Party Political Tax Grab

So, as Political Parties are losing membership and now think its a good idea to subsidise themselves using taxpayer's money.

Where the fuck did that make sense? What the fuck makes them a special case? And who exactly says which political parties get what money? Are we really saying its just for the big boys, or will smaller parties like the BNP get funded by the taxpayer? To my mind its a ludicrous idea.

I mean, if Political Parties are becoming (as they are) less democratic, then its obvious they will be less relevant to the ordinary people and will lose supporters and members.

Tough shit if they cease to exist: its natural selection, survival of the fittest. If they are no longer relevant, no longer democratic, no longer represent the voice of the people, then they don't deserve to exist. They should go the way of any other organisation that lives off private donations and doesn't get public support.

There is absolutely no reason they should be allowed to ransack the public purse. There is no god-given right for them to exists at taxpayer's expense.

Instead, why the fuck don't they do what other successful organisations do and change to become more relevant to their current and former supporters? Then they might get donations again.

The fact is they're so cut off from the reality they think robbing the public and carrying on ignoring us is an excellent plan. And these are the people we vote into office. The very people that have no morals, no compunction about voting themselves pay rises while the public suffer deprivation and see no wrong in planning to rob the public purse while ignoring the public voice.

Oxygen thieves the fucking lot of them.

You see the problem is we have no ability to sack them mid-term using political means. The only way to get them out of office is apolitical: we use violence and rule of force. There really is no other way. Once the public cross that rubicon and truly understand the situation, just as the Arabs did last summer, things should get really interesting.

Anti-Democratic

I'm amazed the people of Italy aren't on the streets baying for blood.

Apparently Mario Monte has announced a cabinet comprised entirely of technocrats. In other words a cabinet, a complete government comprised entirely of unelected officials.

I take it that's a model taken from the EU commission, a model in this "post-democratic age" that we are going to see more and more. By the way, has anyone noticed this phrase "post-democratic age" being bandied about? In it's literal meaning, it means after democracy. So therefore for us to be in a post-democratic age we therefore have to be living in an age where democracy no longer exists....

So do Politicians who use it really believe that democracy is a thing of the past, something the people aren't to be trusted with? Because if someone who represents me in any capacity and who's wages I paid said I no longer had the power to hire and fire them, I'd be a bit peeved to say the least. More likely I'd be shoving my boot up their arse and firing them.

Any member of Parliament that utters the phrase or agrees with its sentiments in my opinion no longer has the authority to stay in that position. People from this country died to uphold democracy, it is not something we should lose.

Local Government Waste

I'm sure the good burghers of Bradford love the idea of their city centre water park, but it looks to me to be a colossal waste of money.

All it'll take is the first kid with a bottle of washing up liquid to turn the site into a foamy mess and have it shut down.

Since I moved to Portsmouth I've often been regaled about the fountain on Commercial Road and how huge globs of foam used to be blown past the shops after kids had dumped their pound-shop purchase into the fountain's base. The good news is it takes a while to happen, so you add your washing up liquid, retire to a safe distance (usually to McDonalds for a burger) and then return later to admire your foamy handiwork.

In Bradford there's a bigger lake and a taller fountain: I just wonder how much foam will be created by all that churning action.

Shouldn't take long for the photos and YouTube video to appear.

Lack of Support For Vulnerable People.

The case of Gemma Hayter highlights a lack of social service care that I'm all too aware of, having battled and failed to get social services to accept some small responsibility to provide ongoing help for my son.

I sympathise with her bereaved family at the lack of care for vulnerable adults. Higher functioning autistics, amongst other disability groups are amongst the most vulnerable and most easily abused in society.

The problem is, the support system has a huge support gap that allows adults that appear to be self-supporting but naive and vulnerable to fall through. This reminds me very much of my dealings with social srvices over the years.

If the adult doesn't have a learning disability, they don't qualify for support. I was told by Oxford social Services that their limit was an IQ of 75. Below that they would provide LD support, above that they wouldn't.

The only resort then is to try  the mental health support team. But again in my case Oxford would only support people with a recognised mental health problem. So you get support if you were okay and then contracted some for of psychosis, but if you were born with your condition, you were exempt from support.

Even when I moved to the South Coast, things didn't change as the policy was the same here.

There is a huge number of adults that need support from social services but don't receive it. In the bad old days they may have been locked up in institutions, which was obviously wrong. But so is leaving them to be predated upon by the less scrupulous in society.

In line with my previous post about the state providing less, this is one instance where the state has gone too far in cutting services. In the past they would have paid for staff to run institutions to look after the vulnerable. These days "Care in the Community" means councils absolve themselves of responsibility and they receive no care at all.

I would hope that the vulnerable are a more deserving case for funding than Latvian Nose Flute Players. Maybe local authorities should sort out their priorities.

Pro-Euro Integration Agenda Evolving

I said it weeks ago I think in a comment on another blog: The problems of the Euro zone, far from being an opportunity for our government to renegotiate powers back to the UK, will instead be used by those pushing for further integration to force us to meld into the mire across the channel.

This weekend we've had Blair putting his oar in, Barosso telling the UK what they should be doing amongst others.

To my mind there is an agenda being set: will we be forced into Euro membership, or will it be done by stealth? Will the agenda be that we're joining the Euro to save all the other Euro countries, in an attempt to pander to our sense of fair play?

Who knows, but I can see a trend forming over this weekend and given the pro-European  Parliament we have at the moment, who would be able to stop the trend from forming into a plan and from there action?

How Did we Get Here? What is the State for?

There's been a lot of talk over the years of "cuts". i.e. cutting back public services. The thing is, when I was a kid, public services delivered a whole lot less than they are expected to deliver today.

Decades ago, the council was expected to deliver the basic public services: education, refuse collection, Fire, ambulance, police, etc; plus provide a basic social service like providing council houses.

Over the decades of my life, local councils have moved into providing a whole raft of added services. Every minority demands the provision of a public-funded community centre, social work extends into every aspect of our lives, environmental health has grown to support increasing EU legislation. The oft-maligned equality diversity officer is another position dreamed up within my lifetime.

Essentially, local government has extended beyond the expectations of my generation and those before me.

Today, under the current economic climate, we really need a re-evaluation of our expectations of what government is about, what it really needs to be doing and what it really shouldn't be involved in.

Government, both local and national should be involved in providing the things we couldn't possibly do on our own, like the armed forces, but shouldn't be sponsoring one-legged Latvian nose flute players.

Of course in between, there's a whole area that should also be up for debate. But strangely, there is silence.