Archive

Archive for October, 2018

Mutual Aims:- The basis upon which a real people’s party would have to operate, function and aspire to genuinely succeed in UK Politics today

October 24, 2018 2 comments

MA3There has been much talk of a new Political Party being established in recent Months.

The idea has been branded ‘The People’s Party by the media. But whatever it might turn out to be, coming from the same old, same old world of British Politics as it is today, this name would be at best misleading, because the Public would simply be getting more of those same old things.

To be a genuine people’s party or party of and for the people, any new or reformed political grouping wishing to live up to the expectations of this title, will have to consider, address and deliver on a number of very difficult, but nonetheless key things.

For a genuine people’s party to be successful, their work will not just be about policy alone.

A real people’s party will be all about direction, principles, adaptability and always being mindful and accommodating of the real needs of all of those who form the entirety of the UK population. The place from which all UK Politicians draw their responsibility through the Vote.

Here follows an overview of the key areas where a real people’s party would have to focus its efforts if it has the genuine intention of rein-franchising not just the people that any one party would focus its call for support from, but for every one and every part of our entire population. Each and every Member of the UK Community – one and all.

Politics in the UK today isn’t working for anyone but the Politicians themselves

As I write in mid October 2018, UK Politics has been taken over by Brexit.

Everyone in politics is obsessed with their own ideas and plans, and their interpretation of what ‘Brexit’ actually means.

Many of the political class are simply too busy to see how they have become completely detached from their responsibilities to the Electorate – that’s doing what is right for people like you and me.

We, the normal people outside of the Westminster, media and the political bubbles, feel completely disenfranchised by everything going on around us.

We feel detached from what is going on not only at National level, where we continually find the news and social media out of touch with how we feel. But at local level too, where we are increasingly seeing public services slashed and decisions made by local councils and public service providers that are completely out of step with how we know things should really be.

We have a Conservative Party in Government, but not ruling.

We are led by a Prime Minister who has no idea how to lead.

The Prime Minister is surrounded by a Cabinet of ambitious Ministers who will not put the Country before their own desires to put off governing properly until a ‘safe’ opportunity comes for each of them to launch a campaign to succeed her.

We have an Opposition led by a dangerously idealistic Marxist, who gained the Labour Leadership on little more than a whim.

An anachronism of a time gone by, this is a protest politician who by doing little more than romanticising the values of a philosophy that talks the talk but only delivers pain, has changed the face of the political possibilities. We witness complete incompetence given credibility, and by some very unfortunate mix of luck versus misfortune, a career-backbencher has found himself in perhaps a once-in-many-generations position where the failures of others could see him make the once ridiculous reality and achieve an electoral win.

The answers coming from within the political sphere and the Establishment itself, raise even more questions than they answer.

On the one hand, there is the call for a Referendum on the result of a Referendum which was very clear in what it means. A new Referendum seeks to overturn that result. It’s not sold as that, but that’s exactly what it means.

And then there’s talk of a new ‘people’s party’, being born from the ‘centre ground’. The current or portrayed realities of a self-centred collective, constructed of all of the Political Party’s disgruntled Remainers. A place where the arrogance of a noisy few, set against the genuine will of the people, is manifested in the belief that all they need to do is rebrand themselves to be perceived as being different – yet a process which they are likely to pursue.

Politicians have completely lost sight of why they were Elected, and what the role of being a Representative of the People actually means.

The British Political System is completely broken. It is filled with people who only understand their own words and meaning.

The System is currently incapable of responding to the change that we all need from politics, so that its not just the Politicians, or the Political Parties, but all of us who are experiencing a real ‘win-win’.

Change has never been needed so much, whilst seeming so very far away

The Remainers or ‘centrists’ considering that break away from the Political Parties that only serve their own needs when they are themselves winning, are certainly correct about one thing.

They are right that there needs to be a new political movement. What makes them wrong, is that a new political movement needs to be all about change.

A new political movement needs to be very different and not just something else based on the kind of politics that we are all so very fed up of. Rehashed and rebranded, with the same value set and basically the creation of self serving politicians, in their own image, and created only for the purposes of allowing them to win.

Whilst we are seeing lots of arguments, gestures and words about being different, the people in power now have lost credibility.

They need to rethink the way that they see the worlds of the people they represent from a very different vantage point.

They must accept that the ambitious but necessary task of changing the British Political System is now very unlikely to be the kind of change which can come from within.

The kind of ‘change’ that we do not need in the British Political System

We don’t need any more of the same.

We don’t need the same politicians doing what they have been doing all along, rebranding their ‘new look’ as being different, when its all about them, the people who support them and gearing every decision towards winning the next election. There is already so much work to be done to address all the mess they have made since the last one without stopping for breath in between.

We certainly don’t need the creation of a new ‘people’s party’, only constructed from the Politicians and ideas that already exist. Yet another ‘club’ for the select few, created only to convince the majority of the British People through subterfuge, that when they Voted for a clean Brexit, they were wrong.

The kind of change that we do need from a political party which is going to do the right things

We need a new political movement that cuts across all of the political divides. That crosses the perceptual barriers of politicians who have become bogged down with political philosophy, with tribalism and forgetting what working for the people is actually supposed to be about.

When Politicians are thinking about everyone, there is no left. There is no right. There is no centre. There are no extremes.

There are just a great many different people, experiencing very different lives, with the genuine expectation that Politicians will rule and create policies for the benefit of everyone, rather than getting bogged down with ideas and focusing only on each and every divide.

We need leadership that understands the people that it seeks to lead. Decisions made which are respectful of all the realities which underpin the diversity of all our life experiences. The creation of thoughtful and intelligent policies that consider the overlap with all others. Recognition that addressing the causes of issues as well as the effects of them is the way to ensure fairness and success in public policy – The just aim upon which all political priorities should be founded and underpinned.

We need Politicians to get real. To get with a completely new script. To embrace a change which is not of their own making. Change that is not top-down in its thinking. Change that looks at reality from the grassroots up as the basis of affecting a real positive and cross-demographic transformation.

Above all, we need a model of being, which moves away from the obsessiveness of the political classes to be in control of absolutely everything. An agenda that identifies a direction of travel, a set of aspirations, standards and responsible guidelines to apply to all policy making, rather than getting stuck on every small detail.

We require a political system that will inspire and empower public servants to be all that they can be. To do their jobs properly and to not be obstructed by the fear of falling foul of a rights and political correctness. To be mindful that serving the public is not about personal gain, what looks good, or by avoiding any form of real responsibility, and that by deviating into the realms or protectionism and self-service, they will always be disadvantaging the people they serve.

How a real people’s party will get us all there

To get there, we must be practical about how a real people’s party would have to work and what approach it would need employ to achieve this.

To begin with, we must recognise what is wrong, what the fix will look like overall, and what steps must be taken in Politics for us all to succeed.

The reset requirement – It’s recognising that almost of the problems we have as a Society are about the way that we all think

Everything is relative to our experience.

Some of us feel like things are good.

Some of us feel like things are bad.

Some of us look beyond our own experiences; beyond our own bubbles to the experiences of others and to the realities of lifetimes around us, that we ourselves have never had.

Whether good or bad, everything we do is connected. It is easy to overlook or be unaware that when we ourselves gain a benefit from something, someone else might be losing out as a result.

It’s all a question of distance, whether we perceive that there is a human impact as a result of anything that we do, and whether there has been an impact upon somebody we have time and care about as a result.

Relationships are at the root of everything

The interconnectivity of the world today has already introduced significant distance between people, whatever the relationship between them might be.

Communication and the rise of the Internet is dehumanising relationships, putting reference numbers and categorisations in the place where simple humanity, care and thought for others and the impact of our decisions up until very recently would have been.

When we interact with our friends, families and the people know, we think and behave differently.

These relationships are based on interaction. They are real, they are tangible and above all they are human. They require us to employ the code for the people who are familiar to us and that we care about, that each and every one of us has developed as the way to live.

But once this familiarity is removed, we overlook the presence of this very same reality for everyone else outside this bubble of our own too.

We forget that the need for care and consideration doesn’t just disappear into the ether, as soon as knowing someone personally is one or more steps removed.

When we don’t recognise the value of others as being human, we place no value on the impact of the decisions or actions we take that have consequences for them.

Whilst modern technology and the diminishment of our communities is accelerating this process, it is nonetheless an age-old mistake to make.

A World around us that doesn’t care

Today, this behaviour is being acted out on a grand scale.

It has led to the world around us behaving very differently.

Far too many people are unaware of how making unnecessary profit or higher wages for themselves personally, is likely to result in making things harder for others, particularly where government or a third party interest like a business is perceived to be a middle man, making it very easy to forget that ‘real people’ are still involved.

Many of these self-focused people don’t see the impact or their actions played out around them – so their decisions are only made on the benefit of what is perceived as good or beneficial to them.

In life there are examples of this type of behaviour all around us, and it is regrettably all too easy for us to overlook it when it is behaviour of the people we consider close to us, or behaviour of our own.

To understand the impact of the unnecessary harvest of benefiting from the plight of others, or profiting without adding value to a product or service, we can cast our minds to one example, where things look different, but are relative and very much result in the same things.

The bankers and union bosses who take but don’t add value

Bankers and people working in the financial sector make money by creating debt.

They profit from someone else’s misery, and legally too. But they do so because the distance between them and the people they are exploiting means they have no concept or idea that the instruments or tools they create are pushing up prices for everyone else everywhere, causing distress, pain and misery.

Yet at the other end of the spectrum, Union leaders push for strikes, pay rises and action, framed as ‘it’s them against us’, whilst the impact of wage rises on employers, the frustration and worry caused by delays, the cost of living for others and price rises on the high streets are too easy for them to forget

These two seeming extremes may look different. But the thoughts which drive these actions are relative to the individuals and are very much the same thing.

Aims and principles, not just policies

Becoming an electable force is all about creating a manifesto for change.

A plan which is real because it has direction and cannot be tripped up simply by mistakes or misinterpretation in the way it implemented or rolled out.

Policies themselves must therefore be steps. Not the anchors upon which change itself is rested upon.

Policies must be open to change when they don’t work, further development when they do, and be receptive to all forms of criticism too.

Policies must also be interactive and made consultatively and with consideration for their impact upon other policy areas, without isolation and being collective in consideration and at every thought.

Aims, principles and therefore a genuine constitution are what a real party of the people will need to be secure in its direction, to be certain it knows what it is working to deliver and to be robust and adaptable enough to negotiate whatever terrain and environmental changes it might encounter as it seeks to evolve experiences as seamlessly as possible.

Fundamentally, the priorities of a real people’s party must be about the people, being committed to delivering something better for all. Being aspirational whilst also being practical and recognising that in a world built with free will, you cannot jump from where we are to where we want to be without taking many steps, some of which may resemble very different forms and directions on the roadway in between.

Aims and Principles are therefore the guiding lights that a real people’s party must use, choosing not to be misled by the devil in the detail, allowing through many forms of misinterpretation and interference for genuine direction to be overlooked.

 Law for Law’s sake

A legitimate people’s party that wants to deliver positive and far reaching change which will achieve real balance and true equality for all, will have no option but to tackle the rights lobby and the infliction of political correctness on almost everything that we now do, see and understand.

A real people’s party will also have to strike a balance between the forms of regulation and legal intervention that is required for the greater good, whilst removing the mass of bureaucracy which has not only changed the business landscape, but has been a constituent part of the modification of our culture and behaviours throughout.

A genuinely civilised society must have a framework of law to ensure that people are safe and able to thrive.

But beyond the basic requirement of ensuring that the right of any one individual or small group should never come before that of the wider community, that freedom should only exist as long as it does not come at involuntary cost to others, either in thought or material deed. However they may be applied, rules should only ever be used when there is practical need.

Everything else should be left to common sense, to people taking responsibility for themselves and their own actions, and the real time judgement of an impartial judiciary rather than using case history to create precedents upon which completely different circumstances can be viewed on a basis which is both inappropriate and wrong.

Increasing regulation and over regulation leads to decreasing levels of responsibility.

There exists a growing cultural phenomenon where regulating everything provides the perfect excuse for participants to see themselves as devoid of personal responsibility for anything they do that isn’t already regulated for. They do so on the basis that anything which isn’t covered isn’t regulated, and therefore isn’t covered by the Law.

At a time that so much distance exists between people who are interacting and engaging in relationships of all kinds all of the time, the need has never been greater to encourage and reengage people with the idea that they are personally responsible. That their actions cause reactions and have consequences. That whatever they do or whatever action they might take, just because a law or regulation doesn’t exist to cover a particular act or behaviour, the absence of a rule is not a get out of jail free card and certainly doesn’t make it right.

The saturation of regulation that we have in settings ranging from academia to the workplace, covering everything from how we must treat people during recruitment to the rules covering what bankers can lend as opposed to what they must have access to has allowed far to may people in positions of influence to behave irresponsibly, and to do so with impunity, well knowing that they can be seen to be doing what is expected of them by the rules – and that as such, what they are doing is actually right.

For a real people’s party to deliver on the aim of creating the kind of environment where people can live on a basic wage and do so without having to resort to getting into debt, or progress in their lives, being socially mobile and cross barriers without interference from people who have their own agendas but work around the rules, it is the responsibility of that party to create the environment where prejudice and greed are voluntarily extinguished, rather than a continuation of coercive attempts to do the same.

Brexit offers a significant opportunity to achieve the delivery of an environment where a belief in the good of everyone as part of the wider community exists. Where prejudice is reduced to nothing more than misplaced thought as a reaction to the perception of difference – which in truth is all that it is.

Many of the regulations which have created so many of the cultural problems that we are now experiencing in the UK have been introduced as either a direct or indirect result of EU legislation.

Nobody should be under any illusion that overturning rules which have been sold as being beneficial because they sound like they improve people’s lives will be easy.

Without manipulation or coercion, and by simply doing what is right, people will soon conclude for themselves and understand that no form of positive discrimination is delivered without there being negative consequences, often for many others, on the other side.

The role of Money

If rules and regulations are one of the key challenges which will face any truly legitimate people’s party working for the benefit of all people, the other will be addressing the impact, influence, role and perception of money which at one time or another, we all get completely wrong.

Within just a generation, virtually every profession you could name has lost its pure focus upon ethics and quality of delivery. The lines have instead been blurred for many operating within them by a juggling act between what is expected or what is considered ethically good, and how much money can be justified for doing what they do.

This is part of a fundamental problem for our wider Society which is closely aligned to the issue of the meaning and application of ethics itself.

However, it is also influenced by the lack of control and regulation on profit making from Government. Inaction which has also resulted in the growing presence of agents or brokers introducing themselves needlessly into supply lines, raising profits but adding no value as they do so.

This whole sorry affair, based on an obsession with money is having a significant effect on the cost of living for us all and is making it virtually impossible to create an environment where a genuine living wage could be identified and then maintained.

The freedom of markets from control and responsible capitalism are not mutually exclusive things

There is nothing wrong with wanting to do well. To have a good life and have the money necessary to allow that to happen.

But seeking far more than you could ever need for your own comfort only contributes to sucking money out of the system.

It raises all costs for everyone else who instead of hoarding, are no longer in the position to pay for what they have been used to having already, let alone being in the position to enjoy any more.

It is the prices at the top of the chain which set the financial values on life at all levels below and there is more than enough to go around.

Ethically, the drive to earn ridiculous amounts of money has been facilitated by the lack of regulation on a financial sector which is legitimately allowed to print its own money, creating profit from misery as it would be known if it were viewed directly in a non-monetary form.

Lenders and the sectors or industries they support push many normal people into debt by taking value out of transactions where it doesn’t exist, whilst using money that they never themselves ever had, and then push the same people into other forms of debt just so that they can service, or obtain whatever their diminishing salaries now fail to provide.

The financial industry and the sectors which are aligned with and support it are now farming people for debt.

This is a legitimate racket which must be closed down and de-sanitised by a party which is really working for the people, which respects the benefits of capitalism and growth, but in legitimised forms and not are simple forms of one person making profit by exploiting and riding off another persons back.

The role of Political Philosophy must change to one where ideas are a guide or reference tool, rather than being seen as a way of being

As soon as the word ‘politics’ is mentioned, you will have surely experienced that internal jolt that reminds you where your political loyalties lie.

Many of us are conditioned in our political biases by our upbringing. By the people we mix with and ultimately by the environment that we work in. These are all influences that help us to decide which political direction we are likely to target our votes in.

But how much do we really understand about the political philosophies which underpin key Political Parties like the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats?

How much do these ideas really influence the Parties and the way that they are run and what they do every day, rather than being just forms of words that they can use as a backdrop, or more cynically just as a message they can role out at Election time in a blurb which is designed to help them win?

The reality is that the philosophies which underpin, Conservatism, Capitalism, Liberalism, Socialism and regrettably Marxism too, are not practical plans for running a Country or putting problems right.

These ‘Philosophies’ are simply ideas which are based upon the outlooks of very academically inclined or theoretic people, created within very different periods of history and circumstances that are nothing like our own, and in almost every case were idealistic prose which had no understanding of the practical outcomes of applying or imposing them by law in real life.

A good example of how a very basic situation can be completely skewed and effectively rewritten as something completely different comes in the form of the European Referendum Vote, which by a majority gave the instruction to Government, that the UK was to leave.

Within a matter of days, and after the coining of the term ‘Brexit’, what was a direct and simple instruction had morphed into ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ forms, as the Establishment, the opinionators and the thinkers attempted to create meanings which had never before existed, simply because they were motivated to find another route which would suit their own aims. One which they could sell as being that of others, well knowing that their own plan had never been meant by those others as any such thing.

We can learn much from reading and understanding the works of people like Adam Smith, Keynes, Marx and John Stuart Mill.

But their writings were just a snapshot, and not a blue print for implementation in another era and time.

Like all academic work used responsibly, these writers inform, guide and help with practical application.

But these writings are teaching tools. They are very much open to very different forms of interpretation in how they might or could be used in practical plans and should not be considered as either a blueprint or process. They are a resource, nothing more, and there is no benefit beyond.

As we look across the political platforms, and consider what ideas and motivations lie within them all, we can soon start to see that there is much commonality in the depth and background of thought.

It is just the language used and differing communication, wrapped in tribal dress which can encourage us to love a certain perspective of an idea or a policy, which presented differently by others would provide us with nothing to which we wish to respond.

The Political Party System in the UK today has driven wedges between all of us, because Electoral success is derived from the politics of difference, not in working together and using what we actually have in common between all of us, which could in turn be used to deliver something meaningful for all.

What is common between all of us together, can always be used to bring us together as one

To be successful, a new Party of the People would recognise and embrace the true forms of commonality between all of us.

By establishing itself on the basis of what has already been identified as the difference between the ideas that drive it and other existing Political Parties, no matter where in the political spectrum they are perceived to exist – whether left, right, somewhere in the middle or out on the extremes, they will immediately fail, because the priority is not about people, but the gaps and thin air which sits in-between.

Taking ambition out of politics

Passion and ambition are not the same thing. Yet ambition can be misinterpreted as passion and being passionate in your ambition is essential when its all about getting a win.

Politics today has lost its way.

Not because the idea of government and public service is any less valid that it ever has been.

But because the politicians within politics have forgotten what public service is meant for and what being an elected representative really means.

It is regrettably the case that we have reached a point in time where people rarely enter politics to do something beneficial for their communities or the people who elected them.

People don’t seek election to a public decision-making body because they are motivated to deliver something better for all.

And that’s the way that politics should be, with the only ambition being that everyone should be able to feel that they can win.

Politics has become a career pathway, and a system has been created in which the participants are only subservient to the Political Parties which nominate them to represent Seats.

Members and the Seats that they should represent are seen as little more than pieces in a jigsaw to the Leaders of that Party, in a game of arithmetic in which the highest sum of seats, rather than the will of the people is the figure that wins.

To reconnect people with politics, create engagement and policies which really consider what should be, how it could be and what happens to those not directly involved if it is made to be so, a real people’s party must overturn the current view of politics.

A real people’s party must exist on the premise that the politicians that represent it cannot be in politics purely for themselves. They cannot be interested in only making decisions which are beneficial to them, to their careers, or in winning the favour of anyone else they believe will help their ‘career’ and support them to win.

Being a representative of the people is not a right and it is not a job.

Being a representative of the people is a responsibility and a privilege. One that should only be available to those who can see that responsibility to the people who elected them for all that it really is.

A genuine people’s party will be conscious of what it really is.

A real people’s party will be a framework to support the work of politicians who are focusing their efforts on working together, not for personal glory or the next electoral win.

It will be a support network, there to help committed representatives of the people to deliver hard decisions. It will recognise what it takes to win on behalf of everyone at the end when the objective is reached, rather than losing sight of the big picture and becoming obsessed with the small details in policy battles, which litter the roadway in between.

Great politicians and representatives of the people offer the greatest benefit to their constituencies through the accumulation of their other experiences. Through the time they have spent accumulating knowledge of the wider issues around life. In developing the communication and interpretation skills which enable them to explore, to understand and to interpret the experiences of others which they themselves cannot have, and to make reasoned analysis of the many grey areas that sit in between.

A genuine people’s party must select candidates for elected offices based on what they can genuinely offer and bring to the party and its way of being, which is to improve the lives of all people and be beneficial to all.

Selection should never be made simply upon how applicants present themselves or what they can show on paper as a currency which the shallow minds within the Political Parties of today see as qualification in their own image.

A real party of the people will never overlook the true needs of Voters and what it takes a good politician to be representative at all levels. Whether that’s dealing with a constituent who doesn’t know who collects their Council Tax, or managing a fraught relationship with the foreign minister of another country who is demanding that all of us surrender our culture and sense of being, placing our heritage and history in the bin.

A true party of the people, must cast aside any process of diminishing the responsibility of new entrants and be mindful of the responsibilities which each politician has to their own respective seat, rather than demanding a level of loyalty which gives the lie to the idea of democracy itself.

Compromise is not necessary when motivation and delivery are about what’s in the best interests of everyone, rather than just of those directly involved.

 Yes, politicians must group together for the purposes of getting things done. But if decisions are made mindfully on the basis of what’s best for everybody, all will be supportive.

 A new world – Respecting rather than surrendering to technology

One of the areas that a real People’s party must quickly come to populate with ethics and guidelines is the online world.

Today we live our lives in parallel universes with two totally different sets of rules. But there exists a dangerous imbalance of influence which sees the dehumanised rules of relationships created in the space of distance, back-flowing into real life from the online world.

Chaos is the natural state of everything. And when a world of chaos exists in overlap with one which was seemingly ordered, without safeguards being put in place, and through an increasing state of entropy, it is the chaos coming from the other unordered side that will overrule and win.

The aims of a real people’s party must respect the way that the world has changed and is changing, but must also shift the cultural perception that the online world has no barriers, because if it does not do so, then no barriers will exist in between.

Such an approach would be catastrophic with the ever increasing rate of rise in new technologies which are making contact with everyone and anything very simple. But with currently very little in the form of governance to ensure the safety of all, whilst encouraging developments and growth, we desperately need safeguards and devices which create balance.

The EU – Having friends and trading partners is one thing. Losing control quite another. We can only deliver true power locally, if we bring it back properly to its true source and where it begins

Very few of the Politicians who currently represent us genuinely understand the relationship that we have with the EU, and what Membership of the EU actually means.

There is a complete disconnect with both the history and detail underpinning events right from when and how the idea of a United Europe was created, to how EU Policy and its legislation is created and then implemented right across the Block of once independent Countries that now make up its Membership.

Power is steadily being taken away from the people, and centralised not in our capital cities such as Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh or London. But beyond the reach of us all in the European Centre of Brussels where democracy doesn’t exist.

However, it is not enough simply to rely on Brexit to deliver the level of change which the no vote against EU Membership instigated.

It wont.

Not because its not the right thing to do. It is, but it is little more than just a policy step and there is much more that a party of the people could realistically do.

Power must be brought back to as close to the people as it is possible to do so. Not through the creation of additional and meaningless additional political structures such as police and crime commissioners and regional mayors which have already had too much time and must go.

But by bringing real power back to County Councils, Boroughs and Districts and to the Towns and Parishes at the most local level, where people can be involved most closely in day-to-day decision making on behalf of our communities, instead of leaving decisions to be made under the umbrellas of polices made in London by people who will never experience the fall out from their ideas, which without practical understanding should be back for determination in our localities instead.

Those who argue that the EU is about democracy and people do not understand the affront to real democracy that it really is. Sold as being about peace standards and equality, its true aim is little more than centralised control. Yet the rise of political parties has done much of the same thing too, and this is why Brexit should only be seen as a step in the right direction and that direction must be bringing real decisions that will effect us on a day to day basis back to the level where those decisions can be made by me and by you.

The Electoral system

If the focus is shifted back to representation of the people, rather than selecting a party machine selling a raft of policies which are only relevant for a brief snapshot of time, First Past The Post (FPTP) will once again demonstrate how it is best suited to the needs of a real democracy.

Proportional Representation will only ever suit the needs of people who are only obsessed with getting elected so that they can impose ideologies on us all, and wherever possible without ever having to come to us for a meaningful Vote.

Proportional Representation is a travesty and a tool created to work the Political System. Popular only because Politicians are failing us all with policies and ideas that we don’t relate to and which are completely out of touch.

A real people’s party will bring power back to the people through genuine representation. Through power being given back through decision making at the correct level and as close to the people as it is practical for it to be. And by ensuring that the best people are elected to represent other people and communities by prioritising the needs of the whole community on an ongoing basis and not by being what appears to be the best choice on one day and behaving like you can do what the hell you like and call it in the best interests of everyone on the other eighteen-hundred-and-twenty-five.

The Executive

A real People’s party will accept that one of the greatest but most meaningful challenges that they will have to face will be the reform public services from top to bottom.

A genuine people’s party will need to do this in order to ensure that government always working for the benefit of everyone is not simply another aspiration which can quickly be written off or denied.

The executive parts of Government, that’s the Civil Service, the Offices of Local Government and the roles which exist throughout the massive number of QUANGOs* must be refocused, reformed and re-tasked in order for a People focused Party to succeed.

Public servants must work within a non-protectionist culture that like the elected offices of this way of being encourages responsibility for others to be accepted as a privilege, not one where public service is treated as a myth, and roles exist as fiefdoms where blame for anything can be passed on to others with no worry about costs, which right now have escalated up into the sky.

*QUANGOs = Quasi-non-government organisations. These are the grey-area organisations like the Highways Agency, The Environment Agency and the Food Standards Agency which are jam packed with civil servants undertaking key work on public things, but effectively run without being answerable to anyone democratically elected.

The role of Media

One of the key elements of making politics what it should be for a real Party of the People, will be restoring the role of the traditional and main stream media (MSM) to carrying wholly factual news, rather than the overproduction of quasi-news programming which presents unqualified opinion and bias as qualified fact.

The assent of fake news as an issue has much to do with the role of the MSM being blurred with the developing role of social media channels where pretty much anything goes.

Well known stations have done this to chase headlines and clicks, which itself is more of a reflection of what commercialism is all about.

But it is not the responsibility of politicians to play up to this, and any collaboration in news sensationalism must be removed as a key part of the communication platform of a real People’s party so that the definitive line between factual transmission and fake news can be restored.

A system where an embargo system allow news channels to consider and even comment on speeches before they have even been delivered and have reached the public domain gives the lie to the legitimacy of the whole thing.

The cosiness has to stop, so that full public trust can be restored, and decision making on behalf of the public no longer viewed as a celebrity game.

From the Grassroots up

Above everything, a people’s party in government will remember and be mindful of one key thing. That every single person in this country has the same value and is as important as the next.

It is easy to become distracted by success, wealth, celebrity and popularity. But these states of experience or being are all transient at best.

Their prioritisation leads to consequences for all. Instead of judging the state of society by how people live and therefore influence at the top, a real People’s party will use the benchmark at which those who are experiencing their most difficult times in life, have had their lives defined.

Quality of life must be defined from the grassroots up.

It’s the metaphorical process of growing from seed to fruit and doing everything to nurture and provide the ideal environment for all who are so inclined.

A Real People’s Party will succeed by understanding and embracing the true reality of Mutual Aims

Ultimately, the priority of any genuine people’s party, should be to fulfil the expectations of the responsibility that they have been given, within the timescale which the electoral system has defined.

Put simply, if a People’s party Government has a five years term their priority should be the fullest commitment on the delivery of priorities, not the next election and the manipulation of public opinion in relation to everything that happens in between.

No matter what difficulties or challenges that a Government might encounter during the period of its elected term, if it is doing everything that it can to meet its responsibilities, its electability at the next election should be a happy consequence as a result of their actions, rather than just being a prioritised and all-absorbing future outcome.

Read this Blog on your Kindle

Small decisions have BIG consequences: How the outcome of the Brexit process could resemble nothing anyone intended or anything that has already been seen

October 19, 2018 1 comment

small decisions

One of the biggest items of fake news reaching our screens and pages right now, is the idea, suggestion and misconception that Brexit must now come back to the People in another Referendum or ‘Peoples Vote’ to somehow make it legitimate or fair.

On 23rd June 2016, the majority of Voters taking part in the European Referendum, a genuine ‘Peoples Vote’ instructed the UK Government that our collective and democratic decision was to Leave Membership of the European Union (EU).

Contrary to repeated suggestions by many parts of the Remain camp and actions such as making challenges in the Courts and distorting the facts underlining both the Leave and Remain Campaigns and what has taken place since, the Vote was fair. The Leave result was genuine. And yes, 17.4 Million members of the Electorate of this Country did know what leaving the EU means.

However, an outcome is rarely an event in itself.

An outcome is usually the sum total of a chain of many different events or decisions leading to them, which can result in the outcome itself looking, feeling or being nothing like what the original decision directed. The result could resemble something far from what was was intended, and what it should have meant, simply because of decisions, influences and actions that enter the chain in between.

In normal life, this evolutionary process is often natural, influenced by many factors added on the way along, which are not intended on the part of anyone involved. They sit completely outside of our control and often lead to outcomes very different to what had been at any point planned or intended, but the result is overlooked, because the non-contrived and unforeseen parts of life have been introduced to the picture as we have travelled through.

Where things go wrong, particularly where big, political decisions are made, is that when a clear outcome from a process is defined, somebody or many somebodies either deliberately, or indeed unintentionally attempt and perhaps succeed in exerting influence on the process leading to that outcome.

They take action which ultimately leads things to a very different place from where they should have by that point have been, whether part of the legitimate plan, or whatever was their own. Different, because whatever the intention, once an action has been undertaken, the consequences in such circumstances are often completely out of anyones control.

Brexit is one such outcome. An outcome which is likely to look very different to what was intended when people Voted for it and equally very different to what those who have been trying to frustrate it have been intending ever since.

Whilst we obsess about the future and what we think will happen, we habitually base our predictions on the snapshot of now. We overlook the events which contributed or created the pathway which brought us to this point in time right now, which with different decisions and influences could have already looked very different indeed.

We also overlook what pandering to the noisy fears of idealistic people without vision or responsibility could deliver in terms of the final destination, if the real priorities of our EU departure are not kept in mind and the direction of travel kept patently clear.

Brexit, and the decision which demands its delivery in its genuine sense, wasn’t simply created on that night when the Votes of the EU Referendum were counted in June 2016.

But just as the UK Leaving the EU as the result of a Referendum wasn’t foreseen in the days of Thatcher, it doesn’t now mean that there is a trouble-free license to interfere with, redirect or invalidate the will of the British people when it comes to delivering the Brexit process, by manipulating the pathway to delivery at every opportunity in between.

Looking back on the events since the UK joined what was the Common Market, it is worth considering since the last days of the Thatcher Government, how each event and small decision surrounding Government has resulted in the cumulative outcome which is Brexit today.

The Brexit result did not come about by design although many Leavers would now leverage the benefit of hindsight to say ‘We told you so’.

Yes, there was every reason to believe that the UK would ultimately exit the European Union through some kind of fracture like an economic crash or the destruction of the Euro. But nobody either within the Leave contingent or the Remain-led Establishment itself really thought it would be a democratic plebiscite which would drive a wholly different, yet legitimate wedge between the UK and Membership of the EU.

The point to consider, whether your bias is Leave or Remain, is that no matter the nature or motivation of your intention, when you interfere with a process or take a course of action where you are attempting to dictate the outcome, you can neither predict nor control what the final result or outcome will actually be.

These words of caution are aimed at anyone who is, has or will attempt to manipulate the pathway or destination of Brexit.

Brexit is a genie that is completely out of its bottle and the result of all the bad choices, deliberate deceptions and meddling is going to take the UK to a destination which has not been anticipated, cannot be controlled and will never again resemble a place in the World where even recently we may have been.

The first real divide which resembled what we now know as Leave and Remain found its genesis at the time of the Thatcher Government.

The fractures came about because of the way that what we now know as the EU has been constructed, how it operates and how so little about its modus operandi is understood.

The pathway, often littered with wholly pro-EU acts on the part of Prime Ministers and their Cabinet Colleagues who should have known better, ultimately led to the Brexit Vote result. An outcome that was never the Establishment’s intention.

If you want to give thought to how Brexit could now play out as a result of the fractures and differences in ideas between people who should now be focusing on what we have in common, rather than the temporary ideas that we do not, this is probably the best place to begin.

The European Referendum Vote was the opening of the door and the outcome of a chain of many different events.

It wasn’t an instruction for MP’s or other people with Establishment influence to try and negotiate the steps that we take to get out.

The Result was a call to action. The Vote was a command. The outcome was a clear instruction that we Leave and only then review what remains between the UK and the EU. We the Electorate had no reason to doubt that it would be delivered in a way which would be fair, transparent and above all would be diligently true to that instruction.

Here follows a look at the Chain of events which led to the European Referendum result; to May’s tenure, and to a future which is far from certain.

Just as the events discussed and speculated upon before the EU Referendum led to the requirement of a Brexit outcome, the impact and consequences of the events and outcomes that have followed leave us today in the position that we cannot be sure of what will come to pass. That is before anything else is decided or done, and the choices which lead to those decisions and actions may be small, or they may appear to be large.

PLEASE NOTE: The following has been written as a way of provoking thought about events and outcomes that have happened compared to what could have been if different decisions had been made and subsequent actions taken. It is not a suggestion that any of the circumstances outlined would definitely have happened if different choices had actually been made. It also doesn’t consider the impact of the many other options which those involved had, or the events and outcomes that did and could have influenced any one or indeed all of the events as they appear in this inexhaustive list.

 1990

Margaret Thatcher ‘Regicide’ by the Conservative Party Europhiles

‘No, No, No’ seems like ancient history now. But many of us overlook the key event to the creation of the schism between Conservatives who at any other time would be friends.

Like all of our new, ambitious and confident Prime Ministers since, Margaret Thatcher underestimated the resolve and deviousness of the EU to achieve their long-term aim of a European Superstate through a drip-drip-drip strategy built on ‘no-return’ for each and every power transferred to the Brussels based autocratic centre.

When the point came for Mrs Thatcher, when she knew things had already gone too far, many of her closest Cabinet Members had already gone ‘Euro-native’. They were committed to this supranational, undemocratic ideal and were unwilling to support the Prime Minister in doing anything to turn things around.

The key players in bringing down the last real Tory PM, such as the still vocal Michael (now Lord) Heseltine, didn’t themselves gain the Conservative Party Leadership as part of this first of many disengaging and disenfranchising processes with the public.

Instead, under the typical Europhile appearance of compromise, the post was given to one of the biggest pro-Europe Conservatives we have ever seen.

What if different decisions had been made: It is easy to look back and assume that things would have been different if Maggie had stayed. She may well have given us the Referendum that her successor never did before the Maastricht Treaty was signed and in 1991 or 1992. She could have easily secured the solid working majority Commons that Major was not destined to do. But after 11 years of Leadership including 3 General Election Wins, a war in the Falklands and many battles with the EU and domestically back home, we can only wonder if she had the energy and clout left to take the Conservatives into another Term. As any eurosceptic who was around at the time would honestly tell you, the public at large were not at that point really awake to the creeping control and danger presented by the then version of the EU, and it’s impact had not arrived in ways that put the issue firmly in people’s minds.

John Major ‘Crowned’ PM

In what seemed like an unexpected choice to those watching on from a distance, the open warfare in the Conservative Party following Margaret Thatcher’s ejection from Office led to the Election of what appeared to be a compromise candidate – John Major.

Coming immediately from the post of Chancellor, Major had just overseen the entry of the UK into the EU’s Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), the precursor to the Single Currency or ‘Euro’.

What if different decisions had been made: Although a growing element of the Parliamentary Conservative Party was becoming increasingly suspicious of the direction of EU travel, few had the understanding that Thatcher had belatedly obtained. The appearance of a split in the philosophical framework of the Conservative Party made what was sold as compromise in the selection of a replacement for Margaret Thatcher all but inevitable. John Major had a track record at Cabinet level, what was at the time seen as being an essential qualification for the ‘top job’. Another Conservative Leader could have been Elected, but Thatcher was likely to have been the only Leader capable of taking on the EU at that time. She was not supported by the ‘big beasts’ to do so, so any new Leader who was in anyway Eurosceptic was going to have a very troubled time. 

1992

Maastricht Treaty

John Major’s ‘big moment’ was committing the UK to the Maastricht Treaty in early 1992.

What if different decisions had been made: The significance of Maastricht along the road to surrendering more and more power to the EU cannot be overstated. It is arguably true that this was a point when a Referendum on Membership should have been held.

We cannot be sure that a Vote at this point would have gone against remaining and therefore further committing to the EU or that the result would have instructed Major’s Government to Leave.

With three distinct groups present in the European Membership debate i.e. those who are blindly committed to the EU superstate, those who don’t care or aren’t really sure what any of it’s about and those who are against it, it is reasonably safe to argue that in 1992, the deck was still stacked to what we now know as ‘Remain’.

Members of the second group are always more likely to endorse the status quo, whatever direction that might be.

If Major had gone to the People, what question would he have asked? Was it even possible to ask a question which wouldn’t then have created a debate in which the ‘European Dream’ could not therefore last?

As it was, Major doubled down and used every trick in the politicians handbook to push greater commitment to the EU through, ironically outing the Euroscpetics as ‘Bastards’ for using the same methods that he was too.

General Election

Major’s Conservatives win an unexpected, but wafer thin majority.

What if different decisions had been made: Neil Kinnock, then Labour Leader and perhaps an even bigger Europhile than John Major would have made it into No.10. Significant tranches of EU assimilation policy such as Devolution/Regionalisation may well have made it onto the Statute book sooner. We may not have been taken out of the ERM, which in turn could have committed us to losing the Pound and gaining the single currency. Labour may never have had John Smith or Tony Blair as Leaders. We could have had a Tory Government again at the end of Kinnock’s first Term in 1996 or 1997. There is no certainty that we would have become involved in the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, if in turn they had happened.

John Smith becomes Labour Leader

With Neil Kinnock having failed to Lead the Labour Party back to power in either 1987 or 1992, it was time for him to step down.

John Smith, the respected Scottish Labour MP was elected Labour Leader and settled in to taking Labour in a new direction.

What if different decisions had been made: Had another Labour MP been Elected Opposition Leader at this point, there is a very good chance that they would have led Labour into the 1997 General Election rather than Tony Blair. This could have presented the Electorate with a very different choice and may have been the end of the New Labour project before it even began.

UK exit from the ERM

John Major’s most regrettable moment was the day that then Chancellor Norman (Now Lord) Lamont had to take the UK out of the ERM.

What if different decisions had been made:  Our economy could have been destroyed by staying within the harmonisation system, owing to the ERM requirement for the currencies of Members States to be very tightly synchronised. Up and coming politicians such as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown might not have seen the obvious risks of adopting the Euro as a shared currency. John Major might have gone on to win the 1997 General Election, bearing in mind that it was events like this which allowed Major’s Conservative Party to be financially inept, when the truth was no such thing.

1994

Tony Blair becomes Labour Leader

Following the untimely death of John Smith, the Labour Party Leadership Contest that followed was a watershed moment for the Labour Party and was to become the point that the New Labour project as an electoral force was born.

What if different decisions had been made: Another Labour MP would have been their Leader. Gordon Brown may have taken the job. Labour may not have won the 1997 General Election. Labour May not have won three General Elections in a row. The Iraq War might never of happened or the UK might never have become involved. Labour’s 1997-2010 overspend and the 2010 onwards period of ‘Austerity’ might never have come into being.

1997

General Election

New Labour’s historic landslide victory decimated the Tory Party, destroyed Conservative confidence and committed the UK to the direction of a charismatic and equally ambitious Prime Minister who saw their career as being very much aligned towards a bigger ‘world’ stage.

What if different decisions had been made: John Major’s Conservatives may have won another Term. There may have been a hung parliament or coalition government. Devolution might never of happened. The Scottish Parliament might not exist. The Welsh Assembly might not exist. We might not have signed the Lisbon Treaty. We might never have entered the single market as it stands today. We might never have had a question over Free Movement and Immigration. We may never have been involved in Iraq of Afghanistan. We might never have had such a significant debt in 2010, that Austerity – even as an idea had been deemed necessary. We might already have been out of Europe.

William Hague becomes Tory Leader

20 Years after his famous Conservative Party Conference Speech as a 16 year old, William Hague is elected Leader of the Conservative Party.

Inheriting a Parliamentary group which felt itself destroyed by the Labour victory earlier that year, Hague effectively walked into a role where keeping the Conservative Party engine running was about all that he could reasonably do in the circumstances. His greatest unacknowledged success was likely to be preventing the Party from becoming the spent force that it could have been.

What if different decisions had been made: Conservative Party may never have returned to Government. Hague may have become Tory Leader later, and then even PM himself.

1997 onwards

Devolution

Probably one of the biggest fibs told by Blair, his Government and the Labour Party was the one about his idea for Devolution and the ‘devolved Assemblies’.

Always part of the ‘European Plan’ to break up National identities into smaller, controllable Regions that could never again seek to acquire or execute power in a national form, on his ascendency Blair immediately embraced Devolution to win favour with the heads of the EU. He actually sold it to the Public as being a process of bringing democracy closer to people.

The truth was that Devolution and Regionalisation was all part of a process of creating hollow forms of ‘localised’ Government with real power being taken away from the UK and deposited undemocratically in Brussels to be used in a very different and autocratic form.

The sprat to catch the mackerel was the things like big funding giveaways to local areas, all branded as being available only with European Funding. You’ve seen the signs telling you everywhere that it was European Money being spent on this project and that. But this was always British Taxpayers money, redistributed, rebranded and packaged as a way of promoting European generosity when it was quite another thing altogether. It was a bribe in its most basic form.

What if different decisions had been made: There might not have been a Scottish Parliament. The SNP might have never secured an Independence Vote. Nicola Sturgeon may never have been the Holyrood Lead. Ruth Davidson might already be an MP in the Westminster Parliament. The UK might not have been at significant risk of breakup as it is today.

1999

Establishment of Scottish Parliament

Following the Devolution process, the Scottish Parliament was first established in May 1999.

What if different decisions had been made: We may never have had the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum. David Cameron may never have weaponised the SNP by making unnecessary concessions the morning after. The Conservatives might never have won a majority in the 2015 General Election. The 2016 European Referendum may never have happened. Brexit as a word could have never been invented. None of us would now be worrying what Leave might look like. Theresa May might never have been Prime Minister. We might now have Ed Milliband as Prime Minister, working his way towards a 2020 General Election. Jeremy Corbyn might never have become Labour Leader.

2001

General Election

Tony Blair’s New Labour win an almost identical result to the 1997 General Election, leaving the Conservative Party well and truly stumped.

What if different decisions had been made: William Hague might have been Prime Minister. There could have been a completely different Leader of the Labour Party soon after. We might have left Afghanistan earlier. We might never have been involved in the Iraq War. We might now have had a Labour Government led by a politician who we will now never know.

Iain Duncan Smith becomes Tory Leader

William Hague steps down and hands over the Opposition Leadership keys to Iain Duncan Smith (IDS).

The only real commonality between the two is being the butt of press ridicule and the hard reality that under both periods of Leadership, the Conservative Party appears to be going nowhere.

What if different decisions had been made: It’s quite possible that another Tory MP would have become Conservative Party Leader. The Tories might have won the 2005 General Election. We might never have been involved in Iraq.

You are beginning to get the picture.

2003

Michael Howard becomes Tory Leader

IDS accepts that he cannot lead the Conservative Party as it is. Michael (Now Lord) Howard has previous Government experience, is a ‘seasoned’ politician and is Elected Party Leader.

Howard’s arrival heralds the first real indications that the Conservative Party is ready to embrace change.

What if different decisions had been made: The Conservative Party might have not returned to Government in 2010. David Cameron may not have been Elected Tory Leader in 2005 and become Prime Minister in 2010. The SNP might not have bee given a Referendum. Brexit may never have happened….

Are you starting to picture the links?

2005

General Election

Tony Blair wins New Labour Election Victory No.3. The Tories pick up a few seats and there is a sense of small change, but in practical terms, at this stage at least, it resembles none.

