Faith.

 The majority of voters lost faith with the Labour party an long time ago. No longer do they reflect the people that they hope would vote for them.

But it's clear that voters are quickly losing faith with the Tories as well. The supposedly Conservative and Unionist party is fast becoming nothing of the sort.

It seems that after the Corporate Cronyism of the Blair Government, we have the Corporate Cronyism of the Coalition and then the Corporate Cronyism of the Cameron Government. 

It seems that the May and now Johnson Governments are more of the same. The Pandora papers have opened up the web of mega-rich donors supporting both sides of the political isle. 

The British public seem to be losing faith with Boris Johnson. In conversations now, his stature is much diminished. Whereas he was seen as some Churchillian Bulldog leader,  he's now seen as a lapdog. Following the mostly conflicting advice from his panel of medical "experts", he has lumbered from one PR disaster to another, actively contradicting himself on consecutive days. Over the past 18 months he's not looked like much of a leader.

As a person he's popular. He did amazing stuff while in charge in London. But it seems that now in charge of Government, it's a different Boris we are seeing. He's physically aged in the last few months too.  It just makes you wonder what issues he's trying to wrestle with.

Is he being strong-armed by his billionaire backers to not increase taxes on the mega-rich to claw back the expense of the pandemic?

Is he trying to reconcile the inability to claw back the borrowing without significantly raising taxes for the poor? Is he having discussions with his rich mates who don't want to contribute? Are the mega-corporations refusing to co-operate?

All this build back better bollocks looks pretty shit to me. It looks like the near future is going to consist of sky-high inflation and hardship for those of us that are on PAYE and cannot escape taxation.

These are troubling times, because if the government doesn't get a handle on the situation (and there is next to nothing being announced) then the door is opened to the more extremist parties to gain a foothold, from both the right and left of the spectrum.

COVID-19: Unanswered Queations.

 It seems the media have slipped into full propaganda mode lately and just parrot the government line on anything, not just the Covid crisis. 

But there are questions that need to be asked. 

For instance why are we locking down the whole population when less than 5% are at serious risk of complications from the virus? 

Why are we  paying people that are effectively immune from the virus to stay at home?

What happens to the DNA information gathered as part of the Covid testing procedure? 

Is it stored and if it is, where is it stored and for how long? 

Who has access to the DNA information collected?

By what authority is the Government issuing Lockdowns?

What oversight is being done by the various Parliamentary committees regarding the Government's use of powers regarding Covid?

Are the Government just issuing illegal edits that can be challenged legally, or is there full Parliamentary approval?

What legal powers do the Police have under these circumstances? Are they acting legally or illegally?

What risk assessments have the Government done regarding Covid-19 and are they available for scrutiny?

How much has been spent during the Pandemic and how do the Government expect the money to be paid back?

Will taxes be raised in the future? If so, for how long?

The list goes on and on, but there seems to be no-one putting these questions to the various authorities.

There seems to be a blind acceptance by the press that the government can just issue commands and they get blindly implemented by the NHS and the Police. That's not how things work in a democracy. The government has to put it's plans before Parliament and then Parliament including the House of Lords ratify any changes to the legal framework.

If this is not being done, how legal are these edicts? Can they be challenged in court? 

For God's sake media, please wake up and do your job!

Topsy-Turvy: Flipping the EU Debate on its Head Gives Clarity.

I've said before that all this turmoil over the Brexit referendum is better if we just for a second imagined that the result was 52/48 in favour of remain.

Would we still be talking about the result three years later? Would Parliament actively be working against the Government to secure an exit from the EU on behalf of the referendum losers?

No, absolutely not. The losing voters would have been told that the matter is settled, we were staying in the EU and a mere few months after the referendum, government process would have turned away from the question and life would have continued as before. The Status Quo would very much be in place.

Any losers would have been told vehemently to "suck it up" and just carry on as if nothing had happened.

Of course because the result was the opposite, we have had the opposite reaction: a Parliament that has time and time again conspired against the Government, and who is now taking about not settling the matter with an election, but going to the lengths of deposing the incumbent government and anointing the leader of the opposition as Prime Minister in order to defer the exit from the EU.

For three years we have had obfuscation, delay, chicanery and bending of laws and precedents in order to oppose leaving.

For what purpose? What sunlit uplands do those that conspire to keep us in the EU see in the UK's future as part of the EU? We know that remainers say there will be catastrophyThere is very little said about what a future for the EU looks like with the UK as part of it. All we hear is how bad exiting the EU will be, we never hear of the real tangible benefits of staying in the EU.

For instance, there is no mention of the stronger European Defence Force envisioned for the future of the EU, no mention of the harmonised income tax regimes planned for the future, no mention of harmonised national budgets. No one on the remain side is putting forward the positive effects of these at all. just that the status quo is better than the unknown quantity of change. I wonder why, is it possibly that those things are precisely what made UK voters vote to leave the EU? Are they net benefits after all or not? From the actions of the remainers and their reluctance to offer tangible benefits, I suspect not. All was talked about briefly during the referendum, but due to Brexit have been put on the back burner by the EU whilst we thrash out a possible deal.

And in that last sentence is the clue certainly to what a future EU would look like without the UK is a member. So frit are they of rocking the boat, the most ambitious plans of the EU have been put on hold for three years, with only moderate advances in those areas. Where before the referendum there were great and ambitious plans coming from Brussels.

Without the UK, the EU would collapse. So desperate are they to have us as a member, they are willing to forestall all major plans so that those in the UK that plan to keep us in the EU don't have anything adverse happen that could give ammunition to the leavers. Nothing that could allow a leaver to say "Aha! Told you so!".

THAT is the great tell, the thing that you look for in a Poker game when sizing up the hand of your opposition.

In another Poker analogy, the EU has a weak hand and they are bluffing.

The EU are busily working under the table to garner support. There are already reports of MPs working with EU representatives to table legislation in the UK Parliament. We already have reports of UK civil servants working with their EU counterparts as well.

Sadly Boris Johnson's government is too weak to propose legislation to outlaw this. But at least the civil servants conspiring against government policy and working with the EU should be removed from office. MPs will face their voters and be made to defend their actions.

But as the title states, by turning things on their head, you can see more clearly why the actors in the Brexit saga are playing the roles they do.

I suspect the EU has more to lose if we leave without any agreement. I suspect those that clamour for us to remain and the organised protests to do the same are a good indication that the EU and their supporters are desperate for us to stay not for our sake, but for the EU's.

As the clock ticks closer to the 31st of October, the lengths that the EU supporters in Media, Parliament and now the judiciary are stooping to is a great indicator if you can step back and see the big picture.

I suspect that things will escalate further as the month progresses without a capitulation to the EU.

I just wonder if so petitioned by the public, the Queen could announce the dissolution of Parliament instead of giving a speech announcing governmental policy. After all the government can request a dissolution and they are classed as the voice of the public in Parliament. Could the public have the power to petition the monarch directly I wonder?  It would be wonderful to see the massed ranks of members of Parliament be dismissed and told to put their case to the voters.

Prorogation is deemed unlawful in Scotland

Not sure how it affects the British Parliament in Westminster, but a Scottish court has declared the prorogation of Parliament unlawful.

They say that are convinced the prorogation was for the "improper purpose of stymying Parliament".

Completely ignoring the fact that Prorogation happens every year at conference time anyway and the extension to allow the Queen's speech is a mere four days. I bet her Madg' isn't impressed one of her courts is playing fast and loose with the constitution, the government's intent and context.

But then again, Scottish courts have a habit of ignoring context and making up the intentions of defendants. Re: Count Dankula.

Interesting: does that mean all the Scottish MPs can return to Parliament to sit and twiddle their thumbs while the English MPs stay away as commanded by the Queen?

This really is the mother of all constitutional fuckups.

So really, what this all says is: you can vote for anyone you want, but if someone has the money to pay the court costs, they can stymy any government voted into power and even worse reverse the democratically voted intention of the population.

Okay:

I want the details of where I can find a bunch of guys that know how to operate challenger tanks and where the ammo is stored. They also need to know where the small arms are and their ammo. I want a people's army. No fucking about, I want heavy armour and I want a properly equipped Army.

We may need to go to war with these cunts. A proper, fighting war....

Indeed we need tanks on the Westminster lawn.

Democracy only works with the consent of the losers. They have refused to consent. It seems now is the time to enforce democracy.

Anti-Democracy: The Pressure Fabricated Outside Democracy

We all (hopefully) know what a Non-Governmental Organisation or NGO is.

If you don't they are generally general charities, health charities, media outlets or political organisations that "advise" government on areas of special interest. They may be funded entirely by charitable donations, they may be funded by private donations, they may be funded by the UK government, or they may have a mix of any or all of the above.

If you do a Google search for Non-Governmental organisations, you'll get a list of the most lovely and benign organisations going. But you'll not get a list of the most influential NGOs. Not the ones that can click their fingers and watch the government ask how high would you like us to jump.

For instance Oxfam. They work outside the government and take donations from private individuals, but government may fund them in times of crisis to provide aid. They are a foreign company and so are outside the remit of the charities commission. They do however have an arm that campaigns and lobbies/advises government on aid and poverty.

The thing to note is that Oxfam has moved beyond charitable works and providing aid and now invests time and money in political lobbying.

Not just Oxfam, but the RSPCA, RSPB, The Qulilliam Foundation, HopeNot Hate, Common Purpose, etc.

There is a huge strata putting pressure on the government on behalf of special interests, mainly in direct conflict with the democratic will of the people. Just look at Brexit.

Hope Not Hate snapped their fingers and Tommy Robinson  was almost instantly removed from Facebook and Instagram. That's quite a lot of influence. Not that they really needed much to Ban Tommy. I just think HNH just provided the excuse.

This is typical of many NGOs, where the political aspect is now a large part of the organisation. In fact there are many NGOs where their remit is "education" and "political lobbying" and "advising government".

I put those attributions in inverted commas, because those labels are not strictly true. There are many NGOs that seem to have an impressive amount of leverage on government and MPs and Civil Servants in Ministerial departments pay an inordinate amount of attention to what they say. They also have an inordinate amount of influence amongst private companies too.

There are many NGOs that are politically active. They produce reports that governments and private companies act upon. It's amazing though how the government and these NGOs work in collusion. For instance an NGO may produce a report that then they use to put pressure onto government and then the government produces some for of legislation to address the "problem" the NGO has highlighted. Totally outside the democratic process: the people didn't ask for the legislation, didn't want it, but it gets pushed through anyway. It is never a part of any manifesto that is voted on, nor do MPs go back to their constituency parties to get a consensus. Just as with Tommy Robinson's banning, the NGOs provide the impetus and the excuse for the actions of government. Action that the public have not asked for.

It's all one jolly circular, anti-democratic club: require the legislation, get an NGO to provide a report providing positive bias, get the media to create positive pressure and then the government enacts legislation. Without ever seeing a manifesto or a democratic vote. Cosy.

However, this influence is outside of the democratic process. Decisions are being made by government based on information and political pressure not from the Demos: the people, but instead organisations outside the democratic sphere. Just as with the EU we have no way of voting these influencers into or out of power.

They are just there, funded by god knows who. The George Soros funded Open Society Foundation (quite an innocuous title) is one such NGO (amongst other George Soros funded NGOs) that has a quite incredible amount of influence due to it's incredible amount of funding. It has influence in government, with newspapers, TV and other media, news outlets and other NGOs. Not just in the UK but across the West.
What they say is taken as gospel and regurgitated almost word-for-word by the media. Any report they publish directly influences rather than advises government.

This outside pressure on government is what is putting the anti-democratic pressure on government.

It's what has changed government policy from Brexit meaning leaving the EU AND the Customs Union AND the Single Market that we were promised before the referendum, to Brexit means a deal, the backstop, and staying in the Customs Union at all costs.

The people didn't ask for a deal. They didn't ask for Brexit to be thwarted by a backstop. They voted for the thing we were promised before the referendum: OUT of the EU, OUT of the Customs Union and OUT of the Single market.

This pressure outside of democracy has to be pushed back. It's the beginning of Fascism. We cannot elect these "influencers" in or out of office. Once a government has been elected, these influencers have 5 years to ply their trade.

Currently that trade is shutting down free speech, shutting down the public's ability to inform other members of the public about the affects of the undue influence these organisations have on our lives.

The pressure and the collusion between Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube amongst private media companies and the BBC, Sky and other media outlets the deplatform, un-person, smear and lie, all at the behest of undemocratic Non-Governmental pressure groups has to be resisted on all sides of the political spectrum, before we ALL lose our democratic voices.

This is not a left/right thing, even though the left has been co-opted to do the dirty work of the Fascists.

This is a democracy thing, it's a free speech thing, IT'S A FREEDOM THING!

I believe in the honesty of to Demos, the people, the population. They make more honest and rational decisions than any politician or political activist group.

The Brexit referendum proved the point: that the people wanted out of the globalist anti-democratic EU. They public at large have a great sense of fair play and honesty and they saw the EU as anti-democratic and dishonest.

The public are fast understanding the anti-democratic pressure that is influencing government against their best interests. The public are calling "it" the Elite.

Hopefully they will wake up and realise that the status quo in government has to change in order to effect change. People need to stop voting for the same old political parties that listen intently to the anti-democratic Elitist message. Instead we need to start voting for something new, something untainted by the Elite.

The list of organisations founded or funded by George Soros is staggering, especially when you see how many times they pop up in the media to be quoted, or to front a spokesperson, or have produced a report highlighted by the media. Those few organisations are in the forefront of the anti-democratic process.

Here's the list thanks to Wikipedia:

Founded or helped to found

• Open Society Foundations
• New America

Supported

• Black Lives Matter
• Best for Britain
• European Movement UK
• Scientists for EU
• Media Matters for America
• Center for Public Integrity
• Human Rights Watch
• Priorities USA Action
• American Bridge 21st Century
• America Votes
• Millennium Promise

Delusional Government or Stitch-Up in Progress?

All I'm hearing from Government ministers (including Liz Truss on tonight's Peston programme) is that the Government only lost the vote because of poor presentation.

They expect to re-present the deal to Parliament and this time carry the vote.

How can that be? The deal will be exactly the same unless the EU make concessions. Letters of intent do not make legally binding documents, so various EU members can write as many letters as they want, but if the legal wording of the deal is not changed, the deal is not changed.

So, what is happening?

Is this just smoke and mirrors and a fake fight? A theatre to provide the illusion of disagreement until suddenly a change is faked and everyone gets behind the deal? Just exactly what will change in the next week or so?

I get a bad feeling about this. I did say shortly after the referendum that we would need to be wary of a stitch-up. I get the feeling that stitch-up is almost upon us.

Standards in Public Life, Management and the Post-Truth Era. Establishment

Okay, so I left off the last post in 1989.

Common Purpose had been established, Sky News had started and we'd had the Hillsborough disaster and the instantaneaous covering up of the truth of that event.

Another significant event in 1989 that would kick off the post truth era is the imposition of the Community Charge in Scotland. Better known as the Poll Tax.

This and the Poll Tax riots in London the following year would trigger the demise of Margaret Thatcher. Whether she went a bit moonbat and beleived her own hype, whatever; by the beginning of the Nineties her style of government had sunk into caricature.

So also in 1990 we gained a new Prime Minister: John Major.

Almost the reluctant PM, he set about making the UK a better place for people. In his first parliamentary speech as PM he stated an intention to abolish the Poll Tax and eventually in 1992 it was replaced with the Council Tax.

John Major was a well-meaning and relatively honest man. He tried on a number of occasions to try and make the country and politics a better place.

In 1991 he launched the Citizen's Charter, an initiative to make public services better. Like the proverb about the road to good intentions, the charter eventually morphed into the box-ticking target-fixated regime we have now which denigrates the indivudal experience and hoovers up vast amount of resources supplying administration of those tick-boxes.

He also set up the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1994 chaired initially by Lord Nolan. This was instituted in response to high profile acounts of impropriety or sleaze in politics and public services. This was back when journalists did investigate such things and it was a given that anyone in the public eye or on the public payroll was open for scrutiny. 

Very ironically, as the committee tends to highlight misdeeds and wrongdoing, so truth moves and shifts. The old adage about if you tell a lie it may as well be a big one gains political traction. White becomes the new black in an effort to divert attention.

In 1992 Labour had finally elected a leader; John Smith. He set about doing a proper job of rooting out the extreme left from the party. A job that Neil Kinnock had done so inefectively during his tenure as leader.

So here we have the early 1990s and the stage for the demise of truth.

Primarily the instigator for this is the First Gulf War in 1990-91. Of all events during the 1990s, this is the main thing. All others are preipheral and enabling, but the first Gulf War is when the media starts to turn from investigation to capitulation.

It was the First Gulf War where journalists traded access for freedom, limelight for censorship. The pressure to deliver fresh news for the greedy outlets forced journalists to compromise their principles. This is where investigative journalism more or less died and jingoism, acceptance of media censorship and propagandic reporting became the norm.

The journalistic trade couldn't revert back to the old ways after this, the establishment had learned to barter and trade the truth.

I find it ironic that as I'm writing this series of articles that George HW Bush has died. The instigator of the gung-ho! beginning of the post-truth era.

Back in the UK, John Smith is rooting out the far left of the party, at that time known as "The Millitant Tendency" (which appears to have now reappeared in the Corbyn era as Momentum), unfortunately John had a heart attack and paved the way for Tony Blair. Probably the most post-truth Prime Minister we've ever had.

Around the same time, the Americans got Bill Clinton as their President. Someone who was fast and loose with the truth as the Monica Lewinsky affair showed.

On both sides of the Atlantic truth was on very rocky ground. It was being undermined and subverted to promote a myriad of different issues.

During the Nineties we had the Balkan Conflict, the squabble over the remains of the old Yugoslavia. The Western world did a good job of covering their covert manipulations of this area until it blew up in spectacular fashion and started to cause media attention.

The truth was a victim in this conflict, with the Western media happily investigating atrocities by the "bad guys" of the conflict (the Serbs, "Black Hatted" by the West) but completely missing atrocities perpetrated by the people on "our" side.

In 1997 the BBC join the 24 hour News business. Very quickly they saw the other 24 hour news outlets and how they didn't just report "dry" news. There was always a narrative, a story, a victim, a villain and a hero. News was not simply news.

We even saw the bombing of the Serbian TV station in 1999 during that conflict, the casualties in that action declared acceptable because it removed a communications hub and a propaganda machine for the Serbian side. In that one action you can see the West's determination to own the narrative and exclude all others. By force if necessary. It also ushers in what happens to the truth and how it is reported in the following decades.

The problems in the Ukraine the manipulation of the truth around the political shennannigans, the riots and the eventual annexation of Crimea virtually 15 years after the Serbian TV station got hit shows that the West have not stopped playing the game - in fact they ramp it up to dangerous levels.

Both American and UK governments made their forays into either ignoring the truth, dsiclaiming the truth, subverting the truth or telling little white lies (which are after all, untruths).

Some of this can be explained by the fallout from the Committeee on Public standards and the push to raise standards in public life, public services, the media and other important organisations.

There is a push during the Nineties to homogenise standards for managers and leaders in the public and private sectors. One organisation offering training across all spheres is Common Purpose.  It identifies leaders and trains them to produce a homogenised, unified leadership. It's catchphrase is "Leading Beyond Authority" but you could just as well say they train people to do anything else but the job they are employed to do, loading leaders up with the idea of extended networks, diversity (at all costs) and other workload-increasing objectives. It's my personal recollection you could see it through the Nineties with the rise of so-called "management-speak": the phrases and platitudes that defined a drone. "lessons Learned" meant the organisation had failed spectacularly, no-one would be fired and the organisation would continue as normal.

In the Nineties we had the Satanic Abuse Scandals, which were poorly investigated and produced little real evidence other than anecdotes. That child abuse was occurring at that time I have no doubt, but the Satanic element clouded the issue and enabled those in power and the media to label complainants crackpots. Decades later, the systematic mis-handling of issues of abuse will come to the fore again, this time by gangs of Muslim men. It's instances like this that start to expose the Common Purpose training that began back then and has now infiltrated every form of public service. In the early Nineties from my personal experience it's limited to local councils and local public service providers. By the late Nineties it has started to infiltrate central government alongside the Blair government.

The things that started happening then continues to happen today with the media and those in positions of authority: obfuscation, denial, manipulation of the truth to outright lies and even harassment, villification and in cases incarceration of those making accusations of abuse.

Then we get to the naugties and boy, do we enter the post-truth era in a big way.

End to Austerity Means More/Better Services? Don't Hold Your Breath.

It seems the single take-away point from the Conservative Party Conference for the BBC is the declaration that there will be an end to austerity.

Don't hold your breath.

Despite the "cuts", the national debt has spiralled. Controls on spending have failed to curtain the increase in the amount of debt the country as a whole has to service.

That people across the country still see reduced services means that there is something systemically wrong happening with public finances. We are taxed more than ever as a proportion of GDP, yet the debt is rising, public service wages have flatlined and services are reducing... how can that be?

The problem is the system. The system that controls spending and oversees expenditure is broken.

Take the NHS: I hate to bang on about this, but almost half the money being put into the NHS goes into settling negligence lawsuits and paying lawyers. That's half the NHS budget gone before deciding on priorities like wages and service provision.

The system allows this to happen because it fails to tackle the cause of the lawsuits. Doctors and nurses found guilty of negligence are allowed to continue to practice. It's just one of those things, human error, etc.

This systemic failure needs to be addressed. Quality control in the NHS needs to be stepped up and the bad apples rooted out. Otherwise the lawsuits will bleed the NHS dry like an infestation of ticks. When exactloy do we do something about it? When three quarters of the NHS budget goes to lawyers?

Exactly the same goes for MOD procurement. There is so much waste. Yes, I get that the military should have the best equipment going, but it can get the same capability at a far cheaper cost by being a bit savvy. First, by specifying better contracts with contractors so that the contractor takes the hit for any failures to meet specification. Second, by buying equipment already available rather than keep inventing brand new equipment every time it needs something. A little compromise can bring great savings. For instance making our new carriers suitable for cat and trap aircraft would have made them interoperable with other Navies and allowed us not to rely soley on the expensive F-35 to provide fixed-wing capability. For the 4 million (probably 8 mil by the time it had been implemented, such is the creep in costs) or so it would have cost had it been specified ofrom the outset, we could have had far greater flexibility and larger numbers of cheaper aircraft flying off their deck. As it is, we will have the humiliation of never being able to fly decent numbers of fixed-wing aircraft off the carriers.

When it comes to tax, there is lots to be done. The corporate abuse of tax havens needs to be stopped. Brexit will go some way to end that by forcing companies trading in the UK to pay tax in the UK and not in Luxembourg, Lichtenstein or Ireland.

Making tax simpler by reducing tax at source rather than collect it and pay someone to administer it being paid back is just a more intelligent way of doing things. Instead of tax credits, a universal family tax allowance will stop the tax credit job creation scheme. Abolishing the IR35 tax rule will free up investigators scrutinising endless tax returns for small discrepancies so the HMRC can jump on the self-employed. Lets free up that sector and get back the freedom, ingenuity and entrepreneurship that produced such a boom in I.T. across public and private companies back in the 90's. it will also put an end to the persecution of agency workers in the NHS, mission creep using IR35 as a tool it was not envisioned for.

In local government a cap on earnings can keep ludicrous salaries to a minimum. These are public servants and there should be no need for them to be paid six figure salaries. The person doing the job needs to be aware of their position as a servant of the people and should not take the piss by paying themselves 100 times the national average wage.

There needs to be a big push to rationalise national and local government. It's not about cuts, it's about doing things smarter, cheaper, freeer, it's about stopping practices that cost the puiblic money, it's about cutting the dead wood from the public purse.

Cutting the EU payments from the buget will be a big boost, but the impact can be magnified if we do things smarter and better.

The Takeover of this Country is Almost Complete

Read the reports about the latest clashes between the English Defence League and Anti-Fascist protesters very, very carefully. Look at the subtext, because its very important you look at the message that is being sent out by the government and the media.

The EDL is being compared by Government Ministers to the Fascists of the 1930s.

Lets look at that in more detail: The EDL are compared to Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists. Really? Read that wikipedia page, especially this bit:

"Unlike the Italian system, British fascist corporatism planned a democracy that would replace the House of Lords with elected executives drawn from major industries, the clergy, and colonies. The House of Commons was to be reduced to allow for a faster, "less factionist" democracy".

Does that sound like the EDL whose sole reason d'aitre is less Islamification of the country, or our Labour government, who want the Lords to be reformed with some peers directly elected and some chosen by a government ministry (i.e. quango) and have already placed ex-industry types into the Lords? Or does it sound like the Conservatives, who want to reduce the number of MPs?

Just who are the fascists then?

Next we get:

The EDL caused all the trouble.

Really? Well, certainly the news reports state there were clashes between the EDL and anti-fascist (sic) protesters, but delve a bit deeper. The EDL cancelled the protest at the behest of the Police who were afraid the numbers attending would get too big to control . So you can safely say there were a handful of EDL members present (approximately 12 by most reports), but as the anti-fascist side hadn't cancelled, there were more of them (1000 or so). So who exactly clashed with Police and caused the trouble? The anti-fascist mob, the UAF (who already have form for this), their hangers on and other trouble-makers. But the BBC news refuses to mention this fact explicitly, focussing only on the EDL and trouble. They don't link the two, but in the mind of the reader/listener, the link is made. Here in the Independant is a more balanced report.

Not only that, but John Denham, the Communities Minister says that the EDL is out to deliberately cause trouble by protesting in Muslim areas. Well, hang on a mo, there was the protest at the weekend in the City centre of Birmingham, not a know hotbed of Muslim activity.

So, the group that complied with Police wishes, cancelled the protest and wasn't causing the trouble is blamed by the BBC and government ministers for inciting the trouble. Huh?
I thought the test of a free society is the ability to protest about things we disagree on. It seems the UAF is opposed to demonstrations by groups it doesn't like and is intent on violent action to prevent such protests.

Under those circumstances, the name of the group "Unite Against Fascism" seems to be ironic, as they are the ones that appear to be the fascists.

The next couple of months will be very important. Watch carefully, read between the lines on all news reports. I have an idea where this is going and its not to a warm, fluffy place.

I leave it to you to make up your own mind about the government's agenda.

Has the Labour Government Actually Governed?

The more I think about it, the more I'm unable to give a positive answer to the question "Did the Labour government govern for the past 12 years?"

The reason being, I don't see anything substantial in the "governing" department over the past 12 years at all.

Sure, Gordon Brown liked us to believe he was a successful Chancellor, but more and more it looks like he rode the crest of a wave of unsustainable debt and less it looks like he actually governed the boom times. Tony Blair wanted us all to think he was a great leader, but his legacy seems to be soundbites and spin.

The huge, ballooning national debt, a legacy that our children and grandchildren will be paying off, is a sure sign of a government that can't govern. A strong government would take the tough decisions and reduce expenditure. Its what we all do in tough times. Instead our government borrows and spends in some blind hope it might be able to buy itself more seats at the next election.

You could argue that tax credits were government in action. But is that really true? There's an argument to be had that it was all a result of dogmatic policy and a desire to create new Northern Jobs in the tax credits call centres, not governing to benefit the country. Certainly the inept tax credits system shows that very little thought was put into the process of governing its inception.

Are ASBOs government? Or are they the result of soundbite politics, pandering to the chattering classes? Certainly there's an argument that they do little to deter those hardened offenders. In fact ASBOs are more like a badge of infamy and are worn with pride amongst the underclass. Again, if the policy was governed, wouldn't there be some oversight of the system to ensure it actually did what it set out to do?

Was the peace in Ireland a sign of governance? No, it was started by John Major's government, so Labour can't claim that as a sign of their governance.

Are the bank bailouts a sign of governance? Well, no, because if we had good governance, then the tripartate arrangement that regulated the fianancial sector wouldn't have allowed the problem to get so out of control. Certainly a good, prudent government wouldn't panic and lob hundreds of billions of pounds into a bottomless hole in an unplanned shambles. Good governance wouldn't have let the bank bosses like Fred Goodwin get away with such huge pensions.

The losses of personal data in government departments like the HMRC shows a lack of hands-on awareness and governance.

The Iraq War; was that governed well? Er, not really, because soldiers were sent into battle too hastily with shortages of kit which resulted in needless deaths, after the war was won, there were no plans for the peace. The whole thing was set in motion by a lie and really we went into it on the coat-tails of the Americans. So I can't see much in the way of governance there either.

Afghanistan is another conflict we followed the Americans into. No good government would throw soldiers into the meat grinder that is Afghanistan. Ask the Russians what they think about the place. No army of occupation has been successful there. Certainly there aren't enough troops on the ground to be decisive, so its really an unfortunate example of our inept government.

The Balkans: Ah, now there's a conflict we went into and won and showed great leadership and courage. Well, no. Because we went in under the auspices of the U.N. you can't call it great leadership when we were effectively dragged our heels for months before the U.N. got us involved.

Europe: Labour took us deeper into Europe and gave us closer economic, legal and political ties with our European neighbours. Surely thats a lasting legacy and a sure sign that our government made policy and stuck with it. You could say that, but then the evidence suggests capitualtion and a sign that our government just rolled over and accepted everything that Europe decreed, lessening the status of our sovereignty, legislature and executive rather than debate and fight our corner. They also denied us a promised referendum, which shows a distinct lack of conviction (i.e. they knew they wouldn't win). So Null Points to the government on Europe.

Has immigration been governed well? Er, no. If the government can't tell us how many legal and illegal immigrants are in the country and still fails to stop uncontrolled immigration, then immigration can't have been and still isn't being governed. At all.

Anti-terror legislation is an area where the government has taken the lead surely? Yes, but they cocked it up as they have with so many things. Anti-terror law should work against terrorists, not allow councils to snoop on people's bins. Especially when people in cahoots with known terrorists get off scot free, but people who put the wrong bin out get prosecuted. I think Anti-terror legislation gets marked as an epic fail.

Has government been decisive? Again, no. There are any number of projects and policies that have wasted billions over the 12 years in plans, investigations, committees and litigation only to eventually get abandoned for one reason or another. Examples being Titan Jails and the immigration detention centres. I'm sure eco-towns will be added to that list eventually.

As the whole sorry edifice crumbles around Whitehall and beyond, the lasting legacy of this government seems to be there is no legacy. Certainly not one to be proud of. Illegal war, inflated house prices, financial collapse, state dependancy, low educational standards, MP's expenses, House of Lords corruption, the rise of the Intrusive state, the politicisation of the Police, run-away spending on IT and MOD projects, increased child poverty, uncontrolled immigration, etc. etc.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? I'm at a loss to pinpoint a policy, a place, a sign in the whole 12 years that you can say that this Labour government actually governed. Sure, they rolled with the punches, reacted to situations man-made and natural, but just where is the legacy, the foresight, the planning, the defining character that stamps the seal of this government on its 12 years of office? Just when did they ever get a grip on something and sort it, satisfactorily?

I for one, can't see it.

The Depression: People are Wising Up.

Here's a report that says we won't be out of recession until 2012:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7989061.stm

I can add to that: It'll be 2014-15 by the time we actually do get out of recession. Thats because the government plan another fiscal stimulus amongst other stuff in the forthcoming budget, which will prolong the misery another 12 months.

I can't remember where I blogged it (probably commenting on Nick Robinson's blog, but I can't be arsed to find it), but last year I put a figure of 5-10 years on the depression. It looks like the money men are finally coming round to my way of thinking.

No-one wants to say it, but for various reasons every fiscal stimulus puts approximately another 12 months ONTO the length of the downturn, rather than make it shorter.

The Government missed a trick way back when the banks started to get into trouble. They should have secured depositors money, but left the banks to go to the wall. The depression would have been far shorter. It would have been painful, but would not be the decade-long lingering death we're committed to now.

The problem thats emerging from all of this is that it looks like the depression will last longer than the next government's tenure. Winning the next election will be a poisoned chalice: all they can ever be committed to is repairing the damage caused by Gordon Brown, with all the painful measures like reduced public spending and higher taxes that go along with it.

That causes a dillemma: would people vote for the same party again, after 4-5 years of austerity? I doubt it.

So where does that leave us? Would it mean an immediate return to power for Labour at the election after next? Its an interesting thought that this could be a deliberate strategy to hinder the re-election chances for the next (presumably Tory) government and therefore ensure that Labour are only out of office for 1 term. I wouldn't put it past thais cynically manipulative government.

Whats the Point?

I really have come to an impasse: the more I delve into the world of politics, the more disillusioned I become.

More and more details are coming to light daily about the self-serving troughing of the greedy pigs on all side of Parliament, but the majority of people aren't interested.

They switched off from politics decades ago, when its percieved relevance to them waned. Basically the MPs make some of the rules, elected MEP make soem of the rules and unelected EU beaurocrats make some of the rules. Nowhere does it say that the people - the voters make any of the rules.

Thats whats missing in Parliament: an engagement with the voters. In an age where people can phone vote on TV for things like Big Brother and the rest and then see within minutes the results of their button-pushing, what relevence has having to traipse to a voting booth and having to write an X on a piece of paper every 4 years got?

Basically the government can get away with murder. Because whatever they do, the public at large aren't interested, just so long as they can get on with their lives with the minimum of state interference and as long as the state mops their brow when they are sick and looks after their children when they work (education not required, as the state will provide if the kid ends up with no qualifications).

So, just how do you get the population at large engaged in politics? Why would any government cut its own throat by attempting such a feat?

For all the internet bleating on blogs like mine, what chance do we have of changing things? We're like wasps at a picnic: we are an annoyance and we might even sting once in a while, but we can be dealt with if necessary.

Just how do us wasps stir up the the rest of the nest for collective action?

Thats a question that I will be pondering and hoping for an answer.

My Life is in Ruins.

I'm suffering a life crisis: For the majority of my life, I've been doing the stuff I do with the best of intentions. I've had kids, brought them up to be respectable, strive well at education (even my autistic son got a fistfull of GCSE passes), I've stayed within the law (mostly), and respected the rights of others.

But the crisis I'm having is that I've lived my life all wrong. I've taken the middle path, which leads nowhere. I'm currently unemployed and fed up of filling in endless booklets (they are not "forms") justifying why I should be helped by the state. Last month I was told I no longer qualify for jobseekers allowance because although I am actively seeking a job, I have not found one within 6 months. So jobseekers stops.
Because I took the middle path, I'm having trouble getting my autistic son supported accommodation, now he is 18. Because I worked and supported him myself, he didn't get a transitions worker to help him from inside the system. So I'm battering on the door from outside and getting not much in the way of reply.

If I took the path of crime, I would be better off. Whilst doing crime, I would be making money from the misery of others. If I was caught for my crimes, I would be put in prison where I could expect to be fed and heated, my clothes washed, etc. My wife and children would be supported by the state and probably have a social worker on tap to help out. My son would be in supported accommodation and the rest of the family in a council house, benefit would be paid by the state, council tax and rent would be reduced. Ok, life wouldn't be great, but it would be easy.

I once tried the path of hard work, becoming self employed, working long hours and days away from home, earning lots and contributing to the economy. I paid reduced tax because of loopholes that my accountant exploited, but they were legal and moral. But then Labour came in and changed the rules for self-employed contractors, they increased taxes and the amount of red tape for small businesses, so that it became less and less economically viable to run as a one-man business. I pity anyone starting in business now, because in order to be viable, you either have to make large profits in order to cover costs, or you have to bend the rules and sail close to working illegally or immorally. In the end my family collapsed due to the strain.

If I took the path of unashamed greed, I would have identified the way to make real money really easy: work in government. I would have been a councillor or by now an MP, firmly seated at the trough of expense accounts, junkets and quango salaries. I would have friends in high places. I would be able to afford expensive legal help should any of my misdenmeanours be discovered, I would be able to change the rules if some of my expenses were described as immoral, I would be able to change history if it was proven I'd taken the wrong path, I would have two houses, fully paid for by the state.

No, I took the middle way, the decent honest way, I now know I lived my life the wrong way.

How and Why did the Credit Crunch Happen?

Various financiers will go into great detail as to why the credit crunch happened: sub-prime markets causing lack of confidence, dodgy mortgage deals, dodgy debt packages, but that nit-picks at what is a very simple reason: Ego.

The whole crisis has been caused by the egos if those at the top in government, finance and industry.

The government massaged their ego for letting the economy run on nothing but credit for several years, to a totally unsustainable level, so they could say that the economy hadn’t failed while they were in power.
Their ego wouldn't let a revaluation happen on their watch. Instead, they promoted ever higher levels of debt, never queried whether it would be sustainable.

Even now, they try to push the same stubborn donkey up the hill, by pouring billions into the banks, in an attempt to get them lending again. Its not going to happen, because the banks won't lend money to pay for what they know are overvalued goods.

Not only that, the egos of those at the top woin't allow them to admit they were wrong.

Those in finance continued with bad (and sometimes illegal) practices, so they could take obscene amounts in bonuses. Their egos wouldn't let them take lower or no bonuses, because that would look bad campared to their friends in other finance houses. The greed pushed others into fraudulance most notably the Madoff scheme, but even those at the bottom of the pile were at it, selling mortgages to people that couldn't pay for them.

Industry, with company directors agreeing to huge bonuses even when the company’s fortunes are in decline. Happy to bleed a company dry, then move on to the next victim or their parasitical practices. Performance-related-pay is one thing, but to be rewarded for failure should be seen as anti-social as drink driving.

Even the ordinary working man was affected. Rather than save, he went out and bought the latest car or the latest flat screen TV, maybe extended his house. All massaging his ego, all to make him look good, all on easy credit.

All of the above are the people that need to learn humility and restraint. Letting nature take its course and letting the banks and companies fold would be better, the man on the street might them be chastened enough to start saving for the next crisis. Everyone needs to suffer the pain of a recession, otherwise it’s straight back to the excesses of the past. Its already a given that the government will be humbled come the next election.

You can see the fear in the eyes of those that are part of the establishment. They've tried to pump billions into banks in order to return to the status quo. It hasn't worked. They are now about to start printing excess money, in effect devaluing everything we own.

What next for this once great nation? These are unprecedented times and I fear we will see unprecedented actions.

Unless our government leaves it's ego behind and is humble and honest, explains the situation, plans a comprehensive strategy and takes the population with it, allowing us all to work together in the best interests of the country, the future is uncertain.

An introduction

Hi,

I'm Delphius. What is a Delphius I hear you ask. Its me, it was my nickname at school and its a name I've used throughout life, whereever I've been. Google it and you'll find out quite a lot about me. I don't know why you'd want to do that though.

Anyway, this is my first blog, an introduction.

I'm over 40. I'm unemployed. Married, with kids. I'm mightily pissed off that the great country I saw as a kid has been run into the ground. Throughout my lifetime, I've seen The United Kingdom trashed by the party political system. I'm also concerned about the way the present is shaping the future. I have a knack for reading between the lines, gathering information from different sources and putting them together to predict outcomes. I predicted the riots of the early 80s. I was predicting the bursting of the debt bubble in the early 2000s and said the longer it goes on, the worse it will be and the longer the recovery.

The country I saw in the sixties, has been systematically ruined since then by both Labour and Conservatives. In the seventies it was ruined by the Heath and Wilson governments until Callaghan's Old Labour government ran us onto the rocks in 1978. It was then dragged up by its bootstraps by the Conservatives, by selling off the unprofitable nationalised industries. Then once the grand project was complete they went back to their dogmatic roots, and forgot the small guy.

Then Labour got in in 1997. A new hope we thought. Promising to be like the Conservatives, but with a caring heart. Well, what a load of crap that was.
They went on a pensions fund and insurance raid, costing us, the little man billions. then they taxed us more, to give it us back in tax credits. In effect paying for a whole layer of government that we have to pay for.
The most devastating thing Labour did was to disband the financial regulatory framework the Conservatives left behind. It worked, but I assume the bankers complained at their expensive dinners over caviar and champagne, they could make more money for the country if the shackles were released.
Bingo! We find ourselves in the worst financial crisis for perhaps 100 years. A depression in all but the technical sense.

So, here stands the UK at the dawn of 2009. Almost bankrupt, on the verge of begging funds from the IMF, with no way of generating revenue (no manufacturing or any serious wealth creating economy). Jobs are being shed at record rates. Theres a recruitment drive on at jobcentres around the country to keep up with demand. I know, I've applied for one for those jobs!

I'm angry that my country, a nation that in my lifetime was great, has been reduced to such a level.

Actually, I'm not angry, I'm fucking apoplectic.