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.

Advertisements

Is England cornered?

Whilst we now have a Prime Minister of Lower Saxony, Germany, who originates from Scotland and has the name David MacAllister, we see the rise of the Scottish power going steeper and steeper into the political horizon. Scotland has made first steps into independence from the UK and or England and Wales.

So far so bad for England, that badly needs the partnership with Scotland to get some real and down to earth relationship with politics and geography because apparently the financial industry is the only big business that England knows these days. But now the EU ministers from France and Germany in particular want to push for the tax on financial transactions, which would raise an enormous amount of taxes for the EU coffers but apparently the UK would be the biggest contributors to the funds, from which France, that relies heavily on subsidies for farming industry, would mostly benefit.

This would take away most of Britain’s edge to the finance industry, Britain that currently calls itself the finance capital of the world. English ministers and British politicians worry that many financial houses might want to re-locate elsewhere, where they do not have to pay the financial transaction tax.

Of course that would put the final nail in the coffin of the British commerce and especially the English one. Because if the Scots become independent and get involved in selling natural energy and other products, England would shiver because it could not even afford to heat its many homes as their income would be shrinking and it could become the prune of Europe.

Many Euro sceptics have encouraged a drop out of Europe quickly but Cameron apparently thinks we should remain but become more powerful in Europe, but powerful with what? Is the UK about to become the next Greece? Apparently the pattern is the same Greece hosted the Olympics and then crashed their economy and we are going to host the Olympics and our economy is very likely to crash completely when the EU finance tax becomes reality.

That makes Germany and France very powerful because they do not rely on financial transactions to stay strong but they rely on real industries to keep in power. I criticised it years ago when under Tony Blair Britain embarked on making education, entertainment and finance the main industries of Britain. of course education is a no-brainer as Britain has fallen far down in the league tables. Is it any wonder with the highest drug consumption in Europe that the English in particular have no thought left to think on how to save the failing economy.

Most interesting of all Ed Miliband fully supports the Euro levied finance tax when he announced during a visit of crane manufacturer :Liebherr that he would tax bankers and bonuses to fund jobs. What jobs would be left to fund, when Britain does not have a native engineering industry as such? Only bankers that trade from Britain can be taxed and what Mr Miliband forgotten to think about is that they are not bound to trade from Britain at all.

I think Italy is a good example in how a country can actually try to resolve a problem without elected politicians. They now established a government of Technocrats, which is something that could to Britain a lot of good.

Whilst the Scottish feel strong and take power in Germany and become independent from England, the English themselves seem to have lost grip on the situation and try to solve problems by creating dodgy judgements that are politically tainted to influence Russian politics and forget all about how to tackle the European malaise with real assets. The English don’t seem to understand that they cannot bathe in the glory of winning 2 world wars forever. Cameron, a polemicist of the European relationship since he has become known in politics, drags behind him a steady tail of Euro sceptics who seem to spend all day lamenting about how bad Europe is whilst the French, Germans and Scots try to drive England into the ground with new tax regulations and the Italians have had enough of trusting in politicians altogether.

Of course the best move Osborne could come up with so far was to sell Northern Rock to Virgin Money with a loss.

Ideas don’t live in tents

I think the tent camp protesters have given the authority the best reason to evict them. With their slogan: “You can not evict an idea” they have admitted that ideas have no place to live. So it is useless to put an idea into one certain place and pretend that only those tents in that place can preserve the idea.

In the US the Wall Street protesters have been forcibly removed and their tents cannot return but the people can.

Democracy isn’t working

Renewable energy, made from wind and marine power has become a serious alternative to nuclear power. I am very pleased about that. The cost of transporting such natural energy from Scotland has sunk by 80% under new proposals. That now contradicts Mr Osborne’s warnings, that the proposed referendum on Scottish independence would put business stability at risk. I think the stability is more at risk for England in any case. Scotland is perfectly capable of running their own business affairs without England.

I suppose Mr Osborne just doesn’t want to admit that he needs Scotland more than they need us. Scotland has many irons in the fire, they plan Golf courses and have the option of becoming Britain’s biggest energy producer with natural energy that can be transported south for easy use.

That would free up 17 billion pounds,that were planned for nuclear investment to other possible projects. I never liked the sudden U-turn of David Cameron after the election towards nuclear energy.

It is the case, in my view, that this government doesn’t understand the connection between business dynamics and natural sourcing. In the case of publishing the government still has not understood that they want to give business the freedom to chose what they publish, not taking into consideration that a free publishing market is dynamic, needing constantly new material to attract readers in order to protect jobs.

Where do publishers get the news from if not from sources which are not strictly ethical. Business dynamics and ethics do not always mix well. It is therefore often more viable to steer and government fund many projects to obtain a solution that is safe to finance and maintain. We see it in the Tower Hamlets weekly news sheet East End Life. It does very well, yet is government (local) funded. It supplies households with safe news, which are directly sourced from official material and in line with the Data Protection Act. The papers are free to households and supported by commercial advertising.

Yet the government wants to get rid of such safe publications, which are very popular because they do not allow private publishers to make money to pay their taxes. Yet for a private publisher the local news would be completely different in result. A private publishers would find it much more difficult to get the same stories, as they would get them via third party sources and they would need to run stories, which guarantee purchasing by people, which is something they do not have to do with a council paper. In TV publishing this dilemma is resolved with a licensing fee. We have the BBC v. ITV and others. BBC funded by licenses and ITV needing to get advertising to finance programs.

The BBC is praised for setting the trend in program quality. The East End Life paper is of very high quality and ethically well balanced. It is paid for by local government monies. The paper is very popular and needed because it served a densely populated area full of people who mostly do not have computers and who are too poor to constantly purchase papers. Maybe it would be an idea to levy a type of license fee for the paper to run and people can opt into it.

I think to keep things environmentally friendly and high quality services and publications have to be either very cheap to run or supported by extra funding. I think it is worth keeping the local newspaper, even though I am never in it. East End Life is a success story, whether government likes it or not. The Conservative Councillors are just jealous because they are not in the majority and if they were I bet they would love the paper to go to each household each week, with their photos in, instead of those of their opponents.

This government always wants to put all responsibility on private companies, from health to publishing but does not understand that responsible services cannot be profit driven if the subscribers or customers pay flat rates or purchase unpredictable amounts each day. In the case of publishing they have to be stimulated to buy with stories they find attractive. In the case of energy, customers use predictable amounts but the energy itself must not destroy the environment. In the case of health customers or patients, pay a flat rate but can become ill constantly and use much more service as they pay. There it is unpredictable how many patients will need excessive amounts of services, for which they are not liable to pay.

This government wants to measure each business with the same ruler and that shows, they have not got a clue and should not waste our taxes on their wages. Get rid of bad politicians, re-define democracy. It is democracy itself that has caused the current recession because it is unable to come to a viable formula that keeps business progressive and positive. Democracy has proven to be an unworkable political model.

Even though I defend people’s right to be part of a decision making process and vote for representatives, those representatives should be directly elected as service provider representatives and not political representatives because politics is a mere extension of business ethics. Democracy isn’t working.

We get constantly thrown about like dust in the wind to blow with the tide of political storms without apparent direction other than for a political party to remain in the driving seat. Education was disrupted, the health service has been dismantled and everybody’s pensions and benefits cut without much notice. For people who claim to be in charge of our future, this was all very short notice, when they should have been in a position to predict this all coming because finance can always be calculated well in advance. Unless the players act illegally, which is easily happening in business. Yet the politicians have not yet been in a position to build in controls to make business more accountable and responsible, the opposite is the case business keeps on getting more responsibility for which they have no security in funding.

Bad political strategy

I am a little concerned that this border row gets too much attention in the media and takes away time from more essential matters. This is being taken as a reason to get rid of Theresa May in a tit for tat political game so that labour can tick one off in an ‘and so many go’ type of game.

Isn’t is just like a game of chess, you move one forward and strike out the other ones figure, just to line up the casualties of the game on the side of the board. The checkers board that is.

This argument shows us how trivial politics has become, where one side just looks for reasons to make another major player resign over public pressure created on over-hyped and over-reported problems. There are other much more pressing matters but the border row.

Obviously the border controls on European immigrants have to be relaxed as Britain is part of the EU. the situation in the Home Office should be made part of a discrete internal enquiry instead of filling all our heads with this ongoing enquiry, which will only damage the neutrality of anybody looking into it because of the media hype that has been created around it.

This is obviously not only a problem that afflicts Theresa May at the moment but occurs frequently in British politics. It was at it worst when the Conservatives wanted to weaken the government by getting rid of Gordon Brown.  Yet the national interest is put completely on the back burner because the political point scoring has taken precedence. I wonder whether there is some kind of betting scam going on, in that people bet on how long ministers stay in office.

Only 26% of voters trust in their MP

These are very dire opinion poll results but they coincide with the low turnouts at elections these days, where we sometimes get as lot as 22.5% turnout.

The survey concerns the time-frame between 2008-2010 and people seem to be most concerned about self-serving behaviour. Of course that tucks in neatly with the expenses scandal. Has being an MP become a job for the boys or even girls as it goes these days? It all really starts at the selection process and who the party wants to stand. From within parties there is a select few that turn out for hustings. The Conservatives wanted to make a refreshing change and held public hustings for anybody and that included non party members.

The Committee of standards in public life noticed that the decline of confidence in MPs started to slope downwards in 2004 but became steeper since 2008. The survey took place after the expenses scandal, it involved 1900 people.

Apparently the change of government didn’t lift anybody’s spirits, which is no wonder as their policies were provocative and not meant to bolster public confidence. They were a real downer, even though the Conservatives advocated better transparencies but their public policies went against the public.

Can we have it both; better transparency, more honesty and policies that please the public because that is what we need. We do not need one or the other.

With politics today, it all is me, me, me, and our policies and more of our policies but not, how do you want to see the governance, how do you think it should be done, let us know what you want. Even publicity material of political parties is full of polemic and obscure policies, which do not tie in what we get confronted with once the party is in power.

What is needed is more financial transparency and that there is widespread publication of where parties actually get their funds from, because it is this business interest that will make the policies afterwards.

Bringing run-away finance under control

David Miliband has proposed a system under which Bankers can be struck off a register the same as doctors can. This would impose the setting up of a professionally controlled banker’s body similar to the BMI, British Medical Association that governs doctors in the UK. Who would be in charge of bankers? Well of course the Bank of England is the most likely candidate, as it practises finance with a considerable interest stake in it, similar to the British Medical Association practises Medicine in the UK.

hopefully we won’t see the setting up of yet another body that will cost even more money again. People get tired of just paying taxed for elected professionals who do not know what they are doing and constantly make repairs to faulty legislature.

What is at the heart of reckless spending is the Business law or Company law that allows company directors practically nil responsibility but high wages. That is the focus point of the high spending and not professional misdemeanour of bankers in my view.

Bankers only work with other primary legislation and only moral considerations stops them from carrying out their sometimes evil deeds.

Yet this whole problem scratches at the principles of Capitalism and the free market economy. Whereby the big incentive to promote the economy is the fat cat salary and the bonuses thereafter, the big pensions and the share dividends.

No top politicians in office today really want to see any major changes because this system pays them very well. Of course they try to restrain themselves and slap themselves and each other on the wrist by conducting financial witch-hunts of MPS and other representatives with creative accounting methods that proof lucrative for them, but that is about it. What people seem to not understand is the fact that within the current system you cannot stray from the rules, you can only change the system completely to achieve change.

Our current system, also called democracy is built from capitalistic finance, fiscal stimulation and public administration, all of which rely on the creation of finance by economic stimulus, which in itself is governed by financial accounting methods, which require profits to be made. So all political leaders currently in the House of Commons benefit from it and Labour politicians get their salaries paid the same as all other ones and so it is not really in anybody’s interest to promote radical changes, that would both save the environment and stop wasting money on yet more money spinning administration changes.

Putting it in a nutshell, those responsible for politics today are sometimes voted in by less than a quarter of electors. What would happen if nobody went to the polling booths at all? Our democracy would not be able to appoint another half-baked politician who would put his name to the historic mismanagement of earthly resources.

David Miliband’s proposal is nothing but yet another cosmetic short-term solution that will fall foul of capitalist and financial dynamic within decades and proof useless once he is out of office and somebody else has to take the brunt from that suggestion he made.

the true face of a politician, dreadful

I felt it when I was part of my local Labour pack, that bully personality is hidden in each and every Labour member that makes it in that party, I am afraid to say. I don’t think you could make any career in Labour for being polite and just knowing what you are doing. The pecking order in Labour is well and truly sorted out by who can be the loudest.

I am glad however that Lyn Brown (MP) got unstuck and the press report what is going on in the cool dark corridors of Parliament Square. I am just not sure whether this woman has been picked out because remember the scandal about the alleged bully incidents in Gordon Browns offices when he was in Downing Street and that was well-played down afterwards.

The evolution of English democracy

I was excited to read that the Conservative government favours an elected Upper House that will replace the House of Lords as we know it. I think it will be difficult to have an Upper House that consists 80% of elected and 20% of non elected members. Bishops of the Church of England would reduce to 12. Elections to start in 2015, that is the idea.

The idea reminds me a lot of the parliamentary system in Germany where the Chancellor is in charge of the Parliament and the President leads the Upper Chamber.

That members of the Upper House should sit for 15 years is a more than welcome idea, as we need to bring more stability to ever changing politician but keep the system fluent and able to adapt to change but avoiding deep rooted corruption.

The current appointment system to the House of Lords is really sad. Just looking at Oona King, she got toppled in Bethnal Green by the left-wing opposition and then lost out again in another race for political position but then got the booby prize of a seat in the House of Lords.

I think generally we are living in an age of political revolution. So many leaders have been toppled lately. I can imagine how future history books will describe this world-wide age of discontent with world leaders. First admired and then retired (by force).

The latest Peer expenses scandal shows some type of unhappiness with the current system. Yet there is plenty of opposition to the proposed change in tradition not at least from Baroness Betty Boothroyd 

AV or not AV, referendum

I would like to support the pro AV campaign because I feel it will increase voter participation. Currently we have this stale first-past-the-post system, which in fact has decreased voter participation. We get election winners on 25% participation, which is frankly horrible.

I have also seen some very untrue comparisons; one of which showed a race and the slowest runner was depicted as being able to win under AV. That is an impossible comparison and totally misconstrued the relativity of the matter.

An athlete simply only lands where he gets out of his own physical strength whilst in voting a candidate gets elevated into a position by others, which is the main difference between athletes and electable candidates.

With the current voting system we see a few power blocks build up a lot of hype and local personal candidates are completely swept under the carpet by national campaigns, financed by very powerful people. I think under AV all candidates will have to work much harder to actually attract their local electorate using personality and knowledge and reliability and focus on those important local issues. It is one of the main weaknesses of the current system that usually sweeps local issues completely under the carpet and recently a lot of work was needed to undo national policies on a local basis to prevent long-term harm. See the forest  issue.

As it is well known I undertook some personal research into political parties and think that it is almost impossible to make any personal impact on current political parties as a small member without much money. Therefore I think political parties as they are do not represent the local people.

Currently political parties are well orchestrated power machines and represent centralised interest. Being a member in a political party today, under the current system, only benefits a person if they have an actual interest, e.g. earn a wage, have a paid – even if only expenses – position. For other members, the hangers on, party membership can actually be detrimental to their personal or professional development because party membership and activity throws a person open to scrutiny and others wanting to destroy a person’s reputation just for being a member of another party.

The whole concept of political party is also severely restrained by overlying legislation so that political parties are very restricted in what they can achieve in any case. However the lethargy of voters is getting worst under the current system and people hardly get off their seats for a local election because the national parties overrule any impact a local election can make. I think that would change under AV in that it will become necessary to show more interest in local issues and that alone is worth it.

I also honestly think that any average person is currently better off not being a member in any political party because if not a member then all parties try to get you to become one and actually appreciate you as a person but once you are a member somewhere all the others hate you and want to stamp you into the ground. People should be very careful not to commit to political parties but keep their interests confidential and put the cross against the box they believe in and only become actual members in a party when its really worth their while.  I think the current political system has a lot of weaknesses and the AV voting system will help to address those weaknesses better and develop the situation into a democratic and local way.

Nick Clegg is the best example to show how people are currently exploited for certain aims and then discarded as distrustful and put on the scrap heap. Nick Clegg is of immense benefit to the Conservatives and party leader of the Liberal Democrats but put into a very bad light by all others but the Conservatives. He has a very important position and regardless of whether I agree with him or not, he cannot simply be dismissed as a momentous pawn in a game of power. If the political scene would not create such people like Nick Clegg political scenes would be poorer and power would concentrate on a very few figureheads who had little opposition to fear.

PS: I did the British thing and supported the underdog but the AV supporters have lost at a ratio of about 3:1.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits