Political solutions

Councils really love it,

you collect signatures for petitions, you present the petition in council chamber and they can either allow or deny the request. Often enough they deny it, but, they still love it that you came to try because it is democracy in action.

Apparently it is extremely time-consuming to collect signatures for petitions on the whim of it being disallowed most of the time.

Many problems can be solved much easier and quicker if people go along the complaints route.

In Tower Hamlets you can complain three times about a problem within six months, if nothing has improved after that time you use Community Trigger. That shows up in the statistics as a failure for the council to solve a problem. They really hate that and actually have to improve things to resolve problems.

Whilst with the petitions and representations, they just do not have to do anything but deny it.

Another great route is complaining to the Ombudsman.

Many problems I get presented with have to do with Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs). In some council areas they have listened to people and removed road blockages but in others they just don’t. It’s made a political issue and powerful politicians try to push the issue. In Tower Hamlets that has led to this: “Let’s vote Lutfur Rahman again, he is the only politician to remove them, whilst Labour wants to keep them there”.

Taken from Facebook, local traders protest on road closures

Then people wonder why Lutfur Rahman again gets elected. Labour always uses the same political ploy, they enable more radical left-wingers to get into positions, whether it’s George Galloway or Lutfur Rahman because that is what they want to happen.

I have seen messages from London Fire Brigade and been told that the Met Police have officially requested the removal of road blockages for LTNs with no effect. That should be unlawful but unfortunately it is not unlawful for councils to not listen to concerns from emergency services.

Also it is wicked and cruel to first of all tell traders to open shops and then close the roads so that people cannot drive to them, this includes deliveries and pick-ups for orders.

Personally I do not think that particular politicians can resolve technical problems because technical problems should not have to rely on particular politicians, they should be there regardless of political leadership.

Just look at the issue of Fire safety in Tower Blocks. There are many Facebook groups and local politicians, even the new MP for Poplar and Limehouse, who is currently in court for alleged housing benefit fraud, says, that we need a political solution to solve the problem of paying for removing cladding.

But in the meantime, until the cladding is removed, there are alarm based solutions.

Yet, non of the politicians involved in the debate ever mentions this once.

Alarm based solutions enable the flat owners to install a smart alarm that is connected to other alarm owners via an App called Safeland. If one alarm goes off, all other alarm owners connected get alarmed as well. That saves people from patrolling blocks day and night.

It costs a little bit for the alarm and a yearly small subscription fee to Safeland but it is peace of mind. Yet media like TV channels have spent a lot of time portraying people as having to patrol their blocks and never mentioned the alarm based solutions people can instal.

So why do politicians and so many Facebook groups not mention this to their readers?

I think you can abuse the public by steering every problem into a political solution without mentioning the sheer brilliant technical ones.

the changing face of Labour

double standards

Labour's double standards have become apparent in more than one way

Now a new member of the Privy council has been appointed, MP Sadiq Khan. I suppose it is to keep all those Muslim voters on board with the Labour Party fellowship. Mr Kahn MP has been campaigning against the laws under which the US wants to extradite his constituent Babar Ahmad. Mr Ahmad is accused of running websites raising money for the Taleban but faces no charges in the UK.

But the double standard becomes more than obvious and becomes apparent in more than one way. When Conservative MP Damian Green had his office searched by anti-terror police, Labour has now appointed a new member of the cabinet for transport who was twice bugged for visiting a terror suspect in jail.

Not to mention here in Tower Hamlets Respect Councillor Oli Rahman was questioned at Heathrow Airport where he was held by anti-terrorist police when he returned from an anti-war conference in Cairo, Egypt. Incidentally the Tower Hamlets Labour party is urging all Respect members and especially Councillors to join Labour. See here John Gray’s posting. “Happy Days! Galloway/SWP Councillors join Labour”

In my own case left-wing Labour members are desperate to proof that I had alleged ….. connections. I left the Labour Party and do not wish to stay a member of a party that seeks to find connections to terrorism rather than individual members seeking to distance themselves.

Just look at David Osler, paid for membership of the Labour Representation Committee but is being sued by me over his posting of discussions, for which my name was used but which I do not wish to support.

I am trying to argue that so much McBride style smearing is undertaken because there is no proper logging of Internet users and in this report people are again urged to re-think their attitude towards call and Internet logging because one has to prevent the exchange of terrorist conversations, aimed to harm our communities.

There we see the double standard of Labour, seeking to enforce rules strictly against Conservative opponents and now playing with the Human Rights record of a newly appointed member of the Privy Council, who himself was bugged twice when he visited terror suspects and in Tower Hamlets Labour urges for Respect members to join Labour and one of the sitting Tower Hamlets Respect Councillors, Oliur Rahman, has also once been held by terrorist police.

Personally I do not wish to have anything to do with Labour. In my case individual Labour members want to make a connection between me and …… Of course I never ever had anything to do with them, do not know one single member, never met, never communicated in any way whatsoever. Yet the UK Labour Party members trumpet out an old article from Der Spiegel, that is defamatory and now work desperately with German left-wingers to get evidence for that alleged connection.  Even Der Spiegel has removed that article from public view and has never put on a defence of justification or fair comment for their allegations but argued no jurisdiction instead, whilst UK Labour wants to find a way to get in touch with German left-wing radicals over this issue. That just says it all, no further comment necessary.

For those who are not aware of my history, I briefly was a member of Labour then Respect and am now a member of the Conservative Party since September 2007.

What is most fascinating is the obvious scrupulous propaganda machine of Labour who do anything just to stay in power and use propaganda without any apparent threshold of any particular aim but use it just to keep voters and use it in any way to do so with no set ideological standard. The changing face of Labour.

On the more established side of Labour even Lord Falconer now queries Gordon Brown’s leadership but unfortunately also has an unrealistic outlook when he considers that the Conservatives look vulnerable, when the Conservatives just won a landslide victory in English council elections.


Football players

Football players

Ever since the football associations lost control over the players, e.g. final say of who could play for whom and for how much, the players got the status of employee or self-employed and fell under the free market regulations that they were seen as workers and had the right to play for whom they liked and/or the highest bidder.

The recent loss of Manchester United reiterates the fact that Ronaldo, normally plays for Man U, played for the opposition Barcelona on that occasion and Barcelona won.

For the matter of emotional support it can be a bit difficult for local fans to manage the fact of players changing allegiance.

To compare that with party politics, a lot of people would not tolerate chopping and changing, e.g. see Dave Osler’s and John Gray’s reaction to me leaving the Labour Party, calling me all kinds of things, but when it comes to football, players can change sides as frequently as their underwear, whichever is the most frequent, I don’t know.

Is there a certain ideology in Football? There sure is, a football team traditionally was bound to the geographical location it is based in. E.g. Manchester United is exactly the football club of that town, together with Manchester City.

In the case of political representation we get elected “players” like MPs and Councillors and that used to be similar with footballers in a sense they were elected by the Football Association to play for a certain club and the amount of transfer fees was also determined by the football association. Whereas politicians could not transfer for a fee but change political parties without a contractual payment.

Magna Carta the original contract giving powers to elected parliamentary repreesntatives of the people

In the case of MPs who do work for a wage, they cannot change allegiance as per the locality they represent but they can change allegiance as to the party they work for whilst they are in office; though some constituents have already asked can we sack an MP if they don’t act up to scratch. In the case of footballers that localised connection has long been broken

Court rulings important in that respect are Simuldenkov and I have to look up the case whereby one footballer went to court to challenge the situation that he could not determine himself where he could play and for what price. He won and since then footballers are treated like workers who can negotiate their own contracts, rather than depend on decisions of the football association.

That is the main difference, that the local affiliation, the basic principle of personal conviction for a cause, does not exist any longer in football but that it has become a profession.

The only other profession we see acting according to a personal conviction are political activists, local MPs who are elected according to the post code they stand for.

With the recent situation of MPs having to resign over irregularities we might see a change coming in, to do with the legal status of Members of Parliament.  Parliamentarians representing the local people who are bound to that local land, have to reside in the constitutions but as we’ve seen in the case of Galloway can travel to a constitution and represent the locals there, if they are voted in.

In Football, the club used to be bound to the locality too, and the players were representatives according to their local affiliations.

This bound to the land connection seems to be driven further and further into the background, also comparing this with the House of Lords, that traditionally was a House of long-standing peers, bound to certain geographical areas of Great Britain. In line with the internationalisation of all our affairs, the hereditary peer is in danger of extinction too.

Lets imagine MPscan now start to choose to make their own contracts, they are voted into office in one locality but then can be sacked for miss-conduct, that theoretically makes the contract of being elected invalid, as the electorate does not vote in an MP specifically on the conditions that they always stick to the rules and are not allowed any indiscretion, that is a matter of expectation. Because if voters can claim expectation damage and their elected MP has to stand down because they broke that expectation and some locals depended on that particular representation, then we are having big problems. One can also apply that to football clubs and footballers that play for them.

I think the matter of contract and any type of local representation, whether in sport or politics lacks direction.  People’s convictions and personal beliefs do not count any longer as soon as an elected representative can be disposed of without seeking the agreement of the electorate.

In the recent scandals involving MP expenses, properly elected parliamentarians have been put on public trial without any proper investigations and the matter of their ‘guilt’ established. All sorts of accusations flew through the media and MPs forced into resignation before the matter was even properly investigated.

I think that is intolerable and can lead to a political swing into the wrong direction if it happens to enough MPs.

In that respect I actually want to come to the defence of Gordon Brown when he spoke about local jobs for local people. We have local schools for local children and those local children have to go to local schools. Yet in working matters we suddenly have the free movement of labour throughout Europe and that clashes with the interest of locals who because of other circumstances cannot undercut the prices for jobs on offer. The emphasis of local needs has moved into the background in football, work and parliamentary representation.  We even see the Conservatives arguing for more local government control don’t we? There is a very interesting contradiction appearing I think.

Imagine that once a politician is voted in he can then choose to change constituency and work for the highest paying constituency, so that we get better paid highly efficient MPs in some areas and not so good ones in others. That already works with lawyers, the best ones can demand the best prices, that would lead to a deterioration of some areas. Yet this principle is happily applied to football.

In education we certainly do have a post code bound system but in local government in general we are going away from it by now altering local housing services into national and commercial ones.

I think these changes go against the interests of local people in general whether in football, parliamentary representation or local government administration, its all become a business and profit venture that doesn’t allow much local choice at all. Especially the dismantling of the National Health Service that found strength in the ability to allocate national resources to local areas has suffered.

In particular that is why I assume the leader of the Church of EnglandDr Rowan Williams was concerned about the recent scandals to do with MPs because it takes away power from locals who elect representatives that they can be sacked on such issues or at least forced out with public pressure. Why call our Members of Parliament Right Honourable when we then treat them with disrespect. We devalue our own choices and the people we trust in if we do not find a more suitable system to handle discrepancies of what should be done and what shouldn’t be done especially in the area of expenses.
It seems to me there is so much uncertainty amongst a lot of MPs of what they can and what they can’t claim that it is hardly their fault but the fault of a slack system that pays out whatever.
Incidentally the Parish Councillors have lost a lot of power in the recent shake-ups of local authority organisation too.

In particular the disturbing incidence I had with the above mentioned George Galloway in that any letters of mine remained unanswered and that he invited me to come to the Hackney Empire, pay £15 entrance fee and ask questions there. This is political representation as per sale. I remarked about that in the East London Advertiser at the time and think this is a taste of things to come, in that Galloway is the fore-bearer of bad news.

The international and national elitism that this professional level of football creates has the positive effect of creating international bonds, which are good for peace but it throws away the importance of locally grown talent to compete on their own strength and ability as actual representatives of that local talent.

If MPs are no longer accountable to their constituency who can represent the constituency? It’s the constituents who vote them in and it should be the constituents to vote them out and not reporters and news coverage.
We need a more earthly approach to local issues and not neglect those local matters for the benefit of internationalism that is not always in our best interest. It was Policy Network under Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair making head-waves on international governance. I suppose a middle ground has to be found to satisfy the need for good international relations and local need.

We cannot argue away the local people who want jobs, who need recognition, personal fulfillment, who make our communities . We cannot live on the basis that all our people have to constantly move around to find the jobs within the EU, people like to live steady in the homes they bought, the flats they rent with the family they nurture, especially children need a permanent home.

What we have at the moment is mass unemployment with cheap goods delivered to our doors and great sport on the TV and I suppose a lot of us are happy as long as they can afford that season ticket. We want more personal local involvement to strengthen our communities and we have to get jobs to make us feel like we are important makers of our communities and don’t just live somewhere.

Blog Stats

  • 55,121 hits
%d bloggers like this: