Bedroom hardship

I am very certain, that as soon as people get hit with their new rent demands, many will want to move to smaller accommodation. Yet they’ll find that the market is saturated and nothing is available. Even those who try their hardest to find a smaller flat will have to pay the bedroom tax without it being a fault of their own that they now cannot get a smaller place to live in.

In the privately rented sector, people will need to pay a deposit. I have not seen it advertised anywhere that people actually will get help with this. Therefore I do agree, that this Bedroom Tax, as Labour calls it is unfair to people. It will be unfair to landlords, who will find themselves facing large arrears and negative bank balances.

The government simply argues that they cannot afford to pay housing benefit for spare bedrooms and need to get the housing market moving and people into work.

It’s the ‘sink or swim’ approach and many will sink rather than swim. Tenants will see their housing benefit or universal benefit paid directly to them and if they have such hardship that they can hardly cope with the £500 cap per week, they will rather spend the money on food than on rent.

Many people will get eviction notices and register as homeless with councils and even then councils will find it difficult to secure enough small bedroom accommodation to give all homeless the size of flat they deserve under the new regulations.

That bedroom tax is going to cause a lot of problems but unfortunately people will have to put up with it unless a court decides it is unreasonable and perhaps it could breach Human Rights.  Else people have to wait until after the next elections and most likely that will see a Labour government who will need some time to change housing rules. But by then, and the government knows this most people will already have been evicted from their current flats.

So all rules governing tenancy security will be thrown overboard by the Bedroom Tax. It doesn’t matter how secure your tenancy is, if you can’t pay the rent, you still are going to get evicted.

This seems a contractual oddity because there is no clause in the secure tenancy agreements that the rules on size of property could be changed during the course of the contract.

But I also vividly remember how Labour Party members, when Labour was still in government, who screamed about under-occupation and it were Labour members who called for urgent changes to current housing laws, so who are they to complain now?

Advertisements

Brave U-turns

I rather have a government that admits to mistakes and changes the mind than one that sticks to a once set policy and pushes it through come what may.

But today, as I said many times previously, policy changes come fast and furious, every 5 years in fact and with so little time, is it any wonder that there are problems emerging once policies are implemented. There is no perfect world but as long as we can have a constructive dialogue that even allows discussion, we are still OK.

It worries me a little bit that Labour wants less dialogue and more doctrine rather than an open system that allows for changes.

It is also a little bit loop-sided of the BBC to run a headline like U-turn on pastry tax ‘a shambles’ when that is just a quote from an opposition politician but could be understood by the reader a comment on the policy from the BBC. I am not in favour of those tiny little specs of quotation signs that are supposed to indicate quasi quotes from somebody.

It is refreshing to see the open dialogue between Boris Johnson and the rest of the government about airports also. It shows we are having a real democracy and not just some top-down imposed puppet on the strings theatre.

A Labour smear campaign

Since the article that caused the editor of the London Bangla newspaper to appear in court, I can only comment at this stage, that this smear campaign leads directly to the Labour Party headquarters here in Bethnal Green because it announces a meeting there in conjunction with a smear on a candidate for the Tower Hamlets Mayoral elections. Wonder how much Freedom of Expression that case is going to get.

Considering that the Labour Party meeting rooms in Cambridge Heath Road are Helal Abbass’ meeting rooms as well, it must have been a double whammy for him to find that his opponents wanted to heckle him outside of the party rooms.

There is a lot of double crossing going on in political parties in this area and all parties, if need to, just pull together to defeat one enemy created by a party machine in favour of somebody winning an election.The Bangla court case was announced today on Ted Jeory’s website.

From the e-mail address of the publisher of the ad, is little to be known but there is a mobile number given. Would not guarantee that the chip still works. But this just about shows how low the quality of “political” campaign is in this area.

Bringing run-away finance under control

David Miliband has proposed a system under which Bankers can be struck off a register the same as doctors can. This would impose the setting up of a professionally controlled banker’s body similar to the BMI, British Medical Association that governs doctors in the UK. Who would be in charge of bankers? Well of course the Bank of England is the most likely candidate, as it practises finance with a considerable interest stake in it, similar to the British Medical Association practises Medicine in the UK.

hopefully we won’t see the setting up of yet another body that will cost even more money again. People get tired of just paying taxed for elected professionals who do not know what they are doing and constantly make repairs to faulty legislature.

What is at the heart of reckless spending is the Business law or Company law that allows company directors practically nil responsibility but high wages. That is the focus point of the high spending and not professional misdemeanour of bankers in my view.

Bankers only work with other primary legislation and only moral considerations stops them from carrying out their sometimes evil deeds.

Yet this whole problem scratches at the principles of Capitalism and the free market economy. Whereby the big incentive to promote the economy is the fat cat salary and the bonuses thereafter, the big pensions and the share dividends.

No top politicians in office today really want to see any major changes because this system pays them very well. Of course they try to restrain themselves and slap themselves and each other on the wrist by conducting financial witch-hunts of MPS and other representatives with creative accounting methods that proof lucrative for them, but that is about it. What people seem to not understand is the fact that within the current system you cannot stray from the rules, you can only change the system completely to achieve change.

Our current system, also called democracy is built from capitalistic finance, fiscal stimulation and public administration, all of which rely on the creation of finance by economic stimulus, which in itself is governed by financial accounting methods, which require profits to be made. So all political leaders currently in the House of Commons benefit from it and Labour politicians get their salaries paid the same as all other ones and so it is not really in anybody’s interest to promote radical changes, that would both save the environment and stop wasting money on yet more money spinning administration changes.

Putting it in a nutshell, those responsible for politics today are sometimes voted in by less than a quarter of electors. What would happen if nobody went to the polling booths at all? Our democracy would not be able to appoint another half-baked politician who would put his name to the historic mismanagement of earthly resources.

David Miliband’s proposal is nothing but yet another cosmetic short-term solution that will fall foul of capitalist and financial dynamic within decades and proof useless once he is out of office and somebody else has to take the brunt from that suggestion he made.

We are doing the Right thing

Isn’t that what they all tell us, all leaders of parties and countries, they are all convinced that they are doing the right thing for the future until of course they are deselected, toppled or plainly defeated in war.

Here in the UK we had another Prime Minister who used as one of his most famous phrases something like doing the Right Thing and that was Tony Blair. There are striking similarities between those 2 Prime Ministers and in fact I wonder whether David Cameron does copy Tony Blairs style or whether they are just good friends behind the scenes. I always thought that Tony Blair was a closet Conservative.

When I yesterday received David Cameron’s e-mail I was just full of resentment and disappointment had crept into my soul, I felt immediately calm for a little while but then wondered whether that is the silence just before the storm. Because I started to feel angry again when I thought how empty many phrases just were, just promising that we are doing the right thing for the future. Incidentally does anybody remember the film The Thing, which is about dogs that form into wild beasts somewhere in the arctic. It is truly horrible.

Unfortunately the e-mail from David Cameron just wished me a nice and relaxing summer break. How away from reality that is because I am required to find myself a job and cannot have a nice summer break; just because he has a summer break he probably thinks we all have a summer break. I think that David Cameron is far removed from reality and lives kind of in his own world, that becomes very apparent when one reads his book The Big Idea. It is full of lovely words and phrases, stuff that sounds absolutely ideal on paper but in the real world, David Cameron is not so realistic.

To give him credit it is nice that he pays back all the Equitable Life Policies to investors in the scheme, but that is not applying to everyone but just adds to the cost to the tax payer. It seems that Equitable Life Police holders are the only one to benefit from the new government as everybody else has lost out in benefit deductions, tenancy regulations and higher costs generally.

David Cameron did not answer to my communication to the party in which I asked why it is that I had been invited to hand out thousands of leaflets knock on hundreds of doors, be a teller at elections, stuff envelopes and post them out by hand, which took a considerable amount of time, just to be told now that I am one of the workshy single parents who need to be forced to look for work. He has not answered me why it is that none of the party members, who were very eager to accept my free Labour for the propaganda machine did not offer me any work ever.

I think that David Cameron’s idea of doing the right thing for the future is just another empty phrase and shows how inarticulate the man really is when it comes to day to day government. Just like Tony Blair always used to do the right thing. It is just a shame that once such people are in the top jobs they stay at the top and us little people just have to submit to their decision making processes.

further David Cameron fails to admit that his Welfare to Work Program is not so different from Hitler’s Zwangsarbeit and Cameron’s claims that his is the biggest ever scheme fails on that point alone.In this German entry in Wikipedia Zwangsarbeit is defined as a type of work that is carried out under threat of punishment. That is exactly what David Cameron’s work program does, we are threatened to lose our benefits if we do not go on work placements for 16 hours per week at the very least. My father told me that if he didn’t join the German Hitler youth and army his family lost the food stamps. That is very much the same principle as David Cameron’s little idea. It is plainly wrong to force people to work for profit making companies which do not pay for the work and which make millions of profits each year.  Incidentally it was Tony Blair who laid the foundations for that scheme and I criticised then, that it is only a very small step from forcing people to join the army in a case of war with threat of removing their benefits.

But Cameron puts another little twist onto the scheme by changing the set up of the army in that the Territorials now get more money and that are working people playing soldier in their spare time, so Cameron builds up a covert army force when he forces people into work.

I don’t mind people defending their homeland, so to speak but the principle on which that defence is achieved in plainly wrong and similar to Hitler’s Zwangsarbeit scheme and therefore will fail in the long run because that is also what brought Hitler’s army to a standstill that so much resentment toppled him.

It is OK for him to like the change in the Pension scheme as he is relatively young and most of his young cabinet members also do not feel that pinch but us older people really do feel that pinch. David Cameron also still defends the NHS reforms without making any references to newly voiced concerns over waiting times being artificially prolonged to make treatment appear cheaper on cost calculations.

I think Cameron is just a Blair in a sheep’s coat. Both leaders are business driven, do what the big businesses tell them to do and the companies get more and more powerful and rich, practically dictating the political parties how to run the politics or they will remove their business from that country, leaving employment gaps. The drive to lower taxes does not help the general poverty the little people are feeling and calls to increase the minimum wage to the living wage also do not guarantee that the quality of life is maintained at a certain standard. One has to counter act the Tax Payers Alliance with a powerful lobby group that looks into profiteering, how quality of life is affected and how companies can be held to pay more taxes and employ more at a reduction of company profits.

That is the general problem that companies are answerable to their share holders, who just want to see profit, that this often means cutting the work force who then become unemployed and that is the real heart of the matter that neither Blair nor Cameron have even touched upon.

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.

How political can the unemployed be

Since I have been referred to A4E that is Action 4 Employment, I have realised how little chance an unemployed person has to get a job when there is also political ideology involved.

The pension age has risen and I am just one of the unlucky ones who lost out with short notice, I now have to find myself a job. Only last year I expected to retire age 60 but got a letter a few months back telling me that I cannot now retire but have to wait till I am at least 62. I am 58 now.

So taking my fair share of loss of income I now not only have to loose out on the pension income but also find myself a work placement because my service provider says they have problems finding companies to take work placements because they have to take out insurance to cover the “volunteers”.

The work placements are compulsory on the job seekers but there is no legal requirements on companies to actually make places available and from what I hear companies are pretty reluctant to take the risk and lay out the costs for the free work-force on their premises.

I have been written about in the blogger sphere pretty widely and Labour complained that I left Labour and then joined 3 other parties. The idea of being a member of a party is I thought to become part of a social / political network to help people get on in life.

One adapts to the lingo or language and uses the phraseologies to fit in with the political atmosphere. For me, no party membership actually resulted in any paid work for me. But all political parties asked me to volunteer and work very hard canvassing, handing out and posting leaflets through letter boxes but all I got in return for all that hard work, was more and more online abuse.

When I am a Labour member but apply to a company for work where the boss favours the Conservatives I might find it hard to get a job and its the same the other way around.

I think the unemployed indirectly are a massive political force because they should not vote for anyone unless they get them a job. Its no good to me to help Boris get back into County Hall when Boris does not give me a job and I am the same unemployed after the election as I was before.

Of course in political parties some are the lucky ones and get elected as councillors and one can then get the expenses but think it might be difficult to live on them because one is no longer entitled to JSA because of the hours but the expenses for councillors are quite generous. Nevertheless there is luck only for very few people to get in as councillors and for the rest of the party activists there is only hard work, volunteering without any promises for work afterwards. It is a considerable risk for an unemployed person to join a political party if there is no employment because the commitment might put employers off from giving a job.

I think the unemployed cannot be politically explicit because they need work first and foremost and cannot afford to upset employers with any political direction they may be in whilst unemployed.

I have said it many times before, never volunteer unless you already got a job and you still got time to do so for any cause. There is of course one exception and that are compassionate causes like kids, the elderly and so on but otherwise I think political parties should not use the unemployed to do their propaganda work for them unless it was a properly contracted work experience.

Do you vote for the party or for the policies?

I have long argued that in our parliamentary democracy, with 5 yearly changes, we often see crass changes of policies, politics and public strategies, which are devised in a totally not transparent manner. People vote for a political party but get lumbered with sudden changes in public policies, which have long-term effects as well as a change in the political party.

Often key public services suffer sudden disruptions, which causes widespread public concerns. The Archbishop of Canterbury has gotten one thing in agreement with me in that he thinks no-one voted for the current changes in policies, but that is what we always get, we get the party for which we vote but we actually do not vote for the changes in public policies.

I have hinted on the argument before on whether public services strategies should be detached from political party votes so that consistence and transparency can be introduced into the administration of public affairs and into our lives.

This affects all services may that be health, schooling or defence.

Looking at the most recent changes to policing and health, we see that the government is quite happy to keep policing a totally governmental service with national funding but that health had been taken out of national service and is partly privatised. Why is policing and health so different? I think that some police work could also be privatised as much as all health work could go back onto public service to save costs. I think it is very much inconsistent what political parties do today on all sides of the spectrum and that a major overhaul of our democratic principles is in order.

PS: I would like to distance myself from the specific remarks of Dr Rowan Williams in the New Statesman. I do not belief that this problem can only apply to the current government but is a concern after each election when political parties change. There always is a widespread public anxiety when governments change to whichever colour. I have noticed a considerable left-leaning in all types of churches and that surprises me in that the churches were always in history on the side of the ruling classes.

I would have thought churches have a more sombre attitude but since the status of church clergy has changed and many have to suffer poverty themselves I think that has driven them to be rather radical working-class thinkers.

I think the financial status of many churches has changed considerable and often they probably do not have any choice but to apply for status as registered charity to be able to provide a viable service to the community. But that again is due to political and policy changes that were driven by Labour more than by the Conservatives.

Later added: I can well understand David Cameron’s frustration because the Church of England is the English flagship of tearing away from the Catholic religion and it was the King’s initiative to do so at the time of King Henry VIII and now all over sudden the church turns against the state, that is something to write in the history books about in any case. I am however amazed that a senior church clergy makes such trivial remarks, which are far away from the churches usual stances. Seeing that David Cameron is a direct descendant from English royalty I am completely gob-smacked by the politicisation of the English church. I put it down to the financial strain that many churches suffer and their clergy also feel the pinch. There is no longer any direct link between government and church, there is no financial state support for churches and that is leaving many churches on t he brink of collapse.

The German Atomic Conscience

Just as David Cameron announced a nuclear energy programme for the UK, the Germans are out on the streets, protesting against nuclear energy in the light of the Japanese disaster.

I am very impressed by that because it shows that the German self-preservation instinct is still intact. It is this attitude of Cameron to roll out a nuclear energy program throughout the UK that makes me very disappointed with the Conservatives. This practically nullifies everything else I might fight beneficial about Tory policies.

We cannot simply come along and say, but wait a minute, didn’t we fight the Germans in Word War I and II and so have to keep on fighting everything they do? When I heard the German anthem being played at the Monaco Grand Prix I felt proud to be from Germany and when I look at the nuclear policy of late, I regret having gotten myself a British passport.

These latest German protests in Germany show to me that there is a healthy survival instinct in Germany and I wonder why Cameron first of all wanted to sell off all forests and make more nuclear energy available.

Angela Merkel pledges to cease all nuclear energy production by 2022.  Currently 23 % of German energy is produced with the help of atomic power and rightly the German industrialists have argued that there is danger to the German productive economy from its German base. There is little chance that a disaster like the Japanese one will strike in this region just yet but long-term earth warming predictions are as grim for us as for the rest of the world.

Yet current government advisors have said that nuclear energy is the cheapest solution for Britain. I just think that is a little bit short-sighted and I am very disappointed at this suggestion being embraced by the current government.

 

OUTSTANDING Obama BBC interview

The most recent interview US President Obama gave to the BBC is outstandingly good. It shows what an extraordinary good understanding Mr Obama has about just about everything that matters to us and to policies.

Tony Blair also praises Obama’s excellent attitude towards the Middle East.

Compare Miliband to Obama and you end up with the fly on the wall, whereby Miliband represents the fly.

When we compare international politics to national strategies it seems to me that it was domestic political strategies that lost Labour the UK election and of course the inability of the UK media to appreciate the politicians themselves.

Of course in relation to international politics there are real enemies to be considered whilst on the home front, we have an interlaced political scene whereby we see all being friends and there is nothing really to go against. National strategies require a deeper understanding of domestic issues and that is something current politicians cannot do very well throughout the political spectrum. We see the Conservative plan to sell forests backfire. The next new contested plan is revolutionising the NHS but there Obama also failed in his own country, when he tried to reform US health care.

It is easier to formulate international requirements for peace but within our own borders we still find it difficult to make sense of international business and domestic finances.

I think that international peace will be immensely important for the future of humanity itself and therefore all diplomatic efforts are very important. Obama made it quite clear that the US will not tolerate attacks on the US without retaliation and that is a very understandable effort.

I would really like to see more emphasis being placed on spelling out how irresponsible people like Bin Laden really are as they can jeopardise world stability to a point that could endanger the whole human race.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits