The pompeous

Enjoyed the opening of parliament today and the Queen’s speech, which mentioned 12 years of quality education for ‘girls’. Whilst at another occasion a judge ruled it is unlawful to ask whether a transgender person is male or female.

How would one know whether a person is trans-gender just by looking at them? I spoke to a neighbour, identifying as female and she said, nobody could ever find out she has ever been a man.

So I think the definition of gender needs some serious work.

Why did the Queen mention only girls’ education? Taking 18 as the ceiling it would enable girls to enjoy quality education from the age of 5. I would ask the Queen to guarantee a quality education for each person, rather than only for girls.

Otherwise I enjoyed the pomp and circumstance. I think dressing up into uniforms and looking pompeous stops people from being aggressive towards each other and preserves a dignified atmosphere.

I am a bit disappointed that the Speaker is not wearing a wig but look forward to a less aggressive and quick to throw arguments into people’s faces kind of speaker. Hoping the atmosphere in parliament is getting more settled and qualitative improved, the kind of discussion that validates the dressing up and equals quality of words with the quality of uniforms.

Just wondering whether the Queen would ratify every election result because if I look at some progressive countries like Holland, where they have legalised cannabis and where prosecutors of drug barons get shot in the street, I just wonder whether the Queen could refuse a government that bends the Church of England rules towards humanity for example and would refuse the Eutanasia ideas of Humanists and Animals Rights activists for example.

It’s good on her though that she still can deliver those speeches, with another becoming due at Christmas. I wouldn’t miss it for the world.

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.

Woolas unstuck on election lies

I am very pleased that an election re-run has been ordered in the constituency Mr Woolas won with a tiny majority of only 103.

Complaints by the liberal contender to the seat led to a charge under Section 106 of the Representation of People Act.

The BBC report about the matter is quite detailed and reminds me of many instances of false election statements by the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets election leaflets and I often wondered how they can possibly get away with it.

It is not freedom of speech but falsification and misleading of the electorate if candidates can smear the opposition and gain seats with lies to the unsuspecting public.

The Cabinet Maker

the title of this blog the cabinet maker was of course inspired by my family because my cousin, his dad, my uncle, my grandfather, his father and his father and his father before him were carpenters.

David Cameron has started to announce his Cabinet and I am more than pleased to see Theresa May as Home Secretary and Ken Clarke as Lord Chancellor and Secretary fo State for Justice. Everybody loves Ken Clarke. I was very impressed by Ken Clarke’s wife, who I believe has her  hair in a bun and I strive to look like that too. Hair stylists are just too expensive for women and that a man like Ken has a wife that says no to the expensive beauty treatments we have for women means a lot to me.  (Back to the political stuff).

That George Osborne became a sort of leaning post for David Cameron and rose through the ranks is admirable and I am sure and trust David Cameron completely with his selection of cabinet members and as we have learned from Boris Johnson, he was very quick to dismiss people that didn’t live up to his expectations rather than let the soup of dissatisfaction simmer on the stove. Here is Boris’ view on the coalition, its like a hybrid dog.

I have seen Theresa May at a Conservative Dinner and she seems a very nice lady, very sincere and friendly without being obtrusive or obnoxious; Theresa May is a very humble and kind person. I am therefore doubly pleased to see that she is also the Minister for Women and Equality.

Of course William Hague’s sharp wits will be more than needed in these times of uncertainty and recovery.  It is more than good to have Dr Liam Fox as Defence Secretary when he is popular with the grassroots of the party. May I say, it is the fundamental difference between Labour and the Conservatives that New Labour has lost its grassroots support in many areas.

I have not heard much of Andrew Lansley but am eager to learn. I hear that Vince Cable is an economist by trade, so the post of business/banking should suit him well. Lets face it, he can’t do much damage with the likes of Ken Clarke and George Osborne in the driving seat.

The post of energy and climate change Secretary for Chris Huhne is going to be a very interesting post as it will become very important in future years and very much affect the economy and trade matters.

I thought that Michael Gove is a specialist in education and there I think he will be best, having followed his articles for quite a while, I am very impressed with this man and his ideas about education.

That this new Conservative government made Baroness Warsi chair person and the first Muslim woman to serve in a British cabinet, is so much more progressive than New Labour ever was, Labour of course are a bunch of big-mouthed persons, that talk a lot but never deliver.

I am very glad we have a Conservative government and I won’t have to blog that much about the Labour Party any longer.

The solution is neigh

It is nice to hear from George Osborne who is set to become our future Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the negotiations going on between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. Especially as some cried out for Ken Clarke to come back into the post, it seems here that George Osborne is very confident and has a lot of confidence and oozes talent.

Since Gordon Brown has not adjusted himself to the facts of the general election and gets ready to leave 10 Downing Street, the negotiations with the Lib Dems look positive and sound as if they are going to form a positive coalition with the Conservatives for government. I suppose that is more than they ever dreamt off and it was a matter of sticking in there and get finally to have some say after centuries of being small fry.

Strangely enough in our borough of Tower Hamlets, the Lib Dems have only one surviving councillor and the Conservatives are in the minority. Just shows not all areas have the same allegiances. But we Conservatives in Tower Hamlets are working hard to turn the tide.

Crunch time

The Lib Dems announced that a deal is due within 24 hours, at least their decision on the negotiations, both with the Conservatives and New Labour.

Unfortunately the media happily agreed to the New Labour trick, which is to make the electorate belief that Labour would be wonderful without Gordon Brown and that, as soon as he is gone, everything is going to be alright. Do they think we are that simplistic?

I do not think one moment that New Labour is going to be any better with or without Gordon Brown, it is thoroughly incapable of governing this nation, make responsible economic decisions and reform the country. So far we have seen too many reforms already, and to reform already bad reforms leads to even more confusion and splintering of the fibre of our society.

Labour has played many psychological tricks on us, first when good-looking  and youthful, energetic Tony Blair became Prime Minister on the basis of his hopeful folly.  Then the “ugly”  Gordon Brown took over and united the country in hate against him, just to culminate now in a solution that says, everything is going to be alright as soon as a new leader is announced.

Politics are not just about the persona of the leader, not in our western democracy. It is about the persona of the leader in countries like Iraq, that admired Saddam Hussein, in some African countries with the likes of Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe. New Labour wants to reduce our democracy to a cult following for one particular leader and forgets all about the politics. I have not heard one good quality argument from New Labour during the last 13 years.  We had chopping and changing and the only thing that stood the same was the tactic to stick to the leader.  Unfortunately New Labour has reduced political decision making to a circus and when I saw Gordon Brown put on a show in our local venue the rich Mix accompanied  by talkSport, I knew that this is what Labour’s politics are all about, a show to capture the masses but with little political impact other than minimalising Britain on the international map, using talkSport radio for a political performance is using the methods of George Galloway.

A Labour/Liberal alliance, though favoured by all those left of the political spectrum will dive Britain into economic uncertainty as all the serious investors will stay away and even the RBS has announced further staff cuts, most other business have moved away already, companies like Burberry for example and we’ve had not one serious negotiation that would attract new and major investors to our shores. Further strikes were announced by BA staff.

Since Labour has governed our high streets have changed. The variety of outlets  has been replaced by food shops everywhere, our highstreets have become boring and blant  with the exception of major shopping centres, the average town’s shopping outlets have been reduced to staple merchandise. The reason for this is because Labour has driven the more suave businesses away and not because of the economic crises. If it is the economic crises then it is because many businesses simply do not want to trade in Britain under a Labour government because the conditions of trading are not investor friendly. We have to suffer the consequences if we allow Labour back in the seat of power, avoid that please, David Cameron.

A Labour / Liberal alliance would splinter this country into more confusion and less certainty. I think that if the Liberals want to play the trumpet of New Labour David Cameron should either form a minority government or call for a fresh election, at which more people will focus their vote towards the main parties and the Liberals are the ones who would lose out even more than they already did.

 Britain’s  destiny always rested on a whole country decision making and if the focus is now left to the needs of Scotland or Wales as main priority, we’ll fall apart. Those parts of Britain have been offered more autonomy but lost their businesses due to England’s bad politics under Labour and not because they are part of the United Kingdom. In any case David Cameron has promised more devolution.

As it stands now England is the financial capital of the United Kingdom and with it comes pollution overcrowding and a high cost of living. Do the countryside really want to copy that. As it is due to earth warming business from London will have to be decentralised to other towns and that strategy will have to be developed over the next 50 years anyhow.  London is currently fighting very hard to become more important for financial services  within Europe and that focus will be lost if Labour’s failure to capture businessand nvestments furhter damages our infrastructure.

Flush Gordon

Gordon Brown now has formally announced his retirement and I bet he is happy that he can retire from this very stressful job. Stressful because Gordon Brown managed to keep stability in this country and unite people simply by being the most hated figure in public life that managed to stay at the top and just made people hope he is going to leave soon and that has happened now.

A big sigh of relief is going like a Mexican wave around Great Britain. But what comes next?

Whilst Brown managed to unite the people in sheer fright, worried that to do something against him would ruin their prospects in the Labour Party and pushed them into frozen apathy, we now have a completely new scenario and more change at one time than we could ever have hoped for from Conservative promises.

A new Labour leadership campaign will bring a host of inexperienced persons wanting to be Labour leaders but non of which are very exciting characters like Tony Blair used to be when he swept the country.

From the Conservatives we get excited but calm expectation that they as always will be able to contain the gloom and lead us towards that silver lining. We look forward to the Liberal Democrat decision with whom they want to go to bed with and I wonder whether they will draw the short straw or marry with the aura of conservative and traditionally reliable decision making, knowing that stability will definitely be the firstborn from that marriage, with hope and destiny as coming after that.

A honeymoon with Labour would signal to the world’s business leaders to stay well away from Britain and avoid risk but stand by in case things change. It would be a kind of anarchic solution to a stalemate problem.

I have had several messages from friends who expect another election to be held shortly in the hope that a majority can be found, I wonder whether that would be the lesser drama with the hope that all those who couldn’t vote last time will make the decisive difference.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,390 hits