huge cuts MUST be made by ANY party that forms the next government - of this there is no doubt.
the UK taxpayer cannot go on paying vast amounts of money out, over and above, what the UK has coming in
that said, the accusations thrown at the libdems and the conservatives, that they "are not telling us where the cuts will fall" by the labour party, are an unwarranted smoke screen.
under parliamentary rules, the ruling government, prior to a general election, must allow access to the financial accounts of the UK, to the opposition parties (measures put in place by john major) the information is gathered together, by a public spending review. prior to this general election, the public spending review that would normally bring the financial books of the UK up to date, has been "delayed"
labour know full well, that if the opposition parties knew the sheer state of the public financies at this time, there would be a public outcry!
the figures that the opposition parties have seen, are a year to two years out of date. you wouldnt be able to run your family finances, if you had to estimate your household bills would you? at a time when the UK is borrowing more than £160 BILLION a year, just to break even, this is negligence of staggering proportions. put this into perspective - this is like your household income being 12% short, every year, of what you need to pay your bills, and you have to borrow this and pay interest on it (without paying anything off it and not paying any of your overall growing debt off)
in a household, who's total income for the year is £20,000 - this represents the need to borrow £2400 per year just to break even - thats without buying any food all year, thats just for the household bills - this is 12% of total income (this doesnt include any interest payments either!) £2400 is a substantial sum of money each year, which could pay for a family holiday, a deposit on a car needed for work, home improvements, etc. all of these things that are valuable to the family, must wait, indefinately, as this £2400 is needed to balance the books just to pay bills!
back to the government figures... without a spending review, the opposition parties do not know how much each year the UK has to pay PFI that are owed to buy schools/hospitals. these are kept OFF the UK's books to avoid our credit rating being lowered and costing us more in interest payments. like them or not, these have to be paid for, the UK taxpayer and political parties need to know how much they are costing us. (you cant run a household budget, if you are paying out an extra £100 a month that you didnt know about!) there is also the problem of the "quantitive easing program" whereby the government have printed £200 billion of new money - this has to be taken out of the economy in the future.
a double dip recession is unavoidable - because the truth is, we have not come out of recession yet, if its not a depression! you could manage the economy if you were borrowing and printing thousands of millions of pounds.
so why has the public spending review (that would reveal the true extent of the UK's financial position) been delayed until after this general election? you dont need me to answer this.
for labour to accuse the opposition parties of "covering up" and "not telling us where cuts will be made" whilst proclaiming that they will INCREASE borrowing and put more funding in, is disgraceful. its a blatant lie from labour, they know full well what they are hiding, and should there be a change of government on may 7th, there will be a new public spending review carried out and then the lies and negligence from labour will be revealed for all to see.
Mrs Duffy, for me, is no different from my friends and neighbours on our street, no different from the people stood in queues at the post office, bank, shops, etc. Mrs Duffy asked questions that everyone is asking...
How are we going to pay all this debt back? similar to the run up to the election of 2005 - labour take a potentially government changing issue and set up a review months after the general election. whilst on the compaign trail, each time the question about the issue comes up, they talk about the ideal scenarios (that everyone wants to see) then tell us that they will know more "after the review" - of course you and i know that this will conveniently be too late as the election that will have passed.
normal protocol, sees a government in office having a spending review of the country's books at regular intervals - john major, when prime minister, brought in a law, that made it compulsary for the government of the day to give opposition parties access to the country's books prior to a general election, important to have a stable transition of government, wether the current government is re elected or a new government comes in. by holding a spending review AFTER the general election this time, labour have indeed passed the country's books to opposition parties, however, it is of little use as the state of the economy since the last review, are over a year out of date! this gives gordon brown's labour party a distinct advantage without question
How are we going to reduce immigration? lets get things straight from the outset - Mrs Duffy raising this question, does not justify in anyway whatsoever, calling her a "bigot" - i support Mrs Duffy 100% immigration - in all forms, legal, economic, illegal, asylum seekers, student - is a relevant topic to raise.
it is not now nor ever, acceptable, to quote ideal scenarios, then if the individual questions this, to brand them a "bigot" - wether in private or public, there is no excuse for it!
immigration worries many people - at a time that the british people are being told we have to retire later, and we have pressures on our health service, schools, housing, crime, benefits system, etc - people are rightly questioning why our borders are wide open and we are allowing so many people to enter, live,work and bring their families here. wasnt it gordon brown himself who told us protecting britain is of paramount importance, justification for anti terror laws and being flanked by lots of taxpayer funded security, etc, why then are our borders so open and the country is left so exposed?
ironically, Mrs Duffy inadvertantly exposed gordon brown for how he views ordinary voters with valid questions - for me the thing that hit home was when Mrs Duffy was told of what Gordon Brown said. her response was,
"no? he wouldnt say things like that..." then she looked away from the camera and said, "over 60 years my family has supported labour..."
Election - WHY do we need working and child tax credits?
if the people of britain are so well off, labour tell us it is "labour that have taken more and more people out of poverty" and "its labour that have provided more support for families since 1997" so why then do the people of britain need child tax and working tax credits, to live?
today, more than 20 million people need a form of tax credit to live - why is that?
tax credits of ALL kinds, are a taxpayer/state funded benefit, that needs to be claimed and personal information has to be given. these claimants cannot afford to live on one full time working wage and need this topped up by taxpayers.
how can we all as a country, grow and prosper, when more and more people each year require a state benefit to live?
public transport prices have trebled (government owned network rail have pushed up prices for train users via higher charges for train operators) childcare prices have gone through the roof (some people now work full time to pay for childcare costs) more than 100 NEW taxes from labour since 1997 (including a 5% tax on pension fund profits every year, which in the long term will hit every single person who claims a pension!) food prices up well above inflation house prices up by between four to six times what they were in 1997 ... and many many more increased costs to our everyday lives.
yvette cooper spoke this morning, of paying all these tax credits straight into people's bank accounts allowing administration savings to cut the cost of government just on this point alone... but yvette cooper does not tell us: how much has it cost the taxpayer for the IT/computer system for this? how much has it cost the taxpayer for the staff to run this system? how much has it cost the taxpayer for managers for the staff? how much has it cost the taxpayer for the call centres where these people work? how much has it cost the taxpayer for the staff to deal with mistakes, appeals, errors? how much has it cost the taxpayer for all the other add on costs, sick pay, holidays, etc?
there is no alternative though... yes there is! why not reduce the levels of taxation that puts us back to the position where tax payer funded tax credits are not required! if a government has to subsidise one single person, who works full time, but cannot afford their mortgage, food, transport, energy bills, etc, then something is drastically wrong!
labour tell us it was they, that introduced the minimum wage, the opposition parties said it would cost jobs, but it didnt! thats all well and good, but they forgot to mention that with this minimum wage in place, we have 20 million people on a tax credit, which is a taxpayer funded benefit, just to live.
why not let people keep more of their money by lowering the burden of tax on everybody? we wouldnt need call centres and computer systems, that the taxpayer's have had to fork out for.
as tax credit payments increase, so does the cost, and as the cost increases to pay for them, the level of taxation and/or borrowing, have to increase with it, to fund it. eventually, as we are seeing now, the money will run out. then what? ALL parties of ALL colours and viewpoints have to tackle this huge problem, it cannot go on.
if you are lucky enough to have a labour canvasser knocking on your door (rather than just posting a leaflet and running) ask them how they are going to reduce the need for 20 million people having to claim a tax credit just to live? ask them when will we see the burden of tax fall for people?
and ask them why, if they are "the party of fairness" - are some people earning over £50,000 a year, able to claim tax credits, when those on less than £30,000 a year are told that they are unable to receive tax credits? what's fair about that?
proportional representation, or PR as its more commonly known, is a "fairer" way to elect a government.... or is it?
* each party puts forward its party list of selected people, in a given voting area * based on the percentage of the vote that party obtains, the list of people for each party are given the job of MP * the largest percentage of the vote equals the most MPs and they form the new government
sounds fairer?
what about the draw backs? - who picks the people each party put forward? a party leader or MP that was not wanted by the people, would be at the top of the selection list for thier own party, so would be elected into office as an MP even with a small percentage of the vote. the party would select their MPs not the people, it doesnt sound very democratic to me - an MP cheats on their expenses, or votes to keep their expenses secret (dont they lembit opik!) they pay it back but the damage is done, if they are still a high up figure within their own party, they would be nominated 1st or 2nd place on the party list. how would the public vote them out of office? unless the party they stood for got almost nil votes, then the person would again be re elected to MP - with areas of the country voting for their party of choice, regardless of past record, it would be impossible to get them out. - would we ever have a majority government? in the past 40 years, if we were ruled under PR, britain would have rarely, if ever, have had a one party government in control.. without the need for deals, without watering down legislation or laws. its perfectly natural for different parties to have different views and want all those ideal scenarios, but to get them in a different way to other parties. its a damned sight harder to get them, when the near permanent state of affairs is having to do deals with other parties who want to do things their way. action would be buried under yet another layer of political beaurocracy - dependant on yet another set of opinions - another survey or review... the point is, we the public would only be told what they the two parties who share power, what they want us to know. the public would be presented with big policies that could have been so much better, so much cheaper, so much more workable, if there was just a single party who were in government.
so which would be the best voting system for the people of britain? no matter how much i have tried to see benefits in the voting system of PR, i cannot see how it can be better than the first past the post system we currently have.
those in favour of PR would argue that, under our current first past the post system, around 70% do not vote for the party that would have the most seats... its even possible that the party finishing 3rd would have most seats. how does this differ from the PR system? truth is.. it doesnt! if the three parties get 30% of the vote each in an election, the winning party would rule over 70% of an electorate, that voted against it under PR, the ruling party would still rule 70% of people that voted against it.
so why is so much focus being placed on the PR voting system? the libdem's know full well, that the labour party would never form an alliance with the conservatives. the only party to benefit from a hung parliament, is the the liberal democrat party... so why do you suppose that they are so insistant on it being part of any deal....
make no mistake, political parties of all colours want, on the whole, the exact same things for the UK.
- the economy to grow continuously - interest rates for mortgage holders to stay low - inflation to stay low - all children to get a good education - less crime, if not no crime - good relations with other countries - the best pensions for all the people - cures for all diseases and fast treatments for illness and injuries - everyone that can work, in work - no debt for the country
there are of course other "ideal scenarios" that are spouted by all politicians of all parties, which they believe, their policies will bring about. the only difference between the parties, is HOW they would bring about these ideal scenarios
on the subject of the banks... would you have bailed the banks out? my answer would depend on the type of bail out given.
i cannot understand why, given that the levels of personal debt in britain are obscene, in part, promoted and added to by banking practices, in part added to by irresponsible lending, and in part by irresponsible borrowing by people (which should have been prevented by regulation - which is a government's job) the british people have been given almost nothing in their hands, for a pay out in taxation of a size not seen before!
all roads of money lead back to the banks
just think of the good that could have been done, if instead of giving the banks £24,000 per voter in bailouts, the banks were bailed out by the government giving this money directly to every household in britain! * levels of personal debt would have vastly reduced * levels of savings would have increased * competition between banks and businesses would have increased * tax revenues via VAT would have increased as people had more money to spend * pension funds would have increased (again bringing in more revenue for the government via their 5% tax on pension fund profits - could this have kept the retirement age lower?)
the UK economy would have had more jobs, more competition on the high street, more competition between banks as they fight for customers which would have also increased savings rates for people.
if the government had gone the other way, and refused to bailout the banks, i would have supported them.
in life, wise people learn from the mistakes of others, mostly, people learn from their personal experiences.
- not forgetting for one minute, that the prime minister of the day removed bank of england powers that would have prevented the banks being allowed to overstretch on their borrowings (the money they were borrowing cheaply and lending to the public at a higher rate of interest, increasing their profits) giving them instead to the FSA - not forgetting that the former head of the FSA has stated that the prime minister of the day, used political pressure upon him not to step in and use these powers when the FSA spotted the banks were increasing their risks because of over borrowing and would have been unable to finance themselves in the event of a crash
the deterant that would have been there for all to see, had the government let northern rock fall, would have made sure that all the other banks would have brought their houses in order. before i get accused of leaving the british people with northern rock accounts in lumber and worse off, ask yourself this... all banks already had to provide an upto £30,000 guarantee to its customers - how many of northern rock's customers had more than £30,000 sat in their current accounts? it would also have improved the standing of the pound and the view of the UK by countries around the world, in its ability to deal with debts.
as it stands though, with the bailout going directly to banks - the people of britain will have to fork out huge swathes of extra taxes and cuts in services from any party that forms the next government, and subsequant governments, to pay for all the borrowing, for decades to come!
bizarre as it sounds, those that use quotes of "fairness" and "equality" have seen the reverse happen! why should banks have been bailed out and not other retail companies that have gone to the wall? ask woolworths or ethel austin workers if they think they have been treated equally or fairly! ask all the people that worked in the car industry, was it fair that the banks who funded their companies when they went bust, were saved from the same fate?
ironically, as we will find out in the future no doubt, speculators will be keen to step in and unravel the UK in the money markets, as they now know that the current labour government, should they win on may 6th, will bailout failures in the banks in the future... a dangerous position to be in!
Election - The labour party are preparing the removal of Gordon Brown
removal of a party leader is never easy, nor is it often popular. those that support the outgoing leader battle for years with the new leader, behind the scenes and occasionally, in public. it provides opposition parties with an open wound for years afterwards, to put salt on and use as a reference to justify a political argument.
we have seen blair being undermined for years, without pointing to one single occurance, the sheer weight of evidence from books, articles, speeches, etc, all point to it happening. by no means is this limited to the labour party - margaret thatcher is a prime example, after one particular demanding cabinet meeting, in which thatcher got her own way in the end, her old stalwart willie whitelaw came out of downing street and told a reporter, off the record, that she won the day but would not fight another election as leader of the conservatives. within 18 months, she had been forced out.
labour, historically, do not remove their leaders, they resign rather than have another person standing to replace their leaders, they have always preferred the other option, to undermine the leader so much, it makes their position impossible.
onto the 2010 general election campaign, lurking in the background is mandelson, now a converted gordon brown friend, their falling out has been well documented, but then all of a sudden, mandelson is brought out of the shadows, into government via an unelected peerage, and given half the jobs in the cabinet. alastair campbell, spin doctor who bullies the media, left tony blair's side in 2003 Campbell resigns story but is now back in the background.
looking at the way this campaign has gone now we are entering week 3, its hard to see how gordon brown's position as leader can remain. the longer the election campaign goes on, the more it looks like his position is being undermined.
- why would the party machine leak to the public, that party activists and the press that were following his campaign, were complaining about the party leader only meeting party activists and not the general public? - having an elvis impersonator in your campaign is bad enough, but to have them sing "suspicious minds" and "the wonder of you" in front of the world's media - after all the taxpayer money being spent on presentation by the prime minister - is bizarre! - no sitting prime minister has ever agreed to and taken part in, a live tv debate with other leaders, there have been many calls for it, but think about it, gordon brown by his own admission has a face for radio, he is not slick, he is not able to present himself well in the spotlight, yet he is advised to accept it and put his face directly to the public on live tv, for more than four and a half hours over three weeks?
i would seriously question gordon brown's judgement. labour's big guns, advisors, mandelson etc, were all in it with blair, upto their necks. they disappear from view and leave, blair is briefed against until blair leaves. gordon brown is then faced with more pressure behind the scenes, as his cabinet ministers resign, his supporters (in parliament and the voters) dwindle in numbers and his position is within weeks of a resignation - enter the big guns, now magically his best friends... a quick fix to save his position, they now have the control and power without having to face a vote from the public.
there is something bigger going on in the labour party at this election - some of the things that gordon brown is being advised to do, just dont add up, it looks like he is being edged towards the exit door by those behind the scenes and a successor is being lined up for a token leadership ballot and smoothly into the position of labour leader, regardless of the outcome of this general election
as a kid, growing up in the 70s was "top fun" - obviously we didnt have the pressures of the adults, but looking at the freedoms we had then to how we have become in recent years again, can be a real eye opener...
Crime and the police: then - a police officer would turn up when people least expected it - police were rarely seen - wouldnt dare do something that brought the police to your own door - police called for a incident, theyd be there before youd put the phone down
* the chances of getting a chase off a policeman was unheard of - dad would paste us if the police had to call on us, it was a stigma frowned upon by my parents and others who live close by - the police knew your parents, and would be at your house before you got home! * the only time i recall the police at our door was when our puppy escaped from the garden and got run over, caused a big scene it did with neighbours and friends all wanting to know why they had called on us
Lifestyles: - we had a bonfire every year, all the parents came up to light it and share fireworks and food - christmas, many of us were in each other's homes sharing toys and families enjoyed a drink or three with the neighbours - we could borrow eggs, sugar, milk or bread from our friends across the street - our back door was never locked unless we went on holiday for a week - this includes when we all went out, when we were out shopping, etc. we didnt get broken into once. - "aunties" or neighbours mums would crack us if we got cheeky or gave lip or misbehaved, then our mums would crack us when they found out about it - friends mums would also feed us or make us ice lollies etc - bikes were left out in gardens, perfectly safe and secure - water fights were common apart from the summer of 76 - we made bogeys (go karts) put together bikes, etc. - we would walk 3 miles each way, four times a day to and from school and home and back at dinnertime, in complete safety - we could play out in summer, from 8am to 7pm at night with jam butties, tv was mainly for adults in the evening - nowhere was off limits for kids to go, places werent boarded up or fenced off etc. common sense was taught at school - playing on building sites was frowned upon, as wqas playing near water, but using common sense and staying safe, it was left upto us mostly - you could eat fruit and veg that was growing in the ground and trees, which was safe - you could bring back home a bucket of frog spawn, tortoises were found in fields, you could build "dens" out of old wood and plastic or tin sheets that you found - we made friends with neighbours and their cousins etc, that came to stay in holidays - want a catapult.... we used to make them, along with dutch arrows, slides, sledges, bogeys, etc etc. - swearing by children was rare, god forbid you ever swore within earshot of your mum or dad.... id get soap in my mouth if they ever heard me.
hazey lazy days of summer were fantastic - even the time spent helping out local farms with their haybailing, out in fields all day, with sandwiches made by farmers wife, for NOTHING, we knew the milkman, hed give us a free pint now and again, at christmas hed come in and have a drink with mum and dad and play on our tv game or bar football table, have a kick about with us, etc. i wish i could take the sprog back then for just a day, to show him the freedoms in life we used to have.
we never had pots of money, neighbours used their skills to help each other out, we needed some sheet metal boxes, which we got in return for dad putting up a garden fence, concrete posts and all. neighbourhood kids were the same..... sharing what they had, fail to share your 10p mixed bag with the gang, and when they got one, youd not get any! a new football was a godsend. empty streets for major finals of the fa cup, wimbledon, grand national, etc. milk was safe on the doorstep - as was the milk money in an envelope - spare key under the mat to protect it from rain and not to hide it away from burgulars. people didnt have 25% of their wages drained off in insurances that never paid out because they found an excuse or blamed a clause in the contract - simply because they werent needed.
the customer was always right, refunds were given without the need for a court case, but these werent needed as businesses on the whole didnt rip their customer's off.
litter on the streets was rare, as we had plenty of litter bins and they were emptied regularly - streets were gritted in winter - greengrocers were present in even smaller towns/villages couldnt get served in pubs as everyone knew your parents, it was pointless trying, and going home drunk was not done! drinking alcohol or taking drugs under the age of 16 was rarer than hen's teeth - as was receiving a phone call - a mad dash for the phone in our house when someone called. we didnt ring or text our friends, we hung around with them and had conversations, chilled out, etc
now compare that with today's world hardly anywhere for kids to go - most places are out of bounds, fenced off boarded up etc. police are everywhere - we are watched everywhere by cameras, PCSOs, etc. police do not know our families, they dont know whos on their "patch" most of the time they have to come from a different town - incidents where police are needed are largely ignored by police and individuals.
drugs are common place - boozing on the streets fuels fightings - adults and some kids carry a weapon!