What if different decisions had been made: Michael Howard would have been Prime Minister. Gordon Brown might never have become Labour Leader and in 2007, the PM. David Cameron may never have become Tory Leader. The Lisbon Treaty may never have been signed. The Immigration issue might never have materialised. The Scottish Referendum might never have happened. Brexit might not have been invented. We might now have another Labour Government with a PM who would have been….?

David Cameron becomes Tory Leader

Following the Tories third successive defeat to New Labour, Michael Howard knows that he has to do what is best for the direction of the Conservative Party which means only one thing.

Howard remains leader whilst a Tory Leadership Campaign takes shape, leaving contenders ‘2001 new boy David Cameron’ and ‘Europhile Big Beast Ken Clarke’ to fight it out for a Membership Vote Win.

David Cameron wins the Leadership race and becomes Tory Leader.

What if different decisions had been made: Ken Clarke might have become Prime Minister in 2010. We might now be more involved with the EU than ever before and Brexit would for many still be a hopeless dream. Gordon Brown might have won a Labour Majority in 2010, or at worst, been the leader of a Labour/Lib Dem Coalition, with the Tories perhaps broken, reforming as a new party or doing something else somewhere in between. The Milliband Brothers might still have been on a Labour Front Bench. Jeremy Corbyn could still be out of sight on the back benches.

2007

Gordon Brown ‘Crowned’ PM

Awaiting his moment noisily in No.11, Gordon Brown became Prime Minister on Tony Blair’s Resignation in June 2007.

Without the same skills and attributes of his immediate predecessor, Brown was unable to wow the crowds. The biggest moment of his tenure probably came with the event of the 2007-2008 Financial Crisis when his Government bailed out the privately owned Banks using Public Money, thereby sending the National Debt stratospheric from the point where after 10 years of Labour profligate spending already, it should never ever have already been.

What if different decisions had been made: We might have had a different Labour Prime Minister from 2007 until the next General Election which could have come in 2009 or 2010. Labour could have won a majority in 2010 or been the lead player in a hung parliament. David Cameron might never have been PM. Nick Clegg could still be in frontline Politics. The Lib Dems could now have been the third biggest Party in Parliament.

2010

General Election

The result of the General Election is hung.

Backroom deals are the flavour of the day, and whilst Brown sits it out in No.10 hoping for enough support to patch together a ‘Rainbow Coalition’ which keeps the Tories out of power, Nick Clegg does a deal with David Cameron which creates the Coalition Government with Cameron as PM and Clegg as Deputy PM.

As part of ‘the deal’, Cameron agrees to a Referendum on an Alternative Vote system. The two also agree to pass the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which technically secures a standard 5-year term for any Government, and removes the ability of a sitting PM to call a General Election without having to ‘work’ the Parliamentary system to do so.

A disproportionate number of Lib Dem MP’s secure Ministerial Office, causing significant upset within the Conservative Party.

Nick Clegg is forced to renege on his commitment to scrap Tuition Fees for Students.

Gordon Brown steps down as Labour Party Leader.

What if different decisions had been made: Gordon Brown could have remained PM and leader of a ‘Rainbow Coalition made up of Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP etc. David Cameron might have resigned. The Scottish Independence Referendum might have been held and Independence won. There might not have been an EU Referendum in 2016. There might have been a different Conservative Leader of the opposition fighting the 2015 General Election. David Milliband could have been the next Labour Leader.

Ed Milliband becomes Labour Leader

Now consigned to the memory of just a few, Gordon Brown’s departure left a vacancy which led to a fight between two ambitious politicians, but one of a family kind too.

Both David Milliband, who had ministerial experience, and his younger brother Ed, squared up to each other in a campaign which to this day has a cloud over it because of the way that the Labour Party attributed votes to this Leadership race.

Despite lacking the level of credibility of his older brother, Ed won the Labour Leadership.

What if different decisions had been made: David Milliband could have become Labour Leader and might now have been Prime Minister too. Jeremy Corbyn might never have become Labour Leader. Theresa May might never have become Prime Minister. Boris could still have been London Mayor.

2011

The Alternative Vote Referendum (AV)

Purely at the insistence of new Deputy PM Nick Clegg, and as one of the key ‘prices’ of 5 years support in Coalition for the Tory-led Government and David Cameron as PM, a Referendum was held in early May to consider replacing the First Past The Post electoral system with AV instead.

Based on Proportional Representation, the system favours small Political Parties and moves the emphasis from voting for a named representative to direct Party support.

Proportional Representation is a much less democratic system, focusing the shift towards supporting policy in a snapshot moment, which is always thereafter subject to change, in stead of providing the opportunity to select the best person to represent a constituency and be responsible in adapting to the changes during their elected term, but always doing so in respect of the common good.

The vote was lost by an overwhelming majority against the change of 67.9%.

What if different decisions had been made: It is likely that First Past the Post would now be dead, and all political offices would be elected using forms of proportional representation. We might never again have a majority Government sitting in the Westminster Parliament. Anything that the public now vote for might never again even have the chance to matter, because policy would always be decided between the Political Groups who make deals after each election to patch together a coalition, because none of them could achieve an outright win. We might never have had a European Referendum. David Cameron might have been the last ever Conservative PM. Jeremy Corbyn might never again have been elected as an MP.

2014

European Elections

I’ve included the European Parliamentary Elections in 2014, not because the European Parliament itself is influential. It is not.

The Parliament is little more than a patsy, created only to give the wider EU autocracy the appearance of being a democratic institution. It is not.

It is included because of the UK Result, which saw the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) win an additional 11 Seats, making them the biggest UK presence with 24 Seats in the European Parliament.

The result sent shockwaves through Westminster. UKIP was suddenly a real electoral threat to the Establishment ‘status quo’.

What if different decisions had been made: It is likely to have been the key deciding factor in David Cameron’s promise to hold a Referendum on EU Membership as part of his 2015 Manifesto for the General Election Campaign. It is likely that he thought the result would be another 5 years of Coalition with the Lib Dems at best, or at worst, a Vote he would have lost and seen Ed Milliband in No.10.

Would Cameron have promised the EU Referendum if he had been certain of electoral victory in 2015? We may never honestly know.

Scottish Independence Referendum

The result of the Referendum on the Question of Scottish Independence on 14th September 2014 was a majority against of 55.3% to yes of 44.7%.

The outcome itself may not have had any significant impact upon anything other than what the SNP would do next.

It was David Cameron’s decision to come out on to the steps of No.10 the following morning and make a range of commitments to the SNP, which was probably a lot more influential upon what was now in store.

What if different decisions had been made: Scotland might now be an independent Country. But the SNP might well have committed the Scots to Remaining within the EU at that time if the different chronology had given the EU a different view. That is of course if the 2015 General Election result had subsequently been the same.

2015

General Election

David Cameron’s Conservatives win an unexpected small, but nonetheless working majority in the Commons.

The Coalition is over. Cameron is committed to holding the European Referendum.

What if different decisions had been made: Ed Milliband would have been Prime Minister. The European Referendum would never have been held. We might ask the question what is Brexit? Jeremy Corbyn would never have become Labour Leader. Labour Momentum would never have existed.

Jeremy Corbyn becomes Labour Leader

No. It was far from being a certainty. Yet Jeremy Corbyn cleaned up in the Labour Leadership Election following Ed Milliband’s post-General Election Resignation.

Corbyn was never taken seriously as a Candidate, and it is regrettably likely that at other times sensible Labour MP’s gave him their support to run, with the intent of causing disruption to the Campaigns of more credible participants. Those who did so were blind to the even the short-term realities of the outcome if Corbyn actually won.

Which he did.

What if different decisions had been made: Labour might have had a more credible, mainstream leader, who isn’t a Marxist at their core. Labour may well have won the 2017 General Election. The Brexit Negotiations might have now been in the hands of a Labour Leader. Theresa May might never have become Prime Minister. Boris might now be leader of the opposition.

2015-16

David Cameron’s EU ‘Renegotiation’

The Renegotiation of the relationship between the UK and EU that never was.

It is likely that following on from the many dubious wins against an unknowing pubic in which ambitious politicians had previously used manipulation, spin and complete bullshit to win before, Cameron had concluded that big theatrics and dramatics suggesting real effort resulting in something meaningful, would line him up for a Referendum Win.

The reality was that Cameron never achieved anything even remotely meaningful in his ‘renegotiations’, and the EU was already viewing the intrsigence of a Member State which had the audacity to question its future with the EU as being insubordinate and behaviour which must quickly be consigned to the bin.

So sure of success was Cameron and his closest allies such as then Chancellor George Osborne, that they never even began work on putting together the steps of a Contingency Plan, if their attempted stitch-up leading to a Remain Win in the EU Referendum was then denied.

What if different decisions had been made: In theory, Cameron could have really gone for the jugular when he squared up to ask the questions of the EU, from which real results could have given him a genuine Referendum Win.

In reality, the EU has made very clear that every nation which becomes a Member is restricted to the same rules and must therefore consider itself without any real means of having separate identity.

Once you are in, it doesn’t matter what bullshit you give to Voters (or sleeping politicians), you accept that EU Members States behave as one.

2016

European Referendum

The Leave or No Vote wins 51.9% to 48.1% (A difference of 1,269, 501 Votes with a 72.21% turnout of the Electorate).

Britain’s Exit – thereafter known as ‘Brexit’ is born.

What if different decisions had been made: David Cameron would probably have still been our PM. We may well have now been on the way to adopting the Euro. We might well have been up to our necks in surrendering what’s left of the armed services to the new ‘Euro Army’. There would probably have been an increase in European workers coming to the UK. The rate of Public Services crashing through lack of funding may well have increased substantially. The list of more and more powers being surrendered to Brussels would probably now have been much much longer. It is likely that the true designs of the EU to become the United States of Europe would now be in the open, either directly, but more likely through yet more manipulative PR management which is designed to make all of us think that everything is staying the same.

David Cameron Resigns

Probably one of the most notable ‘oh fuck’ moments of recent UK political history, would have come at around 25 minutes to 5 on the morning of 24th June 2016, to the then occupant of No.10.

We know that Cameron didn’t see the No Vote coming. We know he didn’t because the Establishment didn’t expect it. And there are a great many Leavers who despite voting NO, didn’t quite believe it was possible to win our Freedom through a democratic process too.

To be fair to David Cameron, he clearly never believed in Brexit. Although he had given the impression that he would lead the implementation of a No result, accepting that he could not deliver something that he didn’t himself want and that resigning was therefore the right thing, was almost certainly the most responsible thing for him to do in the circumstances. Unfortunately, it was a point missed by Remainers in the Cabinet who coveted the top job.

What if different decisions had been made: If Cameron had stayed, there may have been many similarities to the current Premiership of Theresa May, in that his heart would not have been in Brexit and instead of building a relationship between two separate entities, he would have likely focused all efforts on doing the absolute minimum that would be seen to qualify as ‘Leave’. 

Alternatively, he might well have embraced the instruction from the British People in the spirit that it was given, and done everything to get the best from a situation where nobody from either side could genuinely predict everything that could be achieved.

The big difference is likely to have been that Cameron is unlikely to have called the 2017 General Election, which would have in turn given him choices with a working majority, that Theresa May would by now never have.

Boris knifed

It was an open secret that Boris had returned to the Commons as an MP with the Leadership of the Tory Party in mind.

So when Cameron lit the fuse on the Leadership contest, few were under any illusion that Boris wouldn’t be one of the two final contenders when the Vote went out to Conservative Party Members.

That was until on the morning of Boris announcing his Candidacy, Michael Gove’s change of mind in supporting him as a Leadership Contender came fully into view.

Boris had nowhere to go. And whilst the true aim of Gove’s decision to pull the rug from under Boris’s Leadership chances may never be known, the intervention did nothing to help Gove’s own hopes of becoming Conservative Party Leader.

Before anyone had the chance to take a second breath, the contest was already down to just two.

What if different decisions had been made: Despite the many voices ranged against him, Boris Johnson was likely to have become PM, and was almost certain to have done so if the question had gone out to Conservative Party Members.

The talk of Boris being nothing but ambition rang true, not simply because Boris was and remains ambitious – he does. But because it is the same ambition that is rife amongst all the senior Members of the Conservative Party, who are desperate for their leadership hopes to come to fruition – no matter the real cost.

Boris may be to some no more than a lovable buffoon. But what he has which beyond the pure, unadulterated form of ambition which drives many of his Conservative colleagues, is the skill to read and often be a step ahead of the public mood, just in time to make decisions that can actually work out well for Voters too.

This ability is likely to have served him very well during negotiations with the EU, and in delivering a clean Brexit. Because Boris being loyal to Boris, he would have ensured that he was committed to delivering what the real public – that’s everyone beyond the bubble of Westminster – has demanded that the PM and Party of Government should actually achieve.

Boris’ moment may come again very soon. But the terrain is now much different and outcomes that could have easily been very different if different choices had been made, will now influence the outcomes of responding actions and outcomes to come, whether deliberate or otherwise.

Whether or not Boris would be good leading the UK in a crisis situation, like the wartime Leader Churchill who he wishes us to see his behaviour modelled upon is a different question altogether.

Like May being ‘Crowned’ in 2016 to ‘take care of Brexit’, we might soon step into a very different kind of Government Leadership which will not be about Leave or Remain, but responding simply to a very long list of unknowns.

Andrea Leadsom exits Tory Leadership contest

Leadsom seemed to appear from nowhere and as such, didn’t appear to have the baggage of the other final contestant in the Tory Leadership Campaigns – Theresa May.

But where May had made keeping her mouth shut during the European Referendum an art form, Leadsom’s inexperience with the Media regrettably led her into a mess over making comments relating to her understanding as a mother which was unavailable to Theresa May. From that moment, her time as a Candidate to become next Prime Minister was pretty much done.

What if different decisions had been made: Theresa May might not have been Prime Minister, as Leadsom may have been much more appealing to the Conservative Party Membership, once the Campaigning side of Theresa May which we only saw in the 2017 General Election Campaign had come into general view. The 2017 General Election might never have been called. The Conservatives might now have a working majority to push through a meaningful Brexit.

Theresa May ‘Crowned’ PM

With Andrea Leadsom stepping out of the Tory Leadership Contest, Theresa May become the de facto Conservative Leader Elect.

Cameron quickly went to the Queen and stepped aside.

May entered Downing Street giving everyone the impression that when it came to Brexit, she was now committed and very much on the UK side.

What if different decisions had been made: Pretty much what has been discussed under Boris and Andrea Leadsom above. But May wouldn’t have been PM and the chances are that one way or another, we would not be in such a terrible mess as we are today.

2017

Article 50 Triggered

At the end of March 2017, Theresa May triggered Article 50, the device or ‘clause’ for a Member nation to Leave the EU.

This action started a 2-year countdown to 11pm on Friday 29th March 2019, when the UK would formally leave EU Membership.

What if different decisions had been made: Triggering Article 50 – assuming that the UK leaving the EU would always be conducted in relation to EU processes – was not a question of if, but was certainly a question of when.

May could have waited and overseen full preparation before doing so which would ideally have included a real understanding of what Brexit must achieve, therefore allowing the negotiations between Triggering Article 50 and Leaving to be meaningful in between.

Alternatively, May could have got on with triggering Artcile 50 much sooner, working on Brexit from the point of the UK being independent and then developing a new relationship with the EU for whatever would then happen for the future, rather than doing everything possible to Remain, whilst doing the absolute minimum to sell her efforts as a commitment to Leave.

General Election

It was so clear that Theresa May was sure of Victory and of winning an increased majority that would ensure her plans for Brexit were delivered.

Despite the Party machine not being ready, there already being a small but nonetheless working majority in the Commons in place, nor the fact her ability as a ‘street-fighting campaign leader’ had ever been tested, May listened to the Polls, went for the General Election, and assumed that like everything else, public support was no more than a question of applying process, and that her glowing future would soon be in the bag.

Things quickly began to unwind. Corbyn proved himself good on the stump, making hollow promises which appealed to aspirations without any respect for practicality, and the Lib Dems, still nowhere after the 2015 rejection, were not even in the middle and nowhere to be seen.

May couldn’t match Corbyn on the Campaign trail and was soon exposed as not being ‘natural’ with people, being far too scripted, meanwhile exhibiting all the behaviour which has made the label ‘Maybot’ stick – and in doing so seem very fair.

What if different decisions had been made: May could have had a working majority now BEFORE attempting to do deals to allow for the Conservative die-hard Remain faction. The Parliamentary pathway to where we are now might have been much smoother over recent months, giving the PM more room to play with as she dealt with the EU. Olly Robbins would probably not have been the Civil Servant leading the Brexit negotiations.

£1 Billion that could have been spent elsewhere on Public Services might not have been firehosed at Northern Ireland at the price of securing 10 DUP Votes for the duration of the Parliamentary Term.

2018

‘The Chequers Plan’

In the Summer of 2018, May’s true credentials as a Remainer Prime Minister and her Plan to welch on Brexit finally came into view.

Within days, David Davis, then Brexit Secretary and then Boris Johnson, then Foreign Secretary had resigned.

Yet all other Cabinet Ministers remained still and quiet, heralding yet more concessions on the part of the MP’s who had the real ability to stop this whole charade, and rescue Brexit from the mess it is now; the sell-out of democracy that in May’s hands, it is still likely to be.

What if different decisions had been made: More of the Cabinet could and arguably should have resigned.

The cumulative numbers of resignation at the top level would have soon made May’s continued Premiership untenable and a new Conservative Leader would have by now been crowned.

That there has only ever been talk of further Cabinet Resignations until now is a worrying sign.

For the Conservative Party, it may mean a bleak future. Culturally, the Cabinet incumbents are far more focused on lining themselves up ‘securely’ for a leadership bid, rather than doing for the Country all that is right. 

The thing that they all need to remember is that no matter what they do or choose, only one of the current crop of Conservative MP’s could replace May as Prime Minister, but the ridiculousness of their own ambition is now making even that option look very tough indeed.

In Summary & Ending

As I suggested earlier, these points are all a view of what has happened, set against just a few of the possibilities of what could have been if sometimes very small decisions had been made.

The point I am making is that from small decisions, BIG consequences are formed. And those consequences are rarely apparent in immediate view.

Consequences can be anticipated and accurately so. But they cannot be controlled and it is certainly true that every action will have a reaction, even when the person or persons taking that action are no longer involved.

Theresa May and the Establishment, along with the EU are currently doing everything that they can to manufacture a very different kind of Brexit to the one which the People intended, either deliberately or through acts of unintended stupidity.

These are actions that are not only going to impact on the true outcome of Brexit, but on many other things in both the UK and Europe which right now are out of sight, out of mind.

Because of their actions in trying to manipulate Brexit, they will ultimately deliver unintended consequences and outcomes which would otherwise unlikely to have ever been seen.

 

Read this Blog on your Kindle

 

 

 

The Civil Servant doth protest too much, methinks

October 16, 2018 Leave a comment

img_1583Hands up. I am one of the many. I think that May must go and that May must go now.

May must go before any last chance of an honest Brexit is destroyed and the UK is completely condemned to Remain in all but name.

It’s not personal. I don’t know her that way.

But this is not how a genuinely Conservative Prime Minister behaves.

This is certainly not the kind of Conservative Government that anyone who really cares about the future of this Country would knowingly vote for.

That said, I am under no illusion of the mechanics of how decisions at all levels of Government are actually made. There is a considerable team of politicians, advisors and civil servants or local government officers who have influence on – and therefore responsibility – for the choices, options and directions often presented as little more than fait accompli to the Political Leaders above them. Leaders who are also responsible, but the only ones who the Public will openly blame.

For those of us who know this and see the reality of how Government and the Public Sector works – up and down, Sir Mark Sedwill’s intervention in the form of an open letter to The Times today, attempting to distance the Civil Service from the chaos which Brexit has become, is both untimely and disingenuously made.

The inherent suggestion that Civil Servants only do what they are told, and carry out their instructions to the letter is at very best laughable. At worst, it demonstrates the farcical nature of an executive system that wants to dominate and exert its influence within every corner of Government and the Public Sector.

The executive or non-elected element happily takes credit in any way that it can when things are going well. But it seeks to distance itself and pass the buck to elected representatives just as soon as the self-serving, and self-aggrandised plans which have nothing about service to the Public at their core, go wrong and have the potential to wreck a gold-plated pension plan and the previously ‘clean’ CV.

It is a ‘Team May’ effort which has ‘live-time’ responsibility for the Brexit chaos. And within that ‘team’ there are many Civil Servants who share the responsibility for the perfect storm which is brewing, not all of which is itself is attributable to the actions of the current PM.

What’s worst about the role of the non-elected executive, is that for far too long culturally, the gift of being employed within roles which are blessed with misplaced impartiality, would normall leave any of them directly involved, immune from any form of punishment when anything decision making involving politicians goes tits up.

Brexit being the monumental clusterfuck that it has become, clearly doesn’t offer such levels of sanctuary. That is why we now have letters being published in newspapers from top Civil Servants which portray such ridiculous and pre-emptively pleading statements such as ‘It’s not my fault it all went wrong’.

 

image thanks to http://www.thetimes.co.uk / someone unidentifiable on the Net.

 

 

The EU intended to break up the UK all along and May is just another Remain PM singing along to the very same song

October 15, 2018 Leave a comment

img_1574

Divide and conquer is one of those old rules or strategies which has an uncanny habit of working in many ways. It is most successful when the parties subjected to it are so entrenched with their own priorities, they remain blissfully unaware of what is happening.

In the past 24 hours, the ridiculous nature of the so-called negotiations between our Government and the EU over Brexit have finally reached a stage where some of the more sinister aims of the European Union have been outed.

Incompetent and as duplicitous as Theresa May and her Team have been, the lack of understanding of the EU and its modus operandi has been ignored, or at best misunderstood. Not only by those who voted Remain. But also by many Leavers who with the British spirit of fair play, have believed that those in a so-called forty-year relationship with us would treat us exactly the same.

We have all been misguided to believe that the EU would be reasonable over negotiations which would always have been easy to secure benefits that specifically went their way.

If a clearer message was ever needed to spell out just how dangerous the EU really is, it must surely be the demand for a ‘backstop’ set against a ‘backstop’ for Northern Ireland.

We should be under no illusion that this would be an agreement that once confirmed would almost certainly guarantee the break up of the United Kingdom, rather than keeping it as England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, as it now is.

Whilst painted as a ‘backstop’, neither of the two forms of this misnamed safety net or facilitation device is what is appears to be.

The EU has a time-served history of using and abusing anything or any term that it manages to insert within Agreements.

Its deviousness is always anchored within the deliberate ambiguity of terms which it uses. It always uses language differences and what deliberately appear to be basic issues of interpretation to do all the painful work for them. Meanwhile painting themselves as having always been very reasonable and committed to some high-flung community-cased ideal.

It’s all hokum. The EU knows that the most effective way to build its own idea of a union, is to break down the constituent parts of member Countries, into Regions or by placing emphasis on publicly identifiable regional areas appearing to give them a sense of their own identity, destiny and self-determination.

They do so whilst removing any of the tools which would allow any of these Regionas to actually achieve such seemingly reasonable aims, whilst directing true power even further away to Brussels, where the futures of every ‘European Citizen’ will be decided by autocrats. A technically non-reversible process by design, where true democracy will become all but a memory, and very quickly left behind.

Yes, I agree that a statement like that doesn’t sound right. And to many it doesn’t.

But many will also remember the push for the development of multiple UK Regions, which included the processes of Devolution for Scotland and Wales, and what without a struggle on the part of many would have seen England also carved up to resemble the European Parliamentary Constituencies – a victory that we should all at some point be grateful that the EU was denied.

Devolution itself was not the great giveaway to the people or an act of political generosity on the part of Tony Blair as he and his Government then wanted us all to think.

It was the price that an overly ambitious and self-serving Prime Minister was prepared to pay as he attempted to curry favor with the hierarchy of the EU.

It was an act completely devoid of either foresight or concern for the consequences of what in terms of our National Union, the process of Devolution had the potential to do.

Devolution and Regionalisation, sold through the dubious lens of devolving power and of creating ‘localism’ as Cameron painted it, was never what any of these white elephants of governance were really about.

They are nothing more than dubious tools to create a pyrrhic connection and public misconception of close interaction with a federated structure of government. A patsy sub-decision making governmental structure, free from the ability to conduct any meaningful form of decision making at National level – the consequences of which I shall leave for you to ponder.

Where Blair and the last Labour Government failed as the EU’s stooges, May’s intransigence has brought us critically close to allowing the EU to achieve what the Brexit Vote should have in one moment permanently denied.

If in the process of ‘delivering’ an agreement over Brexit with the EU in the coming days Theresa May finds a way to leave any question remaining over the integrity of Northern Ireland’s relationship with the rest of our Country, rest assured that it will be our very identity as a Nation – not just the Conservative Party which will be well and truly screwed.

Dear Cheltenham, a Petition to stop the Borough’s ridiculous changes at Boots Corner is a great start. But if you really want to make the Council think again, start HERE

October 13, 2018 Leave a comment

 

img_1555

For me, one of the most challenging and frustrating experiences of being a Local Councillor, was talking to people I represented who had genuine grievances and reasons for stopping a poor policy from going ahead, who couldn’t understand why the Council wasn’t listening and basically didn’t care either.

Please believe me when I say that the only way to really have any chance of understanding what is wrong with Government and the Public Sector, is to experience it from within.

Even then, it is essential not be taken in by anyone who tells you that ‘this is just the way that things work’. It isn’t.

But most people who enter as Officers or newly elected Councillors with high ideals and aspirations for doing something good, simply accept everything that they are told and quickly become part of the problem too.

Over the Summer, talking to people whose lives have Cheltenham at their very centre, I again saw one of those massive issues coming into view. A completely unnecessary ‘created’ problem that makes sense to nobody who exists in the ‘real world’ outside of our own version of the Local Government system.

I’ve experienced the Boots Corner travesty first hand. I have had to make the same detours as you probably have done yourself and know that this whole project is benefiting nobody or nothing other than the ego’s of the people who dreamed this foolishness up.

I’ve already given my view on the whole thing here a couple of weeks ago. And whilst it is great to see Cheltenham’s MP Alex Chalk talking openly about how unwanted the Scheme is and a Change.org Petition now in place, we should all be under no illusion about how entrenched the mentality of those responsible for the Boots Corner fiasco is now likely to be.

If you want the Boots Corner plan overturned, the road reopened to all traffic and no more ridiculous schemes like this one to simply arrive without genuine consultation, there is only one thing that you can now really do.

You have to work to change the whole Council and replace them with people who have the same interest in what’s truly beneficial for the people in Cheltenham. That’s getting people elected as Councillors,  who put Cheltenham before themselves and any Political Party they might represent. People who have the same real-world view as you.

If one person is prepared to stand in the next Local Elections within each Cheltenham Borough Council Ward, take Party Politics out of the equation and then start working as a representative for something better for the People and Businesses of Cheltenham, we might all be surprised just how quickly the Campaign to overturn this stupidity will start to gain results.

Don’t be fooled by thinking that the Elections don’t matter in Cheltenham because they are a long way off. It doesn’t matter because it’s the cumulative effect of the work and effort talking to people, knocking on doors and getting real people engaged that will grow the very best fruit.

It is important that you or anyone prepared to do the work necessary to represent a Ward as a Councillor are committed enough to be ‘in it to win it’.

You must also be prepared to do everything that it will take to see this Campaign through until Boots Corner is fully reopened, normal traffic is flowing and the target result is achieved.

Being told that the Borough Council is prepared to change its mind will not be enough. Like politicians generally, Councils have a habit of quietly changing their mind as soon as any noise goes quiet.

To be sure of success, Boots Corner must be fully open before you can think about whether you then want to stop campaigning for what’s best for Cheltenham.

Being a Councillor or even taking on the responsibility of working to get elected as a Local Councillor isn’t for everyone. There’s a lot to think about before anyone can decide.

If you want to run a successful Campaign and then be a good Councillor too, it is essential that you know, understand and are fully committed to what you are getting yourself into.

I’m not making the suggestion lightly. I’ve been an Officer within a Local Authority, a Councillor and Senior Member of another.

I’m putting this on the table for people who live and run Businesses within the Boundary of Cheltenham Borough itself. Local people who are eligible to become a Candidate and are motivated to represent the real views of the people and businesses of this great Town.

What I can do to help you is offer you the benefit of my experience, through advice and suggestions.

I can provide you with direction and a guide to what you need to think about. An outline of the reality of what it takes to get elected and everything that you will find when you are successful – which you can be if you are ready to do all that it will take.

How to get Elected is available to read FREE on a guide-to-area Website, and a page-list-based Blogsite which is also FREE for you to use.

If you want to read How to get Elected on your Kindle, it is available from Amazon too.

 

 

 

 

The Welfare covenant is broken and Universal Credit is not the answer when it already creates victims

October 12, 2018 Leave a comment

Basic Standard of Living Q

It is regrettably all too easy for some to overlook the realities of life for others when  everything is going well and there is no need to look to anyone else for help.

Sadly, this is not the case for many. At one time or another during our lifetimes, there is every chance that we will need a safety net in place for when plans don’t work out quite as we thought they might, and we find ourselves in need of money, food, clothing, transport, warmth and maybe even a home.

State provision of such a safety net within a civilised society is not only right. It is also necessary when government is convened, managed and operated with the greater good, benefits and consequences for all are firmly in mind.

However, our Welfare and Benefits system has and is being continually abused.

It is being misused by those seeking help. But it is also being mis-purposed by those who have been given the responsibility in Government for providing that help on behalf of us all.

The Welfare covenant between those helping and those seeking help has been broken. And for the benefits system to work beneficially again for all, there must now be a new way of thinking.

No form of Government provision can truly be beneficial to all if victims have been created of any kind.

Universal Credit has therefore proven itself flawed before it has even began operating fully.

With many struggling recipients identified already, we should all be asking questions about the many more who are yet to come and the consequences that will surely follow.

This doesn’t mean that the system we have had until now is good. That it is working. Or that we should just stay tied to the same old thing.

We shouldn’t, because the current DWP Benefits regime really isn’t working for anybody, and we are all in desperate need of a solution which really can be seen and experienced as a ‘win-win’.

Now before we get lost completely with how Politicians are getting Benefits and Welfare wrong, there must also be an acceptance on the part of us all of what it is fair to expect to receive, how we receive it, and under what circumstances that help will actually come from the State if we should ever find ourselves in the position where we genuinely need it.

As we look at what is really wrong with the system as it is, we must also understand and accept that if the Law allows certain types of behaviours to exist, it is inevitable that there will be people who will employ them.

It doesn’t make their behaviour right. Their actions are not inevitable. Everyone has free will and can choose how to behave, even when a rule covering that action or behaviour may appear to be absent.

If the system doesn’t accommodate for the misuse of Beneficiaries and those affected, it is the people who are responsible for its design and implementation who are equally responsible for identifying what is wrong, putting it right and ensuring that either good or bad, nobody who should be receiving help gets missed or is able to slip in between.

Why the benefits system isn’t working, isn’t simply about something structural, the technology used or the people who administer or receive Benefits of any kind.

Like most policy failures today, it is a combination of factors which are not being considered. Many of them overlooked for the cause of political expediency, or because their place and influences sit outside of the specific or central theme – in this case the Benefits regime.

The real cost of a Basic Standard of Living is not understood by Government

The greatest injustice visited upon the unemployed, is the Government and DWP assertion that in 2018, one person can live on a basic income of £73.10 per week.

They can’t.

And when the Government itself has set the Minimum Wage at £7.83 per hour, which at a 40 hour week would be the same as £313.20, who exactly do they think is going to step in and replace what for some will be the destitution-busting £240.10 per week which sits so ominously in between?

Yes, there are many other Benefits other than and beyond the scope of Jobseekers Allowance.

But Universal Credit is being sold as a method of simplification by rolling everything into one, when the true aim of saving money will not stop a similar way of allocating money to the very same things from then existing, just under the umbrella of being just one application.

Government must provide a Basic Standard of Living income to those who qualify and need it.

If it is too expensive to do so, those in Government would do well by beginning to ask themselves the question ‘why?’

Government has surrendered responsibility for setting the prices of goods and services essential to a Basic Standard of Living to the private sector

Sadly, little attention is paid to the elephant in the Benefits room. That being the escalating prices of goods and services which provide for everyone’s basic needs in life.

That’s food, clothing, accommodation, transport and utilities.

Not First Class or on the upper side of ‘Taste the Difference’.

Just the stuff that anyone would need to be kept fed, clothed, warm, able to get themselves to a job and home again, and knowing that at night they will have a roof over their head.

Control of all of these goods and services is now completely under the infuence of commercial interests which have money as their one and only god.

Free Marketeers and Neo-Liberals will tell you that the Markets will look after everything when they are completely free to do as they choose. They don’t, they won’t and they will continue to do everything to make profit from every opportunity, for as long as they are gifted with the freedom to choose by gutless Government. Government filled with Politicians who see ethical intervention in the Markets and Financial Sector as a problem because they believe that they have too much to lose by doing so.

No service which is essential to the public good should be placed in private hands or under the undue influence of any self-serving cause.

No food supply essential to basic, healthy survival should be subject to the whimsy of the Markets where multiple traders, agents and handlers are seeking to add one profit margin on top of another, just on one item supplied within any one producer-to-plate supply chain alone.

If the Government genuinely wants the Benefits system to work, it has to find an effective way of controlling these two essential areas of daily life so that once a system that does work has been identified and implemented, it is then not rendered useless by private interest, based on nothing but profit.

We are culturally conditioned to assume that all Benefits Claimants are in some way bad

Mud sticks, as anyone who spends any time on social media or reading the news will know.

But the phenomenon of people assuming the worst of others based on the first story they are told is nothing new. And when it comes to the unemployed, being work shy is basically the accepted view.

The truth is not as straightforward and anyone at any stage of their career can find themselves out of work and having to ‘sign on’ in order to get help.

The problem with the ‘accepted truth’, is that the system itself, both mechanically and culturally treats everyone who comes through the Jobcentre door as if they don’t want to work, cannot be trusted in any way and that they all fit into the same mould as each other.

This approach overlooks the fact that people find themselves knocking on the door of the Jobcentre and the administrative centres of the DWP for very different reasons.

Some are poorly educated. Others have grown up in conditions that reinforce a world view that this is all they are worth. But there are others too who have landed themselves with significant debt to gain degrees that have proven to be of no use. People suffering illness and mental health problems which restrict the work that they can do. And even highly experienced and very well-educated professionals who cannot provide anything like as simple an explanation for what life has put them through.

Sit in a Jobcentre for long enough and you will hear claimants complain about having to wait for the money they are entitled to. You will see others lose their rag because they have not conformed to the regulations that they are supposed to. You will also witness the presence of so many security guards, it clearly suggests that behaviour of this kind is not only possible, but actually the expected constantly and all of the time.

But not all Benefits Claimants are a burden. Many want to work. But they are branded as ‘no-hopers’, instead of gaining the help and support which reflects them individually.

It is little wonder that those outside of the expereince of having a ‘down period’ in their lives take what they have for granted. Then look on and see all these people as being worthless and occupants of society’s bin.

Taking this approach is little more than deliberately setting up Benefit Claimants to fail.

It is not the action of a Government which respects and fully fulfils its role as the representative body of a civilised society. Nor is it illustrative of a Civil Service which is fully considerate of its role.

We can hardly expect the general population to think differently when the system so demeans.

A significant element of Claimants consider themselves entitled to what they receive

Because the system has been so poorly thought through and has not evolved positively in a way that sees its role strategically and as a way to raise expectation from the ground level upwards, it encourages the belief that it can be used as a substitute for real life. For not taking part. For resenting the success of others and as such seeing Benefits as an entitlement or a worthy redistribution of wealth from others.

The Benefits system only works for those who surrender themselves completely to it, leaving no incentive to escape and provide us all with that so far mythical ‘win-win’

Because the Benefits system has been so poorly thought through and has not evolved positively in a way that sees its role strategically as a way to raise expectation from the ground level upwards, it encourages the belief that it can be used as a substitute for real life. For not taking part. For resenting the success of others and as such seeing Benefits as an entitlement or a worthy redistribution of wealth from others.

The Benefits system only works for those who surrender themselves completely to it. It  leaves no incentive for Beneficiaries to escape and benefit anyone but themselves.

With restrictions placed upon how many hours a Claimant can work without losing Benefits, and the process of reinstatement being long and arduous – even before Universal Credit begins, there is zero in terms of incentive for people to take on more hours and work towards self-sufficiency.

Because the 6 Benefits together are so very complicated for one person to qualify for already, the further any Claimant journeys into this portfolio of direct and indirect income streams the less and less likely they are then to leave.

We can only ask ourselves the question if we were to find ourselves in the very same position. When everything is taken care of already, what serious advantage is there to be gained by going out and working for a wage which might never come to anything near the total that becoming subservient to the system and therefore being a Benefits slave can achieve?

Again, we cannot blame people for responding this way when the system itself not only allows but facilitates behaviour of this kind.

Help should always be given to those that need it.

For those who currently choose to be beholden to the system, there must be a process of incentives which doesn’t leave them without all the basic essentials.

It must also encourage them and accept and appreciate that they have responsibility for themselves as well as the wider community. A community which is ready to help, but is itself entitled to see those who voluntarily choose a life on Benefits as a drain on resources that we desperately need focused to provide other Public Services and that they are as such disadvantaging others on little more than a whim.

As taxpayers, we are effectively subsidising the employers of low paid workers by providing the in work benefits which allow them to survive

I have already mentioned what it costs to live and the need for a basic standard of living above.

Yet the conversation and discussion needs to go even further than the power of commercial interests over the essential goods and services for life.

The debate and the action that follows also needs to recognise the role which our Government is playing in keeping wages low and propagating a system where profit margins for large companies are exploding, whilst the millions of people on low incomes are now being farmed for the debt they have to carry, just to survive.

The money that lower income workers receive is in many cases too much to allow them to be on additional Benefits, yet not enough to allow them to be self sufficient. It keeps them ‘functioning’ at the behest of others, somewhere within the ‘in between’.

If we could freeze the prices of goods and services right now, so that they no longer rise, and we could focus in on what it actually costs a normal person on their own to live, self sufficiently, to feed, clothe and take care of themselves, put something by, have a holiday, a realistic pension and have a life which reason would tell us would make a normal person happy, we can soon begin to see the disparity between where wages sit and where right now, in these ‘static’ circumstances they would need to be.

At £10.20 per hour in London and £8.75 per hour outside, without the help of Government with Housing Benefit and Tax Credits too, even the Living Wage Foundations advisory level for a basic income doesn’t come close to what self sufficiency – that’s what complete independence from Government support –  would actually require.

Such a reality where Government support for the growth of small business is concerned alone would probably make the whole thing more palatable.

But the real beneficiaries of this State-sponsored in-work poverty are the big Companies making significant levels of profit that would in reality only dip slightly if they were to pay wages to front-line staff which would allow those employees to function within the overpriced society which their Employers have helped to create.

That this situation has been allowed to exist is beyond questionable.

That successive Governments of all kinds have allowed a situation to exist where the Taxpayer is paying over the odds for products in services in their face value alone is simply wrong.

That customers are then paying again to subsidise the wages of the staff serving them would be funny, if its implications and the reality which surrounds it not so very serious indeed.

This whole process has only been possible because Government has either borrowed incredible amounts of money, or has cut other and arguably more essential Public Services in order to allow them to provide this massive giveaway. A free-for-all that has broken the Country financially and is one of the key reasons why unfettered immigration of low skilled workers from Europe has been possible. Itself an issue which is seen by many Remainers as key to the majority vote for the UK to leave the European Union and the one which they are still obsessively attempting to resolve.

There would be some sweet irony in this if this financial mismanagement had really been helping people and UK communities, rather than being overtly beneficial to commercial interests, private profit and yes, the EU all along.

But there hasn’t, and in terms of management of expectation, this and previous Governments would appear to have hamstrung any future Government which wants to take a stand and do the right thing.

Be that as it may. Doing the right thing, is the only way that all of this is going to end up working right for everyone involved.

The solution

Like almost everything that Government and Politics touches, the key to delivering change in the Benefits and Welfare system is thinking differently.

And it’s the thinking and ideas at the top of British Politics which needs to change first before it can change anywhere else.

The responsibility of Government

Before the Benefits problem can be fixed, the understanding of what the problem actually is, must be broadened to include the wide range of factors which feed and influence the issues which those claiming Benefits experience.

Right now, there is an obsession on the part of decision makers. One which leads them only to attempt to address the effects of any problem, rather than to tackle each and every one of the causes.

Until all of the causes of problems are addressed, the Benefits system will only ever work temporarily at best, until those factors which are outside of the scope of that consideration inevitably change and then exert their negative influence once again.

A Basic Standard of Living level or the real Living Wage will only be achieved and maintained when all contributing factors fall within the reasoned influence of non-idealistic Government that considers the consequences of policy making upon ALL.

Politicians simply do not understand the power they have to change things. They do not see the scope of their roles and they have no appreciation of the influence that they could really have if they were to put the interests of ALL the people who have elected them first, rather than themselves, their Political Parties and whatever ideas or interests sit around that self-serving mix.

It will not matter how simple or complicated existing of new systems like Universal Credit might be. If they fail to consider and be considered as part of the bigger picture, they will always fail – and our Politicians have both the ability and responsibility to ensure that this is no longer the case.

It is their choice to now decide and it is their choice which must come first.

The responsibility – and acceptance of Claimants and Beneficiaries

For any solution to gain traction, it is also vital that ‘being down in your luck’ is accepted as a normal part of life, rather than being a condition which renders any of us as being sub-standard to it – the position under which Benefit Claimants are often perceived.

Those claiming Benefits fall into two predominant groups. Those who are or should be  temporary claimants and are able and willing to work. And those who are longer-term or permanent claimants who are unable or unlikely to be able to consider working again because of disability, illness, or other genuine debilitating circumstances.

All of us as beneficiaries must accept that there is and never has been a magic money tree of any kind. That the support that is given can only be provided through the act of others contributing through taxation on earnings, whether they themselves earn little or some extraordinary figure that might blow our minds.

Whilst it may currently behave as if it is, and some Politicians continue to seek election on the basis of perpetuating this myth, Government and the Public Sector is not a separate and ‘benevolent’ entity which doles out cash to Welfare recipients on the basis of being kind.

Government exists to represent the best interests of ALL British people. Government is there to help us all to succeed in whatever way that might be possible for us as individuals. And on  behalf of us all, it is there to help and provide support to those of us who cannot do so, in such ways that we may never feel like an after thought or something that others have in some way been left behind.

Government is the formal community power which represents and is therefore ‘for all of us’.

Those of us receiving help should therefore be mindful that the help we receive comes from the people next door, up the street and across our Cities and Towns.

As recipients, we are not ‘entitled’ to anything. It is simply that looking after those in genuine need is the basis upon which our civilised society can be found.

 

 

 

 

 

The PM’s Tory Conference entrance was one giant tell and the air is thickening with the stench of a political fudge

October 9, 2018 Leave a comment

img_1536

Treating people like mushrooms; keeping them in the dark and feeding them on bullshit, is likely to be the greatest epithet of the EU.

Despite the result of the 2016 EU Referendum in the UK, the message that the general population has grown wise is still not getting through.

We now see the EU engaged in one of its classic bluff-based, interactive dances with one of its greatest disciples, Theresa May.

Last weeks entrance to the Conservative Party Conference should really be read for what it was. Not merely the pretence of  hamming it up to try and look cool for a tired and trivialised audience on the part of an incompetent Prime Minister. But the meaningful strut of a confident peacock certain that the audience is about to be taken in completely by a very colourful and expansive display.

As many will already know. The EU has well-documented form when it comes to creating the impression that things are going differently to how they would like them, and by double bluffing or even doubling-down when they sense they are at the point of a win.

Over recent days, we have not only witnessed the arrival of the great pretender in all her glory, but claim and then counter claim that a deal on Brexit is getting closer and closer. Then we are assured that the truth is not any such thing.

Meanwhile the obsessive talk of a second Referendum is becoming so frequent that its inevitability is being deliberately painted into our consciousness whilst we are being coerced into questioning the original first and legitimate democratic win.

Chequers was never based upon an honest principle of ‘Brexit means Brexit’. It was a calculated way to bluff up a storm at the end of which once unacceptable concessions would then be seen as being perfectly reasonable, keeping Brexit in name only as the only option saved from the bin.

Regrettably, politicians from all areas of the political spectrum and from both sides of the  EU Membership Debate seem to be buying into this either emotionally, or just logically to save theor own necks.

Many sense that the only way that Brexit can be delivered legitimately will be if there is another General Election – one which with Theresa May in No. 10, the Conservatives have little to guarantee them that they can win.

We cannot be sure what form it will take. But the devil will most certainly be in the detail of any agreement that May attempts  to persuade us that she has negotiated and achieved.

One of the greatest political fudges and injustices is now in the making. And its success was ushered in with a gawky, inelegant rendition of Abba’s Dancing Queen.

%d bloggers like this: