Pensions blackmail

Previously David Cameron made it quite clear that he plans to force pensioners to ‘voluntarily’ work for their pensions. But now suddenly he promises people the triple lock pensions when pensioners will vote them in for another turn.

Even Miliband promises the same triple lock pensions, meaning pensions rising well above inflation.

Already opposing voices are being broadcast that call this pension unaffordable, implying that pensioners will have to endure cuts to their pensions sooner or later. Questions are asked by news readers, whether pensioners can keep on getting cold weather allowance or their free travel. As the poor young workers will have to pay for this.

I think it is just despicable that pensioners are being put under such pressures. They are told vote for us or lose your pension. When eventually there are already plans in hand to cut pensions and make pensioners do voluntary work.

It is quite ridiculous that rich pensioners get a winter fuel allowance or even any other perks. It is also quite ridiculous that rich workers can live in subsidised council flats. It seems to border on corruption that people are told that as long as they vote for one party they will continue to receive their unreasonable perks when the country is reeling from a continued recession.  This country continues to fail to means test for state subsidies and often uses a blanket approach, which results in poorer recipients losing the same perks as the rich ones. For example taking away free travel for all pensioners hits the poor ones very hard indeed.

I would find it impossible to vote for anybody that tries to get into government under pretences that pensions are only safeguarded if I vote for this or that party. Quite obviously only the House of Lords, the Queen and MP’s have been getting steady increases and now they want to cut the pensioners off to be left behind just like the rest of the country.

At the same time Miliband promises an end to undercutting of wages by foreign cheap labour. Obviously higher wages mean higher taxes and that should pay for pensions, yes Cameron does not want to raise taxes and chooses the Russian option of low taxes for the rich. I am just not going to vote and just watch which way the cookie crumbles.

Advertisements

Bread and water

Bread & water used to be the diet of prisoners, condemned to jails but that is the diet that the ordinary working person on a small salary has to endure to survive the current financial and economic climate. They know it and this article proves it. It proves that they can change the tax threshold to £10.000 but that they don’t want to do it because that is the little stick of sugar they are trying to throw us when it comes to the next elections.

They might as well then put up election posters saying “Fed up with Bread & Water, vote Conservative and you’ll be able to afford Meat and Veg, we raise the tax threshold to 10k”.

Whilst the New Labour posters could simply say “Britain isn’t working”, that is of course a swift development from the Tories one a few years back. We are being ripped off, ripped off because they stole our lifestyle, our quality of life, you name it.

You are better off being in jail today as at least you get a decent meal each day, whilst if you are just working and living a lawful existence, you cannot afford to eat properly any longer.

Of course the economy has to shrink if people spend less. Go to any supermarket today and you get ridiculously reduced articles because they have to sell something. That of course reduces company’s turnover and so the whole economy shrinks.

Yet Cameron and pals insist that they make us better off in work than on benefits. But he forgotten to mention that you are still better off in local authority care or in jail rather than living the life of the law abiding free person.

Politicians hate Benefit recipients

Just yesterday I had a humorous conversation at a public meeting. Having spoken to one of my many acquaintances, the person asked what political party I belong to, I answered none, I tried a few and I am really fed up with them now, as I could not find any that I could get along with.

The solution the person said is now to try the Liberals since I already tried Labour, Respect and the Conservatives.

For me, it is just a research to find out what political parties are really all about. But not to say I joined them for that purpose, it just turned into that purpose, when my membership did not prove fruitful from the point, that I could not find a way to actually work for the common good from within a political party because I do not think that political parties are an efficient way to regulate public life.

Political parties are the biggest money eating machines and cost more money than they are worth. Think about it. First we have to pay to be in them, then we have to pay more money for our products and services we purchase so that the companies can fund the political parties that promote them with their policies and then we have to pay taxes from our wages, that we earn to pay the wages of the politicians. And what do we get in return?

Nothing but problems, problems and more problems. Apparently they all did not know that the recession would hit, yet, for me it was very predictable and I have published papers to say so as early as 2007.

You do not need to be employed to make simple arithmetical calculations to work out when an economy is going to crash because it is completely illogical that anything that is going on would work today. We are being told to use certain words for good activity and cannot use bad words or we are being vilified in the public perception. There is our freedom of expression gone out of the window.

So the answer is not to use any common terminology and just use the logical argument that is based on facts and figures that are not connected to any ideology and presto, we can see that we get nothing but problems from politics.

The fact is that we do not only pay once, twice but three times for politics, just to correct the mistake in my previous post where I assumed we only pay twice, but if one counts the many membership fees and extra voluntary contributions we pay immense amounts of money for politicians who only get into their posts by being voted in by their party colleagues and those party jobs are very coveted and hard to come by. I tried it once and it is virtually impossible for a single woman to get any important party post. I mean for a real woman since birth who has no sexual relationships to any other important public figure.

I do not want to better myself and think now that there is something wrong with me, no, I think there is something wrong with political parties instead because they do not say what it says on the tin.

I am double cross because as benefit recipient I am also in the very weak position that I cannot strike or protest about benefit cuts. Whilst workers can levy their jobs in argument for pay increases we cannot do any such thing. Benefit recipients have no real say at all. They can only accept less benefits. Yet whilst workers were told they have to accept worst pension deals, they can strike and it looks as if they are successful but benefit recipients just have to take what is given to them.

Politicians do not get any value out of benefit recipients because

  • Benefit recipients purchase the lowest priced products, which does not enable the producers to pay monies to political parties.
  • Benefit recipients cannot pay party membership fees
  • Benefit recipients cost the state money that otherwise politicians could claim for expenses and wages
So we are told that Arbeit macht Frei and all Benefit recipients have to work. It is a self-serving policy that merely helps to employ politicians better.
Yet there is little concern about the type of jobs a benefit recipient is to take. In fact the right to refuse employment has been taken away so a non smoker can find themselves forced to work in a cigarette factory and an environment activist might find themselves working in a polluting factory.
There is no longer any right to have any opinion and stand by it and that is plainly wrong because we are not made to ensure that politicians can continue to cost us indefinite amounts of money for doing bad jobs. If they were any good, we would not experience a recession now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeremy Clarkson’s historic remarks

Just as I am watching the Queen’s birthday celebrations on TV and read in The Sun who has got which awards this year I eventually come across Jeremy Clarkson’s article in The Sun whereby he makes remarks about the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Having read first that many gotten jobs through the Sun’s employment fair, and being slightly disappointed not having gotten one myself, I wonder how anybody in employment can be as stern as Jeremy Clarkson. I think he is the epitome of British Freedom of Speech though it doesn’t surprise me that people tear down the fences around his estate.

I am starting to wonder whether there is some kind of revolution going on in British society because that the Archbishop of Canterbury tears into the government, who then retaliate against him and that a leading show personality then calls him a hypocrite, sinister, a communist, weird beard. I have read remarks like bearded lefte on Facebook yesterday and now assume that relates to Dr Williams. I thought I am wacky and outspoken but that definitely beats any contribution I ever made and I wonder what those lefties who always attack me make of something like Clarkson who drives all the cars the lefties always fancy driving but can’t.

Of course it is easy to whack me because I don’t even have a driving license but something as admirable as Clarkson, I don’t think the left can touch. I wonder whether the Queen has a chuckle when she reads that later on today or even gets told about the article.

I do of course agree to the comments about opening churches at night to give the homeless somewhere to sleep. It makes me think about the concept of charity a lot and whether churches could register as charities if they let the homeless sleep overnight and bolster their coffers with tax payer’s money.

My church has a big sign outside saying “This is not a Social Security Office”, so the concept of alms has gone far away from churches who want alms from the congregation instead of given them out to the needy. Well perhaps they give some parcels at Christmas time but that comes from the congregation as well.

PS: Just as well for Clarkson Eady J ruled that one cannot sue on religious grounds for defamation.

AV or not AV, referendum

I would like to support the pro AV campaign because I feel it will increase voter participation. Currently we have this stale first-past-the-post system, which in fact has decreased voter participation. We get election winners on 25% participation, which is frankly horrible.

I have also seen some very untrue comparisons; one of which showed a race and the slowest runner was depicted as being able to win under AV. That is an impossible comparison and totally misconstrued the relativity of the matter.

An athlete simply only lands where he gets out of his own physical strength whilst in voting a candidate gets elevated into a position by others, which is the main difference between athletes and electable candidates.

With the current voting system we see a few power blocks build up a lot of hype and local personal candidates are completely swept under the carpet by national campaigns, financed by very powerful people. I think under AV all candidates will have to work much harder to actually attract their local electorate using personality and knowledge and reliability and focus on those important local issues. It is one of the main weaknesses of the current system that usually sweeps local issues completely under the carpet and recently a lot of work was needed to undo national policies on a local basis to prevent long-term harm. See the forest  issue.

As it is well known I undertook some personal research into political parties and think that it is almost impossible to make any personal impact on current political parties as a small member without much money. Therefore I think political parties as they are do not represent the local people.

Currently political parties are well orchestrated power machines and represent centralised interest. Being a member in a political party today, under the current system, only benefits a person if they have an actual interest, e.g. earn a wage, have a paid – even if only expenses – position. For other members, the hangers on, party membership can actually be detrimental to their personal or professional development because party membership and activity throws a person open to scrutiny and others wanting to destroy a person’s reputation just for being a member of another party.

The whole concept of political party is also severely restrained by overlying legislation so that political parties are very restricted in what they can achieve in any case. However the lethargy of voters is getting worst under the current system and people hardly get off their seats for a local election because the national parties overrule any impact a local election can make. I think that would change under AV in that it will become necessary to show more interest in local issues and that alone is worth it.

I also honestly think that any average person is currently better off not being a member in any political party because if not a member then all parties try to get you to become one and actually appreciate you as a person but once you are a member somewhere all the others hate you and want to stamp you into the ground. People should be very careful not to commit to political parties but keep their interests confidential and put the cross against the box they believe in and only become actual members in a party when its really worth their while.  I think the current political system has a lot of weaknesses and the AV voting system will help to address those weaknesses better and develop the situation into a democratic and local way.

Nick Clegg is the best example to show how people are currently exploited for certain aims and then discarded as distrustful and put on the scrap heap. Nick Clegg is of immense benefit to the Conservatives and party leader of the Liberal Democrats but put into a very bad light by all others but the Conservatives. He has a very important position and regardless of whether I agree with him or not, he cannot simply be dismissed as a momentous pawn in a game of power. If the political scene would not create such people like Nick Clegg political scenes would be poorer and power would concentrate on a very few figureheads who had little opposition to fear.

PS: I did the British thing and supported the underdog but the AV supporters have lost at a ratio of about 3:1.

students protest used to smash up Conservative HQ

It sounds like Labour and other oppositional parties have taken this opportunity to have a go at the Conservative headquarters to storm the facility and cause immense damage. The police has started a probe why the initially peaceful process did get out of hand to such violent proportions.

The facts of the tuition fees rise is one of mere administrative changes and changes of betterment in quality of studying for those who have the potential to get excellent grades.

Students do not have to pay anything up front, they only have to re-pay fees once they earn 21.000 per year. What seems to me the best effect of the changes, is that banks will be more careful to whom they loan monies to get in and that will reflect in grades getting a close inspection by lenders of student grants.  Also universities get better financial direct funding to improve the quality of their education.

That overall is an excellent effect of the rises.

Considering that Labour already threatened to dismantle the current education system as soon as Labour gets back to power, combined with extended efforts to disrupt law and order over the student fee protests, I think we can see a national strategy of Labour to use the learning issue to get a swing of voter’s powers especially also as students often make up 15% of the electorate in a constituency.

I wonder whether that is a reason why Tower Hamlets has opted to house many more students and built student accommodation in Tower Hamlets.

What is worrying, is that Labour threatened to get rid of Grammar schools altogether and replace them with comprehensive because I think that educational and intellectual excellence is important to our society and that the minority of people are in the category of intellectual excellence but the majority has the vote, it could potentially jeopardise the fibre of British society as we know it if those educational changes are going to be made by Labour.

Altogether, the demonstration looks a lot like the G7 (G20) protests that ended in mindless violence and destruction and also on Mayday demos we can observe the same violent elements whipping up the crowds.

Traditionally students  are the easiest to steer into protest and if Labour now uses education and further education as their main protest vehicle to drive Conservative opposition forward, we see the irresponsible attitude of Labour trying to disrupt the young and use their natural critical thinking against a political party that traditionally has driven educational excellence forwards rather than backwards like Labour does. Latest report here.

China’s non-dialectic dialect

Alfred Nobel

The New World Order cannot exist on international business agreements alone as it never sat easily with democratic countries how China can supply us with goods from the other side of the world without upsetting our sense of democracy and freedom.

It was more than needed that somebody started the dialogue with China in the department of its undemocratic regime, the Communist rule that forbids freedom of expression, speech and association.

Just as we rebelled against having to wear garments that were manufactured with the aid of child labour, we are feeling uneasy to use household goods and many other Made in Chine’ articles because the people making them are not working under a free and equal regime.

China started a war of words with Norway when the Chinese Dissident Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel Peace Price whilst being interned in China on a charge of subversion.

The question is, will this award do the same trick to China as the world’s support did for Nelson Mandela in South Africa?

Labour’s old new style

I must communicate to your how surprised I was to receive in the post today a mail-shot from Lutfur Rahman.

His letter with the headline of Tower Hamlets Labour, One borough, one future addresses me as “Dear member”. It brings a smile to my face to to know that Labour are not giving up on me, considering that my leaving of the Labour Party caused considerable waves not only in the blogging but also in the legal world, it is a bit cheeky now to ask me to come to Lutfur’s launch event for his candidacy for Mayor of Tower Hamlets on 14 September at the Roxy.  Lutfur emerged triumphant in his bid to be elected as candidate for Labour against John Biggs. John Biggs of course has his bread and butter position at County Hall and is a fellow member of the Tower Hamlets Police and Community Safety Board and keeps on losing out on party nominations for the more colourful posts like MP candidate for Bethnal Green and Bow, which he also lost against Rushanara Ali.  Labour has formed a 100 club to collect donations for funding Lutfur’s candidacy, which I didn’t get; a bit strange, as I am supposed to be on the member’s mailing list, when I am not even a member in the Labour Party since 2007.

I have signed up for Boris’ campaign to stand again for Mayor in 2012, which is going to be a very important campaign alongside the Olympics and is going to be very colourful and busy too.

3 cheers for Martin Coxall

I am really very pleased to read in this week’s East London Advertiser that Martin Coxall has been cleared of all accusations over the Prescott mask incident. I can well understand Martin’s frustration over his bad Google profile. Funnily enough it was Martin who made me aware how bad mine is and he is hoping his is going to get better soon. I hope I can contribute to that better Google profile, as my postings tend to come up tops these days. Martin is a very sweet guy who could not hurt a fly in my opinion. He has become a victim of accusations by being found in a sticky situation and it was only 2 Conservatives that got accused amongst all those Labour party members present. That is typical for how things go in a Labour borough like Tower Hamlets, even the police arrest the Conservatives first before they even consider accusing Labour Party members.

Martin is very dedicated to his area and would make a splendid Councillor. I do hope he gets his membership back soon. The same of course must be said about Paul Ingham who was also cleared of the same suspicions. The ELA article didn’t mention him but I will, Paul is also a great guy, very dedicated to Tower Hamlets, very friendly and easy to get on with.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits