2019 general election

On reflection it was very risky of the Liberals to choose Jo Swinson as leader when her seat East Dunburtonshire is located in Scotland, a home nation, with gains for the SNP. I reckon she would have been much more likely to win a seat in an English contituency.

SNP gained 48 seats compared to the 35 in 2017.

The overall voting pattern, giving the Conservatives a clear 47 seat majority, was probably the voice of the people trying to end the uncertainty and make it easier for today’s business to invest and to make some certainty for jobs clear.

For the long term, I still think that the Labour Manifesto was better suited. In a climate emergency business cannot make good decisions other than those that lead to monetary rewards for individual investors. I don’t think that climate change will be profitable for anyone.

Yet the world cannot imagine change and business cannot change.

It will be interesting to see what happens to those arch Labour supporters up in North England who voted Conservative.

 

 

Tories spreading rumours

How Andrew Neil ran that Corbyn interview was more than manipulative, but now that rumour that the Conservatives are due to get a 68-seat majority and how the media further now influences voters to report that Domic Cummings is reported worried about the Lib Dems is clearly aimed at getting voters to switch to Lib Dems because the Tories know that the Lib Dems are the only party likely to support them.

How a YouGov poll works already determins that the poor and those working people who have not gotten much time are very unlikely to even take part in them.

YouGov polls are conducted via e-mail request from YouGov to registered voters, they are urged to do a survey. It takes internet access, a device capable of going onto the internet for the purpose of the survey and then it takes around 15 minutes to do the survey.

A lot of people don’t even have internet access or at limited times and then a lot of working people hardly have time to cope with their daily grind rather than do YouGov polls.

Those YouGov polls only attract a certain type of people who have the equipment and time to take part, that is hardly the typical Labour voter who enmass probably is more engaged in community activities. So the poll is not representative. It just shows that the participants are mainly Conservative voters or right-wing.

Unfortunately because Labour announced that they will tax the online providers more, they will find now that every Internet company will be as unfriendly as possible towards Labour and not support them and report favourably for the Conservatives.

Yet if you look at the Labour policies, they are extremely friendly towards the community and even though Labour is accused of being anti-semitic, nobody can argue against the fact that the many Jewish children who grow up in Britain will benefit immensely from the Free University policy that Labour has announced.

legalising Cannabis

man smoking a cigarette

Photo by Brandon Nickerson on Pexels.com

Unfortunately the Liberals stand for the legalisation of Cannabis for recreational use. The Washinton Post published research showing that the number of car accidents has risen in areas where cannabis was legalised. ““The combined-state analysis shows that the first three states to legalize recreational marijuana have experienced more crashes,” said Matt Moore, senior vice president of  the IIHS’s Highway Loss Data Institute, in a statement.”

So do we really add to the risk of car crashes in the UK?

adult alcohol bar bartender

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

We are just about able to cope with alcohol consumption and mobile phone use. Adding cannabis consumption will significantly add to the pressure the police is under, which will wipe out any benefits that will be created from the planned Cannabis tax.

Whilst a new law will require the installation of alcohol brathalisers in cars to stop it from starting when the driver had a drink, was reported by the Express.

Yet the alcohol breathaliser will not work with Cannabis.

That is one reason why I won’t be voting Liberal.

Rushanara a proud remainer

Just got the first Labour leaflet through my door and Rushanara Ali states she is a proud remainer.

So much for all those on TV debates who call Labour pro leave and waiting to do the Brexit. Either Rushanara has an individual deal as local and established MP or Labour has a general policy of remain.

I am happy about this because that clears the air with those who will argue for pro-remain and keep on saying Labour is for Leave. Rushanara also argues for a People’s vote on the issue, which is fair.

The last referendum was years ago and so wishy-washy, it was unable to be executed. This time round people should get acceptable optionso n Brexit with the referendum.

I will be voting Labour this time because years of austerity have left Britain starving of investment. Rushanara is always communicating about issues, I contact her with.

Our technology is behind Japan, who as a similar Island nation are fully covered with broadband.

Fibre broadband everywhere will attract investment and also provide important security for all parts of Britain. I also hope that Labour will introduce free University education for students of British students in Britain.

I don’t think that private broadband firms have the money to put on a full network of cabelling throughout Britain because they would need the money for the work, which remote people and villages simply could not afford.

The lack of communications facility through a lack of broadband makes our communities vulnerable to abuse by criminals, who have advanced technological methods to their advantage. Our residents and businesses need to be able to communicate with law enforcement and potential customers for business ventures.

Free university education should save a lot of money in administration fees for the scheme that is currently in place. Students simply do not constantly want those depressing letters, telling them how much they own and how much the debt has increased with added interest. Perhaps one could ask for a contribution to university education once a student has graduated and gotten established with a very well paid post without sending constant letters reminding them. Perhaps one could attach a clause waving any pay back of the degree will be benefitting the UK.

Many other countries have nationalised utilities, which the Tories have all privatised with detrimental effect on services. Tories are crazy about privatisation and put the principle before effect. Any policy is only as good as the service it provides.

 

The worst outcome

Seeing the mood in parliament it seems to become a Home nations and Labour supporters versus the Conservatives.

But we do need certainty as business investment will rely on it.

As stated previously with a new election Boris Johnson wants to rid the Conservatives of those Members of Parliament who lost the whip and who voted against the government.

Experience shows that those standing as independents rarely win elections.

Perhaps those independents will find other mainstream parties to put them up as candidates.

I am in an unusual position. I am a pensioner and as such benefit from the triple lock Conservative policy, that raises pensions guaranteed but I am also solely in contact with young people all the time and get a good idea what young people and working people do not like about this government.

With all those new parties springing up and the Liberals getting a lot more support than before, which they lost due to the previous stint of collaboration with a Conservative government, I wonder whether we are going towards a repeat of exactly the last scenario whereby Liberals prop up the Conservatives again.

I think people want genuine change, better jobs protection, better housing and less crime.

Education has become a sore point because so many schools close and many others spring up with not enough regulation to ensure quality.

On one hand this government wants to tear education away from local authorities to get direct government funding for Academies but on the other hand the local authorities get more responsibilities to raise their own finance. So why do schools get taken out of the equation?

We do see the gentrification of local communities in the social sense but local councils are supposed to get more responsibilities running their local communities whilst the poor are moved around like pawns on a chess board.

The low tax, high wage economy is not working because crazy, unstable policies have driven business out of Britain and the home nations are in the mood to cry independence.

Our charities rely on individual donations and those attracting more money can care better for their needy but those failing to attract donations cannot provide services. This leaves whole swathes of needy people uncared for, hence a rise in crime.

Leaving things to sort themselves out is obviously not working.

 

 

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.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,254 hits