Election Day

Today is likely to be a significant day, with a significant message sent to the main parties.

It isn’t entirely clear just how organised the Government is at the moment. Gordon Brown’s leadership is in utter disarray, ahead of today’s Local and E.U elections. It would appear that disgruntled back bench Labour MPs, who stand to lose their seats at the next General Election, have began circulating a petition among themselves, calling on the Prime Minister to step down. They of course, would need to find a challenger, to stand against Brown. To force a leadership challenge, 70 Labour MPs must nominate a potential challenger.

The letter, obtained by the BBC, says directly to the Prime Minister:
“We believe that in the current political situation you can best serve the Labour Party and the country by stepping down as party leader and prime minister.”
It is hard to argue with that. There are two ways to look at the situation, firstly, backbench Labour MPs are showing just how unstable the Party actually is, there is no unity, and the electorate will pick up on that. The Government cannot appear to be in control, if the backbenchers plot mutiny. With Brown gone, there would exist a leadership vacuum, no one comes to mind who has the potential to take over. There isn’t a Blair, or even a Kinnock. However, Labour are heading down the road of becoming a 2009 version of the 1997 Tories. Unelectable, Useless, and disengaged if Gordon Brown (whom I believe, is Labour’s greatest liability right now) is to remain as leader come the General Election.

Communities Secretary Hazel Blears resigned yesterday, joining Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, thrusting a metaphorical knife into the comatose Labour body, just one day before the Polling booths open. She could have waited until the moment polling stations closed, and then resigned, thereby limiting the potential negative election fall out. She chose the time to go quite deliberately. I can imagine the scenes in Number 10 when Blears resigned, were like scenes in a morgue.

Meanwhile, The Tories have reverted even more to the Right, by announcing plans to kill off the tram lines in Nottingham, if they take control of County Hall this month, by pulling out of it’s £28million share. It would put at risk the development of the NG2 Business Park, as investors have considered the tram lines part of the plans, and a valuable source of transport for custom. Investing in infrastructure, in terms of transport, getting people out of their cars and into the trams (of which i’ve done many times whilst in Nottingham) is a progressive, first class way to promote public transport.
The leader of the Tories in Nottinghamshire, Kay Cutts, said that the tram system cost, was not fair to ask all tax payers in Nottingham to pay for extensions to Clifton via Wilford and Chilwell via Beeston, if they do not intend to use it. If that is the Tory attitude, then it is unfair to ask taxpayers to publicly fund roads, bus routes, schools, hospitals, policing, fire stations, if we do not use them. Same old Tories.
The Conservatives move to cut spending in this vital area, thus putting hundreds maybe thousands of jobs at risk, whilst encouraging people to use their cars instead, is a disaster, and a sign of things to come when they inevitably win the next general Election.

It’ll be interesting to see how these elections have affected the make up of British politics.
It’s a story that keeps on giving.

And if you’re interested, I voted today. In the local elections, I voted Liberal Democrat. In the E.U Elections, I voted Green Party.

Going….going….gone

I had an incredibly interesting article to post today. (At least, I find it interesting) It took me half the day yesterday, and a stretch of time this morning to write up. And then, Jacqui Smith goes and steps down as Home Secretary. So i’ve had to postpone my original idea for an entry today. It’s an entire barrel of mixed emotions for me. On the one hand, I have to wait a day to post my interesting article and so I’m a little annoyed. On the other hand, the birds are singing, flowers are blooming, the sun is shining, beer is flowing, and the most useless Home Secretary in the history of the World is no longer in a position of National Power. The joy felt at the latter, far outweighs the annoyance of the former.

Since becoming Home Secretary at the behest of our equally useless Prime Minister, in 2007, Jacqui Smith has been controversial to say the very very least.

Since David Blunkett spoke in 2006, openly about a National I.D Scheme, along with the National Identity Register, which would hold information on every citizen in the U.K, including fingerprints, and digitalised facial scans, as well as personal information – many groups have spoken out over it, including No2id. I haven’t spoken to one person who thinks it’s a great idea, especially given the fact that the Home Office, lead by Jacqui Smith, can’t seem to take care of personal information as it is. I’m not sure that any one, other than Jacqui Smith, supports this I.D Scheme. She quite amusingly told the BBC that “as I go round the country I regularly have people coming up to me and saying they don’t want to wait that long.” I’m not sure which Country she’s talking about, but it isn’t England.

There was then the whole saga surrounding Jacqui Smith’s proposal of the provision in the Counter-Terrorism Act, that allowed detention of up to forty-two days without charge for Terrorist suspects. Defeated in the Lords after passing the Commons, though experiencing a back bench revolt of 36 Labour MPs; passing only because the Democratic Unionist Party were quite clearly coerced into voting in line with the Government.

In June 2008, in a letter to the National Union of Journalists, Jacqui Smith wrote that whilst Photography in Public was a Right for anyone, police are allowed to prevent you taking photos on them, though without legal right to do so. She says “there is no legal restriction on photography in public places“. However, after admitting that police or person in a position of similar authority have no right by law to prevent photography in public, she goes on to say “Decisions may be made locally to restrict or monitor photography in reasonable circumstances“. So in other words, a policeman can make up his own rules, as and when he chooses, and we must all abide by them? The Home Office really is useless.
In February 2009, a new law was made to clear up the confusion. It allows police to arrest any Photographer, taking a photo that they deem to be “useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism“. It’s a ridiculous law, from a ridiculously inept Home Secretary. It is a law that the Police can flaunt, purely to show their authority. As in the case of Klaus Matzka and his son, whom the police forced to delete their photos of Vauxhall Bus Station in Central London, in the name of preventing Terrorism. Jacqui Smith, of course, denies that she’s slightly Stalinist.

Not that the police are all that friendly with the Home Secretary, given that she betrayed them, by refusing to honour the pay deal for no real reason other than that she’s Jacqui Smith, and this is what she does.

There have of course been amusing moment. Her husband claiming expenses on porn being the main moment that sticks out. Why anyone would pay for porn, is beyond me. That’s what the internet is for. According to The Mirror, a friend of Jacqui Smith said “On a scale of anger from one to 10 she was a 55” at her husband. On a scale of embarrassment at being married to Jacqui Smith, between one and 10, the poor bloke must be at 1000 by now.

A poll released in March 2009, showed that Labour Party Members considered Jacqui Smith to be the most underachieving member of the Cabinet. I think a poll conducted of the public, might suggest that she is the most underachieving, useless member of any Cabinet in the history of the Cabinet.

It comes as no surprise that she is to step down before the Cabinet reshuffle (the most pointless exercise in British Politics – unless of course, the Labour Party do the unthinkable and work closely with the Lib Dems, by bringing Vince Cable in as a new Chancellor). The amount of individual MPs stepping down and not standing at the next General Election, junior Ministers leaving the Party, and now Jacqui Smith stepping down as Home Secretary, suggests that the Labour ship is sinking damningly quickly for the Government. I suspect the Chancellor, Alastair Darling isn’t far behind Jacqui Smith in the “soon to go” list. Especially since Gordon Brown, when referring to Darling, used the phrase “Alistair has been a great chancellor”…..past tense.

Will any of this matter? No of course not. After the Local Elections and European Parliament Elections on Thursday, Labour will take a huge hit, which is the equivilant to punching a corpse. As will the Tories. Independents will start to make gains, as will extremist Parties, and the crises of British Politics will continue.

Expenses Day III: Same old Tories

It has been a bleak couple of days for Conservative Leader David Cameron. Perhaps the honeymoon period is coming to an end. For a Tory Party that has spent the past two years attempting to seem much more in touch with the general Public than New Labour, I give them credit for masking the Etonian spirit that still runs the veins of the entire Party. Today however, it would seem that the new look Tory Party isn’t all that different from the Jeffrey Archer, Neil and Christine Hamilton Tory Party of the past.

The Telegraph today revealed that Douglas Hogg, the former Agriculture Secretary and Conservative Whip following the 1983 election, claimed £2000….for…… wait for it……. it’s seriously beautiful……… he claimed £2000 to cover the cost of cleaning out the moat surrounding his country estate. You couldn’t make this stuff up. Not only the moat, but the taxpayer also paid to maintain the salary of Hogg’s house cleaner, and to go toward the cost of having his piano tuned. His comments to these allegations, was pretty much “It’s within the rules”. Followed by “We Parliamentarians who have a responsibility” should recognise the system needs changing. You cannot “recognise” a system needs changing, whilst you squeeze it for all it’s worth. He went on to say that the £14,500 he claimed for a housekeeper is “perfectly proper” because he needed to upkeep his second home. Which apparently, he couldn’t pay for himself. Despite being a millionaire. And that his claims were in the “spirit of the system“. Words fail me. Same old Tories.
Tory MP, Squire Lord Baron QC Senior King (okay I added that bit) David Heathcoat-Amory, whom headed up the Oxford University Conservative Association (my idea of hell), claimed for some manure for his garden.
Tory MP Sir Michael Spicer, claimed £5,650 for garden upkeep, and claimed to have his chandelier hung up in his Country estate.
David Davis, former Shadow Home Secretary, whom stood down in 2008 (and was re-elected) in revolt over the “erosion of Civil Liberties” in the Country. Clearly his concern for what is decent and correct didn’t extend to the £10,000 Davis claimed for renovations to his house.
Shadow Minister Stewart Jackson claimed £300 for work on a Swimming pool (which he has now agreed to pay back…… mainly because he was caught) among other less extreme but equally as pathetic claims.
Tory MP Michael Ancram told BBC News that his claims were for maintenance to his second home and well within the rules. The trouble is, he claimed £14,000 a year in expenses, whilst owning three homes all without a mortgage and worth in excess of £8,000,000. I trust I can count on his support when I ask the tax payer to buy me a lovely new £14,000 conservatory.

I reiterate the point I made yesterday, that the Tory Party’s policy on pretty much dismantling the Welfare State when they become the next government, is quite possibly the most hypocritical nonsense i’ve heard from a political party in a very long time, given that they have their own Welfare State taking place in Parliament, in which handouts are given, to those who don’t need handouts. If I were to do that, i’d be locked up. MPs would call it a disgrace. Tory MPs would use it as an excuse to further claim the need for Welfare reform. To further insist that any single mum claiming more in benefits than she’s entitled to, is some evil cancer on the throat of society, chocking the system dry, rolling around in heaps of taxpayers money, laughing like an evil villian in a bond film. When in fact, the truth is, the Tory glass house is now well and truly smashed to pieces.

Suddenly Jacqui Smith’s horny husband doesn’t seem so bad.

And to top it all off, to top the story of expenses off beautifully, instead of MPs facing the sack, or any form of disciplinary action, instead the Commons Officials chose to begin a police investigation into uncovering the mole who sold the expenses information to The Telegraph. The Commons Officials statement reads: “The House authorities have received advice that there are reasonable grounds to believe a criminal offence may have been committed in relation to the way in which information relating to Members’ allowances has been handled.”
Not only is the system wrong, the entire mindset of Parliament is so deeply flawed and out of touch, it isn’t going to be solved by simply reforming the expenses system. To be a millionaire, to have the luxury of a garden, or the luxury of a cleaner, or the luxury of a swimming pool, means you shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near an expense form. The system should not allow every MP to claim a set amount of money. It should be there for those who struggle the most, in the same way the the welfare system is in place for those members of the public, who struggle the most. If my parents earned £60,000 a year like most MPs, I wouldn’t be eligible for Student Finance, so why are MPs entitled to have their Country Estate Moats cleaned out and maintaining their manor houses subsidised by the taxpayer? And why, when questioned do they insist it’s okay because it’s within the official rules? The entire mindset of Politicians is so horribly wrong it isn’t going to be changed by a General Election. Although, it’s not often we get to see the sleaze and extravagance together with the far-from-reality lifestyles of Tory MPs BEFORE a General Election. It will be interesting to see how Cameron deals with it.

It just adds to the reasons why I wont be voting Tory, out of principle, ever.

The untouchable Conservatives?

I’ve been wondering lately why those people who intend on voting Conservative at the next general election, actually like President Obama. Surely he stands for everything they’re against? I couldn’t imagine Maggie Thatcher fans claiming the greatest President that ever lived was Franklin Roosevelt (even though, he was) who spent a fortune on the New Deal stimilus package in the 1930s. Similarly, I can’t understand why anyone supporting David Cameron, would claim to be a fan of Obama? It makes no sense, it’s an odd infliction. And so it’s leading me to the disappointing, and rather worrying belief that people wont be voting Conservative because they like the idea of a Conservative government; people will vote Conservative because they dislike Gordon Brown.

I think the younger generation, who appear to have lost touch with Politics, see a Nation on the brink of economic disaster, and naturally feel drawn to the opposite side. They don’t however, understand what the opposite side is offering. Of course we all accept that Brown’s claim to have abolished boom and bust, is quite frankly ridiculous. But that isn’t reason enough to empower a new Tory regime.

Latest Polls show that people seem to be happier for the Tories to take control of the economy, despite the misery they caused last time. Despite the fact that this time, they offer no help to those less fortunate during recession. They aren’t offering training programs, they aren’t offering infrastructure investment, they aren’t offering investment in future technology. They are just offering the same shit, cut public spending, cut tax. As if that solves anything at all. They do not seem to understand that the most hard hit families, rely on public spending which if cut, would harm those families but help those who are coping fine as it is. We are not Republican America, we are not a Country under the failed presumption that public spending means Socialism. It doesn’t. The Conservatives would be the very worst Political Party to have in Government. Neoliberalism has failed. We are in recession, because of Neoliberalism. The Conservatives, are offering more Neoliberalism. Do you see the problem?

The last time the Conservatives had their Right Wing grip on Britain, we had full scale riots, 60% of Liverpool’s workforce unemployed (which under Labour has decreased so far, that they are well above the national average for employment rates) to the point where people rioted (again, Tories are good at causing riots) and police were forced to use tear gas, section 28 of the local government act telling schools not to teach homosexuality as natural, so alienating children, and an attempt to completely underfund the NHS to the point of near collapse. Then of course, they began to sell off the council houses, meaning 20 years later, my generation has been betrayed by the greed of the Tory years, now unable to get anywhere near the housing ladder. Yeah thanks for that. And now, because of their disastrous “leave it to the market” neoliberalist Conservative agenda, taken at it’s word by New Labour, we have a knackered economy. We have utility companies charging extortionate rates that people can’t afford, and that some have actually died because they can’t afford it. The Tories left power in 1997 having left a child poverty rate that grew 34% since they took over Government in the late 1970s. Not forgetting that year long period of 15% interest rates. That was a wonderful year.
Since that wondrous Conservative 1988 Housing Act, landlords can freely set rent at whatever price they so choice, which usually means most of the tenant’s wages per month, which in turn meant those tenant’s cannot save enough to get a mortgage, even though mortgage payments are usually cheaper than the rent they’re currently paying. And so enter the sub prime market. We all know what happened with that one.
Under the Tories, more than 300,000 workers earned less than £1.50 an hour, with Job Centres advertising jobs for 80p an hour. GO TEAM TORY
We lost everything during Thatcher’s reign, but hey, the rich got richer. So that’s okay, right?
And what do the Tories suggest we do about the economic crises? Invest in infrastructure? Nope. Invest in training programs? Nope. Invest in much needed green technology to kickstart a failing economy? Nope. Typical Tories, offering nothing new. Leaving those less fortunate to sink further.
The Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, repeatedly seems to enjoy attacking the Government on their “wasteful spending campaign” and their fiscal irresponsibility, and yet, appears to have forgotten that he’d been paid £30,000 for two after dinner speeches….at RBS. Not only that, but given that deregulation of the financial markets got us into the mess we’re in today, it’s a bit rich for the Shadow Foreign Secretary to be claiming that the Tories are the party to lead Britain through the economic crises, given that during his last campaign, Hague is quoted as saying;
“As prime minister I will make deregulation one of my top priorities. I will drive deregulation from the centre and I will promote ministers not on the basis of whether they regulate enough but on the basis of how much they deregulate”.
Nothing changes.
Suddenly people (the rich, who benefited under Thatcher) seem to think that it’s their God given right to own, two, three, four or more homes – using them once or twice a year on holiday – whilst others fail to be able to afford even one home because they’ve all been taken up. Rights only seem to apply to those with money.

And then of course, you have to move onto the Tories constant attacks on the immorality of Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith claims on her home in Worcester to the amount of close to £23,000 in 2007-2008; despite the fact that Conservative Shadow leader of the Commons Alan Duncan has claimed £143,392 since 2001 on a second home despite renting out a privately owned third property in Westminster, earning him a tidy profit at the expense of, well, us.
Or Tory MP James Clappison, who owns farm land, 22 rented houses in Yorkshire, and an entire Cricket Ground, and yet still thought it morally acceptable to claim £97,892 in 2nd home allowances.
Or the largest 2nd homes claim made by MPs, coming from Tory MP Douglas Hogg, who rented out three London Properties, whilst claiming £143,651 since 2001.
The Tories have not suddenly gained a social conscience. Nor is their rhetoric convincing to those of us who actually take an interest in Politics.

New Labour repealed that nasty little Section 28. New Labour have made it possible for me to go to University, whilst the Right Wing seem to think that only kids who have rich parents, should be allowed that luxury. New Labour set up EMA which meant I could leave my dead end boring job to go back to college. New Labour set up minimum wage (which David Cameron voted against), New Labour extended maternity leave and paternity leave to which the Tories voted against, and the best ever A-Level results, came under New Labour (Tories like to suggest that tests are easier, rather than educational standards improving… and given that I took my A-Levels in 2008, I can promise you, educational standards were much higher than I expected, and tests were pretty fucking hard). Before the current recession hit, unemployment because of New Labour had hit it’s lowest rate since 1975, compared with 3,000,000 unemployed throughout the first half of the Tory regime in the 1980s. New Labour created free nursery education for children 3 and 4 years old – something the Tories voted against. Of course New Labour have made mistakes, and things are far from perfect. But given the choice, i’d rather have a government that invests in social projects, invests in training, invests in green initiatives, invests in the future, rather than a government full of out of touch Etonian morons that choose to paint all less advantaged people as “lazy” and offer nothing but deadly cuts in public spending. In 1997 people living in France, Germany, Belgium and Japan were all wealthier than us. By 2002 we had overtaken them all.

I do not want to empower a Party that seems to think it’s fine that millions of children exist in poverty, whilst executives take home a pay cheque equal to 718 times that which the average employee takes home. When wealth is relocated to the poorer, dilapudated, violent areas of the Country, the Conservatives start complaining that Socialism is on it’s way back. When turds in designer suits Company execs
relocate ridiculously large amounts of wealth to themselves, it’s labelled “freedom” and “Capitalism” when in truth, it’s Stalinism for the rich under the mask of “free markets” and “trickle down economics“, which the Conservative Party still hold dear to their core system of beliefs today. I wont shame my principles by voting for such crap. I may not like Gordon Brown, but I dislike the idea of a Conservative Government much much more.

Gurkha Justice

I refuse to accept the typical comment that “This Labour government is allowing any immigrant in, and yet wont let the Gurkhas in!” simply because the argument is flawed. Firstly, it is true that the Gurkhas deserve to be here above any foreign worker, foreign businessman and family of the foreign worker or businessman. That’s true in the World of misplaced Nationalism. We do not know each individual immigrant. It is the same people who suggest that all immigrants are destroying Britain, as if they’ve acquainted themselves with each individual immigrant. And so by that very same logic, the Gurkhas deserve to be here more than I do, more than most British born people do. I’ve never put my life on the line for this country, I’ve never been in a combat situation. I’ve never wondered whether my life is about to end in defence of England. The Gurkhas did just that. And so they deserve to be here much more than I do by the “immigrant” logic being thrown around, as just another reason to insult anyone who isn’t British born. I was merely born here by luck. Immigration and Gurkha retirement are two very different subjects. They cannot be compared logically.

According to The Gurkha Justice Campaign 45,000 Gurkha’s died during World War II fighting for Britain. They have long been viewed as less important than British born soldiers. For example, those Gurkha’s who retired before 1997, can earn a pension six times smaller than that of their British counterpart. Also, only those discharged after July 1st 1997, were eligible to apply for British citizenship.

Actress Joanna Lumley, whose father served with the 6th Gurkha Rifles, has been campaigning to secure full British citizenry rights for Gurkha’s who fought for Britain, discharged before July 1st 1997. In September 2008, the High Court proclaimed that immigration rules denying 36,000 Gurkha’s the right to stay in Britain, was unlawful. Mr Justice Blake described the feeling Britain feels toward the Gurkha’s as a “moral debt of honour“, and I couldn’t agree more. And so it seemed that victory for the Gurkha’s, was more likely than ever before.

New rules however, set up by the Government, on the 25th April 2009, stipulate that the following Gurkha’s would be allowed to stay in the UK:
Three years continuous residence in the UK during or after service
Close family in the UK
A bravery award of level one to three
Service of 20 years or more in the Gurkha brigade
Chronic or long-term medical condition caused or aggravated by service

After months and months of campaigning for the rights of all Gurkha’s who have fought for this Country, The Gurkha Justice Campaign have said that this ruling will help only around 100 Gurkha’s. The Government should be ashamed. It’s as if we’re saying “You’re free to die for us, protecting us, but if you only serve 19 years, you ain’t living here!!” Not forgetting that the typical Gurkha signs up for 15 years service anyway, and that only Officers tend to achieve 20 years service. It’s appalling. If you serve Britain, you should be given an automatic right to live here, regardless of ethnicity, or land of birth. It shouldn’t even be questioned. It shouldn’t be a talking point. It’s quite a simple moral issue. Joanna Lumley said of the announcement: “They’ve given five bullet points that virtually cannot be met by the ordinary Gurkha soldier.” There is no excuse.

It strikes me as inconceivable, the idea that you can put your life on the line for another Country, and then be entirely ignored by that country in the future. Unless, you serve 20 years, or were discharged after 1997. What about those who were discharged in 1996? Why are they any less deserving of citizenship? It strikes me as utterly disgusting, that it took a High Court ruling to force Jacqui Smith to accept the need for a review. She had to be told to look into it further, otherwise the Government just wouldn’t have cared. When did Labour become the Tories? After the review, we then have a bunch of new, weak rules which in fact amount to nothing more than a total betrayal on the part of the Government.

As much as I (and millions more like me) would despise a Tory government come the next General Election, I really cannot imagine how Labour intends to actually win any seats, let alone enough to secure a majority. It is acts like this, the injustice served to the Gurkha’s by the Home Office under the advice of Jacqui Smith, whilst Jacqui Smith thinks it’s acceptable to use tax payers money to fund £116,000 worth of improvements to her 2nd home in Worcester, which will so deeply hurt Labour come the next general election. I think the phrase I’m looking for, is “a moral vacuum“.

Sign the Justice For Gurkha’s Petition by clicking here.

The great housing problem

I sit here, trying desperately to understand the reasons that the husband of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith didn’t just visit the plethora of wondrous porn sites that grace the internet, rather than using MPs expenses claim for a porn video which subsequently created another problem in a long list of problems for his incompetent and largely pointless wife. It strikes me as ridiculous.

The issue of whether or not the indelibly randy Richard Timney is “getting any” from wife Jacqui is fatuous and slightly nauseating but it brings back to the forefront of the public mind, the problems that have plagued Mrs Smith for some time. Another shiny gold sticker of woe to add to her wall of thousands of the same.

This time last month, John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards agreed to investigate whether Jacqui Smith had broken Parliamentarian rules by claiming £116,000 in second home allowances after she designated her sister’s house in London as her second home, regardless of the fact that she spends (according to her neighbours who made the complaint) about two days a week in that home before returning to her constituency home in Worcester.

This raises three issues; firstly, if MPs like Smith and McNulty have not broken any rules in regard to financing a 2nd home, then the rules are wrong and should be changed. You cannot claim so much money for a second home that is less than eight miles from your constituency home, as in McNulty’s case, it is wrong.

Secondly, just because these rules exist, doesn’t mean MPs like Smith and McNulty are morally obliged to push the rules to their limits. Just because they are inside the law, doesn’t make it acceptable. It isn’t.

Thirdly, and most importantly, second homes are not just a problem for MPs. In a society in which Thatcherism tells us it’s ok to own two, three, four or as many homes as you can possibly buy up because apparently owning equals freedom, we’re left with a deep problem. There are very little affordable homes left in the Country, because those who can afford to, buy them up. Often living in one, whilst using the second as a summer retreat. The “right to buy” has meant that one-time council homes that were built so a young couple could get a cheaply rented home until they had saved enough to jump to the private sector, no longer exists. One time council homes are now owned by the private sector, which during the 1980s pushed the average price of a house up by 225% and more and more people encouraged to invest in a second home. And apparently no one saw this credit crunch – with it’s origins in the sub prime market aimed at those who can’t afford such obscene house prices – coming. Which is apparently fine, easy money, and because community is now a dirty word in comparison to individual, it means those who have holiday homes do not care enough about the local amenities, and so those local once thriving communities die out.

The fishing village of Beadnell in Northumberland is suffering disastrously because any one who dares to reject the flawed notion of social and economic Darwinism is considered out of touch at best and Communist at worst. Beadnell was once a thriving fishing town, but because 256 of the 500 homes in the village are now holiday homes used for a very short period per year; shops, local businesses and schools have had to close down.
Beadnell is just one example. The Scottish village ofBraemar is another example of economic Darwinism imposing it’s strict but certainly not absolute (as opposed to natural selection within nature itself) principle of the wealthy few buying up the available homes for private holiday use, destroying the village life in the process, whilst slowly pushing house prices to the limit, forcing locals out. Would it be too “Socialist” and evil to presume that freedom to destroy a village is not as important to uphold as the freedom for those villagers to live peacefully, and as a community? For all of those who truly equate Capitalism with Democracy, would it not be fair and just, to put it to a vote, whether the citizens of Beadnell or Braemar actually want those rich few, using their village as holiday village? Freedom only appears to actually mean freedom, when it applies to those with money, the rest of us only have the freedom to shut our mouths and let it happen.

Labour offer nothing on their policy website. Absolutely no indication of the future of the housing problem in England and what they plan to do. As usual, useless.
The Tories offer the much of the same bullshit that lead to the problem in the first place. “Conservative Government will make it easier for social tenants to own or part-own their home. This will not only help people up the housing ladder, but also ensure residents have greater pride and a greater stake in their community.”…. So what’s new? Any new homes built under the next Conservative government will be privately owned, which will push housing prices through the roof even more because supply will never reach growing demand due to population rise, and yet another generation of have-nots will be thrown into high rise badly secure blocks of flats polluted with crime and a sense that they are the forgotten children of history. Great. You cannot keep throwing a few new homes into the mix, for short term solutions.

A few people (spurred on by the BNP) seem to be of the opinion that immigrants are “queue jumping” and eating up the last remaining social homes, leaving none for British born citizens. According to a report by the Equality & Human Rights Commission, immigrants made up less than 2% of social housing in the UK. So it isn’t the fault of immigrants, much like every other problem we seem to be blaming on immigrants, isn’t their fault. We appear to ignore the fact that around 800,000 unused private homes around the country, and instead we choose to blame those ‘damn’ immigrants.

So maybe renting is the answer?
No.
Since that wondrous 1988 Housing Act, landlords can freely set rent at whatever price they so choice, which usually means most of the tenant’s wages per month, which in turn means those tenant’s cannot save enough to get a mortgage, even though mortgage payments are usually cheaper than the rent they’re currently paying. And so enter the sub prime market. We all know what happened with that one.

According to Sky News, 83,000 people were homeless in Britain in 2008. Let’s sort that little gem out before we start allowing people to own an entire village, using it once a year for two weeks. If i’m expected to support “freedom” which includes the right to own as many properties as you like, without anyone living in them for most of the year, pushing property prices through the roof, just so you can make a profit and buy a bigger TV, whilst someone else lives on the street, largely ignored, I’m afraid i’m going to have to tell you to fuck off.

