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.

continued:

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.

Failing for protecting from abuse

I think that it is an excellent development that victims of abuse can now sue local authorities when their social services failed to protect children for example from abuse, as this BBC article reports. This is about social services not removing children from homes whereby they are abused by their parents or persons in their homes.

Yet that can only happen if the abused, in most cases probably children, become old enough and survive the abuse. In many cases, when it is about small children, they often enough end up dead and cannot bring a case. It is disturbing though, and it seems to be a grey area and hole in the law, that when parents abuse so much that a child dies, that then only the killers of the child, often the parents get held responsible and end up in jail on long prison terms. That is especially questionable when the killers are parents of limited intellect or even severely handicapped with IQ’s below 70. That is what the Americans would still call mentally retarded. The UK gotten rid of that classification in a fashion up-date of UK political correctness.

I think that this must be addressed. That it is predictable that vulnerable adults can easily be manipulated into doing the wrong thing. Yet it is extremely hard to proof that a vulnerable person was manipulated into doing the wrong thing, so that an accountable service, in this case the social services cannot be held responsible for the wrong-doing of the vulnerable adult.

Yet what the cases of victims of abuse in the home show, is that they can sue for not being rescued from an abusive home. Yet we know of many other instances when care providers themselves where sued for abuse taking place within the care home or other caring institutions. For example the Catholic church went through scores of abuse allegations and had to settle at a very high price.

Despite this up-beat in human rights for minors, we still hear cranky politicians ask for more corporal punishment to discipline children better. I think that is the one policy for which I admire Labour, is the introduction of a law that makes corporal punishment child abuse. Because it is the very fact that children are treated with respect that turns them into happier adults and less likely to become criminals. Often corporal punishment prevents victims of abuse to speak out because they are punished if they fall out of line so to speak. Odd behaviour is often enough a sign of abuse but not always.

In conclusion I would like to repeat my demand to make social services more accountable by introducing strict qualification requirements, so that all social workers have to go through years of training and not just become social workers because they cannot get another job. They need to become professionally trained and to a standard that is immediately recognisable. These days you get so many odd social workers and when you enquire what their qualifications are, you get the answer its a secret and protected under the Data Protection Act. Yet with doctors and nurses you know exactly what type of qualifications they have to pass to be able to practise.

Therefore I think it would be better all around if Social Workers came under NHS instead of councils because then they would fall under a category to do with the Hippocratic oath, promising care for each individual. Social Services have been pushed into a very bad position when it is more convenient for them to end up with dead child victims because then  Social Services cannot be prosecuted for the crime rather than living children who can sue them for failing to protect them. Yet the Baby P case led to the sacking of Social Workers, which is only one good but small step into the right direction. Yet those problems have been caused by the ‘Care in the Community’ system that allows all persons to reside within the community, cared for by family members or friends.

Often abusive carers/parents suffer from complex mental conditions that may include neurosis, low intellect, other learning disabilities, compulsive or clinical conditions in social settings are hard to detect for people not trained in the many conditions that are apparent in people today. We even occasionally find that the so-called ‘respected members of our community’ turn out to be ‘faulty’.

We have read about it frequently how difficult parents find it to sterilise severely disabled woman who cannot possibly care for children, they could have. Yet we not only have to look at the Human Rights issue but also at the cost issue because it is extremely expensive to allow inadequate parents to care for children, when those inadequate parents needs caring for themselves.

One good step was the introduction of a benefit ceiling, so that people are prevented from having countless numbers of children, whereby each indidvidual gets less attention and care from their parents and often parents are unable to provide adequate supervision for their off-spring.

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.

The question of community

I think it is an excellent idea of the US authorities to hold an enquiry into the extent of radicalization within the Muslim community. That hits the nail on the head and is honest government behaviour. Often governments tend to ‘not wanting to upset community groups’ and whilst governments often collect and research covert intelligence information, in this case they actually spell it out and make it an open event.

The BBC published a very good report about this.

I think we should have such an approach here in Europe too. What we hear is that the multi-cultural policies didn’t work. When that wording in itself is muddling up the issue completely.

I think a state has a right to single out a community when they are distinguishable ethnic and shut others out of their community who are not the same. This can lead to discrimination from work. I say from work because once sufficient numbers of ethnic persons have jobs in responsible positions they can discriminate against those who are not of their ethnicity. It’s a little similar to the Freemasons problems really.

What I am trying to say is that those problems have to be discussed openly, we need transparency to avoid ethnic discrimination because if we do not make the issue transparent we breed covert discrimination from all parties.

I have always opposed positive and negative discrimination. I always think persons in positions have to properly earn them and not get them because they are of a certain social or ethnic status. I think we cannot discriminate against persons just because they do or do not look a certain way or come from a certain background.

We have to be strict about these issues and not want to calm communities down by employing a percentage out of their ranks to integrate them. We have to put strict performance measures in place and say ‘sorry, if you cannot reach this requirement then you cannot do that job’ and if that means that some communities are not represented in certain working positions then they have to step up their performance and do better in the future to become acceptable.

We have to make a differentiation between immigrated persons and native persons in that native persons to a geographical area are already trained to behave to set and well established norms. We can trust culturally advanced persons to perform better in certain tasks than others who only just learned that function. There is no doubt about it and this cannot be discussed away. Making all the same has always been Labour’s aim but that went down the pan with them. Labour went so far as to discriminate against native white persons in favour of ethnic immigrated persons and that may have contributed to a rise in crime.

Of course within certain areas there are agreements in place to allow equality like in the European Union. Yet language is an important factor that only now gets better recognition when the Conservatives upped the stakes by asking people to learn the language or miss out.

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.

Money well spent

That £1.85 Million was spent by a body concerned with International development on the visit by the Pope to the UK in September 2010, was a good decision. After all, the Catholic church has  one of the most developed international aid programs in the world. Catholic missionaries work tirelessly and often in great personal danger in the most gruesome and dangerous parts of the world, delivering not only Catholic Christendom but also an improvement of lifestyles., see CAFOD website.

Quite rightly said in this article, that giving money to war torn countries, results in the abuse of the funds, which often never reach those in need. 

Catholics in the UK come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and to allow the Pope to visit that large congregation can only benefit the UK and its overseas operations as well.

It is amazing that this spending received critical reviews by Labour, whose former Prime Minister Tony Blair, did not dare to convert to Catholicism whilst he was incumbent. I find it slightly disturbing that Labour now criticises spending on the Pope visit. Is this the first Labour reaction to the Catholic Faith since the somewhat Jewish new leader Miliband took hold of the party?

How budget cuts in Tower Hamlets can be consolidated

An article in the East London Advertiser highlights the dilemma this mainly Labour Council faces in dealing with the oncoming budget cuts of around £72 million. Whilst the Conservative opposition has been making alternative budgets since years, which were of course ignored by Labour, the hilarious Respect Party asks to completely boycott the budget.

There is little Liberal opposition and Stefanie Eaton has announced some proposals. Labour has little intention to make  sensible cuts by cutting back-office costs and of course getting rid of the expensive East End Life paper but looks to make redundancies instead. But of course Labour wants to blame the Coalition government for those redundancies instead of making more sensible decisions.

If we had a more evenly spread out political spectrum here in Tower Hamlets, rather than this majority Labour council, we could get into a good discussion about the point, but no doubt Labour will use the brainwash paper East End Life to spread their left-wing ideology and blame the coalition government.

Currently the council wastes a lot of money by using agency staff and has a lot of unnecessary layers of management that eat up lots of money. It is really up to the residents of Tower Hamlets to stand up to this Labour council and demand value for money instead of rhetoric and the blame game.

But how can we reach the residents if Labour are allowed to spread their propaganda continually, so that residents are fed the thoughts they ought to think?

Budget and cuts

So far I am not quite sure how the cuts affect what and therefore refrain from making detailed comments about it but will link to this BBC page to get a good marker for further information about the subject.
As far as I understand the budget policies, they are aimed to reduce the heavily oversubscribed public sector in favour of a free developing private and commercial sector.
As far as my home Tower Hamlets is concerned I can definitely see how a large public sector stifles the economy. Tower Hamlets only large employer is the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and the NHS and business is slowly squeezed out of the borough with the exception of Canary Wharf and the Isle of Dogs.
As resident I can feel how devastating a large public sector service can be on the individual if that public sector service is bound to a political ideology, which is destined to give preference to those that follow that ideology.
Quite clearly had we continued with Labour’s economy we would end up with a police state and a type of country that is merely regulated by governmental agencies, stifling free commercial development and freedom of the individual that goes with it.

As I wrote in an earlier blog, humans always developed around economic developments, e.g. the docks in Liverpool and other towns, manufacture etc, always attracted people to settle around the economic activity, whilst in recent decades we’ve seen a tendency to settle people wherever they are disrespectful of their ability to earn a living at the place they reside.
I fully support the recent measures to make changes, allowing people to move where the jobs are and dismantling large public administrative bodies to make way for innovative private initiatives.

As mentioned at the top, I am not quite sure how the new rules work out for me, but shall wait until I get further details to see how especially social mobility is affected.

I firmly belief that this Conservative government is committed to social mobility whilst Bob Crow and his other union mates wants to keep the working classes as they are to keep his voters’ motives alive. In a recent picture Crow, to me, looked very much like those Russian Bolsheviks we remember from pictures of the Russian revolution with his Baker’s Boy hat, he wore at a rally of the RMT.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,048 hits
%d bloggers like this: