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.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Friday, 19 February 2010
Abolish Short Term Politics
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.
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.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
AVS: A Veritable Swindle
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.
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Smoke and Mirrors
“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
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
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.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Getting Attention
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.
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.
Saturday, 15 August 2009
Economy of Principle
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?
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?
Sunday, 2 August 2009
Revolution On Our Horizon
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)