And it’s all down to the fact that those cleanly shaven business men in their Armani suits keep telling me that a house is the best investment i’ll ever make……….. I have to disagree with them. A house is not an investment, a house is somewhere to live, to raise a family, and to enjoy. If I ever manage to own my own home, it will not be with the intention to make a nice tidy profit in the future, it will be a home. People should not be allowed to own more than one home.

Still, as long as Jacqui Smith can claim that she broke no rules taking £116,000 for no good reason whatsoever, the equilibrium of greed and immorality is restored.

Hypocritical Britain

More and more, I find my head shaking, my eyes rolling, unable to comprehend the apparent level of hypocrisy shooting through the veins of Britain over the past few months.

First we had the Brand and Ross affair, Sachsgate. The general level of hypocrisy of The Daily Mail struck new highs. They spent about two weeks describing how disgusting it was for the BBC to exploit the private lives of Manuel and his Granddaughter in the way that they did. Let me rephrase that just incase you missed the hypocritical part.
The Daily Mail, a cog in the works of an exploitative media, who’s Entertainment Photographers spend their time laid out in pavement gutters, waiting for Britney Spears to emerge from her car, so they can get an upskirt shot, the Daily Mail, who willfully supported Oswald Moseley, and didn’t think Hitler was all that bad just after he became chancellor, The Daily Mail who are, in effect, the British Fox News, are now taking the moral high ground because of a prank phone call? The Daily Mail, who called “Fonejacker” (A program where prank calls are made for entertainment purposes) a “comedy gem”?

And then of course, more recently, the arrest of Conservative Front Bench MP Damien Green. His home and offices were raided, he was arrested by anti-terrorist agents. The same anti-terrorist agents who arrested a group of Greenpeace activists not too long back. Damien Green was arrested for leaking “sensitive” information. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she didn’t know Green was going to be arrested. My first response to that, is Why? Why didn’t she know? She’s the fucking Home Secretary and she has no idea that police are about to storm Parliament? Could she be any more useless if she tried?
Of course she could.
One of the leaks surrounded 5,000 illegal immigrants known by Jacqui Smith to have been on the Security Industry Authorities list of licensed security guards working sensitive posts, that she tried to keep concealed from he public. I applaud Green if he indeed leaked this.
She went on to explain that leaking “sensitive” information is wrong. Now my understanding of leaking information, is that it’s vital for democracy to shine? Especially if it holds the government to account for wrong doing? What the hell are Labour playing at, affectively telling us all that leaking information, is entirely wrong? No it fucking isn’t. Nick Clegg said it beautifully “It is about defending a simple principle: that anyone wanting to unearth information about the way we are governed should not live in fear that they are going to have the anti-terror police on their doorstep.”
And here comes the hypocrisy of Labour. During the 90s, Brown used to stand up in the Commons waving leaked documents at the then Tory chancellor, to embarrass the Tories into admitting faults. Under his own principles, Brown should now be held for nine hours under Anti Terror laws?

The very dealings of Primark. Now i’m in two minds about Primark. I refuse to shop there because they’re ethically disgusting. They know they exploit. They know children are used in very poor working conditions paid very little, and some reports suggest beatings occur, all so Brits can afford cheap shirts. It’s wrong. No matter what the economic benefits are, it’s wrong.
However, the economic benefits cannot be overlooked. The rate of pay for Primark employees abroad is competitive in their markets. If they were to be paid the same as workers in Western markets are paid, every surrounding business in their neighbourhoods wouldn’t be able to compete, they’d go out of business, meaning many many more unemployed people struggling to find money to feed their families. It’s a delicate balance. But that of course, doesn’t make it right. The people forced to work long hours for relatively no money in poor conditions are still human beings, and so deserve the right to dignity and respect.
I was stood waiting for the train at Marble Arch Tube Station not too long ago, and two women with Primark bags were stood next to me talking about how disgusted they were by Shannon Mathews mum, how she exploited her children for extra benefits, how she exploited her children for her own gain. I stood thinking “Ok, you’re complaining about a woman who exploited children, whilst shopping for clothes made by exploited children. Yeah, good one”. Hypocrisy at it’s best.

Double standards. The way of the Western World.