public used to have rights of way.... now everywhere is trespassing when was the last time you saw a tortoise when out walking? when did you last pass a marshy bit of field where it was full of frogspawn? kids out on bikes have to watch their every turn incase they get knocked off. could you leave your bike out in the front garden now and it would be safe and wouldnt be touched? could you leave your back door open at all times?
everything today is spin and marketing - insurances that increase all the time despite you not making a claim - companies frightening you into buying them not only do you get stung by shops/stores/banks etc, but you have to write to them and wait weeks even months for any action, which most the time they do nothjing, so you have to take them to court to get what is rightfully yours! everything costs money!
your fruit an veg is grown using chemicals, pesticides and gas waxes, and flown into the uk from african countries and packaged in bags with the british flag on it - people wonder why so many get illnesses.....
fun for a family now involves paying for parking, having a car and its costs or public transport that is 3 times the price of running a car, with half the service. it involves paying over the odds for a simple lunch or meal out - dare to renew your family passports and it costs you more than a week's wages as it cannot be 10 year ones anymore. bombarded with junk on tv, games consoles that sell you a cd (which costs about 80p to make) for £30 odd quid, to exercise in your front room, doing what you would have done for free normally, if the playing fields/tennis courts hadnt been sold off
the whole concept of life now is a joke - we have the most advanced technologies, designed to make our lives easier, yet its threefold more complicated and unsecure as it was back in the 70s. everything is a profit making machine today, from websites and tvs trying to sell us something to shops selling things for the same/higher price as last year, but now advertising them as "sale prices" - as if the people really believe it!
things are no longer black and white, left or right now - the government, the businesses, the lifestyles of us all have made them all complicated whilst telling us it makes our lives easier.
in the 1970s, a married couple could live with only one person working full time, without any child tax or working tax credit payments from the taxpayer! if the 2nd person got a part time job then brilliant, but whilst they were not working or only working part time, they were looking after their children! none of this - working to pay a child minder bull that is becoming more and more common everyday....
despite the spin doctors hotline to the producer, the supposedly unknown questions to come (of which gordon brown changed his notes in between each question, apparently in order!), it turned out to be not as bad as i thought it would be.
i dont like this type of event at all - in fact i dont like any stage managed type of event - i prefer to have the public question the leaders and mps on the streets, in full view of the general public.
i detest spin in all its forms, from the brown "tea party" and the "unexpected meeting the people" right where he has labour activists giving out leaflets only an hour before his "surprise" visit... i dont mind when its obviously party workers, but when these people are portrayed as "the people" or "the public" i find it misleading.
cameron: i found it odd that he didnt go for brown more - or at all - where was the pressure on brown? its okays putting across the manifesto, dropping in some conversations to back it up, where was the passion? here was a bloke whose fingers are all over a recession of such huge proportions that none of my living family have ever seen the like before and my grand kids will be paying it off with higher taxes and fewer services, yet not a hit in sight from the other two?
brown: he did okays, about even with cameron i thought, disgusting with his comments about using sport as a way to give kids something to do - brown sold off all the playing fields/tennis courts, that these same children used to have access to for free! stating that it was labour and himself that introduced cancer screening, before going on to quote a patient, was a bit of a cheek. i wasnt expecting him to shine like a beacon, but i was hoping the other two would force some information out of him, but as he didnt attack nick clegg at all, clegg didnt throw much back. liars always slip up, if you hit them enough times on the same issue, brown's claims to be "working hard to achieve [insert ideal scenario here]" without giving any information is becoming a joke. didnt drop the ball, but didnt improve his rating
clegg: on the face of it cleggy did well, but then again vince did well in his debate also, not a lot of detail was given nor asked for. a lot of general statements - which on closer inspection has been torn apart at the seems - constant references to "the other two parties" became boring and predictable. i was surprised by the lack of attacks by gordon brown though, i dont think hell get such an easy ride in the next two debates.
after the debate: question time was a disgrace - john seargant was hopeless, constantly banging on about how nothing brown has done in the past is his fault and calling the public and commentators foolish for suggesting it to be the case, showed him for what he is, out of touch. michael grove was on for the conservatives, along with ukip and the libdems. constant attacks from the audience (impartial bbc?) members of the panel queued up to fire shots at the conservatives.
the most revealing facts came to light on andrew neil's this week show libdems have been making hay, regarding the quote that they would scrap the trident replacement saving billions which could fund their tax giveaway and be used to cut borrowing - not so it would appear on closer inspection! the scrapping of trident would not bring any money into the treasury until 2016 - the cut in borrowing is needed in the next five years, ie, upto 2015 - so would do nothing to put money in the pot for anything. this combined with the £17 billion of missing money from their calculations already established by economists, results in a greater than £30 billion missing in funding their plans! when asked on this week, can they reveal how the £30 billion funding gap can be closed - the libdem lady said "no" then proceeded to talk about long term savings that could be made - even quoting cutting trident again as a saving in the next parliament!
the one big stumbling block for me with the libdems, is their european policy.
all their manifesto calculations are based on the population, being the size it is now. libdem european policy is an open door policy! andrew neil's show revealed that the libdems have forgot to mention that they would have an amnesty for all asylum seekers, allowing them to stay in the UK what about those here illegally? what about those from outside the eu, that are resident in a european union country for 6 months then get a european passport, allowing them to walk into britain, live here, work here, use all our services for housing, education, health, police, etc? they wont want to come here alone, so they would bring their families here as well.
libdem costings are way off without the trident savings, including them would be crazy as the savings wouldnt come into play until after the next election in 6 years time, and to base their calculations on the population now? when we know there are vast numbers of asylum seekers here both illegally and legally, plus their open door policy from european countries would put a huge drain on our services, rewsulting in more taxpayer money being required.
and finally...... PR lots of talk of this being the way forward.... not a chance!
mp buys a duck house/porn film on their expenses - if PR is our voting system, we would never be able to get rid of them! each party names its number 1, number 2 etc. the percentage of the vote to each party would allow them to select X numbers of mps based on their declared list (for example - gordon brown = number 1, ed balls = number 2, etc etc.) just 1% of the national vote and we would have gordon brown returned into office, etc.
1st past the post may not be ideal, but it gives us more chance of kicking out the mp than any PR set up would allow.... many systems and ways of doing things have been "modernised" under blair/brown over last 13 years... theres not many of them that have worked to the benefit of the people, and most if not all, have cost the taxpayer more money than the set up that existed already!
hyndburn and haslingden's former labour mp - greg pope
"As you probably know there are proposals to close four sub-post offices in Hyndburn (and another one in Haslingden which I also represent). Post offices are important hubs in any community, not just a place where people go for services but also where people meet. They are part of the glue that holds our society together and people rightly feel strongly when their local post office is threatened with closure. Petitions are raised, local politicians put their party prejudices aside and work together for the good of the community (well, the grown up ones do), people get involved and want their voice to be heard. The closure process has been going on for years and I well recall opposing plans to close post offices under the Tories just as I am doing now under Labour, for at the heart of this is money: Post Office Ltd feels that it simply costs too much to keep the current network going and fewer people are using post offices. This point shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand as it does cost a lot in subsidy but it needs to be weighed against the social benefit that post offices provide to communities, something that can’t just be measured in pounds and pence. The truth is that the proposals go far too far and we can’t afford to lose the number of post offices that are under threat. I’ve tabled a Commons motion to that effect and I’m working with councillors of all parties and none in this campaign as I am a firm believer that we are stronger when we work together." (source: accrington observer 28-02-08)
Post Office Closures — Suspend for issues to be re-assessed — rejected — 19 Mar 2008 at 18:45 Greg Pope MP, Hyndburn voted against calling on the Government to suspend the compulsory closure of sub-post offices: * calls upon the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to instruct Post Office Limited to suspend the compulsory closure of sub-post offices while these issues are re-assessed (source: whips office)
the government won the vote not to suspend the planned 2500 post office closures, by just 20 votes!
a big difference from what our labour mp was telling the local paper and what he actually voted for 19 days later in parliament.
Election issues - Bringing in policy via the back door
the majority of local and county councils are no longer under labour party controls - so why did the labour government CUT central funding to those councils that wanted to freeze or minimise the council tax rises for 2010? who do the people blame if their council tax increases? the people of the north east of england, voted by over 90% AGAINST the regional assemblies that labour wanted to introduce - so why have the government gone to great lengths and using taxpayer's money, to encourage the break up of services at a local level all over the country? compulsary ID card scheme was opposed by many in the house of commons and people in the country, the government changed this to make them "optional" - so why then do the government now require those people that need to renew their driving license for example, have to produce 6 different forms of id, including their passport, unless they have a national ID card?
just three examples there of many, of the past record of labour in government introducing unpopular (and sometimes after being advised they are wrong) policies, via the back door/in the small print!
where are the labour party's scruples?
labour's manifesto released yesterday - a fact that graham jones (labour candidate for haslingden and hyndburn) has conveniently forgotten to mention at all on his blog - he must be so proud? - half the policies were from other parties!
our ex labour MP, greg pope, signed a petition to keep small post office counters open, yet went back to westminster and voted with the labour government to close them!
indirectly introducing unpopular policies, where the local councils or businesses have their hands forced, by action brought in by central labour government - so that they get the finger of blame pointed at them and not the government, is disgraceful. it has been a continual occurance from those elected to serve a labour government in power in westminster. its misleading the public and deflecting blame away from those that are causing problems when things go wrong.
commonly heard views by me - "they are all the same" - "whats the point?" - "i live in a safe seat it wont make any difference" - "i dont do politics" - "people should just destroy their ballot papers"
there are more like this.... but stop for a minute and consider this. it may not seem important to vote, especially in a general election, but you should vote at every given opportunity, it affects things more than many people realise.
forget who you vote for, anyone will do, be it the main parties or the paint monkeys green and call yourself tracey party, it matters not, but the fact that you have voted does.
i know of an area, called a "ward" for those wanting to stand in parliament or on their county councils, that has a voter turn out of over 80% for every election. this area are canavssed every election, even for the local council, as well as the two big elections, for an mp and county councillors.
if you are a candidate to be an mp or a county councillor, as an example, in your area you have 10 wards that vote to decide if you get elected or not 7 of those voting wards have a turn out at each election of around 30% - this is just 30% of possible voters that bother to put a cross on a sheet of paper - well call this group A the other 3 wards have a turn out of over 80% - well call this group B
if your area falls into group B - id guess that you dont get much investment in your immediate area, waiting times for repair of kerbs pavements road surfaces, etc, are long are there many parks around your area, or sports fields? id guess that these are in other areas of your town and not your "ward" if they are in your area, are they well maintained? do the candidates come around and knock on your door, are the councillors or mps regular visitors? i would doubt it.
those living in wards that fall into group B dont seem to get much investment.
if your area falls into group A - you will see the odd new park or play area set up, grass is cut regularly and roads are cleaned, road surfaces are in general better than other areas, repairs are carried out quite quickly. if there is any investment, homes in your area might get a facelift, speed traps are put in where children are, after residents voice their requests. you are canvassed and see your mp or councillor now and again, etc.
those living in group A dont get everything, but they do get things faster and things are generally in a better state of repair.
the point: yes there is one..... when someone wants to be elected, the 3 wards that have a high turnout are deemed to be more important than the other wards - i know theyd never admit to this, but if they win the 3 wards in group A, then theyd only need 1 or two of the other wards. you could in theory win 7 wards and still lose the seat as the turnout is regularly low in the ones you win, accumilating less votes, especially damaging to your chances if they want to be an mp.
those seeking election dont just look at numbers of who votes for and against them, they look at turnout of everyone in each area! once in office, those areas with a higher turnout, will be worth more votes to them come the next election, so investment is targetted (to a degree)
in my area we only have about 30-35% turnout of all the people that bother to vote - we get nothing. 2 year waiting list for road repairs, pavement repairs, etc. street cleaners only once every other month from what i see, later rubbish collections etc, all kinds of things like this. if we had a voter turnout of over 80% we would do much better when it comes to services and investment in our area.
so i am asking you to USE YOUR VOTE - regardless of which party you support, the more of us that vote, the less those in power can afford to ignore us!
in 1997, when blair walked into downing street, in my area the price of a litre of petrol for the car was 65.9p today it stands at £1.20 per litre
for me, petrol prices are a major issue... its price effects everything, food prices (in part) - adding cost to work and travel plans, etc. the way it is taxed by the government is also a big issue.
- the price of petrol has almost doubled, yet the price of public transport has more than trebled in my area - supermarkets and stand alone garages have been exploiting customers, putting up prices just a day before the budget or budget statement, then increasing the price again when the budget tax rise is announced (even when there isnt one announced!) pricing competition out of business, then when pinned down on why two petrol stations are charging a different price when the wagon delivers to both on the same day, the public are given the excuse that "the more expensive petrol station is in an area with less competition!"
- the price rarely comes down - the excuses given to justify prices are ridiculous! its gone up because the pound is struggling against the euro its gone up because the price of oil is shooting up its gone up because the cost of refining the oil is increasing its gone up because the government have put taxes up on it (in some cases to be fair, when they havent) its gone up because the sales are flat its gone up because supply is lower its gone up because there is more demand its gone up because vat has gone back up (which is a lie as petrol was not included in the vat reductions) - it didnt go down in the first place! its gone up because we have to buy in advance and our price has increased between deliveries (complete rubbish, as i proved when my local petrol station had a delivery once every four days, all paid for in arrears, over a single 4 days period they increased the price 3 times on the same delivery!)
all complete pap... theres a reason why we dont have a way that the customer can see what the price should be, because they are all at it, ripping off customers, and the government desperately need the revenue from the tax imposed upon it as they have borrowed so much. it needs getting to grips with once and for all - customer is king and we should be given a clear way of identifying when we are being ripped off
petrol prices, and indeed the tax take from the motorist are at record levels. the apparent government scheme to help new car buyers did nothing to help anyone and was a complete false promise.
all that happened was that the dealers all raised their prices by the £1000-£2000 discount value, of which £1000 had to be discounted by the dealerships, so they lost nothing. for anyone without a 10 year old trade in, they had to stump up a horrendous price increase after being misled into buying a car as prices were falling. of course, the higher the price of a car, the higher the tax take via vat on the sale for the government.
in 2007-2008 the government took more than £45 BILLION from the motorist in taxation, this was said to be for "transport projects" and "green projects" - utter tosh! that same year, the government spent less than £8 BILLION on transport projects - those of you who are regulars will know - i asked our labour mp where the rest of the money had gone, and was given no answer in three attempts. the only response i got was to be accused that i wanted to take money away from and close hospitals and schools (both of which have been extensively financed by the private finance initiatives PFI - which have been kept off the country's books and are not included on britain's debt figures) i havent even counted the interest that the public are not allowed to know about!
also to be taken into account the amount of money needed for transport, to and from the workplace - both by car or public transport this comes out of people's pockets, any job now must have this factored in.
theres no disputing, that which ever party gets in on may 7th, will have to make huge cuts to spending to try and control our debt and reduce the country's borrowing each year - more than £160 BILLION in the past 12 months (without interest added) - the tax take for petrol and all forms of essential transport, is going to need to be huge, which will hit each and everyone of us. credible plans are thin on the ground from the parties so far, although the conservatives have said their fuel escalator will be brought in, which will reduce the tax take on petrol when it rises and increase the tax take when the price comes down, in an effort to at least stabilise the price at the pumps.
the problems of the customer being ripped off all the time, should be a priority, it affects every single one of us!
one final thought: labour said that they cannot control petrol prices directly a few years ago, yet when the price of oil was much higher than it is now, and the people were blockading petrol stations and refineries, as if by magic, the price of petrol at the pumps started to (and for a while stayed) lower!
some members of the general public want answers...
.... it would appear that gordon brown doesnt want to have to give them!
Denz on 04.07.10 @ 08:11 PM CST [link]
Tuesday, April 6th
The Labour party dont know what they stand for...
yesterday, prospective parliamentary candidate for the labour party, graham jones (hyndburn and haslingden) stated on his blog:
"... gordon brown did not cause the housing boom. robert peston of the BBC has a great article on it. It was the markets that caused the boom! If you want to regulate the market's i suggest you join the socialist workers party"
today on the lunchtime news, peter mandelson stated the exact opposite:
"... we will grow the markets!"
so which is it? do the government have the powers to grow the market (and reduce the market using regulation) - or do the government have no powers to regulate the markets and peter mandelson is telling us all lies, as the government cannot grow the markets?
i find it astounding, that a labour party candidate states that his party are not a socialist party, telling people to join a socialist workers party if they want the markets controlling, at the same time as blaming the markets for his own party leaders mistakes!
if hes not a socialist and he doesnt believe in free markets - then what exactly does he and the party he claims to represent, stand for???
and their off... the general election starting gun has been fired, every household in the country will now be bombarded for the next 4 weeks, via the internet, via the telephone, via their televisions, about which of the parties we should vote for.
in this sense, its all good fun, it is only once every 5 years.
in another sense, its a total nightmare for the public!
how does the general public, seperate the spin from the substance? when the wife told me to "look at that" when blair walked into downing street after his landslide election victory in 1997 was all over the tv news, little did we know then what we know now, it was all fake the cheering masses of people in downing street that day were labour activists, flown and bused in, to give the impression of euphoria
a year later, our clan landed on downing street, and were refused access to the entire street, unable to even get a clear photograph of the front door that the world sees, locked out and not wanted. i even asked the armed police guards, "not a chance" i was told. i pay for it, i vote for it, but when i want access to it..... im not allowed anywhere near it.
more recently, the gordon brown appearance in reading town centre on a friday dinnertime, not a soul around only advisors, police, councillors and plain clothes detectives. no access allowed. or the council estate in january, live on the dinnertime news, the prime minister reveals a "new" initiative on anti social behaviour.... once again, not a soul around him, even when stood next to the only shops in the area at a busy dinnertime... the general public absent.
easter sunday - a totally unexpected walkabout for the prime minister and his wife.. across horse guards parade and into st james park over looking the water - without any bodyguards we are told.... wow, could this be the open access to the prime minister we want? not quite - after a few words with some tourists in st james park and a deserted walk through horseguards, hes back in his bunker, safely tucked away from the public and their awkward questions. how can you tell? simple - if it was an unscheduled walkabout without any bodyguards, then there wouldnt have been two or three professional photographers on hand to record the apparently random trip would there!
.... and on to today, election is called officially, an hour or so later, the labour leader is off to st pancreas on the train, he doesnt arrive at the station and get on the train.... he walks through a long string of well wishers, shaking hands and repeating "what a sunny day it is" to them all. and? whats wrong with this? this is statesman gordon brown - the amount of the general public he has met on the street, since becoming prime minister, you could count on one hand. now hes walking through crowds of people shaking hands with them? look at the sheer bad manners of the man when adam boulton of sky news, did an interview with him then said "thankyou for the interview gordon brown" instead of calling him prime minister.
... "but hes there walking amongst the public" says the wife. but if you notice, in the background people are in cafes and shops looking surprised, now look at the faces of the seemingly random members of the general public who are seemingly lined up taking it in turns to shake his hand.... they are not surprised in the slightest, because its yet more spin.
when gordon brown goes anywhere, where he may meet the general public, its always, a surprise visit. he zooms in (announced only to his inner circle and some labour party workers in the area) has a brief 5 minutes, then he zooms out again labour workers are more often than not the "general public" or "the people" quoted in labour speeches and seen on the "surprise visits" - they are not the general public at all. i would wager good money that the prime ministers office contacted the local labour party and told them that gordon brown would be making an unexpected handshaking stop at st pancreas before boarding a train, round up any of our workers and send them over.
it is marketing of the labour leadership - which all parties do to some extent, but to portray labour party workers as "the general public" is grossly misleading and shows how shallow this government have become, in their pursuit of power.
of all the analogies that the labour party could have chosen, to attack their political rivals, labour's david an ed miliband (the chuckle brothers of politics) couldnt have chosen a worse one to make!
Gordon Brown continues to avoid the general public
alas, i would have thought that at dinnertime on a council estate, by the shops no less, that the public would have been around... sadly no "spot the public points for me here as they are conspicuous by their absence.
just received this link to yet another news story of how gordon brown will fight his election campaign:
![_47738977_brown_260_bbc[1] (8k image)](http://www.denzil69.com/archives/_47738977_brown_260_bbc[1].jpg)
