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.


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.

It’s in the papers, how little sense politics make

Being one of those 10% that are in politics for the politics (I got this percentage from Christopher Shale’s article in the Mail online) I was more than shell shocked to read in yesterday’s “News of the World” in an article titled “U’turns? U pay!” that Britain now borrows “25 million a day more than under Labour. Where is all the money gone, where is the £1 extra per person per day going? Considering that we had promise after promise and u-turn after u-turn, and most of us are worst of because of taxation and benefit changes.

I am completely shattered by the news and ask myself can any politicians be trusted or even be taken seriously anymore. I read that many Conservative back-benchers are fed up with having to defend unsustainable ideas and that party membership under David Cameron has fallen drastically.

Doesn’t it just fall in fine with the criticism of Dr. Rowan Williams on the democratic principle that people vote for the party but not for the policies?

We also read this weekend that prisoners get record compensation payouts, that civil servants live luxury lifestyles on expenses.

Where is all the money gone or going? Whilst we are so broke and local authorities have been told for quite a while now to make ends meet as best they can, they put up speed cameras to bolster the town hall coffers. Now around 6,000 speed cameras are likely to be removed as they do not stop accidents but make town halls a lot of cash.

Where does it all go wrong that we are being hoodwinked with wonderful policies prior to every election just to find that policies don’t work. Is it down to only those 10% of party members who actually are interested in policies or is it down to the fact that too few select members make decisions that affect all of us but that do not work?

When are we going to stop chopping and changing away on our political and economic future by devising radical solution with every new election? When are party-political strategies going to be made more transparent? One good step in the right direction is the disclosure of the astonishing salaries of the top earning civil servants, who must be doing something to earn that money, they earn each more than the prime minister.

I wonder is it all a great big sham that politicians just pretend they know what they are doing but simply are only in place to sell a party that is driven by more powerful backers than we are led to believe?

I have now been in 4 political parties and in each one I could not say that I ever got an in-depth overview of policies or was ever even invited to take part in the decision making process on policies, which is why I am interested in politics in the first place.

What I read in David Shaler’s article could also be said about Labour Party problems, I think that is a transferable matter that is equally right in political parties. His points reflect what went on in the Labour Party, the bit that Miliband described as having lost touch with the electorate and the party.

It is in both big parties the problem that a tiny select few make political decisions on the sleigh, which are sold to us as live-changing better-making politics but which are in fact just helping to further the interests of the few.

Lets not forget the Afghan war was started under Labour and it was Labour that removed any ring-fencing for housing costs, incidentally it was Labour, whom we thank the concept of council housing. Now, after all the money had been drained from housing, we are in the unique position that housing needs to be replenished but all the money has been frittered away in all sorts of schemes. Of course I think that for this reason alone huge loans need to be taken out to pay for the replenishment of social housing stock.

But why can’t we just get those facts and figures published, made transparent so that we see what is actually going on and do not have to wade through tons and tons of political promises that never work?

There is little point in being a member of any political party these days because one cannot get even a small insight into the decision making process for policies that are churned out daily with very expensive propaganda machines.

Yet whilst the Conservatives demand a change in Union decision making and ask for a minimum of 40% of union membership agreement to a strike, we see that general and local elections are being won on a participation of only 25%. Why should it only work for unions, we need to make that work for politics in general.

It’s because people are just not sure what politicians are cooking up they cannot be informed and get presented with ready-made solutions, which they have to vote for just to find out that all their enthusiasm has been for the cat again. Well that is how I feel right now.

Is it any wonder that less and less people are prepared to volunteer to make propaganda for a party. There are those few tireless volunteers who give out all the leaflets in dwindling numbers of groups prior to elections when those leaflets are the only time political parties get in touch with the electorate to put forward ideas that are often unsustainable and ill thought through. I simply refuse to take part in any further charades because I am not fully informed and cannot make decisions based on the information I need. It’s almost always phrases, promises, ideas that later on emerge to have damaged the environment, cost tax payers even more or end up to be upsetting someone.

Worst of all the amount of paper that is produced to propagate those publicity stunts are responsible for damaging precious forests who are our only lifeline in times of earth warming, so what is it all about Alfie?

I have come to believe that there aren’t any excellent politicians in public live these days and all we can do is vote for the ones who do the least damage.

Despite knowing that we are going to get water tables rising, Boris Johnson insists on carrying on with the Crossrail project, despite knowing the pollution damage in London, he will not make policies that are radical enough to change it. But he is still more reasonable than any other candidates for the post.

In politics it is all a matter of perspective, of what do I really want to achieve. Do I want more business, more health or can I even have both? (Especially whilst I live in London). From the health point of view I welcome all BA strikes because the less planes in the air the less pollution, from a business point of view I hate the strikes, so what is it to be health or business? I think that is a decision we are faced with today.

Looking at education the same equation wouldn’t work because it is another problem, its about the pensions of the teachers that worked so hard all their lives to educate children. It is a not for profit problem and that makes the whole situation quite different.

Yet what bothers me most in the problem concerning children here in London that nobody so far has demanded better health deals for inner city children. That children are only allowed out of London for 2 weeks per year, that is when either their working parents get their holidays or JSA claimants get their holiday entitlement. I think that shows how little this nation seems to care about children’s health or how little the big publishers chose to highlight the problem.

I think politicians have lost their way, they have forgotten that children are our most important asset and that they have to live in our other most important asset our planet and our country. Is that why kids in London have to suffer lung problems and is that why politicians use so much paper to tell us about ideas that are doomed to failure?

New GCSE targets

I am very glad to see that Michael Gove wants to raise GCSE standards expectations. It is very important to keep expectations high to raise overall standards and not let it slip, as it is happening in Tower Hamlets as I blogged about in my previous post. I do wonder whether this attitude in Tower Hamlets to be against the Conservatives and to be against raising standards is cast in stone.

Considering that the person in charge of public communications, and in charge of the East End Life paper was a closed associate of Sharon Shoesmith should talk volumes.

The attitude of leadership has to be one of wanting to drive forward excellence and not one that helps to find excuses.

Whilst one has to drive forward to excel one cannot excuse bad performance by making it a standard in itself. If necessary the whole education model should be examined as to how different educational needs can be satisfied to the best interest of those needing to be educated but one can never lower overall standards to satisfy a few who cannot fulfil the high expectations.

It again is a matter of attitude of perception and negativity and positivity. There is no general method to be all inclusive and not point out those who cannot fulfil general standards without pointing them out. On one hand criticising the one-fits-all measure of educational performance and refusing to give way for special education measures does not work out. Comprehensive schools consist of many pupils of many differing talents and one has to apply the same high standards to all if one wants to educate them all together. And again I would like to point out one has to set the highest standards and not the lowest ones as general guideline. I am very glad that Michael Gove aims to set standards.

That is something I miss dearly in Tower Hamlets and that is self-motivation. A good case for more frequent testing of ability is this Streaming by ability research project by Professor Hallam, who concluded that it can hinder children’s mobility and progress if they are streamed age 7. Yet unless constant testing takes place there is no proper cause to change a stream a child is in once they are in it. To ensure social mobility children need more frequent assertion of talent and testing to help teachers ascertain pupils’ needs.

Labour is very uninspiring

I expected more from the leader of the Labour Party than old lukewarm slogans, which are not even able to excite me a little bit. What Mr Miliband said at a recent Labour conference in London, according to this BBC report, is just a repetition of age-old slogans.

It’s definitely nothing new that Labour is on a national mission, because that is just what political parties do, they want to win the national elections to govern the country. So why does Mr Miliband emphasize that his party needs to inspire people with a national mission, isn’t that what they always do?

Gordon Brown, definitely had more charisma and at least excited people to hate him, ridicule him, do anything else but being bored with him and being bored is something that probably a lot of people are with Mr Miliband.

I cannot even get excited about his pledge to tackle new inequality because most of this extra inequality came about under Labour’s  rule and that inequality is about as old as the earth itself. We poor do not get richer and that’s that. I do not even think that Labour’s gains in local government elections recently are anything special because in local elections voters tend to vote Labour more than anything else.

What is missing is a clear direction, a framework policy, promises that give us hope.

Most people expect business projections and political ideas that counter current government policies but there seems to be a black hole in Labour. Maybe I read the wrong publications but from what I see, there is nothing new and nothing exciting from Labour these days.


Mind you the Conservatives have all-encompassing policies at the moment and perhaps there is just nothing that could be held against it.

Talking about all-encompassing, the real difference to poor people was made by science and inventions that changed our quality of life and led to the welfare society and social security for all. It is really science that helps humanity to develop a better quality of life and not politicians who are mere administrators of human wealth rather than a driving force for quality of life.

I found it more interesting to read that Bill Gates makes millions available to roll out a vaccination program for third world countries and that goat’s milk is more similar to human milk than cows milk and that population numbers on the plant earth are about to reach 20 billion than read Mr Miliband’s trivial thoughts. It is plainly not feasible to say that wealth should be distributed more evenly when we look at such colossal numbers. How would more wealth for each of those 20 billion individuals impact on earth warming and planet sustainability?

What is really important is to keep realistic, provide a sustainable quality of life for humanity and keep people and this planet safe from self and other distraction. Mr Miliband is just silly and not worth having that post. Alex Salmond is more inspiring than Miliband, perhaps that is one reason why the SNP has sailed through the last election. It might be that the fresh, clean air of Scotland produces Prime Minister material and not the bad-air-quality South because that is now the second exciting Sottish politician, after Gordon Brown.

Is this the taste of Miliband to come?

Of course we all await the expected onslaught from Labour to counter the latest Conservative policies. Today I received in the post a card from Ed Miliband with the title “What are  your priorities?”

Of course I thought, good idea to ask people what they think. But then when I read on, into the mailing that has been sent at considerable expense, I thought it sounded a bit like a space man talked to people on a different planet. And indeed a little down the text, and to my complete amazement I see, what seems to be a grammatical error.

I let you judge for yourself it says: “I know that many people feel that Labour lost touch with British people and so one of my top priorities has to been to get out of Westminster and listen to people”.

Does it appear to you as well as if there has been a copy and paste error or some silly oversight that allowed an extra to that has remained in the sentence. Is that the taste of things to come that the Labour Party will rush into doing things without properly checking that what they do is correct?

I mean it is obviously an error that a little proof reading could have detected. Wouldn’t it have been nice if Labour could have proven to us that they spent money on expensive mailings and give well thought through messages but instead we get an expensive mailing to show us that Labour does not really care whether their mailings are free of errors or not. Is that the party that can lead Britain into the future I ask?

I think I can answer Mr Miliband’s other question about my priorities, which is, I would like a prime minister that doesn’t sent out grammatical errors in expensive mailings, thanks a lot.

At least this mailing is a good explanation as to why Labour doesn’t like Grammar schools, it is because they have problems with grammar.

Crime for Profit

I think this is a very interesting concept that prisons are run by private companies for profit. Since it was the last Labour government that invented the idea, we see the constant dilution of the political agendas across the party or a cross-party economic agenda taking place. Anyway Tony Blair admired Lady Thatcher a lot for it.

The Unions, who normally sponsor the Labour Party are on a striking agenda, which will be catched up by the ever reliable army stepping  in.

So far so good but what about if criminals only end up committing crime to enhance the profits for jailers. I think that might change their attitude, to see that someone earns money out of their crimes, when in the past, crimes were committed against individuals who were rich or institutions who were rich but now crimes are made to pay for prisons, instead of costing the tax payer money.

I think that might bring a refreshing change to the criminal mentality, in that criminals might re-think the purpose of their criminality as the damage they caused now actually benefits some who get rich out of it by running a profitable prison service. I am definitely not against it because things can only get better in respect of crime. Maybe some criminals might think it was more profitable to open a prison than be in one, lol and provide the service for the few unfortunate ones that haven’t grasped the concept yet.

Why would the government lock up prisoners and run the service more expensively out of tax payer’s money when private firms can do a better and cheaper job? Crimes are often committed against individuals and not the state as such and perhaps the state should only look after prisoners who actually want to damage the state, such as terrorists and soldiers.  The principle that the state always has to repair the damage of individuals against individuals I believe contradicts current legislation in any case.

Yet in the matter of Care in the Community, we see that this does quite a lot of damage to our economy as carers are unable to work, that increases the flow of illegal immigrants to fill up jobs and also the state has to pay the benefits to look after people and for the carers. The rumour was that Care in the Community is cheaper but I doubt it. Why not see whether private companies can run open institutions for those in need of supervision and allow persons to work on profitable projects as well within open institutions.

students go up north soon

Since Alex Salmond from the Scottish National Party promised free education for Scottish students, I reckon many already start to pack their bags to move the Scotland. Perhaps Scotland is going to be the next educational capital of the UK.

It had been a considerable part of Labour Party policies for the UK, whilst Labour was in power to make education a main source of business for the UK, that of course since we have little space for farming or industry left, that is because all available space has been taken up by immigrants for housing.  Yet even Labour’s plan centred around selling education and not giving it away for free.

I just wonder whether Gordon Brown had anything to do with this decision making process, when his constituency is in Fife, in the heart of Scotland.

It sounds like a good little deal, move to Scotland and get a free university education. I am just not sure what for Scottish students means because Scotland does not have passports, so I assume it has only to do with residency. I reckon Scotland is going to be busy when that goes through. I consider moving there myself, I love the cooler climate.

However how is that going to pay, how can Scotland reap any fruit from this scheme when education is for free and students cannot be contractually bound to stay in Scotland after their education has completed?  It is often already a problem for many companies that they train staff who then go off with the knowledge and get a better paid job elsewhere.

The only way to earn revenue out of this scheme is from the extra spending students do, like accommodation and living expenses. Maybe there is a little hope that with increasing earth warming people will eventually move further up north but that is a rather futuristic plot. Maybe Scottish landlords could make a few Scottish pounds by charging high rent to students.

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.

Union leader asking us to break the law and create chaos

According to a quote in the East London Advertiser, a well-known Union leader by the name of McLoughlin told Lutfur Rahman: “Isn’t it better to break the law than break the poor?”. Mr McLoughlin addressed Mr Rahman in asking him to “stand with people like us” against the Government. This cry for Anarchy was supported by the incumbent Labour MP for Bethnal Green and Bow Rushanara Ali, who attended the meeting.

I thoroughly object to the fact that a school was used to call up Anarchy and law breaking in that the meeting was held at the Central Foundation Girls school. Here in Tower Hamlets local politicians abuse public services and buildings to drive forward anti-government feelings and sentiment and openly call for criminal activities.

It is an absolute scandal that this is happening. Though I am wondering why Labour cries out about prospective cuts in the police force when they are the ones who are asking people to break the law. This is another Labour strategy that doesn’t make sense at  all and it is as crazy and subordinate as the whole Labour movement who just want to create disorder and unhappiness to drive through their own Stalinist revolutionary agenda, which will see more repression once in place than we have known in the UK so far.

It is therefore not surprising that Tower Hamlets Council stopped funding Neighbourhood Watches several years ago, Neighbourhood Watches, that openly promote better relationships between residents and the police and help in the communications network and can be very valuable in this time of funding crisis for the police.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits