Wait for the manifesto

Quite right, lets not get swept away in a torrent of election promises. I would vote for Labour if they actually put the Free University education into their election manifesto. All the parties now start to outdo each other with promise after promise and that will of course steer the forecasts.

Yet all the other stuff, the increased living wage I am concerned about.

Since we have the living wage, I saw an immense rise in food and household item prices. Especially the low-cost budget items supermarkets had, have now doubled in price. This makes it even more difficult for those with income problems to survive.

When I was raising my children in poverty, I could manage on my benefits, which came on time and when they did not come on time, I once even went to the police station and accused the DWP of theft because they kept my benefits back. That was possible then because they had to pay your benefits by law within a certain time. Now they have changed the rules, they now can keep benefits back.

Strictly speaking I also was able to substitute my income on credit cards, and as I was very good with money, I always managed to pay them each month, with the minimum payment, which increased my interest payments astronomically. We then also had to pay the insurance, which was as much as the interest and doubled the payments.

But thankfully somebody then reaslised how wrong the PPI was. That happened during the Conservative government, that we gotten the chance to claim that back.

I could manage with the basic food items (that was all before the year 2000)  and my kids are all healthy. We had cheap fruit stalls in Bethnal Green, just opposite Tescos and the lady who ran it gotten up at 3am to buy from the fruit market and then sell it to us.

We could buy cheap household cleaners. The size of the cleaners has since doubled and so has the price. That is not good if you have to manage on weekly payments. A basic tube of toothpaste used to cost 20p in Sainsbury, now its 50p.

But now benefits are paid monthly and so they increased the sizes and prizes of goods. So now people end up having food banks; I never had any food banks, when I raised my children. We had benefits on time and cheap food in the shops.

Husbands could also get work on the grey market, which were paid in hand and that helped with the budget. That was then ended by stricter benefit laws. Then people started snooping on each other.

So lets wait for the manifestos to see what voting could be good. I need to see whether they claw back on the triple Pension and the Freedom pass to pay for some promises they make.

 

 

It’s Christmas

eu-campaign-large

There won’t be a problem voting Labour for all those who want the best for their families. Since the Bank of England cut the Growth Forecast for Britain if Boris’s Brexit deal goes through, we might as well do what is good for us all.

Who could argue with free University education for our youngsters. People with children in school, planning for uni, will love that new policy.

We desperately need investment in social infrastructure, we all had enough from rising crime and falling police numbers.

Apparently both Labour and Conservatives hustle for the voters with promises of investment. Yet only Labour promises free University education; this is already in place in Scotland.

Those who come up with all those ‘Jeremy unfit to be prime minister’ can’t bring any convincing arguments for this.

Literally for free university education I coudn’t care less whether we remain or stay in the EU, but would prefer it in the EU as it doesn’t cause as many problems with the home counties, who all want to stay in. Labour promised a referendum either for Boris’s deal or staying.

It seems much more in tune with what people on the ground want, a Labour government. Moving civil servants to Middle England will help solve the London congestion. House prices are much to high in London and the counties can do with some sprucing up. As the HS2 railway will be completed by Labour nobody with common sense could not vote Labour this time around.

This will also relieve the London airports and level out investment through the British isles.

A strong woman

The women pushed these days into positions of power are often the type who have their maternal instincts removed and instal policies a woman with maternal instincts and children would not make.

Just watched this first discussion about the outcome of the Grenfell Report where the female London Commissioner Dany Cotton of the Fire Brigade caused concern for victims by defending the behaviour of the officers on the day, saying she would not change anything on the information she knew at the time.

mother-as-nurse

A picture of my mother working as nurse at the end of World War II

A typical old-fashioned female would have felt sorry and come up with some more potentially life-saving answers to please the audience.

Margaret Thatcher, the first female British Prime Minister  is the classic example of a desensitized female who becomes even more stringend in her disregard to people as an old-fashioned Conservative man would. She hated working-class families and dismantled the unions. She started the process, selling off council flats, so that poor people had their bases taken away.

Theresa May, destroyed any integrity working-class people had via zero-hours contracts, Universal credit and a further reduction in housing security. Theresa May took it one step further from what Margaret Thatcher had started.

Now Esther McVey, feels no shock for leaving poor females in an old cock-roach infested block of flats whilst she proudly proclaims success for a new housing development for rich people nearby.

I can remember the old-school Conservative government well. A mixture of sexist males who would find generosity in their policies towards poor families with children and provide family-friendly policies. At least people still had proper rented homes with benefits to match demand and poor families had a chance to settle into family life.

All this changed with strong females at the helm who came up with policies who would punish people who dared having families without the money to do so. It’s the Conservatives who invented the Female Dictator figure. I think it is sad that woman allow themselves to be used in that way, just to prove that they can be as efficient as men.

I think women, wo made it into the richer, upper crust, want to show their superiority towards those poor, unfortunate woman who have no choice but survive in the poverty they have been given.

My own sister is an excellent example. Unable to have children herself, she always disregarded me as some unmentionable entity. Living in Britain with a poor man but lots of children, my sister refused to speak to me. When my father died, my sister tried everyting she could to deprive me of my inheritance, guaranteed by law and engaged a solicitor to snatch my quarter of my inheritance of me. She didn’t succeed, as many of you know I am good with legal arguments.

My sister has lots of money but cannot find a penny to help me or my children. Of course my inheritance is long gone, paying back debts, I had accumulated whilst my sister, as a spinster finds solace in counting her money.

 

heart of the economy

No point complaining about migrants who sent money earned abroad to bolster their home economies. We need to change the way our society works to make it successfull.

Looking at these maps, most money sent abroad from anywhere currently flows to India and India of course has a very successful network of functionaling families.

As our country has specialised in establishing the forefront of some ideologies at the expense of letting family life develop, we will continue to get our money sent abroad by guest workers.

Stopping immigrants is not the solution, the solution is to join them if you can’t beat them and change our family policies.

We are currently cleansing our cities of the poor, send them out to rural areas and populate our cities with rich investors and city workers who have little off-spring. Our harvests of fruit and veggies get wasted as we have no workers to harvest it.

Lets just take a deep breath and re-consider options to stay on top of the game.

shoot yourself in the foot

is an expression that people use to describe if a measure you take, turns out detrimental against yourself.

British establishment and conservationists always want to help promote the establishment, of which the Church of England is an important cornerstone.

stjames

St James the Less church

Church of England schools were long seen as the ultimate part of the pro-English upbringing of those wanting to serve Queen and country.

The church being the glue that holds the social fibre of English society together, educated mind and spirits. Yet an essential part of English society was the emergence of unions, which branched out of working-class environments and became an integral part of life.

Along comes our latest bout of Conservative government seeking to destroy the stronghold unions have on the confidence of the working classes. This of course includes the pocket so Muslim immigrants who follow special social rules culminating in Sharia law.

Easy peasy things thinks the government, we just shake it all up, we get rid of the unions and the radical Islamist scourge at the same time.

There then followed a strong rule change, making working compulsory, forcing people to accept any job on offer and reducing work security through a change in working contracts law.

Also, to throw into the mix came the idea to “increase the quality of schooling” by allowing free schools and by tearing schools away from councils and getting them directly funded by government e.g. through the academy system.

Whilst previously we saw a shortage of school places, we now see an oversaturation of educational provision. Schools open everywhere but people generally have less children because of working law and benefit changes.

All the uprooting of social connections, suitably assisted by changes in housing law and provision thoroughly shook society to the core.

In Tower Hamlets just about the only traditional education available was through Church of England schools. Yet academies and free schools have mushroomed out of nowhere, leaving Muslim children to attend non-church schools with often 85-95% Muslims, whilst the Catholic kids, cram into the few Catholic schools.

The Church of England, through its Liberal approach suffers from a loss of church attendance and general lack of draconian church discipline, is not very attractive to Muslims who experience much more pressure to follow strict religious rules and enjoy the feeling of being forced to adhere to a religious life-style.

That makes Church of England schools less attractive to those who want to experience dogma.

Tower Hamlets has long been the source of constant political controversy and is run by more or less left-wing factions of the Labour Party and similar constellations of political movements like AspireRespect or Tower Hamlets First.

The current Mayor of Tower Hamlets, John Biggs, who was seen as a moderate leader by many, is however very keen to rid Tower Hamlets of one of the oldest Church of England schools at the earliest opportunity. It is just another weapon to stab local society into the heart of traditional values and help undermine the Monarchy.

Had this Conservative government not sought to change society to the core with a flurry of legal changes, we would not be in this situation that English traditional education is being disbanded in this part of London.

Any benefit that may have shown through ‘better’ academy schools is wiped out by disturbance constant change brings. Children need to feel safe not only physically but also mentally by being able to rely on those services, adults around them, knowing they can grow up into society and contribute to that society at a later stage.

raines school

Raine’s Foundation, C.o.E. Secondary in Bethnal Green

The children of Raine’s Foundation school in Tower Hamlets are being torn apart from their brand-new school, strewn into the wind of education and lost the ability to concentrate on their GCSE and A-levels because their school is threatened by closure.

The last thing, kids want to worry about is finding a school or changing school when they need to concentrate on years of course work to get the best results. The travesty is that the education and teachers at Raine’s are very good and pupils can achieve best results, they do run a Year 11 High Attainment Program in conjunction with Stem. Why do they want to close a school that produces top class achievers, just because it is a Church of England school?

Most parents choose schools wanting peace of mind, being able to leave their children there till 6. Form and then go onto university or into a working life.

Yet the chopping and changing politics by this current government has thrown everything around into a big mixing bowl of social change and nobody is any the wiser of what is happening.

Of course, being able to plan ahead has become a luxury and that is what this government wants, they do not want people to get too comfortable because happy people are dangerous people who can start to demand even better than they have.

So, this Conservative government in fact chips away on conservative values and education by creating a whirlwind social environment that destroys all conservative values and creates anxiety and fear among our young people.

That is one of the reasons why kids now feel they need to demonstrate about the climate emergency instead of going to school, why school kids feel they need knives to protect themselves as they no longer feel safe as nothing can be relied upon any longer. Parents aren’t even at home after school any longer to calm down any fears, parents are forced into working instead of being there to parent.

Everthing is being eroded for working people, starting by housing, to working contracts and schooling. The reduction of policing services has another detrimental impact onto society.

Getting rid of everything known and comforting is perhaps the biggest mistake this government makes.

There are no particular problems at Raine’s Foundation, yet over-crowded popular schools often attract the most problems. But the per-pupil funding will prefer big problem schools before smaller, high quality schools because of the funding formulae.

Just today, the World Economic Forum published figures to show how stress severely affects our University Students, which means the format of education needs to change, to become more user friendly rather than production belt style.

Raine’s provides that friendly but high quality education, that is of excellent quality.  Universities must follow a model that produces happy students.

 

detachment is responsible

standing family near fireplace

Photo by Victoria Borodinova on Pexels.com Family

I think that the reason for the rise in the crime rate and especially gang related crime, e.g. knife crime, gangs, drugs is the destabilisation of family life.

As I stated in my previous post about renting, currently in Britain, an average renter only stays for 4 years in a flat. People are moved around the country, into areas they do not know anybody just to get a roof over their head. Some call it de-gentrification of inner cities like London.

Renters conditions have been changed, so that a permanent tenancy is now hard to come by. the old-fashioned flats for life, people could pass on to a relative have largely gone.

Additionally the emigration rate through wars in far away lands has unsettled large amounts of people around the globe who also add to the new additions to society.

group of people in a meeting

Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com Work place

Families are destabilised because in families now all family members have to work. Decades ago one family member could stay at home until a child reached the age of 13, that is now reduced to the age of 5.

In practise that means if a family has older children in schools, those kids often find themselves without a parent after school.

The close family contact between people no longer exists. Employment conditions have become more and more unpredictable, income can vary tremendously with times of hard-ship, e.g. reliance on food banks.

All these uncertainties contribute considerably to making gangs attractive to young people. Especially vulnerable youngster get picked off the expelled pupils registers to work for Post code drug gangs.

It really has nothing to do with the keeping people busy, it has a lot to do with giving people the right to be the boss of their own life, to have a right to a family life and give kids the guidance they need.

man lights legs silhouette

Photo by Tookapic on Pexels.com     Gang member

Gang bosses can give plenty of guidance and that is why they are so successful recruiting youngsters. Those youngsters then are led to believe that carrying a knife is the only way to stay safe, its either kill or get killed. That is the terrible fact about the current crime scene.

Whilst youth funding is cut back, police officers reduced and parents are stuck into jobs through the work program, there is nobody available to give a shoulder to lean on for our young people.

Families just can’t help each other out any longer easily, they often live apart, have been moved to different parts of the country or world and have no longer any time for each other.

Until a government restores our sense of family, gives people the dignity of having permanent homes and permanent jobs, I do not see an end to the current problems. People need to belong and feel they are safe and increasing the instabilities is not going to help. The government needs to show some sympathy, emphathy for people. We are not just all robots who follow work rosters.

From G(c)rime to shine

It is an extraordinary public drama and mind-boggling to follow the public discussion that is the result of the decriminalization of homosexuality and the efforts of governments world-wide (almost) by now to change laws to enable gay couples equality to same-sex couples.

Looking at the history of it, same-sex marriage has always been the way to create a partnership, in which property was shared and it enabled the ground for a married couple to reproduce and leave possessions and often land and property to the off-spring.

Marriages were made for the purpose to amalgamate whole kingdoms, properties were made larger by using marriage and children could inherit considerable fortunes and power when they were in the best households.

The idea of gay marriage is entirely not fitting into this concept as gay couples cannot produce any children but can only adopt them. So it does not surprise me that Ben Summerskill chief executive of Stonewall, a pro-gay lobby group, argues that gay couples could produce a stable home for children who are condemned to grow up in single parent households because regular couples have broken up. He practically supports, in my personal view, that gay couples could take over raising children in a ‘stable gay family’ once the heterosexual couple has broken up and therefore save children from growing up in single parent households.

As if that is the most important thing to consider.

The fact is that gay couples have no reason to marry within the traditional boundaries of marriage because they do not produce off-spring to pass possessions onto.

An important fact has to be established and that is the first reason for marriage in he first place is to form a hub for raising off-spring produced within that marriage and not just to get married for the sake of being married and that is what Stonewall tries to achieve I think, they try to achieve that you can get married for the sake of being married without further purpose.

I think that law makers have fundamentally mishandled the marriage question and equalised something that has no equal because it naturally is incapable of producing children. It would be wholly inappropriate to allow gay marriage just to produce a gay subsidy where heterosexual families have failed.

There is another mistake in Stonewall’s argument in that gay marriage does not guarantee that it lasts forever, gay couples break up just as other ones do. So just because gay marriage exists, this does not guarantee the ability to place children into ‘stable families’ forever.

I think it is more than obvious that some very influential and rich gay men could influence the law making process into allowing homosexuality and now the rest of the legal world struggles to integrate this newly produced equality into all areas of life.

It is not possible to produce a legal total equality where nature has not gotten the ability to be totally equal itself. Nature and/or God’s creation is not equal for all, it is for those who follow the correct path of life, which is very well described in the bible.

The Independent online newspaper reports that David Cameron was today presented with a 500.000 strong petition against gay marriage.

added 26/12/12, apparently this article supports everything I said. Frankly it is a complete shambles that the Conservatives emphasize gay marriage so much, presumably just because they have some strong donors among them. Political parties should be forced to declare money donations from homosexual people.

Active discrimination against women Mr Osborne

Here we go again, whilst during Thatcher times we were openly put down and ridiculed for being single mothers, now we get the theory of equal treatment but get hit harder through fiscal policies instead. see source

At the time of Thatcher in principle I very much agreed with Conservative policies but for the public stance on single mothers, I never liked the witch hunts against single mothers. Even though I was married and had all my children within marriage, one cannot condemn a woman for having to bring up a child alone, I therefore take a stand for single mothers because at the moment technically I am a single mother too.

I get all the tough treatment, I get sent to employment courses even though I am a volunteer and get asked whether I want to work evenings and weekends. There is a work placement but I cannot be forced to work in the holidays. The whole concepts stinks of discrimination against single mothers.

The Fawcett Society, which campaigns for equality between women and men estimates that single mothers will lose 8.5% of their income by 2015.

The charity also said single mothers were being hardest hit by cuts to public services, estimating that these were costing them the equivalent of 18.5% of their net income – more than double the impact on couples with children.

Whilst we get big movements against forced marriage and domestic violence and women are actively encouraged to leave violent relationships, not at least for the sake of their children, women are at the same time financially and fiscally discriminated against. Another not so common sense policy I should say.

I am in principle for the furthering of family life but cannot agree to the fact that women are punished for raising children alone.

A message on father’s day

David Cameron has clearly spelled out his desire to continue a policy of preferential taxation for families and he says that absent fathers should be stigmatised as much as drink drivers. Though I find it a little bit hard to believe that the Liberal Democrats do not favour a tax policy that helps complete families along.

I think it is a very important step forward that David Cameron now wants to stigmatize the absent fathers when under Thatcher it seemed like single mothers were the ones to blame. It was a very hard fight to have acknowledged who the real victims are and it seems now the general consensus is that the victims are the single mothers and their children and that it is up to the dads to put in an appearance, show interest in their children’s education and financially support the children.

I simply do not believe however that women should be replaced as carers for their babies in saying fathers are better at nappy changing. Women are not a “rent – a – womb” service, giving birth, letting the bloke do the nursing and going back to work either.

Only 15% of men who were asked believed their partners do a better job than they can looking after babies. Yet the immensely important emotional bond that is there between a mother and a child cannot be surveyed as this is a natural bond that cannot exist between a baby and the father as much as it does with the mother as the baby grows inside the mother’s body. It is for that reason I believe that 61% do not trust father’s as much as they trust mum’s to look after babies.

PS: Having just read a comment to the Prime Minister’s suggestion from gingerbread, I must say I would not support it if mothers had to pay the CMEC any fee to use the service. It should be the fathers, or the person who supports the caring parent, who should have to pay the fee if any. If any absent father makes a voluntary financial agreement and then pays the money he would save himself and the tax payer using the CMEC and if he needs to be reminded of his duty then he should be charged the fee and not the parent needing the money.

It is always difficult to ‘punish’ or reward for being married or not in a society that allows divorce and has fairly liberal  moral rules. There is no boundary on being married, there is not just one marriage, there are early marriages, late marriages, first and second and third marriages, neither of which exclude the possibility of children somewhere out of any of those marriages with other partners. When I hear the Prime Minister on such issues, it always seems to me as if he suggests people only marry once or have no other children after they got married elsewhere.

religious debate in France

This debate is titled “Islam debate” in France on the BBC website, which I think should not be the correct title because the debate in France deals with all types of religious symbols from Christian crosses to Muslim headscarves.

I understand that France, not unsimilar to Turkey, is a secular state. Germany works on similar principles, in that state education is secular but religion  is left to families. I do not think that a discussion about a very prominent religion stigmatize that religion. In fact it can intimidate the rest of the population if one particular group walks around in totally distinguished clothing and makes others left out, which can have very racist implication, in that the person who wears that “Social Uniform” tells other, unless you look like me, I won’t accept you.

There is a reverse stigmatization happening from those being very distinct towards those who are not.

I think that would apply to all religion and not only to Muslims or any other religions for that matter.

The question that arises for me is who is discriminating against whom? Members of a very distinct group of people, including some religions who keep out everybody else, or those who say, we do not wish to be confronted with your religious symbols in every walk of our lives, keep your religion in your church and your home.

I think freedom and tolerance has to have a breathing space that keeps a common ground for all of us and as much as Christians have stopped to indoctrinate the  society, as much must we expect of all other religions not to indoctrinate our lives as well.

 

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,254 hits