We need social mobility

The former Conservative slogan ‘Britain isn’t working’ showing people queueing for work could now be altered to show people queueing for food instead whilst they got jobs now.

The Brexit disaster is a great example why we need more social mobility.  It’s the way this Brexit story came about that makes the case.

At the time David Cameron and George Osborne formed that young Conservative government. Both pals from university, one could almost feel the connection those two had. They both felt strong and nothing bad could ever happen was the feeling they radiated out to us.

And then David Cameron cooked up this recipe for disaster, which is called the Brexit vote. Now we have nothing but division and dismay over this Brexit referendum when the country was split in half by it.  51.89% leave and 48.11% remain. David Cameron himself then left his post as prime minister as he was obviously upset by the results, which he did not expect and his old friend George Osborne followed David’s example to leave government as well.

Yet these two had a lot of power to set up British political events for decades to come, those two uni pals. Apparently many people in powerful public positions know each other from university. In Britain the two most influental universities are Cambridge and Oxford.

There are now some MPs who say we need to honour the outcome of the vote,

The vote was badly set up, it simply asked: ” Do you want to leave or remain in the European Union?”

Obviously things are not that easy. There are contracts and terms and conditions to respect. Only if the policital system in the EU was so bad that we would rather fight them then deal with them could we even consider not honouring our contractual obligations.

The vote itself was very badly set up, very short-sighted.

Neither politicians nor the public were properly informed what staying in or leaving actually implied.

People were not asked whether they want to just leave without a deal or what kind of further relationship they want and that insincerity now causes all the problems.

I blame to a great extent the lack of social mobility because the same mates that go to uni together then find themselves in position of power. If universities get populated more by people who come from different walks of life the whole emotional backdrop would not exist and people would become more rational and actually examine their own mindsets and the whole thought processes in depths.

What now also becomes apparent, is that after years of Conservative government the cracks begin to show. More and more companies close down, or get moved to Europe or other parts of the world. The only way the employment rate is kept high because people are driven into self-employment or zero hours contracts. Apparently many people have to do questionable things to be able to cope with Universal Credit, a system that causes immense misery to more vulnerable people. It also exploits women who are driven into doing things they normally would not do to survive.

Britain is now the least family-friendly country in Europe according to UNICEF.

That current benefit system is self-serving, it keeps the low very low and stoops them lower whilst it supports the government and allows them to keep huge amounts of savings in case of no deal Brexit. So the Brexit saga was merely an instrument to increase the misery of the poor.

Perhaps it is worth examining the data the Department of Works and Pension holds to find out how it is possible to have such a high rate of employment when the press is daily filled with company closures.

It is quite apparent to everyone that most of our high street shops have closed in favour of food outlets and that footfall in highstreet has dramatically decreased.

Social mobility would stop such crass disputes in parliament because the two sides created through our elitist education would not emerge to that extent. Working class and richer kids could mix in uni at student level and get to know each other then instead of clashing later. If there were more people from poor backgrounds involved in government, the policies would change to take more care of the vulnerable citizens.

The emergency of the Change UK new party is a direct result of social clashes and people who want to overcome them.

The only good thing I can say about Food banks is that they are better than the food stamps Hitler used to give to the people he liked and refused to give to the people he let starve to death. Food banks are relatively easy to use and people can access them.

Yet, a political system that boasts full employment but makes those employees relying on food banks despite a minimum and national living wage is obviously very flawed.



More hypocrisy from current UK government

Owen Tudor from the Robin Hood Tax Campaign has found out that the UK cashes in £3 Billion worth of tax from the trading of UK shares wherever they are sold but at the same time the UK has now launched a legal challenge in the European Court of Human Rights against the Financial Transaction Tax because Osborne fears that this tax infringes on UK sovereignty.

Child entitlement for working parents only

George Osborne is desperate to grasp any opportunity to phase out an entitlement to have kids without a job completely, which gotten him into trouble, over his comments on the wicked actions of super criminal Philpott.

First of all it is ridiculous to assume that any system is bad just because a single individual or an extremely small group of depraved individuals commit a crime. Secondly but not of less importance is the fact that Osborne wants to achieve a society where only working people are entitled to have children. That is in fact what he wants to do.

The current changes in benefits already rob non working parents,  who are presumed to under-occupy their flats of the opportunity to pay for their children’s hobbies. Of course if any family or parent had to save hard to allow a child to participate in a sport, which almost always costs money, they will  have to stop this if they have to pay more rents or rates, as they are often already on the bread line.  I think that this robs children of poor benefit recipients from participating in extra-curricular activities.

Then to say that in principle the tax payer will not fund a lifestyle, means that the government wants to have the ability to rubber stamp certain lifestyles and forbid others, which severely restricts people’s right of a private and family life. Of course the current government already announced that they wish to get rid of the Human Rights Act as we know it.

Under their governance, we might need to seek approval whether we can continue with a pregnancy after a Social Services inspector or SS for short will approve the birth and if not approved because the government doesn’t fund that lifestyle  an abortion is required.

George Orwell would turn around in his grave if he knew what George Osborne is up to.

unions had a cold shower this morning

What Labour tried to avoid since years could finally be just around the corner, namely split in the party between the real labour and the new labour supporters. Ed Miliband actually found the courage to tell the packed TUC Conference in London this morning that they should not strike and use a moderate approach to the problems facing the country but criticised the 50p attitude of Mr Osborne, for which he got applauded.

Yet Miliband got heckled amongst shouts of shame. When urged to support worker’s action he asked for negotiations with the government. Does the government really want to negotiate that is the question. Miliband said that strike should always only be the last option. It remains to be seen what is going to happen.

Wonder whether Miliband’s Doncaster North constituency is also due for remodelling and he is about to be merged with a Conservative area when he will stand very good chances of getting re-elected. Not even Mr Osborne’s patch is save.

Active discrimination against women Mr Osborne

Here we go again, whilst during Thatcher times we were openly put down and ridiculed for being single mothers, now we get the theory of equal treatment but get hit harder through fiscal policies instead. see source

At the time of Thatcher in principle I very much agreed with Conservative policies but for the public stance on single mothers, I never liked the witch hunts against single mothers. Even though I was married and had all my children within marriage, one cannot condemn a woman for having to bring up a child alone, I therefore take a stand for single mothers because at the moment technically I am a single mother too.

I get all the tough treatment, I get sent to employment courses even though I am a volunteer and get asked whether I want to work evenings and weekends. There is a work placement but I cannot be forced to work in the holidays. The whole concepts stinks of discrimination against single mothers.

The Fawcett Society, which campaigns for equality between women and men estimates that single mothers will lose 8.5% of their income by 2015.

The charity also said single mothers were being hardest hit by cuts to public services, estimating that these were costing them the equivalent of 18.5% of their net income – more than double the impact on couples with children.

Whilst we get big movements against forced marriage and domestic violence and women are actively encouraged to leave violent relationships, not at least for the sake of their children, women are at the same time financially and fiscally discriminated against. Another not so common sense policy I should say.

I am in principle for the furthering of family life but cannot agree to the fact that women are punished for raising children alone.

Nice to hear about positive prospects coming from the Conservative spending cuts.

I would say that it is mainly due to the negative, and Labour friendly reporting, that people perceived the Conservative spending cuts as rubbish, it is therefore nice to read this morning, on the BBC that the new government’s economic policies are likely to end in a £8 billion windfall for the fiscal purse. The Earnest & Young Item club forecasts that public borrowing is down, which can only be good but then George Osborne has to come up with an excellent plan to spend those £8 billion for the benefit of the UK economy. I think the electorate will need some convincing.

Budget and cuts

So far I am not quite sure how the cuts affect what and therefore refrain from making detailed comments about it but will link to this BBC page to get a good marker for further information about the subject.
As far as I understand the budget policies, they are aimed to reduce the heavily oversubscribed public sector in favour of a free developing private and commercial sector.
As far as my home Tower Hamlets is concerned I can definitely see how a large public sector stifles the economy. Tower Hamlets only large employer is the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and the NHS and business is slowly squeezed out of the borough with the exception of Canary Wharf and the Isle of Dogs.
As resident I can feel how devastating a large public sector service can be on the individual if that public sector service is bound to a political ideology, which is destined to give preference to those that follow that ideology.
Quite clearly had we continued with Labour’s economy we would end up with a police state and a type of country that is merely regulated by governmental agencies, stifling free commercial development and freedom of the individual that goes with it.

As I wrote in an earlier blog, humans always developed around economic developments, e.g. the docks in Liverpool and other towns, manufacture etc, always attracted people to settle around the economic activity, whilst in recent decades we’ve seen a tendency to settle people wherever they are disrespectful of their ability to earn a living at the place they reside.
I fully support the recent measures to make changes, allowing people to move where the jobs are and dismantling large public administrative bodies to make way for innovative private initiatives.

As mentioned at the top, I am not quite sure how the new rules work out for me, but shall wait until I get further details to see how especially social mobility is affected.

I firmly belief that this Conservative government is committed to social mobility whilst Bob Crow and his other union mates wants to keep the working classes as they are to keep his voters’ motives alive. In a recent picture Crow, to me, looked very much like those Russian Bolsheviks we remember from pictures of the Russian revolution with his Baker’s Boy hat, he wore at a rally of the RMT.

Iain Duncan Smith to the rescue

It’s a breath of fresh air to see that Mr Smith, currently Work and Pensions Secretary calls for caution to be careful in cutting too much money from projects that already deliver good value for money.

A very good service for example is delivered by Louise Casey who delivered an excellent Crime & Communities Review for the Cabinet Office and acted as advisor for the Home Office, she has gotten her own department now. Under Tony Blair’s Respect agenda Louise Casey was in charge of delivering that policy. She is now the Victims’ Commissioner and much of her former role meant to strenghten the victims of crime and give them better support through court processes.

But since the Chancellor has asked each existing project to cut 25 – 40% there is an imminent danger that everything faces the chop, even good projects. Quality assessment is very necessary to keep the positive and reject the negative. Iain Duncan Smith has pinpointed and analysed that very well, but then Mr Smith is one of the old guard and very experienced ministers whilst Mr Osborne is having his first go on the government.

Sweeping changes taking place when governments change are often responsible for positive long-term projects to be interrupted. I have previously written about this, that some services should not be subject to administrative changes on a political whim but handled by a long-term strategy that doesn’t need political colours to function. Or those services should not depend on political colours of the political administration.

There does need to be strategic guidance and that can only come from further above the individual government minister.

Britain is currently quite hard up and has to protect front-line services above anything else and that is all we seem to be able to afford at the moment.

Yet making a business plan for individual government departments relies largely on the economy and the taxes revenue that can be raised and is dependant on monetary fluctuations and business processes, which themselves may be dependant on unpredictable factors like the weather or political changes in some regions of the world.

I think any government “business plan” also has to include austerity measures and emergency contingency that does not solely rely on the economic infrastructure, service provision that may rely on voluntary sector for example.

That also has to be seen in the light that we may face disruption to electronic communications due to heat storms in the not so far future ahead.

Surprise protest from the female corner

Considering that woman pay 3 times as much as men to look competitively beautiful a leading women’s group has declared war on George Osborne’s austerity budget. I read on the BBC today.The complaint from the Fawcett society is that the cuts hit women harder than men. Not only women I should say because the obliteration of the Child Trust fund also hits children.I never dreamt of looking at the budget that way, usually what women do is the easy job of counting equality job provision in numbers and also salaries but that budget reprisal is a piece of art.

I stick with the girls on this one but if family considerations play the biggest role than in the end the cuts for women’s wages are ending up on the family household budget and perhaps the tax calculations are also part of that calculation.

 The budget is made from men for men and what would it look like had it been done by women? I think the ladies should have coupled their complaint with an alternative budget or the whole complaint looks rather immature.

I think it would never happen. Women are allowed in government and welcome to decide on traditional women’s stuff like health, communities, education but money? Women spend more money than men to look good and desirable but I think women should have to overcome the fanciful thinking and get back to basics. How can women want to impress men in the job sector with their good looks and be taken serious for their mind work at the same time.

Men would not bother, all they ever do is buy a suite and get a hair cut but women even have to spend more on a haircut than a man. Well, to be fair the combined cost of a shave and a haircut probably equals a basic woman’s hairdo.

I think women’s organisation should start with equality on basics and stop trying to impress men with fancy outfits, enlarged breasts and face lifts and hair colours that would impress Andy Warhol artistic imagination (Andy Warhol is only used as example and stands for all artists in this instance) and try and equalise themselves throughout by not spending so much on beauty because that is all they need the extra money for in any case. I think when women can impress men with rational thinking instead of fanciful outfits women are about to win the war of the sexes.

What’s wrong with the budget Harriet?

I do not know why Harriet Harman attacks George Osborne’s budget, Labour could not have delivered a better one, in fact that would have been the ideal budget for the Labour party and Mr Osborne is just showing them how to do it.

Only those earning above £50.000 are worst off.  Income tax threshold raised to £7,475 making an extra 880.000 workers exempt from paying income tax. New business get extra leeway in National Insurance contributions for the first 10 workers.  No rise in alcohol or petrol duty. Tax credits be cut for households earning over £40.000 per year only, and the child element for Child Tax Credit will rise by £150 above inflation.

That is a very friendly low income earner budget and if Labour had done such a budget they would still be in government,  yet they played the borrow more card and did not work on distributing wealth where it matters most.

Yes I knew it, David Cameron picked the right man for the job of Chancellor.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,049 hits
%d bloggers like this: