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.


It’s Clegg the peg

with the extra leg, du, da, du, da, du, da, duuh.

I wonder whether Nick Clegg has developed some extra human conscientiousness over the past few weeks. As if he has not done unrivalled damage to his own party, that is short of being obliterated from the voter’s conscience.

Now Clegg wants to ride the popular Human Rights argument. I think he must have read my blog some time ago, when I used the same arguments as he does now. But Nick Clegg now spreads around silly things just to pretend that he is braving up to the Tories, whom he flirts since his Deputy Premiership.

Of course the Human Rights Act is nothing but a clever political trick to hold nations over a barrel whenever and wherever it suits the European Union just to assert the power over the EU. The ECHR is breaching its own rules each and every time an application is being refused for not complying with regulations when that application was made by a private individual without the help of a lawyer. If the ECHR seriously wanted to give individuals equal chances it would make legal aid available for all wishing to make an application and allow them to do so with the help of a lawyer. Instead conveniently the ECHR dismisses around 90% of all applications made without legal support because it has flaws.

There are now single judges sitting over applications, which are not scanned for merit but merely scanned for how useful they are to pressurize a nation to give up a sovereign rule that is a thorn in the eye of the EU. It is obvious that the ECHR cherry picks cases that allow it to root out all types of free thinking that many people cannot longer have. The ECHR is in the process to build an impenetrable political correctness throughout Europe that forbids free speech and furthers inequality.

Nick Clegg is a Pratt who is completely irresponsible and just puts pressure on the government to show how powerful he  is and he is enjoying it. Never mind the insults and abuses he gets, he enjoys those too, as this is proof of his importance to him.

Does Clegg have a conviction for arson?

Just  listened to this amusing YouTube clip, of an interview on BBC Nottingham between Nick Clegg and Alan Clifford. The latter asked Nick Clegg whether he has empathy for the 16-year old youths because Nick Glegg got a conviction for Arson because he burned down a Greenhouse when he was 16 and got community service. First time NickClegg did not deny the conviction but later he pointed towards that he did not. I am now not quite clear whether he has or hasn’t but it is interesting nevertheless. Is that the reason why Clegg is racked by everlasting guilt and gives in to almost everything the Tories ask of him?

government v. private sector

Just as I recommended to some job seeking women the other day to join the Conservatives in their voluntary activities, like meals for the poor etc, I realise that within the Conservative Party no poor person ever stands any chance of achieving anything simply because of a lack of money. It is not possible to get any career moves out of volunteering for the Conservatives at all. The opposite is the case, they use you and abuse you instead.

The Conservatives especially and all voluntary organisations in particular, simply thrive on private donations, and unless you can put money into it, you cannot do anything within it, anything other than doing what you are told.

You cannot work your way up, simply because you have no saying power, which is only activated once you put money into it.

That is why the government is so popular and why people prefer the state to the private sector because the private sector does not allow people to work their way up from nothing. That is especially so in the Conservative Party who have public donation schemes and say the more you donate the more say you have in he policy making. Yet for government run services you do not need money, all you need is perseverance, trustworthiness and sheer will to succeed.

Money has one funny side-effect and that is corruption and because everything can be bought if the price is right, the leadership in political parties is money driven and therefore corrupt. I do not think that political theory does play any role in politics these days because as soon as any party comes into government they suddenly change their strategy, tactic and leadership style to accommodate economic strategies and international diplomatic requirements. All little party members are mere pawns on the game board. There is no spontaneity possible and that might be the reason why political parties and voting become increasingly unpopular.

The strive for power knows no borders and people who shake hands one day can find themselves in the media the next being branded as belzebubs.

I would not recommend that anybody who wants social equality and/or an ability to make politics join any political party in the UK but rather instead lobby politicians and use complain procedures and pressure groups to achieve goals.

The Conservative can never achieve great popularity because they rely on the minority for their power. Only about 7% of UK citizens own 90% of the wealth, so their sources of finance are so much restricted to those 7% of persons who hold absolute power over the party.  In Labour the problem is the leadership devices policies in conjunction with the money people and we can see now how recently they joined forces on several occasions to keep the power threats in the knot. My own libel trial saw Conservatives and Labour follow a common strategy and now the Lutfur Rahman situation shows that Labour and Conservatives join forces to get rid of the one that is not a member in either powerful party. Stephanie Eaton has shown true female and/or Liberal intuition by voting to keep East End Life against her Labour husband, the Labour and Conservative Party.  Zakhir Khan tried to break the political mould by standing for the Conservatives with not much success.

The demand for control drives both Labour and the Conservatives who want to hold the strings to control the UK, there is nothing in between. This is not unlike a time of war when we see that in the UK all work together to defeat common external enemies but now within the UK, the government and the Labour party help to create an enemy within the country to drive out individualism.

I think its a recipe for disaster and won’t work because there is no war on in the classical sense and this strategy just creates unnecessary paranoia and makes whole population groups feel uncomfortable. Of course for the Conservatives there are in first line single women and mothers who are the hate figures and then of course groups of immigrants, apparently they also hate churches now because churches support child-rich families.

Then of course the UK is falling apart at the seams. The Irish are getting upset again, the Scottish are about to become independent and so the UK is getting smaller and smaller with only the financial sector being the main source of income through banking and finance deals.

What of course many rebels have not realised is that one can fight finance with elected purchases or withholding of spending in certain areas but instead people usually follow all types of incentives to spend money and then rather rebel instead of being more cautious with whom they spend their monies in the first place.  Of course the poor are always brought to their knees by hiked up domestic costs and all they can do is work  and pay but then to ask for minimum wages and living wages does not make any difference to who holds the financial power strings at all, in fact wage demands are merely puppet string movements in the theatre of life.

In fact it does not make the slightest bid of difference who runs essential services, whether its the government, the state or private business, its irrelevant, the most important factor is that the services is required.  Seeing now that under this new government the UK borrows even more than under Brown just shows how empty the whole new strategy actually is. The fact is that whoever runs service cuts will have to contract in Labour and if its not the state but the private industry their strategies won’t be much different from the state. But because the state is less corrupt and has more stringent rules and already has all the intelligence at hand, I reckon the state will always prove the winner for public services.

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.

Barnsley results a worry, Labour area shows lethargy amongst the electorate

Unfortunately the people of Barnsley have voted against the government and for the BNP and Labour. The previous MP had resigned over the expenses scandal, when he was accused of fiddling his accounts. Yet the people of Barnsley, despite the expenses scandal have chosen to replace one Labour with another. The election results are as follows:

  • Dan Jarvis (Lab) 14,724
  • Jane Collins (UKIP) 2,953
  • James Hockney (C) 1,999
  • Enis Dalton (BNP) 1,463
  • Tony Devoy (Ind) 1,266
  • Dominic Carman (LD) 1,012
  • Kevin Riddiough (Eng Dem) 544
  • Howling Laud Hope (Loony) 198
  • Michael Val Davies (Ind) 60

Lab maj 11,771: Turnout 37%

So Barnsley have chosen to vote for irresponsible government spending, bigger national debt and less responsible economic policies. Astonishing as it is, BNP got more votes than Liberal Democrats as shown above. No need to say, I won’t ever visit Barnsley if I can help it, other than helping the Conservative candidate there.

But isn’t it the same story in all such constituencies. Labour spreads the word, that the Conservatives want to cut local services and people just vote Labour because they are lead to believe that Labour gives them a better standard of living.

But we’ve seen it here in Tower Hamlets how disastrous a combined  national Labour government with a traditional Labour council is.

Whilst we had years of Conservative government Tower Hamlets prospered. The housing estates looked well maintained, children were well looked after during and after school. During 15 years of Labour government we saw the Labour council who changed housing policies to such an extent that social housing was removed from council care to ALMO at huge expense. Now we got the Conservative Government back, the new Mayor, Mr Lutfur Rahman, now considered switching housing back to the council once again because now the new Conservative government has promised £95 million funds to prop up housing without homes having to be maintained by ALMOS at all. The previous Labour government completely starved Tower Hamlets of funds but that little fact has not been mentioned by Labour around here.

Yet the local Labour Party never emphasises that fact. The local Labour Party puts the wool over people’s eyes and puts cheap slogans into people’s ears and eyes and unfortunately local people are not able to look through the lies and deceit they are presented with. I assume its the same in Barnsley. Of course here in Tower Hamlets its East End Life that helps spread the Labour message but I think with or without it people just believe what is being put before them anyhow by Labour.

It is a worry that a traditional Labour area gets more votes for the BNP than for the Lib Dems, which shows that Labour voters fancy the BNP and all those worried about the BNP should stop voting Labour for that reason alone.

Significantly a lot of residents stayed away and let Labour win on a 37% turnout. That is another case to make voting compulsory because we can also see it here in Tower Hamlets that left-wing radicals are voted into the council on the smallest voter participation.  Obviously Labour areas show a considerable lethargy and lack of interest in public affairs.

Labour is some kind of disease that is very hard to get rid of.

I think it is a national problem here in Britain, that people have lost the desire to vote. A case of national depression.

How budget cuts in Tower Hamlets can be consolidated

An article in the East London Advertiser highlights the dilemma this mainly Labour Council faces in dealing with the oncoming budget cuts of around £72 million. Whilst the Conservative opposition has been making alternative budgets since years, which were of course ignored by Labour, the hilarious Respect Party asks to completely boycott the budget.

There is little Liberal opposition and Stefanie Eaton has announced some proposals. Labour has little intention to make  sensible cuts by cutting back-office costs and of course getting rid of the expensive East End Life paper but looks to make redundancies instead. But of course Labour wants to blame the Coalition government for those redundancies instead of making more sensible decisions.

If we had a more evenly spread out political spectrum here in Tower Hamlets, rather than this majority Labour council, we could get into a good discussion about the point, but no doubt Labour will use the brainwash paper East End Life to spread their left-wing ideology and blame the coalition government.

Currently the council wastes a lot of money by using agency staff and has a lot of unnecessary layers of management that eat up lots of money. It is really up to the residents of Tower Hamlets to stand up to this Labour council and demand value for money instead of rhetoric and the blame game.

But how can we reach the residents if Labour are allowed to spread their propaganda continually, so that residents are fed the thoughts they ought to think?

MP questiones actions of MI5

I was more than concerned to read that a UK member of parliament goes against the actions of the UK’s security services and delivers a judgment about his aide, a Russian woman without awaiting the investigation of MI5 security services. That is of concern because this MP by the name of Mike Hancock, MP for Portsmouth South should collaborate with MI5 and await the outcome of their enquiries before jumping in to defend his young aide, which happens to be a Russian working for him.

An MP should try and help the security services to eliminate threats to this country and not be counter productive. Mr Hancock is an Liberal Democrat MP in Portsmouth, where there is a large naval base. How can this MP know everything his aide, a Russian woman by the name of Ms Zatuliveter, age 25, does, to be able to say that she does nothing wrong, is he with her at all times?

There is no question that we  have to be vigilant about spying activities and that is getting worst with Russia being awarded the Olympics and those concerned about security must make  a clear differentiation between an international sporting commitment and political allegiance.

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.

Abbas begs for second votes from the Cons

In this BBC clip the performance of Helal Abbas at the recent public Mayoral elections question and answer session and subsequent interview, was definitely the weakest in my view. the tittle-tattle between left-wing and/or Labour factions within Tower Hamlets hopefully puts an end to Labour’s rule in Tower Hamlets in these Mayoral elections on 21 October 2010.

The New Statesman puts it  that Labour risks losing the Mayoral elections and says Miliband is facing his first big test as Labour leader.

Yet Abbas’ strategy beggars belief in that he sends our letters to Conservative supporters and/or members seeking their second vote. First of all I would like to know how he gets that mailing list and secondly why would any serious Conservative want to weaken their own candidate Neil King, by given a second vote to Labour?

Abbas seems to want to revive parliamentary negotations. When the coalition was formed for David Cameron’s new government the affiliation was obviously made with the Liberals, a simple little fact Mr Abbas either has forgotten or seems to think is unimportant.

Ken Livingstone still actively supports Lutfur Rahman in defiance of Labour Party threats that anybody who supports another candidate, other than the official labour candidate will be expelled. Livingstone always drummed up support from the Grassroots Labour movement, those most inclined for Communism.

Yet Labour’s strategy becomes boring with the constant repetition of Labour’s NEC wants one direction but Labour’s grassroots wants another and an expulstion follows a re-instatement when the expelled bring with them lots of new support.

It all has gone pearshaped when Iron Man Gordon Brown left Labour’s leadership, when the party disintegrated into personality conflicts. Gordon Brown was to Labour what Thatcher was to the Conservatives. It’s just that the Conservatives are definitely more reliable and steady, compared to Labour who only still exist because they can lean on the infra-structure that was built by Conservative ingenuity.

What Tower Hamlets needs is some of that Conservative reliability and ingenuity to pull that borough out of the slumps and back into the 21st century to solve those dreadful housing, social and employment problems that were created by Labour’s mismanagement of the borough.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits