Conservative leadership debacle

What we should really look at is self-critical analysis of what appeals to us the most and how this can be used to play tricks on our minds into believing what we are being told.

Obviously the most experienced persons, e.g. Johnson, and other ministers are very well trained how to speak, be precise, say impressive soundbites with sincere voices.

And this goes down a treat, even if what they say is totally meaningless.

Then there was poor little Rory who has not gotten the speaking technique and his thoughts did not fit into one little sentence and he almost seemed to stammer at times.

I would feel exactly the same as him.

At this stage it is all impressing the masses and let the deep voice and looks play their part.

As after the initial selection, the two women and the one openly gay bloke were not selected, that left those on stage, which are the accepted chosen few by the party.

I simply do not believe the show any longer. I want to listen to the message, hear what it really means and Rory at least tried to express what the situation is for real. Yet there wasn’t really time to say anything of substance because this question time was all about fast sound bites. Nobody gave any proper answers to any questions. No yes or nos.

I am not sure whether reality would actually spring a chord with the Conservative membership.

Conservative members obviously only want to back the winner for the next election but since the general dissatisfaction is very large with either not delivering Brexit or the lack of social care policies, those who just make a no-hope promise will fail at the next hurdle.

I watch the debates and it has been said now thousands of times that the EU won’t re-negotiate, yet those supporting Johnson keep on saying that he will renegotiate the deal.

I think the whole EU system should be changed, the EU should make an endless membership into a fixed term membership and member states would have to renew their membership every ten years, and so make the membership actually a choice rather than push states into it just to make it impossible to leave afterwards.

The EU needs to be a democratic organisation.

But, it is amazing that none of the British politicians ever suggested such an idea, that the EU needs changing so that membership becomes easier rather than more doctrines being put upon us.

Yet those who argue that a new deal with Europe about this Brexit should be negotiated are the can kickers.

As we live in a democracy we constantly re-elect our government, that happens every 5 years. We would not argue that because we voted in one government that this is the will of the people and we could not change the government.

Yet this argument is held by the Brexit voters. They say, that because 51 % voted for Brexit in June 2016, which was now 3 years ago, we need to do it.

Unfortunately the referendum did not specify any Brexit conditions so that is what causes the problem.

Yet the EU itself tries to make leaving impossible and at the same time tries to tighten up the organisational ties between member states, with some leading nations being mainly in charge.

There are only two ways around that, either construct an US style amalgamation of states or make the EU a loose geographical alliance, which allows members options to leave very easily.

Advertisements

Peterborough for Labour

I must say I like it that Labour won Peterborough ahead of the Brexit Party. It is a clear indication that people voted against Brexit in an area that previously was predominantly pro-Brexit.

Now, that most of the lies and rumours about how glorious Brexit is, have been dispersed, people vote for remain.

I think Brexit was all along a red herring to keep people’s attention on a right-wing nationalist agenda for the purpose that the Conservative government could re-create Victorian values in Britain.

The Conservatives lost many councils in the recent council elections for the reason that people are fed up to the teeth with the cut-backs they have to suffer to do with care for the elderdy, children, schools, rubbish collections and so forth.

Councils are running out of money and its this Conservative goverment that is responsible for it.

Whilst the government keeps on saying people didn’t vote for the Conservatives because the Conservatives failed to deliver Brexit, the reality is that people didn’t vote for the Conservatives because of the severe cut-backs on local council spending and overall policies.

Policies, which saw the wider introduction of Benefit cut-backs for the disabled, the Universal Credit, that left people queueing for Food banks to be able to survive, Zero hours contracts and a reduction in overall wages value by 6%.

Obviously Nigel Farage was very deflated about the second place in Peterborough but I think it indicates the line of pro and against Brexit voters in favour of the against.

Yesterday’s D-Day 75. Anniversary, saw veterans in tears over Brexit planning because they fought for freedom in Europe and want to keep it that way.

This article is not meant to be a blank cheque of support for Labour, who have many faults but it just shows that on the political strategy people voted tactically for the party that could counter the Brexit party in that local by-election.

Added on 7/6/19, the newly elected MP Lisa Forbes was caught into questions over alleged anti-semitic behaviour.

 

 

Obese get a star on their coat

Oh no, I forgot to mention the government doesn’t just plan to hunt down all obese people, they only want to punish those obese people who are on benefits. This news has turned up on various news sites and I first thought it was a joke, but the more I search, the more it creeps up in mainstream media. There is the BBC article, the Mail online and the Guardian, to name a few. As far as I understand current comments, all those reporting sites think the idea is bonkers. Bonkers is in fashion lets not forget it.

I am just wondering how this is to work in practise. In my experience a vast amount of obese people work in the health service and in social services, council services and other related community care services. Would it look like this that if an obese benefit claimant comes for their money, that an obese worker can tell them the benefit claimant is too obese to get the money but the obese worker can stay in their job obese simply because they got a job?

Currently the government already suggest to discriminate against overweight police officers and wants to stage police pay according to physical fitness. But that is already questionable; yet to apply the same principle to benefit recipients would mean that benefit recipients get treated like government employees to some extent as both police officers and benefit claimants would get a reduction in pay because of obesity.

Yet other employees can happily stay fat.

This however means that the demand on health services would be higher from obese employed persons rather than those on benefits. Isn’t that just discrimination?

Well, I remember well the picture in my mind, that Hitler forced young men to do wheelies on a beach to keep fit. I know plenty of gay people who are perfectly slim and they are then model citizens to us all because they are gay but slim?

It seems that this government concentrates on benefit claimants and puts them under more and more pressure. But the amount of health care employed people use also affects the benefits others can get because health care costs are part of the common pot of money that is available to us all.

Lets not forget very efficient service providers want to cut costs all the time, they want to cut jobs, all that will create jobless and those jobless are going to get treated like outcasts simply because they fell victim to the latest economy drive. So it can happen, that an obese worker one day tells an obese benefit claimant is unable to get their money but when the obese worker finds themselves out of a job, they get no benefit either. People we are all in the same boat so to speak.

I think it would be much more clever to ask ourselves why people feel so stressed that they feel a need to over-eat, over-drink, over-smoke and do other things in excess too.

Where were the good guys?

In the meantime, the National Rifle Association of the USA better known as NRA, held a press conference about the Newtown shooting, with Wayne LaPierre, NRA saying: “Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns”.

That statement followed the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school, that saw 20, 6-year old’s killed by a lone gunman who suffered from a personality disorder.

Of course in principle it is correct, that good guys stop bad guys, that’s why we have armed police and the army. But where were the good guys with guns?

Even I have called for more armed police officers in Britain to stop rogue shooters after a lone taxi driver went on a killing spree and for lack of armed officers he could not be stopped for a considerable amount of time. Here in the UK we already have strict gun laws, which practically forbid gun ownership for most of us.

Lets be practical to have good guys stop the bad guys, we would need a good guy with a gun, meaning an army soldier stationed at every street corner. Only army soldiers have he mentality to even recognise danger when it comes and are ready to respond in good time to stop those bad guys.

Even if you put armed guards in every school, then the bad guys are likely to just pick on some other soft target that hasn’t gotten an armed guard. But to properly protect all equally well we would need armed guards everywhere.

We would need an army run country without democracy and end up with a Military state. We are using our own army to dismantle other military states by stating that they are not democratic enough but in our own quarters the NRA practically calls for the setting up of one. At least that is my very own interpretation of their words.

Indeed in this very particular case Adam Lanza’s mother was the good guy with the guns that would have stopped the bad guy if the bad guy would not have taken her weapons to shoot her with them first. Showing that only specially trained good guys are able to prevent being killed with their own guns, leading further into the discussion of widespread military deployment to stop those bad guys everywhere.

Voluntary groups avoid democracy

Further to my previous post on the matter, it is now time to further elaborate (explain) on the subject.

What is democracy, it is a system that allows all (who are being given a vote) to express a choice of preference. In most general political elections the electorate, which is every and each person that resides within a certain geographical area, gets around 12 hours on a given date to vote for a range of choices plus the ability to cast a postal vote from a remote location.

In all voluntary groups that I know of, no voting at all is being carried out for anybody not being able to come to a meeting at a certain time of day and date given. That allows only a very small minority of persons to be able to express a choice at all.

For example. I used to be a member of my church’s PCC, PCC stand for Parish Church Council. The PCC meets once a month on a Thursday, it is now, previously they met on Wednesday evenings. There are around 21 places on the PCC and any of those 21 members of the PCC can only express any input into the church decision making process if they actually can attend within a 2 hour time frame on a regular basis.  So our vicar (rector to be precise) said in church the other day, “anybody who wants to be a member of the PCC and can attend the meeting on Thursday evening’ please come and meet me after the service…”. So the ability to be part of the church decision making process is plainly coupled to an ability to be at a certain venue at a certain time.

It is not very different with community groups. On our estate we have a TRA. The membership is very low. The TRA meets within a 2 hour time-slot on an evening. Very few people can actually attend the meetings; so the TRA is unable to be representative.

Neither with the PCC or the TRA can I see that decision making processes are widened out to those who cannot come to meetings.

Even with police coupled groups, there is also the need to come to meetings at certain times. If you want to have a say on local Safer Neighbourhood panels, (you can be a member by invitation only), you can only do so if you can come to a meeting at a certain time of day.

Such groups or almost all of them are very much restricted to the ability to come to meetings, mostly on evenings. That certainly is not democratic and restricts decision making processes to a very small minority of the public.

I strongly suggest that the above examples are not restricted to the groups sampled here, but apply to most voluntary local groups wherever they are.

In this context that also applies to political parties, who are full of individuals that can come to meetings at certain intervals and times of day.

I have read that recently further research has been carried out on why Hitler could become so popular. My guess is he was consistently able to come to party meetings. Even today ministers who sit in elected positions could only become elected because they had the time to come to a meeting at selection time. That is very restricted selection. Once a minister is in post, he can run away with the agenda, almost completely for 5 years. That is why it is so important that the electorate has a direct mandate and ability to veto ministerial decisions.

But there is a weakness in voluntary groups

Having praised in my previous post Neighbourhood Watch, I must say there is a serious weakness in groups where it is only possible to make decisions around table meetings, where people meet in person to make decisions. That often leads to situations where some are just not taken into account because they cannot attend the meeting.

I have just found that I simply cannot attend meetings any longer that take place in the evenings, that immediately makes it impossible for me to have an input in decision making processes that are held during evening meetings.

Things are just too inflexible. I have often previously complaint about the fact that parents for example cannot attend evening meetings. Many others cannot attend meetings at other various times of the day because of other commitments, may that be work or something else.

It is blatantly unfair that only people who can attend meetings at a set time of day can make a decision that affects us all.

We have modern technology, are able to have conference calls using phones, we can use camera equipped communications technology via computer but why do we not use it to become inclusive during decision making processes?

Boris re-elected

The results are in and Boris can feel good about himself as the majority of Londoners voted for him in a closed contest.

What I found really interesting were the results in my own constituency of City and East where there was a relatively high vote for the BNP with 7031 votes, but that was down -5.7% on the previous election.  Comparing this with the Community United Party, that brought in 6774 votes,

The turnout was relatively low at 33.7%. Obviously people did not feel threatened by the election or they would have turned out en-mass.

Still it is good to see fringe groups standing for election as it mirrors a general mood for support. The UKIP was very lowly voted for. Yet if we read the media, they blow up their importance out of all proportions.

I think the underhand winner was the Green Party who came in third all around, beating the Liberal democrats into fourth place.  There is a good amount of environmental conscience in London and that was a vote for healthy air, I think.

Surprisingly for me, the BNP beat the Christian People’s Alliance in the London wide voting. Though the loss of the BNP percentage (-6.5%) was greater than the loss of the Christian’s People’ Alliance loss (-2.1%).

The vote reflects that Londoners are Middle of the Road people that favour their economy over philosophy. But the overall result shows that people are generally using their democratic tools to liven up the political debate and favour an overall Conservative rule with local Labour politics, which creates a layer effect of locally we care about the people but nationally austerity measures.

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.

The age of the new fascism

What I really again wanted to say is how disappointed I am with the news reporting and also with the news reporting on the BBC website in that it is not inventive analytical enough. Politics evolve and repression can take various shapes and forms and what websites like the BBC again and again put into our heads is that repression and fascism has to do with direct annihilation and putting to death of people by governments like during Hitler times or Pol Pot for example.

Yet what we see today is a new type of fascism, a fascism by stealth.

What we see is that the new Conservatives try to get rid of our economy altogether by slowly throttling it. They mask it all up saying they need to clear our debts. But, as I already hinted in my last post, our economy is based on the creation of debt and if enough debt has been created in the form of orders to industry for example, when consumers borrow to order goods, they then need to be made and people get employed to make those goods.

When the Conservatives now say they want to get rid of debt, they simply throttle the whole economy because nothing will move forward. This then leads to a situation whereby the people who are living within a society slowly but surely are starting to turn against each other and one sees an increase in murders and crime. People become more disillusioned and turn onto open revolt, as we have seen it during the riots and as we now see it happening in Syria.

Here in the UK we managed to stop the riots but in Syria they are not so lucky.

But what I find most interesting is that Cameron now seeks to introduce an economic model that seem s to match the one Hans-Martin Schleyer tried to introduce into Germany in the late 70s, just before he gotten himself kidnapped and killed. The Germans then blamed everything on the Baader-Meinhof group and that is also very simplistic of them to do so. Luckily for the local situations, the Muslims here in the UK exercise a lot of restraint and stop themselves from falling into the chief-suspect category for anything that goes wrong.

It had been said that during the beginning of the Hitler era, he staged self-made terror events, to propel himself into power and I think that the whole Baader-Meinhof phenomenon was abused in Germany to drive through changes and to blame all sorts of crime onto this illusive Baader-Meinhof group, who were said to work for the Communists. But that doesn’t make much sense in many respects. Because what Schleyer tried to achieve was in fact a turning away from classic Capitalism into Socialist Cooperative movements, which would have complemented the East German Communist regime beautifully. Now why would a Communist state finance terrorist to kill somebody who wanted to promote Socialism in a Capitalist state?  I belief that the East German files that were “found” where plainly planted to disorienting us. It was so very convenient for the German government that a lot of those Baader-Meinhof terrorists gotten killed or supposedly killed themselves in prison and that no proper witness statements from them came ever into being.

I think in Germany a lot of crime was blatantly blamed onto Baader-Meinhof when in fact it could have been some coup from some other direction. It was more than obvious that the Germans still tried to promote the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon as recently as 5 years ago by entering a film about them to win an Oscar. Der Spiegel offered me thousands to get the copyright on an article, using my name to falsify history and I refused it. It is more than suspicious that a large magazine knowingly wants to print falsities and pay people to put their names to the falsities.

Today the government does have a problem, they have no terrorist movement in the UK to blame crimes on, thanks to the good restraint of our Muslim citizens, there is hardly any terrorist activity going on at the moment, that the government could blame crime on.

This government simply slowly wants to throttle us, they try it with the Greeks and that is the tactic to simply starve people out of live slowly but surely. There is little sense in currently used tactics other than making people’s life a misery, needlessly I need to say. There is no proper purpose in the current government tactics, they do not even want to promote green living and environmental health, they simply just try to starve us out of our existence.

We must repel this new trend to rob us of our livelihoods, to rob us of our right to celebrate God. I think the denial of God and fascism always goes hand in hand no matter what face this fascism shows, whether they openly kill people or slowly throttle them or whether they make them turn onto each other, they always deny God and that is truly the work of the devil. You could ask the question is secularism equal to Satanism and that is an interesting question instead. But the fact is that this government wants to stop families from having children and that is a crime on humanity.

We keep on lamenting how bad things are in China, we complain about the Human Rights abuses, that priest are not allowed to preach, that people are forced to kill babies because of the one child policy, yet we do exactly the same here in the UK, we just don’t see it because it is right in front of our own door.

It worked well

Just because the power-hungry Conservatives had to make a pact with the Liberal Democrats, we now see a change to the Control orders, that so far prevented any terrorist attacks taking place in Britain. It worked very well. So why change it?

Of course if a Liberal became subject to a terrorist attack they would most likely change their minds but because they just love to facilitate crime, they never get so much aggravation from law breakers. The police are very responsible and cautious and say they are not ready yet for changes because of course it takes a lot of preparation, so I can imagine to prepare new agents and higher needs for personal surveillance. That is costing the tax payer immense amounts of money too.

We now all have to take the higher risk just because some minority political party helps to prop up another one.  Why change a system that works well and prevents crime effectively. it seems like the Liberal Democrats enjoy the risk and love to play with people’s lives. Maybe they should take to playing computer games instead of mingling with politics.