minimalist photography of white and gray condominium

Photo by Luis Quintero on Pexels.com

In Germany for housing, the percentage cost of income is 27% and in Britain its 40%. Additionally there is a corrolation in that the higher the percentage of home-ownership, the higher is the amount of unemployment.

The combination of home ownership with a lack of homes for rent pushes up the housing cost and increases immobility. It increases the cost of living and reduces the quality of life through a need to have long commutes to work through public transport because home owners are stuck in their homes and have to commute to work. Especially the sale of many council flats increased social immobility and increased the cost of housing and reduced the availability of homes for rent.

In Britain renters stay in their homes for about 4 years and in Germany for around 11 years.

Britain is obsessed with home ownership.

Additionally real wages have fallen by 6%.

Yet the government created this red herring Brexit that is supposed to solve all the problems. One of the new Conservative candidates, Dominic Raab, threatens to shut down parliament to circumvent the democratic process and create a no-deal Brexit. Brace yourselves.

Britain is getting poorer under this government.

Source Politics Live, 6/6/19

BBC ‘High rents make young people less mobile’

BBC Through the wealth gap, the proportion of second home-ownership amongst the wealthiest has risen, whilst the average person is kept out of homeownership.



New thoughts

The political correctness changes from time to time and we get trained how to express ourselves in the correct manner.

I find it quite amazing that people who behaved according to generally accepted laws and behaviour suddenly find themselves prosecuted in old age for doing things wrong.

This blog exists since decades and hopefully I did not make too many remarks, which are now unfashionable. I apologise if I did not correct anything in time.

Just to say that I am now reading new books and one of those is Steven Pinker’s “Enlightenment now“, which puts a lot of those modernistic fears that swampt the Internet for years into an excellent perspective. The book beams with positivity, just what I need right now.

Apparently a lot of great new books get recommended during the “Daily Politics Show“, which I enjoy watching too.

It is quite often that new trends throw up fears we all have in the back of our minds and appeal to us somehow and we engage at some point or other. There were the anti-vaccine people, the anti-GMO crops discussion and so forth.

Often radicals do exploit our fears and stear us into undesirable directions. We have to be careful and stay on the level playing field that is acceptable to all.

I think it depends what logarythm one is switched onto because social media always shows us stuff again and again we once looked at and keeps our minds on a certain level.

That is where the Steven Pinker book comes in because it clearly shows a very good set of comprehensive statistics that put human development into perspective world-wide. A book not to be missed.



A roof over your head

Have you noticed how the sale of tents has become more popular, that people with monkey like feet are likely to start climbing and living in trees again?

A Spanish Mayor has declared that all those who live in his town since 2 years have a right to a home. So far so good. That is not different from our own region. Even here in London, people who live here have a right to a roof over their heads. People are even housed in luxurious hotels at an astonishing cost per night to fulfil the right to a home obligation.

It seems that just the methods are different between the London and Marinaleda town.

In Marinaleda the Mayor Juan Manuel Sanchez Gordillo says “A home should be a right and not a business”. Here in London the right to a home is coupled with the right of making a business out of home provision.

In the Spanish town individual residents are given actual land and bricks and expertise to build their own permanent house on permanent land, whilst here in London the homeless are given temporary accommodation that is making those who own it immense profits. It seems the Spanish solution simply costs the tax payer lots of money. The mayor there has gone so far as to repossess houses from banks who took them of those who failed to keep up with mortgage repayments.

The Secretary-General for Housing in Andalusia, Amanda Meyer, says thousands of families were “tricked” into taking out a mortgage and that their situation is now “hellish”. Of course many here in the Britain, the rest of Europe and anywhere in the world can feel this if they followed advise to purchase their own home and then lost their jobs. With an unemployment rate of 37% it is kind of quite obvious that not all those on the dole can be expected to purchase tents and populate the roads around towns.

Such rural solutions would not be thinkable here in London.Is there any multi-national company that offers to built homes for the homeless unemployed in Spain?

Out of touch or just illusional?

I find that there is a huge discrepancy with the views on things in this country. On one hand we have PM Cameron praising how the deficit has gone down and on the other council leader in the north of the country threaten that we are confronted with a potential end to civil society if cuts are not reversed?

Of course if anything like last year’s riots should happen again, we just fill up our prisons even faster than we do right now. Of course there is a need to mention that our prisons are already full up to bursting. So where would we put any further prisoners? It is not the cheapest solution to drive people into revolt because it is very expensive to clean up damage, catch perpetrators and imprison them.

Se where is David Cameron’s proof that Britain’s deficit has reduced?  As far as I know, public sector borrowing has increased and so has the borrowing of ordinary families to finance Christmas. Most people spent less this Christmas. Of course this will contribute to a lowering of the deficit in respect of imports in relation to exports, because if people purchase less imports then we just import less. Yet it is pretty cynical to praise the reduction in imports because people  have less money to spent and so their lowering of their quality of life seems to have justification in the eyes of this government.

I actually found a chess game in Poundland that was made in Manchester. I just thought I could not belief what, I was seeing there. Oh joyful yuletide.

The nation is in the grip of New Year’s awards fever, which of course is good for the big minority who get the awards but little consolation to those who have no joy whatsoever.

The simple solution to all problems of this nation seems to be to cause uproar, criminalise the victims of austerity and use those Victorian methods to get Britain great again? I thought the Queen was off colour for a few days after she visited a Cabinet meeting at Downing Street.  Did she or didn’t she agree with what she heard, was this supposed to be the big message of support for this government for the Queen, if it was then I do not know whether the good looks of Prince William and the forthcoming birth of his child will keep this nation smiling.

May I urge all people of this land not to break laws because it will have a profound effect on the future of your children if parents get prosecuted or if kids themselves are getting into trouble. The smart way to deal with hardship is not to purchase items other than the most essential ones, bring business to its knees and keep yourself out of trouble.

I do not think it is smart to threaten with uproar and lawlessness unless the government changes its ways, it is much smarter to spend wisely and not purchase items shops can make much profit on. Because if the Conservatives find that their sponsors, which is big business runs out of money, the Conservative Party will be unable to survive their own policies.

Save Carbon this Christmas

Two new stories have caught my attention.

  1. George Osborne says the recovery will take longer than first anticipated and debt levels take longer to reduce
  2. Low lying countries are concerned about what earth warming with rising sea levels will do to them.

The only answer to both those concerns is to buy as little as possible pre-manufactured goods, to reduce the production of factory(correction) made items. That can also help you to reduce your existing debt levels and help the over-all recovery. Why not give your loved ones less debt and more savings in your pot of savings? That means, save up and do not leave your family debts but repay your debts and leave them some savings instead.

Encourage your children to save by giving them cash this Christmas or starting a savings account for the younger generation?

I am already getting tired of the constant flow of over-saturation on products I could be buying as presents this Christmas.

It is mainly through manufacture of goods that carbon emissions are produced and to reduce those emissions we have to reduce our constant purchasing of manufactured goods, start to use and re-use articles and walk more.

I do appreciate that less purchase of manufactured goods may lead to job losses but we cannot keep jobs for the sake of just giving jobs to people, the jobs must have a beneficial result for us or they are counter productive.

Child Exploitation taking place all over the country

I am very worried by a report I picked up from the BBC website today in which there is a warning that child exploitation is taking place all over the country, a warning made by a committee of MP’s.

A report from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre warns that Internet images of child abuse are becoming more extreme and sadistic. It is thought that those who download such images are very likely to attack children.

Yet it is quite clearly equally shocking that the Secretary of State supports the cutting off from unemployment benefits of young mothers with young children once they have been forced to change from Income Support to Job Seekers Allowance for the most trivial reasons.

For example a mothers child might be ill and she is unable to look for work as required by her DWP contract and then when the woman signs on, as under the new rules, she has to learn that her Unemployment Benefit is suspended, pending an investigation.

The mother, who is often single will miss out on £130 of fortnightly payment. Mothers are usually never given the advice sheet that says they can continue to get their benefit under hardship rules and even then it takes extra long to get the money, that they would be entitled to if they were still on income support automatically.

The Secretary of State supports that policy and encourages it to happen because letters that then refer mothers to a work programme are signed by him.

Parent coordinators in local schools often come across distressed mothers that have no food and have to be referred to local food banks, which have been set up by mostly church run charities.

This government supports in my view that vulnerable mothers fall victim to scrupulous exploitation and puts innocent children at risk of exploitation. Even as Neighbourhood Watch coordinator I am deeply concerned about this practise that cuts mothers with young children off from their regular income very suddenly and it often takes a long time to get any help.

In my case I was told that I did not do enough to find work when I was funded to organise a Queen’s Jubilee Party in the weeks preceding the period where I forgot to fill in writing a job search sheet and although I gave a verbal account of my job search, the DWP advisor threatened to have me removed by security just because I used the word ridiculous. I have a small child but luckily I am too experienced and wise to ever allow that child to get in any type of danger but there are many mothers out there who might be vulnerable with little knowledge how to deal with such situations.

In another BBC report Ian Duncan Smith, the Works and Pensions Secretary,  is reported as saying: “Of course money is important and will always play a part in future measurements of poverty. But increased income from welfare transfers is temporary if nothing changes,”. Yet Ian Duncan Smith is directly responsible for the withdrawal of benefit that afflicts so many mothers with children and helps to put them at risk.


Democracy is an expensive luxury

Whilst we are systematically led to belief that any country that doesn’t have an expensive democratic machinery is of course undemocratic, we find ourselves in the situation that our economy is not doing so well either. Our economy shrinks, not a lot of business and oncoming elections of Mayor for London.

The arguments go to and fro and it seems more like a circus that entertains us rather than a constructive discussion.

Yet politicians have enormous powers,which can be life changing of influence the way humanity in the western world develops. That is what happened when a previous Labour government decided to ban the building of Grammar schools in the future.

We sometimes find ourselves supporting one party over one issue but have to put up with a lot of other things we do not really like.  Yet there are a few sensible solutions every government brings along but there are other policy changes that are indigestible, like that one that forbade the building of Grammar schools. Now we have the radical change in the pensions policy with this government. The Liberal idea to change the voting system never gotten off the ground, though that was another very expensive democratic exercise.

What must cost an incredible chunk of our taxes are the democratic institutions. Can we in fact impose democracy on poor countries when they do not even have enough money for basic amenities I ask?  Can we continue to afford the luxury of democracy in our own country when our economy is almost dead?

Even on the local council level the post of political advisor to a political party in the council seems the only one advertised in some places.

Politics though seems the least popular choice because if we look at voting participation, there are results as low as 22% of voters actually voting. That should ring warning bells to advocates of democracy.

What have German and English Conservatives in common?

They are both determined to stick it out as long as possible is the simple answer. The British Conservatives have completely adopted the German brand of religious nihilism in government. Meaning we are politicians in public life but our religious identity is irrelevant.

Now the political side-kick of Angela Merkel is in deep trouble over a cheap loan and he is determined to stay in office. Of course there is a simple reason he needs the income from the presidency to pay back the loan. So he has to keep his job, after all, it is the work that provides his freedom to pay back the loan.

The freedom to pay back a loan is not so easy to come by in Greece where there is only austerity and that is another principle that German and English politicians share, it is austerity at any price, absolutely any price.

But the reason to carry out the austerity plans is really only governed by a deep desire to root out lower social classes and make single mothers give away their children, so that the main pet hate of all Conservatives in Europe, which is single mothers, have to give up enjoying their little families. I have read the heart-breaking stories about some Greek mums who had no choice but to give their kids into care because the cuts in benefits forced them to do so.

The quality of the Conservative policies are not even particularly Conservative. They turned away from hating gays, they turned away from religion. They seem to follow some weird Super-Capitalist dream in that only those with certain bank balances are worth living these days and it doesn’t really matter where one comes from or what one beliefs in as long as one has a lot of money.

Here in the UK the same scandals that currently rock the current government, which loses constantly in the House of Lords would have been enough to down other governments in the past, but no, the current government is determined to stick it out as long as they possibly can.

Austerity in itself is not a virtue, it is merely an instrument to repress the poor without any means to improve the situation and improving the situation is not in the concept of current rulers either in Germany or in the UK. When an economy is based on debt, getting rid of debts means getting rid of the economy.

PS:As of today, the gentleman in question has resigned his post, I wish David Cameron would take example on this and do the same. Instead Cameron is busy spinning a nuclear web around Britain with the help of France.

Looking for easy victims?

A further round of cuts has been announced, this time it affects London based army personnel. It is savage to announce now that all ranks from Sergeant and above lose their London allowance from 1 April 2012. The army is not allowed to strike and so the government beats up the voice-less public servants. It is plainly unfair to choose army personnel for the latest round of cuts when they are already running very high risks to their life and general safety every day.

Considering that most of us have long-term lease and borrowing agreements with banks and other companies, such a sudden withdrawal of income is fatal for most of us who are living on the brink of financial ruin every day.

This government has cowardly tactics to make those suffer that have the least voice. The poor, who cannot go out and argue against a cut in benefits because they do not have the money to print the leaflets needed to show the people that those scaremongering tactics are achieved by a propaganda machine that constantly churns out half-truths. They keep on telling us about the debts but they do not tell us what is owed to us as a nation.

We don’t just owe them, they owe us back

I was very disappointed to read that Ex-Archbishop Carey supports the condemnation of the poor by supporting the debt argument, that is being used as a reason to repress poor families and their children.

We do not just owe them, they owe us back, should become a more widely used slogan but that is the fact. It is just that some people, who are very powerful, just use the debt we owe them, to use is as a reason to annihilate poor families.

The church bishops, did what they had to do; because traditionally the churches stand up for people and that is what they are supposed to be doing.

Why do they do it? Why do they not print every day the figures other countries owe us, to show that our debts are really not all that bad? I presume they do it to get some good reasons to step on the poor and make them poorer and drive them into bigger dependency and cut their income.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits