Dear Parliament,
I've given up. I have finally lost all hope for a politics I believe in. This country we live in now, is a shadow of what it believes itself to be.
Every country is shaped in it's identity by those people that make the laws and control the money.
And the people in the UK with that power, with a very few exceptions, are a corrupt, morally empty, unashamed collaboration of moral terrorists. We could, and probably will, wail on about the MPs' expenses scandal. But there is no point. Fairness, decency, honesty, integrity - these are characteristics of our MPs that have now been stretched beyond repair and although it is not broken, it's shape will never be the same.
How any MP, party leader or party member could disagree that people like Jim Devine should be sacked is beyond me and most reasonable people. That he is not even expelled from the party does not even merit a response as it should not be the case. The fact that these people get to continue in their jobs, on what I regard as a significant salary receiving an equally significant pension, simply cannot be justified...but justify it Parliament does. This is one example which could easily fit into the bracket of almost every other party.
Safety in numbers, fraud en masse. If only one MP was found to have been "on the fiddle", every other MP, every party, would be clamouring to find a way for him to be removed form his post. There is no doubt he/she would not have lasted more than a month. So when the charges are there, for all to see, against half of parliament, it makes no sense to anyone that resignations are not as regular as daylight.
The back-scratching of politics has long upset many people, but even the "mother of all scandals in the mother of all democracies" is not enough to change the system, the culture of being above everyone and everything else. Not just on expenses.
Political parties are falsifying this country. MPs will vote against what they believe in, simply to please the party. How can an MP have any sense of integrity when he/she is elected (as an MP, NOT as a member of a political party) to vote on various issues, and he/she is knowingly voting for policies and initiatives that he/she thinks are detrimental to the nation? They are voting for things that they think are wrong but claim they act in their constituents' best interests. That nobody else in the blogospehere or political world seem to see the irony, juxtaposition or hypocrisy of any of this is startling.
The fact that nobody cares is what upsets me the most.
When your elected representatives are voting in favour of something they think is a bad idea, in complete opposition to what they do believe, there is no way this can be justified.
The people of this country do not hold the power, the parties do.
And to keep their members happy, dodgy rules and laws and promises are made to sweeten the members and MPs.
Next the parties will be, without recompense, strolling down the road to state funding for political parties - state-sponsored moral terrorism ripping a vaccuum through this country's future for many years to come.
Our Parliament and it's members have been exposed for what they are. Political parties have proven to us that they are not about decency, honesty or 'for the people'...they reward internal loyalty more than honourable characteritics.
But when you do what you think is wrong because the bigger boys told you to, then you are part of a system not fit to look in the mirror.
Some wonder why people don't vote. I don't. I know that no matter how I vote, it won't make a difference. I know that the corruption will continue, the self-interest will always maintain a murky presence and decisions will not always be made for the right reasons. I know that when criminals are deciding their own fate, and morally devoid groups are those making the rules there is no point in having hope.
I know that this country is not what it believes itself to be and, even during a time as blatantly scandal-ridden as this, change will never be significant enough to better this country.
PD
Sunday, 21 June 2009
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
A tax on phones?...Good idea
Every landline, according to new plans just announced, will be taxed to the tune of £6 each year to help pay for the expansion of high-speed internet, in particular across rural areas.
In the current political temperature, adding a new tax onto anything is never going to result in anything other than a negative headline and reaction. But this is not a bad policy.
For the equivalent of 50p a month, we can, as a nation, help invest in what for some will be a vital and welcome tool which we all have come to expect as standard. Gordon compared it to being as important as electricity and running water, which is over-egging and already over-egged pudding, but the internet should not be out of reach (literally, or otherwise) for any UK citizen.
Taxes are going to have to rise. Cuts are going to have to be made. While this scheme will not fund the whole project of getting every corner of the UK 'connected', it is not a significant amount to pay. Some may argue that if you choose to live in the countryside, you choose the lifestyle and the limitations that come with it and presently, good internet access is about as scarce as a bus in some of these remote areas. Without wanting to sound like an Oxfam fundraising chugger, "for less than one pound a month, you could give these ruralites the chance to watch porn", it is not too much to ask. It is also, a tax you can opt out of. Nowadays, few of my friends even have a landline - we all use mobiles. If you don't want to pay the tax, you always have the option of opting out. A blind rise in income tax to cover the various extras that will need to be funded would have been a much more contentious (and arguably, unfair) way of addressing such matters. Instead, 'you pay for what you enjoy' forms of temporary taxation make you appreciate why you're paying the extra.
It's like the complaining that goes on about Jonathan Ross's salary. If you asked the millions of people who arrange their Friday schedule to watch his show, if they would mind paying an extra 50p per week on top of the TV licence to fund his wages...you'd more than make your money back on his salary because he is worth that extra money...people will pay because they know quality when they see it.
Would you pay an extra 50p per month to have a landline? The majority of people would say yes.
This is a policy that will invest a lot of money (admittedly, not enough to do the whole job) in bringing more oppportunities to the rural dwellers of our fair land.
Think of the benefit for farmers and local produce makers. They will be offered opportunites never before available to them. Think of the resources that would be a touch away to school kids in rural schools, that was not available before.
This is the point of the policy, and to be honest, this is the point of taxes in general. It's a good policy with the right aims. People will slam it for a number of reasons, mainly kicking a man when he's down, but headline's over 50p per month? Pah!
In the current political temperature, adding a new tax onto anything is never going to result in anything other than a negative headline and reaction. But this is not a bad policy.
For the equivalent of 50p a month, we can, as a nation, help invest in what for some will be a vital and welcome tool which we all have come to expect as standard. Gordon compared it to being as important as electricity and running water, which is over-egging and already over-egged pudding, but the internet should not be out of reach (literally, or otherwise) for any UK citizen.
Taxes are going to have to rise. Cuts are going to have to be made. While this scheme will not fund the whole project of getting every corner of the UK 'connected', it is not a significant amount to pay. Some may argue that if you choose to live in the countryside, you choose the lifestyle and the limitations that come with it and presently, good internet access is about as scarce as a bus in some of these remote areas. Without wanting to sound like an Oxfam fundraising chugger, "for less than one pound a month, you could give these ruralites the chance to watch porn", it is not too much to ask. It is also, a tax you can opt out of. Nowadays, few of my friends even have a landline - we all use mobiles. If you don't want to pay the tax, you always have the option of opting out. A blind rise in income tax to cover the various extras that will need to be funded would have been a much more contentious (and arguably, unfair) way of addressing such matters. Instead, 'you pay for what you enjoy' forms of temporary taxation make you appreciate why you're paying the extra.
It's like the complaining that goes on about Jonathan Ross's salary. If you asked the millions of people who arrange their Friday schedule to watch his show, if they would mind paying an extra 50p per week on top of the TV licence to fund his wages...you'd more than make your money back on his salary because he is worth that extra money...people will pay because they know quality when they see it.
Would you pay an extra 50p per month to have a landline? The majority of people would say yes.
This is a policy that will invest a lot of money (admittedly, not enough to do the whole job) in bringing more oppportunities to the rural dwellers of our fair land.
Think of the benefit for farmers and local produce makers. They will be offered opportunites never before available to them. Think of the resources that would be a touch away to school kids in rural schools, that was not available before.
This is the point of the policy, and to be honest, this is the point of taxes in general. It's a good policy with the right aims. People will slam it for a number of reasons, mainly kicking a man when he's down, but headline's over 50p per month? Pah!
Friday, 12 June 2009
Cuts, cuts, everywhere...
I know Gordo's had a damn good week, but can we all just stop the lies? Please?
We've just borrowed a hefty amount of money, spending it on some good things, some bad things. But in order to repay our debts, we will, at some stage, have to cut spending. We all know that it has to happen, that there are going to have to be some 'lean times'.
So let's not have Labour saying "Look, the Tories are going to cut", and Tories, let's not have you saying "we wouldn't", because any political party that doesn't see spending 'restraint' as a necessity in the near future doesn't deserve the responsibility. Yes it would be nice if the new Government could come in and announce this new spending plan, and that new record investment, but having pissed all our money away, like my toe nails, things will need cutting soon.
Instead, we are left with more abysmal politics justifying why nobody in the real world gives a shit about what is said and done in the world of politics.
We've just borrowed a hefty amount of money, spending it on some good things, some bad things. But in order to repay our debts, we will, at some stage, have to cut spending. We all know that it has to happen, that there are going to have to be some 'lean times'.
So let's not have Labour saying "Look, the Tories are going to cut", and Tories, let's not have you saying "we wouldn't", because any political party that doesn't see spending 'restraint' as a necessity in the near future doesn't deserve the responsibility. Yes it would be nice if the new Government could come in and announce this new spending plan, and that new record investment, but having pissed all our money away, like my toe nails, things will need cutting soon.
Instead, we are left with more abysmal politics justifying why nobody in the real world gives a shit about what is said and done in the world of politics.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Gordon Brown - THE DESTRUCTOR!
First, he forced Tony Blair out of a job. One.
Now he's caused Neil Kinnock to lose his job. Two.
Owing to his wife's new responsibilities, word has it that Neil Kinnock will step down as Chairman of the British Council, as it would create a conflict of interest for dear Glynis (just had this confirmed that early July is his end date).
Margaret Beckett, who, previously in an 'acting' role of Leader, has also just left her housing brief behind, not to mention that Brown dropped her before...three.
I am a fan of conspiracy theories, but would it be stretching it to suggest he had anything to do with John Smith's death? Four?
Michael Foot must be s****ing himself.
Now he's caused Neil Kinnock to lose his job. Two.
Owing to his wife's new responsibilities, word has it that Neil Kinnock will step down as Chairman of the British Council, as it would create a conflict of interest for dear Glynis (just had this confirmed that early July is his end date).
Margaret Beckett, who, previously in an 'acting' role of Leader, has also just left her housing brief behind, not to mention that Brown dropped her before...three.
I am a fan of conspiracy theories, but would it be stretching it to suggest he had anything to do with John Smith's death? Four?
Michael Foot must be s****ing himself.
Sunday, 7 June 2009
New Labour - the musical?
Incase you don't know, Les Miserables is about the French revolution. With the European election results due tomorrow, I think the lyrics to ONE DAY MORE, one of the songs from the musical are remarkably poignant, even in modern times. I've changed none of the lyrics, just which characters sing them...
(I need to find more to do on a Sunday!)
GORDON BROWN
One day more?
Another day, another destiny.
This never ending road to Calvary;
These men who seem to know my crime
Will surely come a second time.
One day more?
UKIP & BNP
I did not live until today
ED BALLS & YVETTE COOPER
How can I live when we are parted
GORDON BROWN
One day more?
HAZEL BLEARS
Tomorrow you'll be worlds away,
And yet, with you, my world has started!
GORDON BROWN
One more day all on my own.
CABINET
Will we ever meet again?
CAROLINE FLINT
One more day with him not caring.
ED BALLS
I was born to be with you.
CAROLINE FLINT
What a life I might have known.
HARRIET HARMAN & ALAN JOHNSON
And I swear I will be true!
CAROLINE FLINT
But he never saw me there.
HAZEL BLEARS
One more day before the storm!
ALASTAIR DARLING
Do I follow where she goes?
DAVID CAMERON
At the barricades of freedom.
TONY BLAIR
Shall I join my brothers there?
HAZEL BLEARS
When our ranks begin to form.
DAVID MILLIBAND
Do I stay; and do I dare?
GORDON BROWN
will you take your place with me?
DAVID CAMERON
The time is now, the day is here...
GORDON BROWN
One day more?
BLEARS, PURNELL, FALCONER, FLINT
One more day to revolution,
We will nip it in the bud!
Sir ALAN SUGAR
I will join these little schoolboys,
They will wet themselves with blood!
GORDON BROWN
One day more?
DAILY TELEGRAPH
Watch'em run amuck,
Catch'em as they fall,
Never know you're luck
When there's a free for all,
Here a little 'dip'
There a llittle touch,
Most of them are goners
So they won't miss much!
CONSERVATIVES
One day to a new beginning!
Raise the flag of freedom high!
Every man shall be a king!
Every man shall be a king!
There's a new world for the winning!
There's a new world to be won!
EVERYONE (except Gordon Brown)
Do you hear the people sing?
MANDELSON
My place is here. I fight with you!
GORDON BROWN
One day more!
BNP & UKIP
I did not live until today.
GORDON BROWN
One more day all on my own!
CABINET
How can I live when we are parted
DAVID CAMERON
I will join these people's heroes
I will follow where they go
I will learn their little secrets
I will know the things they know.
GORDON BROWN
One day more!
HAZEL BLEARS
Tomorrow you'll be worlds away
CAROLINE FLINT
What a life I might have known!
GLENYS KINNOCK
And yet with you my world has started
DAVID CAMERON
One more day to revolution
We will nip it in the bud,
We'll be ready for these schoolboys...
DAILY TELEGRAPH
Watch'em run amuck,
Catch'em as they fall,
Never know you're luck
When there's a free for all!
LABOUR
Tomorrow we'll be far away,
Tomorrow is the judgement day!
ALL
Tomorrow we'll discover
What our God in Heaven has in store!
One more dawn!
One more day!
One day more!
The So Solid Crew
"I believe I am the man to lead this country through these difficult times, tackling the challenges this country is facing, taking the necessary action unlike the opposition party who would do nothing. I also bought a boat."
He asked for our thoughts, so...
From Daniel1979's recommended reading post, I came across a piece from Tom Harris' blog.
Not always a fan of this MP's views, I must say that Mr Harris has hit the nail on the head - one hammer, one nail, one hit, and the thing is flush against the wall. Whether he has a vested interest Labour agenda or not is irrelevant when he says...
"Secondly, the Conservatives’ lead in the polls seems far more to do with Labour’s unpopularity than with David Cameron’s (or his party’s) popularity. Cameron has still not sealed the deal. Now, why is that, do you think?"
In the hope that Tom (as well as others) genuinely wants to know what I think...here's what I think.
David Cameron and the Tories are not winning elections this week, and won't do in the general election. Labour has lost them. There is no clamour for David Cameron, there is no flashback to 1997 with cries of "Toneeeeeeeeee" everywhere Blair went that is comparable for DC.
The news stories are not about Conservative policy, they are not about, in any detail whatsoever, why Cameron, Johnson (or, in the name of fairness, Glegg) would be a better PM for our country. They are not about how different things will be when a change comes. They are not about 'a new wave of politics' or political opinion - it is purely that Gordon Brown/Labour are bad.
When Tony Blair was crushing the already crumpled John Major, it was through policy, alternative direction, "a New Britain". And by golly, did we all sign up for that! The mood of the country went through the roof, people had hope and belief and as a nation, there was a very strong positive vibe, unrelenting everywhere you went for the first few years. People bought into, and wanted, the new product that Labour were offering. People knew about it, in detail. They could point to specific things and say, "that is why I'm voting for him, that is what will make my life better". This is not the case with David Cameron, as I've said before. He's not carrying the vote. It's just that right now, he's more attractive an option than the others. But when you are the political equivalent to 'the prettier one of the Neville brothers', this doesn't mean you're actually attractive. I'd say Harriet Harman is more attractive than Betty Boothroyd, doesn't mean I fancy Harriet (in case you don't already know, scientists have proved that Harman is indeed Beelzebub in a bra).
So it's the old saying "the best of a bad bunch". Cameron, when elected, will not last long. He will not be able to hold the country for 3 or 4 terms because he doesn't carry the public's passion that 'the big players' do and have done.
Tipped as 'The Heir to Blair', he is nothing of the sort. Yes, he'll probably win by a landslide and yes, he's a bit young...but that's it, the similarities end there.
Tony Blair was a once-in-a-generation Prime Minister. We can all bang on about the Iraq war, but that man offered the country something different, we all bought into it, he took us along for the ride and dropped us off in a much better place.
Cameron, is nothing but the skanky slapper you go home with when you're drunk and you've just dumped your long term girlfriend and you need a quick-fix of something different. Until he offers something that we are following, rather than the current situation where we're only next to him because we moved across the room to get away from Labour, the Tories should be wary about planning for a significant period of Government.
When the ruling party are in this much dissarray, and have been for months, and the country still isn't crying "David will save us!", you're nothing more than 'some other girl'.
Not always a fan of this MP's views, I must say that Mr Harris has hit the nail on the head - one hammer, one nail, one hit, and the thing is flush against the wall. Whether he has a vested interest Labour agenda or not is irrelevant when he says...
"Secondly, the Conservatives’ lead in the polls seems far more to do with Labour’s unpopularity than with David Cameron’s (or his party’s) popularity. Cameron has still not sealed the deal. Now, why is that, do you think?"
In the hope that Tom (as well as others) genuinely wants to know what I think...here's what I think.
David Cameron and the Tories are not winning elections this week, and won't do in the general election. Labour has lost them. There is no clamour for David Cameron, there is no flashback to 1997 with cries of "Toneeeeeeeeee" everywhere Blair went that is comparable for DC.
The news stories are not about Conservative policy, they are not about, in any detail whatsoever, why Cameron, Johnson (or, in the name of fairness, Glegg) would be a better PM for our country. They are not about how different things will be when a change comes. They are not about 'a new wave of politics' or political opinion - it is purely that Gordon Brown/Labour are bad.
When Tony Blair was crushing the already crumpled John Major, it was through policy, alternative direction, "a New Britain". And by golly, did we all sign up for that! The mood of the country went through the roof, people had hope and belief and as a nation, there was a very strong positive vibe, unrelenting everywhere you went for the first few years. People bought into, and wanted, the new product that Labour were offering. People knew about it, in detail. They could point to specific things and say, "that is why I'm voting for him, that is what will make my life better". This is not the case with David Cameron, as I've said before. He's not carrying the vote. It's just that right now, he's more attractive an option than the others. But when you are the political equivalent to 'the prettier one of the Neville brothers', this doesn't mean you're actually attractive. I'd say Harriet Harman is more attractive than Betty Boothroyd, doesn't mean I fancy Harriet (in case you don't already know, scientists have proved that Harman is indeed Beelzebub in a bra).
So it's the old saying "the best of a bad bunch". Cameron, when elected, will not last long. He will not be able to hold the country for 3 or 4 terms because he doesn't carry the public's passion that 'the big players' do and have done.
Tipped as 'The Heir to Blair', he is nothing of the sort. Yes, he'll probably win by a landslide and yes, he's a bit young...but that's it, the similarities end there.
Tony Blair was a once-in-a-generation Prime Minister. We can all bang on about the Iraq war, but that man offered the country something different, we all bought into it, he took us along for the ride and dropped us off in a much better place.
Cameron, is nothing but the skanky slapper you go home with when you're drunk and you've just dumped your long term girlfriend and you need a quick-fix of something different. Until he offers something that we are following, rather than the current situation where we're only next to him because we moved across the room to get away from Labour, the Tories should be wary about planning for a significant period of Government.
When the ruling party are in this much dissarray, and have been for months, and the country still isn't crying "David will save us!", you're nothing more than 'some other girl'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
