Saturday, May 29, 2010


There is only one test here, irrespective of David Laws wealth, personal relationships or his character, be it good or bad. Did he or did he not illegally and knowingly claim and accept monies to which he was not entitled?

If the answer is yes, he should, like all the other thieving b*****s be brought to book in a criminal court, be stripped of office and barred from ever holding public office again.

But like the others, he will walk away with nothing more than having to pay back the alleged £40,000 he purloined. From his massive wealth it could be likened to me losing a pound.

Yet if you steal a packet of pork chops to feed your family your poverty or your hunger will not be an excuse. While you may be treated leniently by a judge or magistrate you will find yourself before one or the other and have a criminal record to be taken in to consideration should you find yourself before a court of law again.

And they try to tell us we live in a classless society? That we are all equal before the law? There is only one answer to this 'money talks' society thrust upon us by Thatcher and her 'ites' and that is a return to socialism.

To this end I hope to see Len McCluskey elected General Secretary of the Unite union. With millionaires abandoning New Labour they will have to rely on trades union funding once again and accept the agenda of the blue collar worker, not the wealthy entrepreneur or the City execs.

Sunday, May 16, 2010


There has been a lot of talk recently about the need for electoral and parliamentary reform.

I have an idea that I believe would be simple to instigate and virtually cost free. It would bring some real democracy to parliament and allow members of the house the individual freedom that all politicians claim is a basic human right.

On many issues, MPs vote according to his/her conscience or according to his/her constituents' wishes. However, there are circumstances where MPs are forced to vote according to party policy.

And these circumstances tend to be votes on the most important issues.

If we consider that MPs tend to agree with the policy of the party of which they are members, we can assume they will generally vote in accordance with that parties' policy. In the instances where the party whip is used to ensure MPs vote 'correctly' we can reasonably assume enough MPs disagree with the policy to vote against it and thus endanger its' success. In these circumstances it is not just MPs freedoms that are restricted by the party whip, but parliament's and by extension the wishes of the people. It removes the right of an individual to practice the democracy their party lays claim to.

So if we remove the party whip (not in the political sense, in the 'real world' sense of stop using it) and allow MPs to vote freely on all subjects, they will mostly vote within the policy dictates of their party, which presupposes it is in accord with the wishes of the people that elected them. Where party policy is opposed to an individual's beliefs, he or she should have the freedom to vote according to conscience which we all hope is in accord with the constituents that elected them.

There is some debate that a change in the electoral system to proportional representation or a similar system of voting would call into question the constitutional rights and responsibilities of the monarch to dissolve parliament or to invite a party leader to form a government. While this may be a good thing, and I tend to this view I am also aware that it could also cause constitutional complications from which the democracy we currently enjoy might never recover. Put simply, we may, contrary to the popular assumption, leave ourselves open to a much less democratic system of government. Simply giving an elected representative of the people the right to vote according to his/her conscience or the wishes of his/her constituents, I believe would bring about some real democracy without the expense and complications associated with constitutional electoral change.

Thursday, May 13, 2010


Worrying Emanations from the Coalition.

Theresa May, appointed Home Secretary is trying to sound diplomatic, democratic and caring. Unfortunately when we strip away the thin veneer of compassion we see little difference from Old School Tory thinking. And little difference from New Labour thinking.

She says that ID cards will be scrapped. What ID cards?  I was under the impression that ID cards had been shelved long before the election. And, just like the previous administration, she doesn't mention the massive database on which the ID cards were to be based. It is not the cards themselves that are intrusive, and in the wrong (even government) hands downright dangerous. It is the database that stores the information, and not just name, age and fingerprints. The database is an organic, growing beast storing ever more information about people, gathered from every form, paper or electronic you fill in, from phone and email conversations and sundry other sources. The capacity for error is massive. The capacity for misuse is equally horrendous. Yet there is no mention of its being scrapped, along with the ID cards it was created for. in fact, there is no mention of it at all.

Personally, I wonder if the whole fiasco is actually a well defined plan. Producing the database might produce unease in the electorate, so we plan ID cards, build the database then if and when the protests become loud enough we scrap ID cards but maintain the database, which nobody has actually noticed. Nice one.

About the DNA database, she said: "One of the first things we will do is to ensure that all the people who have actually been convicted of a crime and are not present on it are actually on the DNA database."

"The last government did not do that. It focused on retaining the DNA data of people who were innocent."

Again, it sounds like what we want, but what does this mean? Since everybody convicted of a crime is automatically on the database, she must intend rounding up past criminals and putting them on the database. Does that mean a 50 year old man found guilty of stealing sweets when he was 14 will go on the database? Does it mean one mistake will have you on the database forever?

I am not against the DNA database, but I do think this is being used as political spin, saying what the politicians think we want to hear; if you are a criminal, you are on the database, if you aren't you won't be. What they should be saying is how they can use the technology fairly, more justly. For example, if your conviction is spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act, then your DNA should come off the database. This may well be the intention, but if so, say so.

Health secretary Andrew Lansley said the coalition would go further than Labour's plan to save £20bn in the health service by efficiency savings over the next three years.

"Of course we do need to do that, and we may need to do more because we have increases in demand in the NHS and a need to improve the outcomes. Every penny that is saved by doing things better can be reinvested for the benefit of patients."

But patients will not benefit from the savings. There will be no reinvestment. Savings will be used to cut health service costs and consequently government funding.

So while it all looks shiny and new, scratch the surface and the foetid stained inner shows nothing much has changed and where there is change, it is not necessarily for the better.


Tuesday, May 11, 2010


David Cameron:

"Those who can, should, and those who can't, we will always help"

The Communist Manifesto:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Monday, May 10, 2010


I have just watched the director of the CBI and some other business noteworthy on BBC Breakfast. I wasn't taking much notice until I heard them say that an incoming government must tackle the deficit immediately, not next year like New Labour wanted, but then said that spending by bodies such as the NHS should not be restricted because small business relies on this and many might go to the wall
So they want the deficit tackled but don't want public funding cut in a way that affects them. Just the sort of thinking that got us into this mess. And where do they think cuts will be made? Benefits and hike taxes, but only for the workforce?
Without a doubt we will be made to pay for the bankers mistakes. I'm not happy about it, but unless there are riots in the streets as we have seen in Greece, it's going to happen. But I am damned sure that the businesses and banks should pay proportionate to their income and maybe more as a financial penalty.

Saturday, May 08, 2010


I accept that whichever party was elected we would have seen cuts or increased taxation or both at some time. I can only groan in horror and disbelief that the people of this country (more accurately some of the people) have elected a government that will use the deficit as an excuse to introduce swingeing cuts to the services that the most vulnerable among us rely on for some semblance of a reasonably comfortable existence.
At the same time I hazard a guess that their wealthy pals will see tax breaks and a free reign to continue profiteering on the backs of the needy.
I can only hope that the hung parliament and Mr. Brown's insistence on clinging to power results in a speedy second election and the people of Britain get their thinking heads on vote with their conscience not on a balance of probabilities of who might win.
I urge you to vote for a fringe party to show the three (maybe two now) contenders that they cannot ignore the electorate. Beat them into last place, behind the Greens and the Monster Raving Looney Party. I must say, after 18 years of disastrous Tory rule and 13 years of equally disastrous New Labour Monster Raving Loonies aren't sounding quite so loony now.