the interview. Naturally there are certain crimes that will exclude certain offenders from even applying – and it is for the employer to justify its reasons excluding those crimes from its applicants. So if an offence is not on the list for that kind of employment, it will be ok for an ex-offender to apply for that job (The Department For Work and Pensions has a ‘Standard Occupation Classification’ (SOC) list that can be used to identify what types of employment may exclude what kinds of crime).

The second area of an application for work that must change is the previous work history, where it must be explained what a candidate has done during a period of time where no work history is declared. Ex-offenders would have been in prison and many application forms ask for reasons for the gap, mainly to identify people who have served custodial sentences. This is another opportunity for discrimination. Candidates should be entitled to put down ‘unemployed’ for a period of a custodial sentence. For this reason, people in between jobs, single parents or others not in the labour market, people who have had long term sickness or disability should also be able to put down ‘unemployed’ for any period between periods of work.

Thirdly, an employer may not ask about periods of unemployment during the interview. The interview is about the advertised job, so the interview should be about that job and a candidates related experience to it.

If an employer decides, after a successful interview, to offer a candidate the post, only then can they enquire about periods of unemployment because if an employer declines an ex-offender a job for a crime that is not relevant to their business, they could then be taken to an Employment Tribunal for discrimination.

It is right that an ex-offender must declare any unspent convictions. It is wrong to exclude ex-offenders from employment, simply because they have a criminal record. With so many youngsters having criminal records it would be stupendously silly of the Government not to realise that the world has changed greatly since the laws regarding the declaration of criminal records made sense.

I sent a short letter to Ken Clarke, in his capacity as Secretary of State for Justice, a week ago with this suggestion. I have yet to receive a response.

Nudge, Nudge. Now Stop Smoking

2011-09-15T09:36:00.000-07:00

Behavioural Insights Team. What a heap of crock!

The UK Government have set up this new psychology team in Whitehall (also known as the ‘nudge team’) to encourage – and I use the term loosely – people to fit into social norms. By this I mean to quit smoking, eat healthily, donate to charity and carry organ donor cards. David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ is being promoted through patronising and subversive means with as much hope of success as the sudden resurrection and deification of the irritating mosquito I squashed against a wall last night.

If this is the Government trying to be smarter it must think an ostrich with its head buried in the sand is the paradigm by which all Governments should formulate policy. Central to the theme appears to be adopting whatever costs little or nothing. Not central to the theme is adopting what works. Daggers of irritation are already appearing in my head.

The Independent Newspaper reports one of the experiments tried through this team, using the notion that human nature is mostly lazy, change the wording on tax letters that led to an extra £200 million in revenue. In other words the Government thinks that getting sneaky in its attempt to fill the treasury coffers is helping people to make better life style choices? But there are lessons in this success story where the example needs to be followed.

For a start, the letter was sent to tax payers by the tax office. This is good because you would expect them to know about tax. The success of this story is basically down to the way information was delivered to the individual – and the individual, without having a comparison to dispute what the taxman said was normal, felt inclined to believe the taxman. While this may work for the tax office, let’s look at the other areas they want to tackle.

Health.

The UK currently has the highest obesity rate in the world in some age categories. We are fat because generally the food we eat is rubbish or nutritionally challenged through intensive farming, including meat and poultry. Andrew Lansley has recruited food and drink multi nationals to think up ways of ‘nudging’ people into eating more healthily. Isn’t this a bit like asking an abattoir to think up ways of making slaughter more attractive? The very people who sell you rubbish are now going to advise you not to buy rubbish? I don’t think so. Most likely they will pay lip service to the Government, using their own psychologists to ensure that anything they say will be largely banal and will do nothing to prevent shoppers from carrying on spending money on rubbish as usual.

The supermarket is hardly the best adviser on healthy eating. Indeed I wonder how much of the supermarket’s influence over the cost of the nutritional value of fresh meat and vegetables through tougher cost margins has led to the deterioration of the food we eat.

There are no plans to regulate, which is a crying shame because crap food (higher in salt, sugar or fat than could possibly fit into a proper day’s food intake) should be labelled with a big red sticker that identifies it as ‘this will make you fat’ or ‘this will harden your arteries’ if eaten on a regular basis. Food that is supposed to be good for you should be labelled green. Anything without a label would be treated as suspect.

It is not that humans are lazy or can’t be bothered. They simply do not have time to read all the food labels, anymore than any of us feel inclined to read through all the small print. In fact why don’t we pass a law saying that all small print must be in 250 characters or less? That way we would have time.

We need to be properly informed about food and what is in it. Misrepresentation in advertising and ignorance of the real truth is an area worth spending more effort on. I am informed, for example, that ‘free range’ could mean a little square box in the corner of a big shed that I chicken may be able to pop its head out to see the sky.

Apparently some information that is useful to the uninformed has already started with fast food joints having to advertise how many calories exists in their food. I wouldn’t know for sure as I try never to set foot in such places. My rule is simple – No packet food, no fried stuff, no processed food, no fast food. I bet you the supermarkets won’t be ‘nudging’ their customers not to buy anything I just listed and fast food companies would be apoplectic at the notion of plummeting sales. But if the UK Government was serious about reducing the nation’s weight, that would have to be their advice.

Smoking:

The Government will no doubt say that the chief medical officer is the person who should advise on ‘nudging’ people to quit smoking. In fact the chief medical office has been advising for years and the fact that so many people still smoke is a great testament to how the chief medical officer is not the person to advise on how to quit smoking. If you really want to quit smoking you have to talk to someone who has quit smoking (see Stop Smoking: Diary Of A Quitter)

Giving:

David Cameron wants us to give to charities. When people do not have enough money to look after themselves, it is hardly appropriate to start giving your money away. There are thousands upon thousands of charities available. My question to David Cameron would be why is there the need to create so many charities? Where is the world’s responsibility towards its people? Why have we not, once and for all, worked out how much digging wells for fresh water in Africa will cost and just do it? The one thing a big charity will never want to do is extinguish the need for the charity. How many charities do you know that reported ‘We got all the money we needed thanks’?

Charity is a huge business. How much of your money goes to pay for those awful advertising campaigns? Why isn’t that money going to the place it was given for? Who pays for the huge offices, staff and administrators? No wonder they need so much money. I would consider giving money to help a starving person if I could be sure that it went to feed a starving person– but I will not to pay the wages of a charity fund raiser. Charity in its current structure is a parasitic drain, surviving on other people’s income. The reason for the charity is merely the recipient of whatever is left after so many expenses have been taken away.

‘Nudge’ me about charities and I will kick where it hurts.

Social Networks:

The Behavioural Insight Team recognises the importance of community networks and their ability to work together to get things done for no cost to the Government. No one lifts a finger to help anyone in any circumstance until the problem is plonked in their back garden. Then they want the world and his wife to ‘join the cause’; look at David Cameron and his ‘Big Society’ for example. The simple fact of life is that people will get together when there is a strong enough shared interest. But when the first priorities are earning enough money to keep a roof over your head, making sure the children get what they need and don’t get into trouble, making a better life for your family and protecting your property, there is neither the incentive nor the energy to invent more life by joining a group that holds no benefit to you or your family. Only rich people who have the time and luxury to consider the ethics of a wider world can indulge in their little bit of ‘I’m doing my bit for the big society’ and sleep happily in their bed knowing they just made the world a better place. Isn’t it great being an ostrich!

China Joins The Stop Smoking Revolution

2011-05-01T05:48:00.000-07:00

China is to ban smoking in public places. It had to happen sooner or later. Now if only I could get some nice person to translate and publish my book 'Stop Smoking: Diary Of A Quitter' into Chinese, I would even consider offering a percentage of the royalties.

The things is though, if China has joined the battle against smoking - one of the most prolific smoking countries in the world - then it really is all over for the cigarette. OK it may still take a few generations before tobacco is reduced to a harmful drug taken by only a few silly people but what became an ubiquitous and acceptably social activity looks destined to be consigned with great ignominy to the dustbin of history.

In the meantime there are a great many people who want to quit smoking now but for whatever reason do not feel confident or able to. With the notion that it will still take time before cigarettes lose their popularity entirely (oh yes, the great cigarette manufacturers will think nothing of simply closing down if they don't make enough profit) the current smokers may well feel persecuted more often as they continue to smoke.

China is destined to become the next superpower. It looks like tobacco has no place in its future.

('Stop Smoking: Diary Of A Quitter' is publish in ebook format by Synergebooks)

Say YES to AV on 6 May 2011

2011-04-26T09:49:00.000-07:00

Politicians are running scared, in fear of losing the safety and security of their jobs. If ever the Alternative Voting system (AV) won the referendum on 6 May 2011, politicians would have to start working for the electorate instead of party ideals. It may not be the greatest voting system in the world but it is better for the electorate than the First Past the Post (FPP) that the UK has had for so long. We simply must vote YES to AV. It would be the best move that the electorate could make to prevent systemic sleaze, corruption and the eternal strangle hold of Labservative.

The argument put forward by the No to AV campaign is absurd. I received a leaflet through my door today offering me six reasons why I should vote No.

1. It will produce more coalitions under the Alternative Vote system...

Fantastic! Already the Vote No campaign admits that Labservative will be no more. This means that other, more electoral-friendly parties may come forward with better policies and better politics. So on point one I would vote YES to more coalitions.

2. It is used by only 3 other countries in the world...

Steve Baines (Fairer Votes Oxfordshire) has already done the homework and posted a letter on Newton News saying how widely the AV system is used, including India and the USA. Prime Minister David Cameron was elected as leader of the Conservative Party under the AV system. It is a gross distortion to say it is only used in three countries. And anyway, if it was only used in a single country, the questions would have to be asked: what did it replace? and why did they choose AV over FPP? Point 2 doesn't strike me as having any truth in it.

3. It allows the second or third place candidate to win.

Or to put it another way, it stops the first place candidate with only 30% of the vote going on to represent a constituency. Only a Proportional Representation System like the one I devised (Political Solutions) back in the year 2007 would truly reflect the Democratic wish of the electorate. In the meantime, why should any Government be formed with less than 50% of our vote? It is silly to support the FPP system as a fair system.

4. It will cost the country £250 million

The Spectator ran an article with the figures but it has to be pointed out that £90 million of this is the referendum. So it costs that much for EVERY referendum the country has and why should we not have a say at something so important. Take this figure away and the cost to the country is now £160 million, which admittedly is not such a round and headline grabbing figure. The cost of running the 2010 election probably hit about £100 million anyway so what are we arguing over... £60 million. Considering the billions of pounds the taxpayer handed over to the banks, only to see the banking industry award themselves millions of pounds in bonuses, this is hardly a startling increase. I would rather spend £60 million on a fairer voting system than billions on bankers any day.

5. It means that someones 5th preference is worth the same as your 1st preference.

This is true but until politicians have the guts to allow a proper Proportional Representation System to be used, where almost every voters first preference is worth the same, we have to start somewhere. Under the current FPP system there are many voters first preference that will never count. They will never be represented by their choice of political persuasion, either because it is an extreme minority or, as is much more usually the case, the voter votes for the wrong candidate in a 'safe' constituency. For example, no Conservative voter has ever been represented by a Conservative MP in Hull. This means that Conservative votes in Hull are always worth less than Labour votes. The AV system will not wipe out the safe seats of constituencies where the incumbent candidate already has over 50% of the vote. So even AV will not solve this current injustice and that is where a proper PR system is needed; but greedy politicians would not allow the electorate a real referendum on a range of voting systems. They only allowed us this one choice, which just goes to show how scared they are about giving the electorate real power to decide a voting system for themselves.

6. It will mean that supporter of the BNP and other fringe parties would decide who wins.

What rubbish! First we have to acknowledge that the BNP is represented in the European Parliament because of the PR system used for the European Elections. What politicians must address is why such extreme parties have become popular? If Labservative had done a better job there would most likely be fewer extremist supporters but if no one ever listens to people's concerns it is only natural to gravitate towards more extreme measures. It will be the voters who decide the winner, and yes this may include supporters of extreme parties but they have a democratic right to vote and who is to say that they do not already vote tactically within the current system? This is all just scare mongering.

Well that is the campaign for No to AV. It is hollow and misleading.

Saying YES to AV is not the end of the line for the voting system. Like the rest of the World at this time seeking reform, we need a better voting system. AV is not the end - it is the beginning. I don't particularly like the system but I like FPP even less and this is the limited choice we have been given. IF People vote for AV, the next step will be to encourage MPs to give us the right to campaign towards Proportional Representation, just as we have a type of PR in the European Elections (and that could be reformed even more). The old two party politics has to go if we are to make politics more transparent. Clearly we cannot rely on the present 'No to AV' campaigners to tell us the truth... and one has to ask why? Is it because, like the rest of us, they can no longer count on a job for life. And is because, unlike most of the rest of us, they fear losing the diamond encrusted pension that we could only dream of? Politicians have more to lose under AV than the electorate. Now you should look carefully at who does not support this important reform.

National No Smoking Day

2011-03-08T03:44:00.000-08:00

National No Smoking Day in the UK is 9 March 2011 this year. I would advise anyone who hasn’t planned to quit on this day to sort out a plan before quitting. Why? Because just like New Year’s resolutions they rarely have a successful outcome.

If you really want to quit, the best thing you can do on National No Smoking Day is to plan how you are going to quit. If you know someone who wants to quit, they might find this article useful, so please pass on the link.

Planning is important but be careful what advice you accept. In my opinion, the only real advice you can accept is from someone who smoked and has quit successfully. Do not take the advice of companies selling quit smoking products or medical facilities where the people who have set it up have never smoked and – quite frankly – do not know what they are talking about. My book ‘Stop Smoking: Diary Of A Quitter’ would be a useful start to any would be quitter, especially for those people who have tried quitting many times but fail after a few weeks (For many people there is no ‘easy way’).
.

Your reason to quit has to be solid.
Look at what Nicotine Replacement Therapy is best for you and see if it is free via your GP or smoking cessation service.
DO NOT keep a diary of when you smoke; it won’t help you. When you first start to quit smoking the nature of your habit is the least of your worries. The first thing you have to do is break the addiction.
DO NOT ask your medical professional for advice on how to quit smoking unless they have had first hand experience of quitting smoking.
Join a support group, either online or locally. No one is better qualified to help you than someone who is going through the same experience as you.
Buy my book: ‘Stop Smoking: Diary Of A Quitter’ for some amazing advice, support and some humorous distractions while you suffer your nicotine withdrawal pangs.
.

Even if you only decide that you want to quit on 9 March 2011 it is a step in the right direction. Right now cigarettes are only permitted to continue to exist because of the tax revenue they bring in. As soon as that revenue drops below a certain level, the death knell of the tobacco industry will be heard. Perhaps if you quit smoking now, you will still be alive to see the day it happens.

A Kick In The Pants From David Cameron

2011-02-07T05:57:00.000-08:00

David Cameron is trying to get banks to lend more to businesses. Without the banks willingness to help private enterprise there will be nowhere to go for the thousands of public sector workers who are about to lose their jobs. Mr Cameron says that he is not interested in giving the banking sector a 'kick in the pants'.

Let us not forget that it was irresponsible lending by banks, encouraged by the banks, in their frantic attempt to claw as much profit as possible for themselves. It was the investment banks that sold toxic bundles across the world, holding debts that were doomed to go unpaid. Let us not forget that it was greed, greed perpetrated by the banks that promoted excessive risk taking for profit and ever increasing bonuses, that led to the crash and the cuts to jobs and services that this country (UK) is being told by David Cameron that we must endure today. And why should the tax payer endure that alone?

The banking industry has cost people their jobs; income starved individuals who had no culpability in the cause of that loss. There is no bonus for them. And it is now historical fact that a culture of excessive bonuses is the carrot that encourages the very risks that caused the crash in the first place. Allowing it to continue is a travesty.

People who lost their livelihoods after the Deep Water Horizon oil rig disaster were able to claim compensation from the company that caused the loss of their job. Had it been a country responsible for this much devastation there would be calls for reparation. The banking industry has cost this country more than just money. So why does David Cameron think that the banks should be treated any different?

We are not 'all in this together' Mr Cameron. Allowing the banking industry to suffer nothing, while the electorate suffer greatly, demonstrates how you protect the haves at the expense of the have nots. The tax payer is experiencing more than just a kick in the pants. While the war on the tax payer continues, the war on the banking sector must continue also. Otherwise we become impotent in the shadow of the demon that demands we sacrifice with our jobs and our security whatever price is necessary to replenish its insatiable appetite.

Shane Ward: Data Protection? Don't make me laugh.

2010-10-20T09:31:00.000-07:00

Shane Ward: Data Protection? Don't make me laugh.: "I received a third letter through my letterbox. Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl was a complete stranger to me. I have never met him and yet, after 22 y..."

Data Protection? Don't make me laugh.

2010-10-20T08:32:00.000-07:00

I received a third letter through my letterbox. Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl was a complete stranger to me. I have never met him and yet, after 22 years of living blissfully in ignorance of him it appears he lived with us. I never noticed him day after day. He did not have a bed to sleep in. He didn't touch my food. He never used any of my resources. And yet someone somewhere decided he lived there. It reminds me of the following poem.

As I was walking up the stairs
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish that man would go away.

When the first letter arrived, from Barclays Bank. The letter contained a bank statement. As this was the first of such missives I can only assume that Barclays Bank made a mistake and got addresses mixed up. I can't verify that, of course, because now that Experian has (another assumption) Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl's details linked to my address, only Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl can request to see it. Why is that? Data protection. So where was data protection when I recieved Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl's bank statement then? Is this not breaking the law?

Barclays bank were less than civil on the phone. They said to my wife, 'Oh just send the letter back and we'll deal with it'.

My wife replied, 'Hang on a minute. I want to know if someone is trying to steal my identity or has access to my details. I want to know how this Mr Jabarkhyl's details got linked with my address'.

They said, 'don't worry, its probably just an error'.

My wife was not happy with this and asked to speak to the supervisor, who tried to take her down the same route without looking into the problem. My wife said, 'I'm not happy with this. I'd like the address to where I can send a complaint.

The supervisor said, 'What do you want to do that for? I've dealt with your complaint'.

(...!...)?

Taking into account the level of customer service delivered here, it sounds like my wife was asking the bank to walk the length of the country without good reason. In other words my wife was making a fuss over some piddly, infinitesimal minor error. It was a little mistake alright?

Ten days later we got a letter for Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl from Barclaycard. This was not a good sign and the little mistake was beginning to look like it was going to have significant consequences. I wrote to Barclaycard to tell them in no uncertain terms to take my address and Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl and put them in separate rooms. He does not live here. He has never lived here. He will never live here and if I catch him and find he gave my address on purpose, he may not live in the future.

Another ten days elapsed before the third letter, which at this point I am now making a big fuss. This time it was a letter for Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl from a debt collecting agency called Red. It was precisely the sort of thing my wife wanted to avoid but it seemed that somewhere in the administration that linked Mr Jabarkhyl to our address, the credit rating agencies like Experian get the information that bailiffs and tracing agencies use.

I phoned Red in order to find out where they got this information from. They suggested phoning Experian. I phoned Experian. I told them I had no interest in my credit rating but I wanted to know if they were holding Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl's address as my address and if so, where did they get that misinformation from. They told me that, because I was no Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl they could not access the personal details because of data protection.

Data protection my foot! I now had details of Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl's bank account, card account and knowledge that he owned a 3G mobile for which he had not paid £20.93. I can say this because Barclays Bank, Barclaycard and Red Debt Collection Services made Mr Jabarkhyl's personal details public domain the minute they sent the information to the wrong address. Sending his details to my house is a breach of data protection and it appears that the law does not support any rectification of such a breach.

I was frustrated and angry. The guy at Experian was very nice and supportive. He said that he had personal experience of this too and so had thousands of others. In other words it is a significant enough problem that something has to change. In this case it is the law itself that needs amending.

I should be able to approach Experian the letters I should not have received and with a written statement that declares legally that Mr Mirwais Jabarkhyl did not and does not live in my house. Experian will then have the authorisation to access Mr Jabarkhyl's database details, make the necessary amendments with a note to say why it was changed, what evidence was seen, who requested the change and who was responsible for providing the erroneous information in the first place.

Experian can then go to the business that provided the incorrect information and charge them the administration costs for having to go through all that fuss and also to compensate the victim proportionately to the inconvenience and suffering. Right now I am annoyed and have spent an afternoon setting up a campaign to get the law changed. My compensation would be a token payment, lets say about £25 in today's money. However, as soon as I get bailiffs on my doorstep I would expect the payment to be proportionate to the bill the bailiff are seeking plus their charge. Because by the time they add £100 in service charges the demand wrongly placed on my address should now be reflected in the compensation.

I have spoken to a number of people tied up in this whole affair. The debt collection service representative, I believe, summed up the attitude of many businesses that 'it just happens'. Well I'm sorry if I do not subscribe to that sense of apathy but I think it needs to stop just happening.

Consequently I have started a campaign that I hope you will all join to show your support. I have written to my local MP and, for those of you who are already experiencing this little nightmare you are welcome to follow my template on Facebook group 'Change The Data Protection Act' and please don't forget to sign up in support, as I will be able to demonstrate to MPs the strength of feeling we all have when these awful letters just turn up on our doorstep.

So when you attempt to find out who has sent someone else's bill to your address and they say they can't help because of data protection. Maybe we should all just use my group page to publish the letter we received, who it was for, who it was from and how much they owe and then alert the police to the list and who they should prosecute for breach of data protection. Data protection? Don't make me laugh.

Quit Smoking Myths

2010-10-12T04:38:00.000-07:00

Quit Smoking Myths

The Soft & Smelly: We're In It Together.

2010-04-13T05:38:00.000-07:00

Anyone listening to the Conservative manifesto for the 2010 election should have every reason to feel afraid. They claim that Labour will give you 5 more years of the same old rubbish, which is true. On the other hand the Conservatives will give you 5 years not unlike the 17 years that pushed people towards Labour in the first place.

...and this is the problem, which is so succinctly put together by the Labservative site on youtube, acknowledges that we have been trapped into voting for different versions of the same old rubbish for the last 65 years. This has to stop and, as the Tory party put it in their manifesto, you have to 'do your bit' to get us all off this nonsensical merry-go-round.

What we need is a longer term politics. We need policies that have a broad cross-party consensus that will not only stand the test of time but will also be effective. Short term politics, where one party can abolish the work of another at the next election, is not only damaging but costs money belonging to 'we the people'.

The Liberal Democrats have long been the party who claim that there is an alternative to the other two. The problem they have often had is funding; big business and the rich support Tory and unions support labour. Voters have long supported them in local elections but not in national government. Why? because they do not believe that the Lib Dems are strong enough to govern. Well, maybe they are and maybe they are not but they were, historically, the original opposition to the Tory Whigs. So at the very least, if you want to oust Labour and the Tories in a marginal seat, you could do worse than vote the Lib Dems in.

My preference would be to vote for none of the above, which is where my moral standing remains but some of the smaller parties, like the English National Party, have colluded with UKIP and other fringe parties to form a rather unholy alliance. On the other hand, the more smaller parties that gain seats in government, the more likely we may be able to achieve that long term political policy making I mentioned earlier.

There are just a few weeks to go before we vote in the 2010 general election. The Tory party has said it is time for change and there, at least, they are right. Let's not vote for yet another 5 years of Labservative. It really is time for a change.

...oh, and please do not think that your vote is a wasted one. Your vote is one of the most powerful and cherished weapons that any free society can possess. While I would like to influence how you vote, it is more important that you do vote.

Abolish Short Term Politics

2010-02-19T03:26:00.000-08:00

Perhaps unintentionally, 'The Times', in its effort to promote the way forward for a Conservative Government, has highlighted the reason for the need to bring in proportional representation. On page 2 of today's paper, the commentary declares, 'The role of government is not to own and control, but to help to stabilise the economy. That means building surpluses in good economic times, so that there is scope for extra spending in a downturn.'

Precisely. Short term spending plans in the UK is the natural bi product of short term politics, which in turn is the natural consequence of a two party dominated first past the post electoral system.

Amusingly, The Times further reports on page 4 in a commentary about not legislating to punish aggressive marketers for sexualising children, the reporter notes that, 'psychologists have shown that punishment teaches only how to avoid the punishment. The best way to encourage others to do what you want is to reward them.'

So there you have it. Politicians do not learn from being voted out over the short term; they simply find a way not to get voted out the next time. In other words they find more clever and devious ways to carry on doing what they do but not get caught.

Now it is not true to say that this applies to every individual politician. The recent expenses scandal revealed that only 52% of politicians had their fingers in the till in some way or another. What is fundamentally wrong is that one political party holds so much power that it can railroad through legislation at the rate of knots, beat down all opposition simply through sheer weight of numbers and bend the country's economic future to its political whim regardless of the country's long term future.

The most sensible way to cool down the rapidly changing political landscape is to dismantle completely the first past the post system, by pass the politically popular but rather pointless AVS system and adopt a full blooded proportional representation system. It is argued that proportional representation would weaken government, slow down legislation and make political changes more difficult. Sounds good to me. And it should also be recognised that most other European countries already have a proportional representation system working quite happily thank you very much.

So how do we get there? certainly it won't be by 'rewarding' the main parties with our votes. We must put a tremendous dent in the main parties in order to make them understand that we want proper government and not political jiggery pokery, ping pong, negative slanging matches and a complete disregard for the little people; consider for example the Conservative MP, forced by changes to the expenses regime, who was outraged at having to stand on the train in economy class along with the rest of us little people. Why should he not share the experience that many of us face in our daily commute to work?

The UK will soon be asked to vote for a new Government. Considering that none of us will get anything from any government other than higher taxes, now might be as good a time as any to change our voting allegiances to who we really want. For now that might mean voting for anyone except the big three - unless, of course you enjoy this sort of perpetual crisis management.

AVS: A Veritable Swindle

2010-02-02T05:15:00.000-08:00

Gordon Brown spoke today about reforming the political theatre in favour of the people it is designed to serve. What a great idea but wasn’t that what the current political set up was designed to do as well? Some of his ideas sounded brilliant, however, we must never forget that these politicians are consummate survivalists who are currently bending over backwards to save their own necks.

Now don’t get me wrong; I have argued for change for quite a while now. Some of Mr Brown’s proposals sound appealing: An elected House of Lords, elected select committee members, basic guaranteed rights within public services, more power and control for local councils, a written constitution and at long last – a new voting system.

…except the new voting system is designed to keep all the votes within the old boys club, which is why the main political parties will want to back it.

AVS, Alternative Voting System, is designed to allow you to vote for your candidates in terms of preference. So if you want to vote Labour you pick them first. This bit is no different to the first past the post (FPP) system we have now. The new bit will be that you can choose, as a second preference, another candidate – lets say Conservative – who you would never have voted for in a month of Sundays before.

What the voting system changes is the possibility that in marginal seats, the current second place candidate could actually beat the FPP candidate winner by second preference voters because the majority of the constituents as a whole preferred the second candidate.

The illusion is that the majority voters have elected the AVS candidate either as a first or as a second choice. Does this sit right with you? I mean how many times have you heard a football fan say, “Which team do you support? Who would you support next?” Or how about “Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife? What about a bit on the side?” See my voting system by way of comparison (which incidentally I sent to the Society for Electoral Reform but they politely failed to respond; why? Because, I reckon, they have supported AVS for about 100 years).

I support a change in the voting system but I do not support AVS. I believe there should be a much broader choice of voting systems placed before the electorate and that we should allow them to choose. Is this not what Gordon Brown said about placing the power in the hand of the electorate, or is their interest only in the kind of power that the old boys clubs can still control?

Let the people decide the voting system Gordon. It doesn’t matter what you politicians prefer; it is what we the people prefer that count.

Now I know that my system only gives the voters a 99.6% first preference outcome – a mere 30% plus higher than any other voting system. It also keeps MPs within their constituencies, albeit that the constituency is bigger and it will be served by both first and second candidates. However, I know that many people will want to keep out candidates like the BNP, which my system will not guarantee. On the other hand, my system, unlike AVS will not exclude (as it is designed to do – just like FPP) the Green Party, English Heritage Party, UKIP and other grossly under represented parties.

AVS favours big political parties. It does not favour the will of the people. Yes we need electoral reform but AVS isn’t it.

Smoke and Mirrors

2010-01-05T03:21:00.000-08:00

“I am prepared to tell you absolutely anything!” No, this is not a quote from a politician’s speech; it is a quote from the rather funny series called ‘Black Adder’. However, the quote could well have come from any number of our incumbent Parliamentarians because 2010 opens the door to a new wave of lies, deception, obfuscation and kidology. Sit back and enjoy the playground bickering as two sides attempt to ‘outbid’ each other in the race to kick and elbow their opponents out of contention. Marvel at the amazing claims to be able to achieve what they, and every other previous Government for the past 100 years for that matter, have failed miserably to achieve before. Welcome one and all to the start of the campaign trail for the 2010 General Election.

Media coverage of politics in the UK is dominated, as per usual, by Labour and Conservative. The first spat of the New Year is over the economy and who has got its figures right. Labour produced a tremendously large document discussing plans to dig Britain out of debt; No, not Labour’s plans – the Conservative plans. You see it is so much easier to disparage the opposition plans than it is to justify the rightness of your own. So we learn that Labour thinks the Conservative plans are unachievable but we have no idea if Labour’s plans are any better. So what kind of message can we take from this opening salvo? Surely the message put across by Labour is not so much vote for us as it is don’t vote for them.

The conservative party, in the meantime, has declared that it tends to concentrate on the National Health Service (NHS). It plans to ring-fence the funding for the NHS, which means that other departments must surely bear the necessary cuts any future Government will desire to miraculously accomplish within one Parliamentary term simply for the purpose of looking great and ‘electable’ once more in the next General Election. But look closely enough and you can see that most awful of management devices called ‘the quick win’ in action. The NHS funding is already there. All the Conservatives are saying is that they will leave it alone, which is what they want to do with most things anyway. Perhaps what is most surprising about their declaration is that they are not seeking to privatise large sections of the NHS – probably because no one has any spare cash right now.

The Liberal Democrats may or may not hold the balance of power if the expected result of a hung Parliament becomes a reality – and just maybe politicians will take notice that we, the people, will no longer accept their kind of futile political point scoring that resembles nothing more than a flock of quarrelsome seagulls squabbling over a piece of dead crab. Perhaps one might even give the Lib Dems some credit for not joining the unseemly scrap.

Of course, the clever bit to all this is the way media coverage is distracted form things like the MPs expenses scandal and the ongoing Iraq enquiry, both of which has cost the tax payer extraordinary amounts of money and leaves no politician covered in glory. We must remember in the coming days when we hold the power to change the way we are governed, that whatever successive governments have promised in the past, they have singularly failed to deliver on it.

In the 2010 election I think we all know that whatever Government is formed, the tax payer will be paying taxes to pay back the debts created by unwise and foolish banking investment practices. There is nothing financially in this package for the little people. And thus we approach a defining moment where ordinary people can feel comfortable in voting on principle rather than on their own pockets (yes we all do it at some time or other) because there are no immediate material benefits to us. Therefore we have a glorious opportunity to use our vote – and use it we must – to change the way politics is delivered in our country.

For example, I noticed on the BBC news web page for ‘Politics’ (that is British Politics) that there is a subheading for Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh Politics. There is no heading for English Politics because England does not have an English Assembly. The ‘English National Party’ would want to have one of these along with the much popular introduction of a national holiday for St George. Please note that the smaller parties are concerned with letting you know what they stand for, rather than what the other parties will do to you if you are stupid enough to let them get in. Positive political campaigning does exist and I believe you would suffer no detriment by listening to a few of them. Clearly they have something positive to say, unlike Labour or Conservative who clearly have nothing to say worth listening to and nothing new to offer. If they did, wouldn’t they be talking to you instead of competing with each other?

Don’t be fooled by the smoke and mirrors. As one politically astute person pointed out on a website recently, if only Labour or Conservative are the likely Governments under our first past the post system, we are as near as living in a one-party-state as can be. There is no democracy - only the big boys club. I don’t know about you but I have had more than enough of their empty promises, deceit, back biting, corruption and self serving policies. Don’t be afraid to change your allegiance this year. Vote for someone who tells you what they want to do. Don’t be afraid, be involved – be very involved.

Getting Attention

2009-10-22T16:24:00.000-07:00

A great deal of controversy surrounded the televising of the BBC’s ‘Question Time’ political show because it included Nick Griffin, the head of the British National Party (BNP) renowned for its extreme right wing, racist, homophobic and anti Semitic views. The BBC defended their position stating that the BNP got two MPs into the European Parliament and therefore had the democratic right to be represented on the panel. I believe that the BBC was correct in doing this. Despite an anti BNP protest outside the building trying to disrupt the program I am glad to say that it went ahead. This by far is a victory for democracy.

So instead of getting all worked up about some abhorrent and odious character having the right to be given air time, would it not be more productive in trying to understand how it is that the British public felt so disgruntled with our current representatives that they should resort to voting for the BNP at all?

I was rather disappointed with the show, mainly because it simply gave all the other, shall I say advisedly, legitimate politicians an opportunity to grandstand their repulsion of the BNP and attempt to score as many ‘buddy’ points with the electorate as possible. There was very little debate until the question that most likely got people voting for the BNP in the first place was raised.

In short, the questioner wanted to know if the success of the BNP was down to the current Governments failure to get to grips with immigration into the country. The representative for the Government, Jack Straw, naturally denied it. The other politicians were duty bound to say that it was a Government failing. All this was pretty standard and quite frankly could have been written without any politician being there at all, which is generally what bores many people away from politics.

But then Jack Straw said something quite extraordinary. He suggested that what the Government had to do was to listen to the electorate. So does this mean that the Government has not listened to the electorate so far? Does it take the voting in of an extreme party to make the incumbent ruling party do something it was responsible for doing in the first place?

As it goes the answer is most likely ‘no’. You see this is another throw away line that any political party will use to demonstrate that they are willing to do something about what the electorate cares about. Because we are now in a contest to vote in the next British Government and all of a sudden everyone cares about the little people. Tony Blair talked about listening to the people. Gordon Brown talks about listening to the people. But once any party is voted into power… nobody is listening to the people.

Back to the program and one unhappy person accused Mr Griffin of being in a minority with his view. Ironically everyone else wanted us all to celebrate diversity; but not it appears the kind promulgated by the BNP.

Now although I have encouraged everyone to vote for anyone except Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrats, I would have to include the BNP in the list of don’t vote for. Mr Griffin did not cover himself in glory at all during the program and his rhetoric was of a view that only, in my humble opinion, the ignorant would share. But in certain policy areas his party has struck a chord with the electorate. And how else are the electorate going to get the mainstream parties to ‘listen’ if they won’t listen when the people have voted them into power. Furthermore, it is not just a case of listening. Anyone can listen and do nothing after. Our future Government has to actually do something about ensuring that our country’s infrastructure can cope with an increasing population, that our councils are properly resources to handle the increase in population and that those people who are not entitled to be here do not just disappear off the radar but are sent home. This is what our current Government is not doing and this is what the other mainstream parties have no workable solution to.

The mainstream politicians may be less repulsive than the oleaginous Mr Griffin but there is one thing ganging up on a bigot, and quite another in finding and implementing a credible alternative to the policies that the he put forward and that a percentage of the electorate were attracted enough to vote for. Many protesters outside the BBC were repulsed by the notion that the awful British National Party should get any attention whatsoever. Likewise it would seem that successive Governments are repulsed by the notion that they should have to pay attention to the people who voted them in. From tonights televised performance they still have no intention of serving the electorate. We cannot remain a politically apathetic society and maybe there, Mr Griffin could have done us a favour - because we do live in a democracy and we get to choose who represents us in Govermnent.

Economy of Principle

2009-08-15T14:08:00.000-07:00

Economy of Principle

Such a beautiful phrase, 'economy of principle', employed by the philosopher Nietzsche, is rather poignant in the context that I feel most typifies the behaviour and practices of our politicians and the capitalist systems that expect the tax payer to fork out billions for nothing so that they can wallow in troughs of our money. It really has to stop.

We, the taxpayer, paid out money on the premise that the banking system got it wrong and having learned from their mistake would accept a bail out in return for better practices and less reckless gambles for obscene bonus payments.

To put it mildly, we were conned.

Not only does the practice of bonuses continue but it continues despite the losses incurred. Financial bosses complain that there is a need for the bonus culture to attract the most talented of staff. Now don’t get me wrong, I can see the logic in the argument. What I can’t see is how the hell that affects the tax payer who got none of that bonus before the credit crunch of 2008 and will get none of it now. So why should we pay for something that gives us nothing in return? Where is our compensation for keeping the banking systems alive?

It is certainly not in the savings interest or mortgage lending system; not only is it impossible to get a decent mortgage at present but our savings attracts almost nothing by way of interest. Why is that? Perhaps the reports are true that the banking houses are going hell for leather to shore up their balance sheets. Once again, why should the tax payer pay for someone else’s mistake? We only have to go one penny into the red and the bank would slap us with a bank charge. So where are our tax payer charges against the banks? Where is our golden handshake for getting the country out of the soft and smelly?

The answer, apparently, is higher taxes, a cut in public services and spending and painful decisions possibly for the next ten years. I, for one, cannot accept that we deserve this treatment.

But that is what we will get, whether we vote for Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat. We couldn’t possibly upset the institutions that no doubt bankroll the major political parties. How this must stink to any right thinking person.

Recently a Conservative MP, you know, the party that the British Public will inevitably vote for in 2010 because their heads have been shoved either in a political vat of apathy or the conservative faithful actually do make money out of everyone else's misery, said that if the expenses system changed, or if his salary was reduced, he would not be able to give to charity. Excuse me? How many millions of poor tax payers stick money regularly into charities, raising millions? Not that they can in any way afford such extravagances but so many people cannot afford to give to charity because they are too bogged down paying taxes to overrated politicians and bonus grabbing talented stock brokers. This is an example of the planet our politicians are on – and it sure isn’t ours.

The tax payer does not ask for much. The people who run our country have to take taxes, but only to pay for the things we need: good health care, emergency services, utilities, roads, education and so on. However, whilst I have an aversion to violence, I would rather pay £27 million on a helicopter for our armed forces in Afghanistan than the billions the government spent to enable financial houses to continue paying out bonuses to ill deserving parasites. The tax payer cares nothing for greed-driven gamblers in financial houses. Politicians have a duty to look after our soldiers, otherwise the point of shoring up the money system beggars explanation.

Or maybe it doesn’t need explanation. Politicians have acquired the habit of putting a spin on everything they do. Business management do much the same nowadays. In fact, the world seems to be running on the spurious results of targets and tick boxes. Reality takes a back seat to statistics while the poor tax payer is punished again. As long as the boxes are ticked it doesn’t matter what suffering is meted out. The true reason for running the country is lost to the effort to gain power under any circumstance. So unless we, the electorate, change the cycle by voting – and we all must vote – for any party other than Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, we will continue to experience an economy of principle that places our modest ideals beneath the horizon of achievement. We have become nothing more than iron filings to a magnet when it comes to election time – and as soon as the vote is complete the magnetism disappears.

When are we going to learn? Shall we make a real difference in 2010?

Revolution On Our Horizon

2009-08-02T05:01:00.000-07:00

An unemployed person over the age of 25 receives £64.50 a week in Jobseeker's Allowance. Or, to put it another way, this is the amount of money they are given to live for a week and to seek work. That's £3,354.00 a year.

The Sunday Times reports today that a group of 60 Ministers of Parliament received £250.00 a month from the House of Commons authorities for 'tea and coffee'; that's £3000.00 a year, or the equivalent of one very happy fig tree (See earlier blog).

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat) claimed that the money he received went on office materials but also stated 'The fact that I've claimed that amount doesn't mean I have spent that amount'.

So where is it then? and why are you claiming more than you need?

Not that MPs, CEOs and high-flying, high-risk-taking-with-our-money-for-a-fat-bonus city workers are the only ones taking the mickey. Union leaders are apparently enjoying pay rises of between 8% - 10% while most of us ordinary folk contend with a pay freeze or even a pay cut. Unemployment in the UK has doubled and we are left wondering how these people can justify giving themselves rises that they clearly do not deserve.

The ingredients for a revolution loom large. The figures are waved in our faces every day and while the majority may shrug their shoulders in apathy and decide once again not to vote in the next election, not to vote again will only invite those who abuse their positions of power to continue to do so.

The Labour Government were not the cause of the global credit crunch. They were, however, the keeper of the purse strings. The conservative party were right to point out that Labour did not put money aside for a rainy day. Banks made huge profits from us and it was our money that had to save them. Now we will be told that we must pay for the Government's mistake, the bank's mistake and for bank profits and Parliamentary expenses. Complaining about it really isn't good enough; we need to vote the Labour Party out. But who do we vote for?

The Conservative Party has had its nose in the expenses trough as much as any other party. They would rather that we pulled out of Europe because the UK is giving too much power to Brussels. And where would that leave us? No, the Conservatives are too fond of going backwards to be of any use in a progressive society. And besides, they were voted out unanimously for virtually the same kind power abuses that the Labour Government are committing today. So why they would have us believe that Europe could not cock up the country better than either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party is beyond me. I reckon it would be easier to tame one big monster than have to contend with a scrapping melee of home grown little ones.

The Liberal Democrats are no less guilty of collusion in expenses than any other party. I have often favoured voting for these guys because they have always favoured proportional representation but while that may at least make our vote more likely to count, why should we want to vote in anyone whose sole mission in life is to represent their wealth accumulation rather than the interests of the electorate?

It would seem apparent that the entire current political regime is rotten to the core. No amount of stirring the putrid sludge is going to clean the Commons of the stench of corruption and outrageous profiteering by its organised crime syndicates ...I mean political parties. Now is the time to consider how one might stage a bloodless revolution that will give the ordinary citizen in the UK control of their lives once more.

We must vote at the 2010 general election, all of us, the highest turnout ever. And we must vote for absolutely anyone but Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat.

The BNP recognized this at the 2009 European Election. What happened was that the Conservative voters all went out and voted in the same stalwart sheepish way that Conservative voters do, which is why they were so successful at the European election. Not because Labour voters voted Conservative - nor indeed that the Conservatives are in any way better than Labour- they just didn't vote. The BNP, sensing a low turnout, pushed their voters to vote and proved that the political spectrum can change under proportional representation if people vote for what they believe in. Now they have MEPs in Europe.

What the Conservative die hards do not want you to figure out is that, if everyone is disaffected by the performance of the Labour Government, and all Labour voters stay at home, the Conservatives can win a landslide victory in Parliament. They can win by ensuring that all you can't-see-the-point Labour voters just stay at home. Then, of course, some 15 or 20 years later when they too have cocked up the country, the Labour voters will be suddenly kicked into action to vote them out again.

Labour voters are the true voice of this country. Often they will make up the largest proportion of the have-nots. To have a chance of having anything at all over the next ten years they need to vote for someone else whilst disaffected with Labour (although why they would want to vote for more poverty is a mystery). Conservative and Labour voters both need to stop voting just to keep the other one out. They both need to go. Only when everyone is voting for what they believe in will we see the true feelings of the country.

Some people might say that no one outside of the big political parties would be able to run the country. I would say that I haven't seen any political Governing body that has achieved that in my life time.

There will be a revolution. If we act sooner rather than later it will cost us less in terms of pain and suffering. If we just allow the same old Government swap over in 2010, it is going to hurt us more than it will hurt them; trust me, they will see to that as they have shown us already.

Go Fig!

2009-05-31T03:11:00.000-07:00

Amazing, this revelation from the Sunday Times today. Apparently someone in the House of Commons was authorised to rent, for the new House of Commons extension, twelve fig trees at a cost of £40,000 a year! Why MPs believe that this would be considered as proper use of tax payers money is a complete mystery. As the Americans might say, go figure.

But hang on a minute. Is this not just another example of how completely wasteful our Westminster machine has become? Not only that, I bet there are other examples of ludicrous and expensive rentals yet to be discovered. While the little people suffer the consequences of an economic slump, our money is being frittered on maintaining twelve of the most hardy and fecund trees in the world. We have complete forests that don't have that much money spent on them. In fact trees were around and happily looking after themselves millions of years before man and money saw the light of day.

There is no justification for spending such outrageous sums, even in the most affluent of times. The average salary in the UK is £22,000, almost half what it is costing the taxpayer to look after trees that they won't even see, let alone be able to afford. There is clearly a need for Ministers of Parliament to investigate whatever department thought this was a reasonable thing to do and stop these hair-brained and needlessly expensive contracts.

The Government needs to put the fruits of our labour to much better use than renting a dozen trees for their pleasure. The Americans might say 'go figure' but the UK tax payer is feeling far from philosophical at the moment. Forget go figure. We demand 'go fig'.

We Live in Insulting Times

2009-05-27T14:28:00.000-07:00

Today David Cameron rejected Alan Johnson's idea to hold a referendum on electoral reform (The Times) saying "Proportional Representation takes power away from the man and woman in the street and hands it to the political elites".

Turn over a few pages and Mr Cameron says in his speech on political reform that people are not just angry at the expenses abuse but "...they are the result of people's slow but sure realisation that they have very little control over the world around them and over much that determines whether or not they'll live happy and fulfilling lives".

So why is that then Mr Cameron? Is it perhaps because, under this First Past the Post system that power has been taken away from the man and woman in the street and handed to the political elites?

And anyway, what's all this about people's slow but sure realisation? How insulting is that? The electorate are much shrewder than you think and it is one of the reasons why people press for electoral reform, vote for different political persuasion or, as in many cases, don't vote at all!

If this is the Prime Minister of the future we are all going to hell in a handbag.

What the little people need is for the politician we vote for to represent the people and not be press-ganged into voting what the party wants. Otherwise we might as well just vote for a party and say who cares what MP represents us if they are all going to vote the same way as all the other MPs?

The Conservative Party and the Labour Party have too much of a strangle hold over our country. They are the political elite and we have had enough of being ignored. The so-called progressive Conservatives still want to abnegate the responsibility for anything and Labour wants to control everything. Neither way has worked in the past and it will not work in the future. Yes we need a new kind of politics but I believe we may need new political bodies to achieve the kind of change that the people want to see.

Real Proportional Representation

2009-05-25T11:25:00.000-07:00

Monday, 25 May 2009

25 May 2009Alan Johnson is right about the public mood of anger and disquiet over the way MPs have abused the system of second home allowances (‘The Times’ today). They had a year to change it but decided not to (see All At Our Expense). I have no doubt that Labour MPs, staring into the abyss of an uncertain future and possibly having to come to terms with suddenly not being an MP anymore, would welcome the opportunity to cling onto power in any way possible. So is it not just an amazing coincidence that Labour politicians, fearing that their pedestal of power is about to be kicked from under them, would leap onto the bandwagon of Proportional Representation that they kicked, without a second thought, into the long grass back in 1998?

OK, I agree that some form of Proportional Representation is better than our current First Past The Post (FPTP) system but not if it only serves to pay lip service to the idea. In 1998 the ‘Jenkins Report’ came up with a system of ‘Alternative Vote Plus’ (AVP). Alan Johnson proposes to suggest we have a referendum weighing FPTP against AVP. Why is that? What is wrong with throwing a number of systems into the melting pot that satisfy the criteria that the Jenkins Commission followed? Does he think that the electorate is too silly to make up its own mind or does he fear that we would pick one that does not suit a particular political party or changes the balance of power in favour of the people? Why can’t we have a proper open competition on electoral reform?

In 2007 I proposed a system of PR on my website. I posted a copy to the Electoral Reform Society and they politely ignored me. Never the less I posted it on my own web site for anyone to scrutinize. See ‘New Voting System’. Let’s look at how my system sits against the guide lines given to the Jenkins Commission. The statements in italics represent the criteria by which the AVP system was devised.

‘The maintenance of a geographical link between MP and constituency ‘

The Jenkins Report rejected the idea of a ‘Single Transferable Vote’ (STV) system because it would require massive voting constituencies of 350,000 electors resulting, they concluded, with an oppressive degree of choice. There was also a number of counting systems that would have given different outcomes.

The average number of voters for Labour, according to the number of sitting MPs, in the 2001 election was 26031, for the conservatives 50347 and the Liberal Democrats 92583. Recently the political parties have tried to spread the fear that voting for extreme parties rather than one of the main three would allow parties like the British National Party (BNP) to get in. In 2001 the average vote for the BNP was 47129.

There are 650 MPs in Parliament and 60 million people in the UK. If 40 million are registered voters that would mean 61538 voters per constituency if the voters were evenly spread. But we know this is not the case because more people live in towns and cities than in rural and agricultural areas.

The constituency I live in has a demographic of 230,000 people, of which two thirds, 153,000 would be registered voters. As you can see from the above figures, nowhere near this amount of people are currently voting but if they did it would reflect the true amount of voters that sitting MPs are representing today. So MPs are already presiding over massive voting constituencies.

As far as ‘oppressive choice’ is concerned, we have seen elections with an abundance of candidates from the ‘Monster Raving Loony Party’ to an independent candidate with a personal axe to grind. Anyone can stand for Parliament now. There just needs to be a simple rule stating that a candidate must acquire 25% of a National Vote at least to represent those people and to save ourselves from lunatic fringes and real minority concerns.

My proposal would suggest the need to double the size of a constituency in order to keep the same number of sitting MPs, however, because my proposal would also share the vote between the MPs in that constituency, MPs will be presiding over no more a percentage of the vote than they have experienced before. So if we presume that two MPs could be presiding over the same geographical area that two MPs had covered previously, albeit disproportionate to the voters, nothing has changed.

‘The need for stable government‘

Many people opposed to PR tend to point the finger at Italy’s often fractious coalitions. Politicians love to throw fear into the path of change because they hope to distract people from the possibilities of change for the better that does not include them. Conversely one has to acknowledge the difficulty that exists in many political systems and how easily parties can split themselves into factions. On the other hand we can see this happening almost weekly within the current Government, as we have seen before in previous Governments. So whether there is infighting within one party or fighting among several parties, the only difference is that in the current systems there are whips telling MPs to vote a certain way and in other systems the centre of power does not lie with one majority. Considering the number of times the people have not been asked about things they really should have been asked about, is the act of ignoring the people considered as stable Government?

My proposal, like the AVP system, uses a ratio to decide what MPs sit in the House of Commons. The difference is that my system keeps MPs geographically based and MPs vote in the House of Commons with their vote percentage. In short, there are no arbitrarily picked MPs from a pool of 150 (the AVP system). And if the current political parties are any good, then our people will vote for them will they not?

‘The desire for broad proportionality‘

There is a balance required between the geographical size of a constituency and the size of populace. Beyond that, one has to consider how one is able to represent left wing voters in a staunch right wing constituency and right wing voters in a left wing constituency. The AVP system will not achieve this. Even if it elects a proportional representation from a list of 150 MPs who are not ‘directly elected’, they lose the geographical connection.

My system does not satisfy itself on ‘broad proportionality’ It is directly proportionate to the point where 99.6% of votes count both geographically, and where this cannot be achieved in sufficient numbers it can go regionally and even nationally. The AVP system cannot possibly compete with this.

‘An extension of voter choice‘

This is pure nonsense. Why not vote for your first choice and expect it to count? My system does not put up with second best, which is why my system aims to make 99.6% if voter’s first choice count – not second best.

Alan Johnson describes the Jenkins system as an ‘elegant solution – Alternative Vote Plus’. Personally I think it merely tinkers with the idea of proportional representation and is not proportionately representative at all. It is also unnecessarily complicated. I would dearly like to put my system up against Mr Johnson’s preference to see which one the public likes better and I challenge him to do so. Unlike Mr Jenkins, I don’t have to horse trade with other political parties and MPs desperately trying to save their own skins should a shake up in electoral reform actually occur.

So I say to Mr Johnson, your proposal is not acceptable. If you really wanted to see electoral reform using the Jenkins solution you could have done it back in 1998 when it was proposed. The electorate must question why you choose to resurrect it now, if not to save a perceived massive defeat at the next general election. The Conservatives, of course, will oppose any PR all the way, especially as they appear to be under the delusion that they will win a landslide victory at any general election. It is not as simple as that. And besides which, what makes Mr Cameron think that we want another political party in power that is just as guilty of abuse as the rest? The three main political parties not only abused expenses and would have continued to do so had it not been made public. Not one of them deserves our support because not one of them has represented the people who elected them.

Yes we do need electoral reform – not to save any of our current main parties but to stop that sort of corrupt power from ever taking a strangle hold on our democracy ever again. So if you really want to see electoral reform Mr Johnson, why not give people a proper choice? We should decide what to vote for in a referendum – not you.

Posted by shaneward at 09:03 0 comments

All At Our Expense

2009-05-25T11:18:00.000-07:00

Friday, 15 May 2009

All At Our Expense

The UK public have been asked to swallow an awful lot of hardship recently. And quite frankly it is none of their doing. We seemed powerless to stop obscene bonuses being paid to city workers who took greater and greater risks with investor’s money, only to witness the collapse of the banking system. Then we could do nothing but stand by while the Government took taxpayers money to keep the same banks alive.

Now, and as a result of the worst example of target driven consequences, we experience a steep rise in repossession of homes, loss of jobs, a plummeting bank interest rate pushing fixed income savers into hardship and more expensive food and services. My sympathies are expressed to those who have been so severely affected by the consequences of greed and immoral business practice. One would have thought that our Government, in fact any of our MPs, might have had the intelligence and vision to see it coming. Oh, well done Vince Cable (Lib Dem), you were the closest. Pity it wasn’t in anyone’s political interest at the time to listen.

Is it any wonder that the members of Parliament did not want their expenses to become public knowledge? First, when the information was requested through the Freedom of Information Act, the Speaker of the House of Commons used tax payer’s money to go to the High Court in an attempt to stop it. Then, when that failed, there was going to be a delay until July 2009 before expenses would be published.

Credit must be given to the ‘Daily Telegraph’ for publishing the leaked information; most possibly one of those rare times when the information given is not only non-partisan but well within the right of the people to know. And it also demonstrated why politicians did not want the people to know.

The people now hear how MPs claimed for things like cleaning a moat, maintenance to a chandelier, the purchase of horse manure and even for a few tins of dog food. But whilst that in itself might be considered a scandal, the worst abuse had to be the within the claiming of second homes allowances and its contents.

Today the political leaders of each of the main parties are falling over themselves to say how sorry they are. They all say that the system is wrong and needs to be changed. They all say that they recognise that the public is angry and that something needs to be done quickly to win back the public trust.

The question now remains as to whether the public is as gullible as the politicians hope they are.

Let me roll back the carpet of history that I feel sure all MPs would like the contents to remain firmly swept under. A BBC news article for 4 July 2008 – almost a year ago – reads:

“MPs have voted to keep their £24,000 second home allowances… …They rejected tougher auditing and an alternative expenses regime proposed by a commons review”

Where was ‘needs to be done quickly’ then I wonder? Now it must be said that not all MPs agreed with keeping the second homes allowance but this must be tempered with the knowledge that MPs from all parties have been found guilty of expenses abuse. So whilst those who voted to keep the second home allowance felt justified in raking in as much tax payers money as possible (The Speaker said he was claiming his due), it cannot be conceivable that those who disagreed did not feel compelled to take full advantage as well. No political party is innocent and any amount of apology for this outrage will not do. The whole political system must be restructured.

Because whilst the politicians seek to justify their expense claims – including new kitchens, refurbishments, big flat screen TVs and other exorbitant items, people are losing jobs their personal goods and the only home they had and could no longer afford. Can we dwell on this a moment? These are supposed to be the people that matter. Perhaps politicians should be donating their second home to those who no longer have one.

But it goes further than this. Some MPs bought a second home and claimed the second home allowance. Then, when it came to sell the second home, they flipped it so that the second home became their main residence so they could avoid paying capital gains tax. There are numerous other examples of abuse but suffice it to say that the MPs claimed as much as they could, not to cover the cost of their expenses for sitting in Parliament at Westminster, but quite simply to profit from a lucrative trough, frequently perceived as an addition to their salary. As one member of the public put it, ‘if we tried to defraud the system like that we would be sacked for gross misconduct or even sent to prison’.

And it is only right that any Member of Parliament is as accountable to the law as the rest of us. For example, the Government believes that it is reasonable for people who are looking for work to travel up to one and a half hours to get to work. This is a condition they impose upon individuals claiming the Welfare Benefit Jobseeker’s Allowance of £60.50 a week. Why then should MPs be allowed to claim expenses equalling nearly eight times as much, if they too can return home within the same time?

No, sorry is not good enough. Excuses will not work and no amount of placatory noises about how hard one will try to make things better in the future can detract from what is already historical evidence of past wilful abuse. No MP from any party tried as hard to change the system of expenses until it suddenly burst into the public domain. Doesn’t that make you question what would have happened if the information remained buried, as many MPs would have wished? Doesn’t it also make you wonder what else there is that we know nothing about that MPs may be terrified we might discover.

Of course we may be forgiven for thinking that much of the scrambling to take the moral high ground has anything to do with the forthcoming European and local elections next month. Heaven forbid that we might vote with our hearts and dismiss all major political parties of the UK as corrupt and greedy. I mean, if we can’t contain their appetite for expenses in the UK, how on earth could we hope they would contain themselves in the terribly corrupt expenses system that exists in the EU Parliament?

But dismiss them we must if we are to show our so-called political elite that we can only accept an honest and credible voice to speak for the people – and not just in Europe but at home as well. Of course there is a danger that people may opt to vote for extreme parties but one must hope that the majority of the British people are sensible enough to leave far right and far left wing parties on the fringe where they belong. Don’t believe for one minute though that those same fringe parties will not rub their hands with glee at the opportunity to make mischief.

Perhaps the one thing we must not lose sight of is that we, the little people, are the driving force behind our democracy. As Tony Benn, a former labour MP, said today, the people are the power of democracy and we lend our power to a politician by voting for him/her to speak on our behalf. Is it possible that the big political parties are no longer mindful of this fact and may never be unless we give them reason to remember whose mandate they are supposed to deliver?

In my opinion, this is not happening and that is why the political system has to change (See my article ‘A New Voting System’). The first past the post system appears only to work for the benefit of the Government in power – just like the expenses they fought so hard to keep.

Like many people I regard my vote as important. If I had my way, there would be a voting box for ‘None of the above’, just to demonstrate to politicians how many people would actually vote if they had but a chance their voice would be represented. But in June 2009 I believe we have an opportunity to make our vote count in a way that could change the way in which politicians will behave in future. Today we have an unprecedented opportunity to use our vote to force politicians to think more seriously about how they should represent the people and what resources they rightfully need.

I believe that we should vote for representatives who are not Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat. They do not represent the people – they have proved it by wallowing in our money while the country has the largest economic deficit in history. They prove it by blaming each other while those who suffer, the taxpayer, is the same no matter what. It doesn’t matter if the claims were ‘within the rules’ as many MPs claimed. As they themselves now admit, the rules were wrong and each political party has had umpteen years to correct them. It is only now that they have been found out that, like naughty school children, they seek to justify their wrong-doing and wriggle out of being caught. We need to get rid of them and in June put into Europe and local Government the kind of politicians who will enforce the will of ‘we the people’.

I am not going to tell you who to vote for, that is your democratic right to choose. But to those people who would usually not vote I would say please make the effort and make your voice count because if everyone disclaims the big parties, the politicians might finally realise that we are not happy with the way any of them have abused our mandate to govern. We need a better system where everyone feels that their vote counts. This will not happen unless we the people stand up for our democracy as a united people.

Posted by shaneward at 09:35 0 comments
Labels:

Deep Recession Predicted Long Ago?

2009-05-25T11:16:00.000-07:00

Thursday, 5 February 2009

Deep Recession Predicted Long Ago?
"Grim warnings of Britain's worst recession since the Second World War... ...outpit will fall by 2.8 per cent.The IMF says GDP will shrink in the US by 1.6 per cent, France by 1.9 per cent, Germany by 2.5 per cent and Japan by 2.6 per cent.But it is the IMF forecast for 2010 that will worry the Government the most. It reckons that the UK growth will come in at a dismal 0.2 per cent for the year..." (Benedict Brogan, Daily Mail, 29 January 2009)
"So why 2009 and not 2008? Well, the big guys may not like this but it seems that the impact on the world is not what is felt by big business or by governments. The Barbault Scale seems to register the zodiacs effect on the masses – the little people – and while the credit crunch has begun in 2008, we the little people will start paying the price nearer to 2009 and beyond." (Shane Ward 'The Barbault Scale' 17 September 2008).
I don't know about other Goverments but what I was saying back in September 2008 (and earlier than that but not still in public domain) is now finally being admitted. What was being called an 'economic downturn' in 2008, a 'credit crunch' and other fancy names no doubt, is now recognised not only as a recession but a deep recession. It is estimated that the UK may stil be paying for it by 2030. According to the Barbault Scale it is more likely to be 2024 give or take one year. And it is possible that worse than we have experienced to date is yet to come.
It is interesting to note that the Chinese have commented on the dangers of unregulated capitalism in the finance and banking sector. I believe it is fair to say that the world no longer has a firm economic foundation and things must change to stop the pursuit of ever greater profits at the expense of global financial stability.
And why shouldn't those who created this problem pay for it? It would be easy to spot the culprits; they are the ones who gambled on hading out ever higher loans to those who couldn't afford it and those who packaged and sold toxic debts when they started to realise what could happen if they held onto them all. Individuals have gone to prison for less.
End