Business Managers for Schools

Schools minister Vernon Coaker says a business manager could help schools ride out the recession, claiming they could save schools thousands of pounds per year.

The claim is that they can save head teachers up to 20% of their time to devote to teaching.

Well, I think it is just another bureaucrat creating bureaucracy to give jobs to the boys.

Margaret Thatcher did this in the 1980's. While she destroyed manufacturing, she created thousands of non-jobs paying intellectuals huge salaries to sort out finances and to manage in the National Health Service. Most weren't worried about people. The onus was on cutting costs. We've all seen the result of that.

Not only is this an issue, but also the move to privatise public service industries by the back door by introducing such jobs. Once the principle of 'business management' is accepted, we are on our way to privatising education. And isn't it odd that this idea has been thought up at a time when the government is meeting strong opposition to their attempt to introduce private academies?

Here are a few figures I have put together. Not scientific or statistically accurate. But accurate enough, I believe to give some idea of what we are heading towards. I got my figures by a Google search any one of you could try.

 

	Average Salary	Minimum Salary	20% of Salary
Head Teacher	£ 100,000.00	£ 70,000.00	£ 20,000.00	£ 14,000.00
Business Manager	£ 50,000.00	£ 25,000.00

 

So you can see that even paying a business manager the minimum salary of £25,000, while saving 20% of the average salary of £100,000 of a head teacher (£20,000), the difference is £5,000 which presumably the business manager will have to save (cut) from the budget just to break even.

Pupils are already buying their own books. Where will it come from? Education is non-profit making and one of the most important public services we have. Do we want to see it brought to its knees like the health service?

So is this just another 'jobs for the boys' and/or a 'make it look like we're doing something' exercise?

Either way, we have seen what managers did to the health service. Do we want it to happen to our schools?

 

BNP... Banned or Marginalised?

There is talk of the Government banning teachers from being members of the BNP. Police officers are already not allowed to be members of the BNP. But I think this is a very dangerous road. While I do not agree with much of the opinion of this group, or their methods we are a democracy and like it or not they are a legitimate political party within that democracy.

If we are to ban certain groups from party membership then it must be across the board. Teachers and policemen should be banned from being members of any political party.

It is that or remove legitimacy and legal status from the party in question. Effectively, ban the BNP.

The problem is there are no legal grounds to do so. And so, in my opinion, there should be no grounds to ban certain groups from membership unless the ban extends to all political parties.

This leaves us in a paradox. Allow the BNP to use the democracy they despise to gain ever greater electoral gains, or destroy that democracy by banning a group because we don't like what they say.

However, I have a third way. The British people are rarely extreme in their views. So if the other political parties listen to us, curb immigration and remove undesirables I honestly believe the BNP will fade back into the obscurity they came from.

Iraq War Inquiry

It has been decided the Iraq War Inquiry will held in private and suddenly senior politicians are saying they would be happy to have a public inquiry. I ask why they didn't make their feelings public earlier. Why, now the decision is taken they are willing to speak publicly?

I suspect this is another attempt to undermine Gordon Brown. While not enamoured to the man or his politics, neither do I like underhand tactics from those that might wish to take his job.

MP Beaten by thugs

Tobias Ellwood, Tory MP for Bournemouth East has been beaten by thugs. Will we see a change in policy and an end to kid gloves when dealing with yobs?

Or more likely a new law to protect public servants.

EU agrees Irish treaty compromise

Political wheeling and dealing knows no bounds. Not moral bounds or physical boundaries. Not even political boundaries. Both left and right of the EU conniving to get a second referendum in Ireland for the Lisbon treaty they have already rejected. Concessions, called 'protocols' by the EU that guarantee Ireland freedom from EU interference in military neutrality, tax and abortion policy. This will only apply to Ireland but it is thought it will likely be attached to Croatia's EU accession treaty.

This must stand as one of the most manoeuvred and manipulated pieces of legislation in the history of politics. The EU were determined this would go through. The promise of a referendum for the British people was removed by renaming the Maastricht Treaty. They knew the vote would be against so they renamed it and denied us a vote, claiming it is a different treaty.

When the Irish valiantly insisted on a referendum and the referendum went against the treaty (remember, all member states must ratify the treaty) they asked the Irish to have another referendum. They refused so we see the latest manipulation to try to get the Irish on side.

This also highlights the lack of democracy in the EU.

My hope is that the Irish people reject the treaty in their second referendum in October.

The Failing of Democracy through the Expenses Scandal

The elections are over and we see New Labour thoroughly thrashed in the European and local elections. And once again we see the gullibility of the electorate and the big flaw in democracy,

Starting at the beginning, we saw the Telegraph exposing the expenses scandal. What few people noticed was the Goebbels style propaganda coup- where the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth was told. But that truth was represented in such a way that the reporters and the newspaper editor knew would manipulate public opinion.

In the first week of the exposé we heard about the New Labour politicians (I use the term loosely!) inventive claims. Now as you will probably know from previous posts I am no lover of New Labour, or for that matter any of the three 'front runners' of the political spectrum. But why the emphasis on New Labour? Anybody with a modicum of intelligence would immediately realise politicians from all parties would have their snouts in the trough. In fact, I suspect there is almost a club culture where experienced politicians educate their newly elected brethren in creative claiming. The second week we began to see politicians from other parties exposed. Yet still most of the anger was directed at the Labour Party.

Most people might reasonably suppose that this is because they are the Government and as such carry the onus of responsibility. Yet this or some similar situation has probably existed since our modern parliament was conceived.

Let me explain by example. Hopefully, it will show how the truth can be manipulated and the next time a scandal is exposed or a headline misleads, you might be able to better understand the machinations of the media and how they manipulate us using psychological techniques- propaganda. In the early 1970's Ted Heaths' Tory government was brought down by two miner's strikes, one of which included the mass picketing of the Saltley coking plant.

I know it well. I was born almost next door in Cranby Street. At the time I still lived in Birmingham. We had the Evening Mail delivered every evening and one of the front-page headlines read "Policeman Hurt on Picket Line". This had the immediate effect of inflaming emotions and angering the average man in the street- even those who while not wholeheartedly supporting the miners might have felt some sympathy for their plight. It turned borderline opinion against the miners. How dare they picket and attack our policemen?

My father, on reading the headline but before reading the article immediately began a diatribe condemning all miners and trade unionists and suggesting they should be shot. I suspect this was the reaction of most people not educated in the expertise of manipulative journalism.

Reading on, the piece described how a policeman, not even on the picket line had been walking towards the coking plant and as he crossed the road, slipped on the kerb and twisted his ankle. This made no difference to most people. The emotions had been aroused by the headline and opinion had been formulated that all pickets were violent and that they had attacked the clumsy policeman.

One might argue that without the pickets there would be no need for him to have been there and he wouldn't have been hurt. Fair enough, that is an opinion. But why didn't the Mail report it so? Because it would not have been inflammatory. No, the Mail knew what it was doing and knew that regardless of the following story opinion would be formed by the headline and some would believe what they wanted to believe and ignore what was contrary to that belief.

And the same is true of the Telegraphs series of revelations. People read that Labour politicians were on the take. It was fed to them for a week and irrespective of subsequent revelations, the mould was set and New Labour was the cause and propagator of every conceivable ill.

Then came the elections. And what do the electorate do? Either didn't vote or chose a protest vote for an independent or minority party, the main result of which let the Tories in all over the country.

This is one of the big flaws in democracy. People using their vote as a form of protest. A free, secret vote is a very precious thing, hard won by the blood, sweat and tears of ordinary people. It should be used according to ones conscience and beliefs, not to stick it to a party that has offended – particularly when that party is not guilty in isolation, but part of a much wider conspiracy. And if you think that voting for an independent that is free of corruption is the answer, they are no purer in thought or deed than the politicians we have ousted. Granted, they are unlikely to stick their noses in the expenses trough, but how many politicians who have been caught with their fingers in the till do you think would risk continuing to deceive? And then there are those who remembered the New Labour corruption and voted Tory, forgetting they too were guilty as charged thanks to manipulative reporting.

So the protest vote has done little for British politics apart from confer power by default. It has done nothing for democracy besides expose one of its weaknesses.

It probably means that by the middle of 2010 we will have a Tory government who will win by a massive majority. They will believe, as in the 1980's that they have the mandate of the people and will convince enough of us that their economic strategies are essential for the good of the country and eventually we will all benefit. In fact the wealthy will get wealthier and the poor will get poorer and we will be repeatedly told by the White Queen 'The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday - but never jam to-day.'
(Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There (1871))

Democracy is the New ‘Opium of the People’

Re democracy; there is no democracy. Democracy is an illusion perpetuated by those that exploit its alleged freedoms. Changing electoral policy, demanding greater accountability will not give us democracy. While we have capitalism and power and wealth in the hands of the few, we shall remain a plutocracy. If you're happy with that, go ahead and 'tweak' the system. If not, civil disobedience and non-violent revolution suggest the way forward.

Violence at G20- but it wasn’t a protester....

Another video of a policeman apparently assaulting a peaceful protester has appeared on YouTube. It seems a (hopefully) small number of officer's use these protests as an excuse to throw their weight about and attack members of the public who genuinely feel a need to peacefully protest. It's no wonder the violent hijackers of such events get away with it. The police should concentrate on these thugs, or is that asking too much?

The most disturbing thing I see here is two alleged assaults (that we know about) by officers whose identifying numbers are obscured. It does smack of a conspiracy, that there is perhaps a group of nominated officers whose role is to either quell or provoke crowd disturbance. This may be confined to a small number of officers, with or without the tacit agreement of their superiors or even the government. Or it might, more frighteningly be a deliberate course of action, instigated and supported at the highest level to give credence to banning all forms of protest.

I accept that looking at the whole video there seems to be some disturbance in the crowd, but this is quickly aggravated by the apparent assault. And in all honesty, the woman appears merely to be speaking to the officer trying to make some kind of complaint and he just isn't interested.

The officer concerned has been identified as a member of the territorial support group, who are allowed to use violence but it must be proportionate to the circumstances. A woman half your size complaining doesn't seem to me to justify a slap in the face and a whack with a steel baton.

Criminal Injuries Compensation

Kevin Johnson was killed by three drunken yobs. His father's claim for criminal injuries compensation has been denied because his son contributed to his own death. How? He went to investigate a disturbance outside his home. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority said if he had stayed inside he would not have died.

I have several issues with this decision. Firstly, the only way we will stop these yobs and thugs is to be pro-active. Let them know we will not sit back and take the abuse. There also seems to be some mixed messages from the authorities. CICA seems to be telling us not to get involved while the police and government appear to say we, the public must involve ourselves to help the police in their fight against crime? How would Mr. Johnson do this if he didn't go outside to have any hope of identifying the offenders?

This raises the second question. Calling the police usually means a visit hours if not days after the event. I know this from experience. Twice I have called the police when drunken yobs were smashing my windows by throwing bottles at them. Total police involvement was to issue a crime number and send a letter from the chief constable.

I think the government should take a look at how, when and why compensation is paid. Or is this another cost cutting exercise?

Benefits the Banks

It is bad enough changing weekly benefits to fortnightly payments. I know from experience the hardship this change can produce. But telling the poorest, most vulnerable people in our supposedly rich and caring society they will lose a week's benefits because of the change is beyond belief. To add insult to injury the government are offering a loan to bridge the gap! At this time of recession the government should be looking at how better they can be helped, not hindered.

And this comes weeks after government bailout of the corrupt banking system to the tune of billions. Still, they have to get the money back somehow.

I urge everybody to write to their MP, and those affected to attend their local benefits office and demand a tribunal hearing to claim back the lost week's benefit.

Honest(l)y, You Can’t Win!

Alistair Darling admits he got it wrong when he forecast the length and depth of the recession. Instead of trying to muddy the waters with political rhetoric, he has put his hands up and said he was wrong. The Tories ask why anybody would believe Gordon Browns (not Alistair's?) economic claims again.

Well, no lover of Mr Brown, Mr Darling or New Labour isn't this the honesty in politics we have all been demanding?

The State of the Nation

So MP's have called for the government to make a one off payment to for charities which lost millions in the Icelandic bank fiasco.

Personally I think they should be ashamed that a country as wealthy (so we keep being told) as Britain still needs charities to help its poorest. Maybe their time and effort would be better spent demanding sweeping changes to the socio-economic structure that keeps the poor poor and the wealthy wealthy.


 

Conspiracy Theory or Fact?

In recent years we have had conspiracy theorists telling us about the 'new world order' which is essentially a group of super-rich individuals (Illuminati) manipulating politics and global economics to bring about world domination. So far, these conspiracy theorists have been dismissed as cranks, revolutionaries and/or anarchists. (By the way, take the time to take a look at what anarchists actually want- they are not quite as subversive and violent as the establishment would have us believe.)

Now we have Gordon Brown claiming the success of the G2O summit as the creation of a 'new world order'. With New Labour's control orientated legislation and rejection of Labour's traditional socialism it doesn't seem quite so crazy, does it?

STATE (of the) POLICE

I am a socialist, an anarchist, a revolutionary and anti-establishment. I am certainly not a conservative (capital or small 'c'), loyalist, royalist or a capitalist. But for the British police to suggest innocent British workers, whatever my feelings about them stay at home rather than ensure the law is upheld and they can work suggests their role is no longer law enforcement. And if that is not their role, I worry what their role is.

Pension’s shortfalls will be paid

Retired public sector workers are to have shortfalls reimbursed. I ask what about all the private pensions that went bust or paid less than expected and still are? Considering the recipients of these pensions were and are coerced or downright forced into these schemes the government should be topping up the state pensions to what these pensioners were expecting them to pay when they were introduced and miss-sold.

The economy and The Bank of England

The Bank of England will attempt to revive the economy by cutting interest rates and increasing the money supply. This will lead to higher inflation. We should also remember that the banks and other financial institutions recently worried about going into deflation. This might be bad for them, but lower price increases is good for the consumer. So it is my contention this latest 'plan' is to stave off deflation and aid the banks at a net cost to the consumer and not to stimulate the economy.

There’s Statistics and Government Statistics

Immigration minister Phil Woolas has questioned the motives of the Office for National Statistics for publishing figures last week that showed one in nine UK residents was born abroad. He describes it as, amongst other things, 'sinister'.

Personally I find the idea of government or one of its members trying to block the publication of legitimate figures to be far more sinister and dangerous.

State School for my Children- Provided they are privately run!

David Cameron says he will send his children to a state school. He has pledged to send his children to state schools - as long as they offer a good standard of education.
But will they be state schools? His plan to create comprehensives outside local authority control can only mean they will be privately run. Shadow education secretary Michael Gove said there will be a “superb new school in every community".
You can bet Cameron’s kids will be at this school, whether there is room for your kids or not.
It will be another case of dual standards, based not on academic ability but on ability to pay.

Horse Feathers

A Professor David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has said ecstasy is no worse than horse riding..
To quote him in full
"Drug harm can be equal to harms in other parts of life. There is not much difference between horse-riding and ecstasy."
The professor said horse-riding accounted for more than 100 deaths a year, and went on: "This attitude raises the critical question of why society tolerates - indeed encourages - certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others such as drug use."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7876425.stm

He seems to have forgotten (not taking his own advice, is he?) that horse riding is a legal activity and horse riders rarely set out to injure themselves or attack others. Drug users hurt people to get their drugs, hurt people through taking their drugs and the money they spend contributes to other organised criminal activity.
Our once envied and proud British society is now a laughing stock and is tearing itself apart. Thanks to the opinions of a small number of academics such as Professor Nutt that give licence to unacceptable behaviour on the grounds of freedom and inaccurate association with legal forms of enjoyment. He forgets that with freedom comes responsibility and that responsibility is sadly lacking because in recent years we have chosen to remove the penalties that controlled such irresponsibility.

Back to the Future?

I see David Cameron has Kenneth Clarke back on the front benches. I remember the destruction of our manufacturing base by him and his party in the 1980's. Just goes to show, for all his rhetoric, Cameron is True Blue.

The Recession Claims Another....‏

I am fed up of hearing the ‘news’ that the recession has claimed another large chain store. Chains like Woolworths and Adams must surely have had difficulties long before the onset of the recent recession. They have been in business for almost a hundred years and came through the 1930’s depression. I accept it may have been the last straw, but not the sole cause.
The media should be more responsible and stop scare-mongering. And, just for once report accurately.

Tough on Crime, Soft on the ‘Causers’ of Crime.

I’ve just read the Government is to get tough on caught those carrying a knife. As I continued the story, I thought ‘About time’. What would they be doing? Five years for carrying a bladed weapon? Re-introduce hard labour for violent crime? Maybe consider corporal punishment? No. 18 month’s community service and a curfew.

That’ll scare the pants off anybody prepared to stick 8 inches of cold steel into someone.

Eye For An Eye

So offenders have been abused and threatened wearing high visibility vests. Good. What about the victims they abused and threatened? If it makes just one offender less likely to reoffend, it should be encouraged. Let the system continue, and look at the figures in a couple of years.

But I suppose the liberal brigade will get their way and the poor darlings won't be made to wear them.

 

Royal Prerogative

Not satisfied with shooting at mutilated birds that have been caged and frightened by beaters so much they fly against instinct into the gunfire, the Prince beats a dog that makes a mess of his 'catch'.

If this was me or you, we would almost certainly be arrested and interviewed. As it is, the RSPCA (ROYAL Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) is not investigating, but conducting a 'review' of what happened.

Disgusting. The Royals and their ilk would have little kids back up chimneys if they thought they'd get away with it.

 

Damian Green

What's the problem over the arrest of Damian Green? Either he committed a crime or there was evidence to suggest a crime had or may be committed. Or he hadn't and there was not sufficient evidence, in which case the police and not the New Labour (who I abhor) government have a case to answer.

The truth about inflation.

The current wave of price cuts in high street stores supports my position that high prices and inflation are not caused by reasonable wage claims but by greedy businessmen charging excessive prices to maintain obscene profits just because 'they can afford it'.

Never mind wage restraint, the government should introduce price constraint. Or are obscene profits 'good business' while high wages are greed? We are, after all selling our labour.

Inflation Solved

Greedy businessmen, not pay rises fuel inflation. (Or why don't the big businesses rises and bonuses fuel inflation?) The greedy 'they're going to need this, charge what they can afford, not what it's worth', profit for profits sake so-called entrepreneurs are the ones to blame and should be reigned in through similar draconian legislation the poor were subjected to throughout 17 years of Tory and 11 years of New 'Labour' misrule.

Divide and Conquer

The politicians, lawyers, employers, financiers, speculators and sundry other interested parties must be rubbing their hands with glee. Talking to colleagues, friends and neighbours it seems they're on the road to victory again. Instead of uniting against the financial 'elite' we're spending our time arguing with ourselves, scoring cheap points about who is better off while they continue their policy of divide and conquer.

Tories Tax Ideas- Nothing New.

Re the Tories tax ideas. Once again they are saying 'benefits to businessmen will trickle down to the workforce'.

Secondly I can see this becoming another tax loophole. Take on one long term unemployed, get the tax cut then sack him/her. Do the same at the start of each tax year. Businessman benefits, unemployed figures stay the same and income tax goes up to pay for it.

Iraq or Afghanistan? Does it Matter?

While I was pleased to hear Barack Obama had won the US election, believing it might be a new beginning and usher in world peace, I have now revised my opinion. The day I discovered his opinion that when troops were moved out of Iraq, they should go to Afghanistan. Nothing changes, really.

Economy in a Recession? But what about X-Factor?

Never mind the economy, unemployment, lack of housing. Parliament is busy discussing the Brand/Ross fiasco and worrying about X-factor contestants being voted off. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7720144.stm)

Yep. We have to get our priorities right!

Tax Cuts

So Gordon Brown wants tax cuts for ordinary working people but they will probably be paid for by more public borrowing. Here's a revolutionary idea for you, Messrs Brown and Darling. Pay for it by taxing the super rich, individuals and companies and obscene profits of the energy and petrochemical industry.

By the way, how does that help the poorest who don't pay tax?

Fuel Poverty

Friend's of the Earth and Help the Aged have gone to the high court to try to force Government action on fuel poverty.

Government lawyers argued there had 'been no breach of legal responsibility'.

And there was me thinking governing a supposedly democratic, free society had a moral aspect. You live and learn.

Dumb Policy Department

Where does this government get its ideas from? Does it have a 'dumb policy department' hidden away? They now want to teach sex education in primary schools. Apart from allowing children to be children for a few years at least, can't they see that when sex education was made compulsory for 11 year olds we saw an explosion in teenage pregnancy to the point it is now the norm?

Cloud Computing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing


“The concept, is that vast computing resources will reside somewhere out there in the ether (rather than in your computer room) and we'll connect to them and use them as needed.”

Personally I am of the opinion that this is just another way to get more money from us. Cost of computers is constantly falling, software vendors are extending special offers to buy or upgrade their software. A niche has been seen, a possible multi billion pound (or dollar, if you prefer) niche. No matter what, if ‘cloud computing’ becomes mainstream, that is where the development money will go and licensed software will become obsolete and probably unusable eventually.

Regardless of the reasons vendors and or developers take this tack it takes away our choice. I just had a look at google docs for the first time and I can see me using it sometimes, when convenient and when the work is not critical. I would also point out that google docs have an offline option, which appears to allow google docs to be used offline. Presumably that means they are synchronised (I haven’t tried it yet) and if google or your internet connection goes down, you can still access and work on your docs.

I think in all probability it will be many years before ‘cloud computing’ becomes commonplace. There will probably be several years of licence based applications running alongside ‘cloud computing’ before we see the demise of licensing. But if ‘cloud computing’ becomes popular, then we certainly will see it pushed by the vendors and once there are few alternatives we may well see the end of cheap, maybe even home computing.

Another possible issue is who will supply these applications in the ‘cloud’? Almost certainly, apart from the current software vendors ISP’s will offer ‘cloud computing’ as part of its package. This could result in difficulty leaving an ISP (we all know how difficult it has and still can be to get a MAC number from your ISP) if they withhold your documents or make it difficult to access them. There are many ways such a system could be used to make document retrieval difficult.

Then there is the government. Living in the UK and seeing some of the draconian laws being introduced in the name of security, how long before they (or some future government with few or no scruples- perhaps a Hitler II -) would demand access to everybody’s documents- in the name of ‘security’, of course?

In 1943, IBM's Chairman, Thomas J. Watson, famously said that "the World will only maybe need five computers!" we repeat this and have a little giggle at his lack of foresight. He envisaged these five supercomputers serving the billions of terminals we would have in our homes. It seems his comment, however ridiculed it may be today, may not have been so far from the truth!

Union, are we?

Quoted from Teletext:

“A trade union leader has urged Labour MPs to consider mounting a leadership challenge to Gordon Brown after the Glasgow East by-election "disaster".

GMB general secretary Paul Kenny said: "There's no point dressing it up. It was an unmitigated disaster.

"The MPs have got to make a strong decision as to whether they want to go into an election with Gordon Brown or have a contest," he said.”

Well let me tell you this about the General and Municipal Boilermakers Union. I was a member of this union for most of the 1980’s. I have always, since my first working day in 1974 been a Trades Unionist. I was in the Amalgamate Union of Engineering Workers until being made redundant in 1980. (I also held down the same job for the same company.) I then joined the GMB after moving and taking another position. I tore up my union card because of their attitude. I didn’t stop being a trade’s unionist. I just didn’t agree with their idea of what a trades union is.

Allow me to elucidate. I had a disagreement with the shop stupid (sorry, I meant shop steward). We discussed the role of a shop steward and the rights of union members. His contention was that if a man (and he meant a man, not a man or woman) had a dispute with his employer or the employers representative then he should argue his case alone and only call in a union representative if the dispute could not be resolved.

My contention was thus:

Any union member has a right to representation by a union official at any stage of a dispute. The official should take the complaint of a union member to the company irrespective of any private discussion. If a union member feels unable or unwilling to argue the case personally, a union official should argue his or her case for them. My grounds for this are that we are in a union and should have representation at any stage of a dispute, and the dispute should be argued by an official even if the case had not been taken up by a member on his own behalf. My reasons for this were and are that firstly we are not all capable of vocalising our disagreement. Secondly, any case argued is for the whole of the union in the first instance, and for the rights of every worker irrespective of their union membership. In essence, the union is what it says it is; a union and what is done to one of us done to us all. Also, the union representative is a witness, so that discussions cannot easily be disputed. That is the strength of a union.

He disagreed and said if you can’t go in and do it for yourself, why should I do it for you? I think I have already covered that.

We didn’t reach an agreement on this issue so I took the case to the branch office. To my dismay, they agreed with him. I asked to speak to an official, a paid representative and was told nobody was available. That was when I tore up my union card. Right there, in the office.

I am still a committed trades unionist. Unfortunately, I have not worked for several years. (Wonder why?)

That is the calibre of the General and Municipal Boilermakers Union. That is why I take the introductory quote with a pinch of salt. You can’t trust or rely on the GMB.

Long Live the Revolution!

There are reports that Gordon Brown is now the "helpless prisoner" of the trade unions. Shadow minister Chris Grayling declared Mr Brown is "vying for the title of Britain's weakest ever prime minister".

After ten+ years of Tory-New Labour rule, I do hope you are right. I do hope, not a ‘prisoner’ of the Trade Unions (something akin to the conglomerate companies that own most of Britain) but a socialist who will see the benefit to the working man of having a strong negotiating position. A man who will have the vision to see that weak trade unions are counter-productive. A man who will see that a working man who feels impotent is less productive than a man who feels able to negotiate and improve his lot.

Alternatively, we can continue the current trend to make us subservient, bereft of any feelings of loyalty, worth or importance. In that case I suggest you read your history books. Watt Tyler, the English Civil War, the French Revolution. The American war of independence and the October Uprising that gave the world the first truly socialist state.

I rest my case

Labour or labour?

There is currently some debate as to whether Gordon Brown should stay or go.

That, as far as I am concerned is not the issue. The issue is whether we actually have a Labour Party to argue about. I say not. Gordon Brown, Jack Straw or the pathetic David Miliband are all turncoats. Give me a Dennis Skinner, Tony Benn or dare I say Michael Foot any day. You may not like their politics. You may not like their appearance. But they were true to the cause and trustworthy. Politicians in the true sense of the word. In the job because they believed in it. Not career politicians. They didn’t abandon the working man to Thatcher’s idealism.

Keep It In The Family

In 1996/7 John Prescott’s support for Clause IV of the labour party manifesto was seemingly silenced with the offer of the deputy leadership.

Gordon brown was kept happy with the prospect of being PM

Now home Secretary Jacqui Smith has offered a Job to police representative Jan Berry who called for her resignation over a pay dispute.

Can anybody remember a more sleazy, manipulative administration?

A Long Eaton mother jailed before being cleared of killing her son, aged four months, has lost her compensation bid.

Lorraine Allen, 39. was jailed in 2000 but it was quashed after an expert cast doubt on how the injuries were caused.

Her compensation bid was refused by the Appeal Court on the basis it could only be paid where a newly discovered fact established a miscarriage of justice

It seems to me that having a conviction quashed without new evidence (facts) should be more worthy of attracting compensation.

It's time the rules on introducing new evidence and compensation were given a complete overall. And they should start by making sure no convicted criminal receives compensation for any reason connected with his crime, incarceration or other form of punishment.

Jacqui Smith intends to confront violent criminals (people who carry knives) with victims of stabbings.

She rejected demands that anybody caught carrying a knife should go to prison.

She said: "We know that tough community sentences including community payback, supervision and electronically monitored curfews are more likely to stop them carrying knives in future."

These 'tough' community punishments haven't driven the thugs off the streets. It's driven them to carry and use knives because they don't fear the consequences.

Politicians will introduce real penalties when knife-wielding thugs start hanging around Eton and Harrow, threatening and stabbing their children and the children of the people who fund them.

MP's Expenses

I just watched Margaret Beckett on Newsnight. When asked about the £600 she had claimed for garden plants and a new pergola on her expenses, she refused to discuss the matter, only saying that the rules were followed. (It sounded a little like a child caught doing wrong and denying any wrong doing regardless of the circumstances or evidence.) While Foreign Secretary, she had access to a taxpayer-funded apartment in London, but like other ministers with similar privileges, she registered that as her primary residence. Sorry, Ms Beckett, but you were a member of the labour party and the government in the 1970’s. You and the party at that time purported to be socialist. There were many honourable socialists in that government. But for you to be at the trough with the rest of the rest of the pigs just because it didn’t break the rules betrays the foundation, the principles and the aims if the labour and socialist movement. If I were you, I’d hang my head in shame. I wait for the day that the labour party returns to its roots and once again becomes the party of the people, the disenfranchised and the ordinary working man and woman. I will be interested to see whether you resign from the labour party or if you change colours again and profess your socialist beliefs to keep your snout in the seemingly bottomless pit of benefits that the current administration denies ordinary people.

I have never voted for an individual. I vote according to the party they belong to and that party’s political, economic and social allegiance. These last 11 years have not given me that option, so I have voted according to my conscience, often meaning I have voted according to the beliefs of an individual. Often an independent. Often the lesser of several evils. If the labour party returned to its roots and I believed it to be genuine in its return, I would once again vote for them. However, if by some twist of fate Margaret Becket was our candidate, no matter what she professed to be her allegiance or belief, I certainly would use my vote elsewhere.

More Revelations HERE and HERE.

A Read for Satellite Users.

There is an interesting read HERE.
I have been reading this guy's free email for some years now. Anybody who has satellite television, or any other electronic equipment should read this. Makes you wonder. Thank heaven we have people like this to put us in the picture.

Change

The buzzword of this current politics is 'CHANGE.'

Candidates toss it around without saying what they want to change to.

Years ago, there was an old drill sergeant who inspected his troops and told the corporal that they smelled bad. The sergeant suggested that they change their underwear.

The corporal responded, 'Yes, sir. I'll see to it immediately.' He went into the barracks and said, 'The sergeant thinks you lot smell bad, and he wants you to change your underwear. Cameron, you change with Howard, Brown, you change with Blair, Clegg, you change with Menzies....' 'Change, now get on with it'

A candidate may promise change in Parliament but the stink remains.

(With thanks to Lockergnome Political Geeks- humor for the idea)

MP decides not to quit government

A junior member of the government who was thought to have quit has I now said she is not going to leave - following a conversation with Gordon Brown.
Treasury ministerial aide Angela Smith had told colleagues she was resigning over the abolition of the 10p income tax rate. But Ms Smith later said this was not the case, although she acknowledged she had "concerns" over the policy.

Sounds suspiciously like John Prescott's meeting with Tony Blair over Clause IV, doesn't it?

Elections 2008

Socialism was popular in the 1960’s and 1970’s. It now seems to be taboo. Our ‘all for one, and one for oneself’ society popularised by Margaret Thatcher’s monetarist regime of the 1980’s saw the death knell of community. The end of social cohesion. The beginning of anarchy. In the 19^th century, anarchy was the antichrist of the ruling class. Anarchists were the demons sent to destroy society. Now I argue that 19^th century politicians and thinkers were a damn site more right wing than Thatcher and her followers. Yet she managed, towards the end of the 20^th century to destroy socialism, to instigate the destruction of the engineering power of our country and to see Britain become the lackey of American politics. And our so called Labour party seems intent on continuing this decline of the rights of the British people.

I ask, what has this ‘Labour’ government done for the every day working man? Despite their cries of discontent when VAT was put on gas and electricity by the ‘great’ lady, has this administration removed it? Has this administration redistributed the wealth this country of ours through fairer taxation? Have we seen any attempt at re-establishing the right of a working man to be content, affluent and safe in his own home?

What we have seen is greater tax on fuel, lower taxes for the rich at the expense of the poor and ordinary people in fear of the streets and in some cases in their own homes. Next month is your chance to say you are not happy with the current trend. You can go to the ballot box and make your feeling known. Vote for anybody BUT the main parties. Don’t waste your vote. Show them that you will vote. But on your terms, not theirs.

Cash is evil!

A judge decides businesses are entitled to charge cash paying customers more for the same service.

Does anybody remember the time when such people were welcome, nay, encouraged? I can’t help but think that the financial institutions that profit from debt and credit are behind this. Once they have us in the loop, were there for life. I intend to die owing thousands!

Politics Today

After an 18 month trial, permission for television broadcasts of Commons' proceedings was finally granted in 1990. I was marginally against this. Why? Democrats (in the purely British sense of the word) might well believe it would give the proceedings transparency. I was afraid that the men (and women) in the flash suits would have ‘the edge’. While I do not wish to infer that the voting population of Britain are not capable of making objective judgements, it seemed to me that we are a nation of ‘cap doffers’. With the best will in the world, we, the British have a tendency to trust the man in the suit, the one who is well presented. We do not look beyond the image. The politics of the last 30 years and more should show us that being well dressed does not mean the individual is worthy of our trust. Many of these well dressed men and women have let us down.

I make the point of John Profumo. Well Dressed, gentleman? Turned out to be untrustworthy and a liar.

Michael Foot who, in the 1970’s placed a wreath to the fallen from two World Wars on Armistice Day at the Cenotaph, wearing a ‘donkey jacket’ gave up leadership of the Labour Party because of the outcry, instituted by the right wing press and their Tory overlords. I shan’t quote the obvious- that most of the men who died to protect our freedom would have been similarly garbed. (Yes, I quoted it. I’m a liar, too.) I’ll just say we gave up a man who might have brought about some real changes. A man, who despite the donkey jacket, was a genuine and trustworthy individual. I was a member of the Labour Party back then. He would have made a great Prime Minister. When I say that, I mean in the vein of Benjamin Disraeli, Lloyd George and even, perhaps, Sir Winston Churchill. We really lost an opportunity for Britain to be ‘Great’ again.

I’ll end by saying that was the beginning of the end of the Labour Party in once Great Britain. We saw the beginning of career politicians. When the job became more important than the care of the people. When the expense account became more important than the job. When looking good meant more than being a good politician.

I rest my case.

One State, One Party?

I have just been listening to BBC’s news24. I heard a reporter discussing the China/Tibet situation. He described China, correctly, as a ‘one party state’. Well, I’d like somebody to explain to me where in the world today there is any state that is not ‘one party’. Take Britain today. We have a conservative, Labour and Liberal party. We can vote for either one by electing our local candidate. He or she may well attract the most votes from his or her area. But, it is likely that a party of a different political persuasion might well be the governing administration. Is that democracy? It could be argued that it is. I would argue differently. They all believe that giving rich businessmen tax breaks and financial loopholes to the detriment of the poor worker will bring rewards for us all. Well, that’s been happening since the industrial revolution. And our society is still financially and politically biased to the rich land and factory owners. We have a Conservative right wing capitalist party. We have a ‘Labour’ right wing capitalist party. We have a Liberal right wing capitalist party. Where, I ask you, in this ‘democratic’ country is a left wing socialist party that has a real possibility of being elected?

I know there will be those who will say I could start my own. But, to be honest, I haven’t the means, education or possibility in this ‘democracy’ to do so. I am not represented by anybody. The few socialist MP’s I might vote for do not represent my constituency, and so I cannot use my ‘free’ vote to see representatives of my opinion elected. So I have become one of the many who do not vote and are considered unworthy of consideration because we ‘cannot be bothered’. Well, I can be bothered. When there is somebody worthy, in my opinion, of my vote.

I think, as do many, it is time to re-assess our system to allow my vote to be used where I feel it to be most effective. Not limited to my geographical location. For me to be able to vote for a person or party, irrespective of where I live. If I choose to vote for a person I would like to see in Parliament to reflect my views I should be able to do so. A member of this venerable institution should be elected according to the wishes of the majority of the country, not his or her constituency. That would truly reflect the wishes of the majority, which I always understood democracy was all about. (‘What’ says the wealthy capitalist? ‘A real democracy? Where the workers have enforceable rights? Where I have to pay a fair wage? Not while I hold the reigns of power!’)

This leads me to another anomaly in our so-called democratic society. Why do we still have 26 Bishops automatically given seats and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York on retirement automatically givens seats in ‘the other place’? In our and most other modern democracies the state and church are supposed to be separate. Then why do we still allow these people a place in the House of Lords purely on the basis that they are or were high ranking members of the clergy? But we have yet another anomaly. The Parliament Act, which asserts the supremacy of the House of Commons by limiting the legislation-blocking powers of the House of Lords. Under the provisions of the Act, the Lords lost the power

(a) To delay certified money bills for more than one month,

and

(b) To exercise an absolute veto over other public bills.

If a public bill (other than a money bill or a bill extending the maximum duration of a parliament) was passed by the Commons in three successive sessions, with at least two years between the first Commons second reading and the Commons third reading in the third session, it could be presented for Royal Assent by the Commons.

So, the Lords is both undemocratic and a waste of tax payers money since they have no real power. Their ‘veto’ can be overruled by the commons.

So, let’s do away with them once and for all. Replace them, if you must with an elected body. But not with a group of people, failed politicians, churchmen, Lord ‘My-Dad-was-one-so-I-have-a-right’ etc and are there by virtue of their previous position.

Then there is ‘it could be presented for Royal Assent by the Commons. ‘

In other words, no Act of Parliament can become law unless the monarch signs it. So, irrespective of our 18thC revolution, when Charles the 1^st was executed in the name of the people and his son was given leave to return and rule only by the right of the people expressed through parliament, the monarchy still retains the unassailable right to pass laws. Look at the 1974 election, when Harold Wilson won by the rules of the day, but our reverend monarch, Elizabeth the second offered the role of government to Edward Heath. Although Harold Wilson’s Labour our Party were elected, Edward Heath was offered, by the Queen to form Her government. The fact that he could not form a coalition with the then Liberal Party is irrelevant. The Parliament was offered to an unelected body by the sovereign. Had he (Ted Heath) chosen to take the role offered by the monarch, albeit with a minority government, under British law that would have been legal. It may not have worked, but was allowable under our constitution. (Unwritten, so possibly, nay, probably allowable.) And who would have defended this undemocratic situation? The British Army, who vow an oath to the Queen.

Democracy? I’ve yet to see one.

Tibet and the Chinese Aggression.

As you can probably see from most of my comments, I am a socialist. I verge on Communism, but prefer persuasion to force. I admit to sometimes wishing we could have a violent revolution, as it seems to be the only way we can institute a socialist régime when faced with the Capitalist misinformation that sounds so logical to so many people until it is examined in detail. So my following opinion on the subject of China’s disregard for the people and culture of Tibet stems not from a condemnation of the principles of socialism, but from the aggressive methods China chose to use to try to force their system of government on an independent people. (Capitalist America has done the same- Hawaii for one. Many Hawaiians, previously an independent island do not want Hawaii to be an American state.) A phrase often quoted is ‘the unacceptable face of capitalism’. I believe China has and is showing us the ‘unacceptable face of socialism’ (as did Josef Stalin in communist Russia).

Where is the USA? They are quick enough to send troops to ‘protect’ oil rich countries. This smacks of East Timor. (No, we haven’t all forgotten.) If the USA are, as is claimed, the world’s police (isn’t that the role of the United Nations?) why aren’t they as aggressive and pro-active in this circumstance as they are in the Middle East? Why haven’t they warned China off? Why did the world ignore China’s aggression and invasion of Tibet in October 1950? What’s the matter, George Bush? Hasn’t God spoken to you on this? The world is watching.

Show Your Dissent!

For those who feel that, as I do we have no alternative political party to vote for. For those who believe we have no effective opposition. And for those who don't trust any political candidate. If you have such leanings, but would like to register your non-vote, and have a wish and willingness to vote may I suggest that at each election you go to the polling station and put a question mark against each of the candidates?
This way, no candidate will be credited with your vote. The voting paper will be rejected. If there are millions of such papers, it may, probably will be noticed. (I have been a scrutineer at a count. I believe they would, eventually be noticed.) We may become a non-affiliated political force to be reckoned with.

I end every email I send with ‘WANT TO VOTE BUT HAVE NO ACCEPTABLE CANDIDATE? PUT A '?' IN EACH BOX. SHOW THE ESTABLISHMENT WE EXIST.I also link it to this post. Maybe you could do the same. Maybe we can make a difference.

NO IFS. NO BUTS.

Peter Hain MP for Neath- Work and Pensions Secretary.

Your words. Your policy. Our fault.
I rest my case.

Brown Praises New Deal

PM Gordon Brown has praised the New Deal for unemployed. Maybe he can tell me why, at 50 years old, after raising two children single handed (and I mean just that- no help from social services or any other organisation) employers are turning me down because of my age and time out of full time work. (I have worked part time for most of those years.) Perhaps he can explain why, after coming off income support and on to job seekers allowance, I took the advice of the job-centre and went to Sunrise Training (Learn Direct) to do a refresher course in adult numeracy and literacy (even though I have GCE 'O' levels in these subjects-amongst others) because they said I would be funded by them for a fork-lift drivers course, which would open employment possibilities only to be told on successful completion of these courses that I couldn't be funded because I had passed the Level two exams too easily. You know what he can do with his 'New Deal'.

Bargain Booze and Staff Exploitation

On Friday I heard that the friendly, helpful staff at our local Bargain Booze were sacked. Why? Were they all in some conspiracy to defraud the company? Were they idle? Were they abusive to customers? No. The new manager wants to run it himself, with his family. So, six girls on the dole for no reason other than the God of Profit. Here's the email I sent Bargain Booze. Feel free to copy and modify it and send it to them (info@bargainbooze.co.uk) if you feel, as I do that these girls have been poorly treated by a large national company.

I have used Bargain Booze for several years now, partly due to the excellent prices and partly due to the friendly staff. Some weeks ago I was introduced to the new store manager at the Church Street, Tamworth, Staffordshire shop. Last Friday, 10th August I went in to buy some cans and as I left the girls said something along the lines of 'Say goodbye, this is our last week.' When I asked why I was told the new manager had terminated their employment and he was going to run the shop himself with the help of his family. Quite honestly I was appalled. All these girls have worked at the shop for some time, so one assumes that their ability to do the job is not in question. They are always pleasant, polite and helpful. As far as I am aware, they are honest and loyal. To terminate someone's employment without good reason must surely be illegal and if not it should be. It is without doubt immoral. Some time ago I asked the manager how they sold their beers so cheaply. I was told that it was because stock was bought in such large quantities on a national level that Bargain Booze could virtually name their own price. One might reasonably expect such a large company with its obvious financial muscle to be able to insist that existing staff be retained as part of the franchise. Or is this another example of profit before people? If this, as I suspect, is the case then I must consider withdrawing my small contribution to the said profit and take my custom elsewhere.
I look forward to your response.

Regards

Paul Higgins

Fingerprinting Your Kids

Just received an email that linked to this
More here
An excellent piece here:

Googling 'fingerprinting children' will give you a wealth of information. It seems the 'fingerprinters' (as might be expected) are all for it and advocate the benefits. However, the 'fingerprintees' or their guardians are a little more sceptical.
Two of the against arguments, just for those who do not see an issue, are that it 'normalises' biometric use, making it seem trivial for youngsters who know no better. Which could lead to obvious security issues in later life. Also, using passwords means that in the event of identity theft or passwords being hacked or stolen, one has merely to change ones password. In the event of biometrics being stolen, and I believe the criminals will find a way once it becomes popular and financially viable, they haven't stolen your password. They have stolen you!

Tony Benn- my hero

Mr Benn is one of the finest politicians this great country of ours has ever seen or is likely to see in my lifetime. I would say give him the crown, make him King, but he would not accept it. He is the the best politician this country has ever or is likely to see. (Maybe Churchill would be a close second). I don't expect universal agreement. I don't suppose most of you will agree. What I do say is before you condemn him from what you know from the right-wing media, listen to what he has to say. The man is intelligent, knows his subject and quite often you might find, as I have, that he talks sense. Common sense that we all understand. And more power to the man. The world will be a sadder place when he and people of his ilk are gone.

North South Divide

There have been a lot of comments on the ‘North/South’ divide. I live in the Midlands, so which am I? Can’t you realise the so-called divide is nothing to do with ordinary people suffering. It is the fault of government and the media for biased intervention and reporting. Let’s ignore them and be united. WE are the people, and WE shall (can?) overcome.

Bloody Elections

Gordon Brown will probably be our next unopposed prime minister. But given that New Labour has stage managed everything they have done in their term of office, this will be no different. Every Labour politician who has been suggested as a contender has soon afterwards declared they will not oppose Mr. Brown. The silence is deafening. I remember John Prescott being totally opposed to the removal of clause IV from the Labour Party manifesto. . ("To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."). A few hours with Tony Blair, and he came out in favour of removing clause IV. What was he offered? The deputy leadership, perhaps? That is exactly what he got. And now he is a sidelined nobody. We have been conned by Tony and his cronies for too long. We need to re-establish the labour party as a truly socialist organisation. A life long Labour man, my last vote for this watered down Tory administration was in 1997. I will tell you why. Though opposed to their 'New labour' policies I voted for them. In that terrible year, local politicians, members of the party and Labour councillors advised me, after expressing my doubts, that maybe Tony was trying to get elected on new, popular policies and once in government he would introduce a real socialist agenda I suggested that this was immoral, and as I have always maintained that we (the ‘Real Labour’ party) should be educating the people, and not looking to be elected on popular policies that conflict with our beliefs. Trusting these local politicians, et al, and against my better judgement (who else could I vote for? Another Tory administration?) I voted Labour, to my eternal regret. I have never failed to vote, my small voice is part of the process that may bring us back to a fairer society. This so-called democracy we live in gives me only two choices. Vote for the lesser of several evils or abstain from the right to have an input in this perverse system. I will not tell you how I vote. That is between me and the ballot box. However; I will tell you I now vote for the party and or politician that most closely expresses my beliefs, regardless of their political affiliation.

I sincerely hope that my opinion on these matters is not so far from your own that you might consider them as a viable alternative to the current repressive regime.

Loopy Lotto Update

I contacted Trading Standards about my issue with this organisation swindling me out of my money. They suggested The Gambling Commission. The Gambling Commission have written back to tell me that they do not currently regulate online gambling, but will do so from September 2007. Does this mean that for all these years people have been using the internet, UK citizens have had no protection from fraudulent gamblers?

Loopy Lotto

Buggers have owed me £70 since January and now say I have no prize money. I've contacted the Gambling Commission. The £70 they owe me might close 'em down. I do hope so. Stay away!

Tony Blair on GMTV

I have just watched Tony Blair's interview on GMTV. It was a shambles. I think he has lost it- if he ever had it. He stuttered and stumbled his way through his answers giving the impression he didn't know what he was talking about or that he knew his answers where misleading, but wanted to mislead in a way he could cover up later. You know- the politicians 'no, I didn't actually say that- what I said was...'. But we all know what you meant, Tony.

Olympian Fiasco!

So the Olympics could cost us £9 billion. How much will it eventually be? I think they should call it the 'Olympic Dome'. Don't tell me about the financial benefits. The people who will make money will be the rich and famous and the businessmen. The 'minimum wage' workers, I suppose, should be grateful for the work. £9 billion? Looks like a good start to compensating the hard workers who have had their pensions stolen.

Gun Crime revisited

I see Tony Blair and David Cameron are now crossing verbal swords. Mr Blair seems to think it is a "specific, criminal culture". David Cameron says society is "in deep trouble". Well, they are both wrong. They are also both right. There are specifics of criminal culture that need to be targeted. But we also need to be looking at society as a whole. David Cameron has also said "We now stand for social revival. We used to stand for the individual. Now we stand for the family, for the neighbourhood, in a word, for society." I would ask you to remember the following. The culture we live in today is a direct result of the lack of job security and the unemployment experienced by two generations while there is a culture of the 'old boy' network that encourages wealth for wealths sake, providing you are from the 'accepted' class. When you hear Mr Cameron saying "in a word, for society" remember that this split, class ridden society we endure is a result of Mrs Thatchers moneterist policy. Oh, and don't forget that she said 'there is no such thing as society'. I do not believe the Tory party has changed to the extent David Cameron would have us believe. The root of Britain's problems is the intrusion of American ideology. To the extent that the USA has two capitalist political parties to choose from. We find ourselves in a similar position today. We can vote for Cameron's left of Tory agenda or Blairs right of (real) Labour's agenda. Which really, as the last ten years prove amounts to the same thing. We have no effective opposition.

Sorry

I know my blog isn't read very much. Probably not at all, except by me and perhaps some nefarious, hidden government agencies. But the way this country and the world is going, I am going to try to take half an hour every day to comment on things that make me feel sad, depressed and generally pissed off with Britain and all the crap ordinary people have to put up with. We don't have to put up with it. We have to organise and defy the laws and regulations that are putting us all at risk. We also have to realise that the things that are happening today are the first step to total control. We accept the slow erosion of our rights and privileges. It is called the 'drip drip' effect. It is done bit by bit, so we do not realise what is happening. But one day, it will all come together and it will be too late. Let's not leave it too late.

Gun Crime

Hi, I'm back again. I often see or hear things I might wish to post about, but often find my time is filled with other stuff, and never get around to it. But this latest news about kids (that is all they are) getting shot dead is enough to push the other stuff aside and have my say. Our 'glorious' leader Sir-Saint-His Royal Highness-Kiss My Arse Mr Tony Blair has said "horrific, shocking and tragic beyond belief". Well, Tone-ey, (I hope you don't mind my familiarity) it hasn't just started. It has just become a subject of debate in the media. Local elections due? No, can't be that? Can it?

Hutton: Take a job or lose benefits

Two things to say here. One, this is nothing new. Jobseekers have always been required to seek and take appropriate work in exchange for benefits while they look. Two, maybe if wages were at a decent level, people would be more inclined to take work. A member of a government who is asking for a 60%+ pay rise should think carefully about this.

We are being shafted!

Animals in hospitals, country ruled by hooded yobs, do-gooders saying we shouldn't punish them, the whole social infrastructure falling to bits. And Europe telling us we can't do anything about it because we will upset their human rights!!! Ha. Ha. Ha Ha Ha. Welcome to THEIR world. Well, back to the asylum for me.