'Parliament makes decisions, not the people'; Peers say

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

This is the way the British government, the Commons, the Lower House – also thinks. The people cannot be trusted with referendums, whether on the EU or other, or with anything else. Parliament, the master, knows what is best for the slaves.

Just by way of explanation Peers is a term used for collectively for the members of the House of Lords, Britain's Upper House in Parliament and Members of Parliament are those in the House of Commons, the Lower House or Lower Chamber.

Therefore we can see that the British system is not a democracy, and that not even by a long shot. In a democracy the people rule or, if there is a parliament, which there should not be, then all power emanates from the people, and neither is the case here and nor do the parliamentarians in Britain think that it should be so.

As far as they are concerned is that as they are elected we, the people, have thus surrendered to them our power and after they are “in office” we must shut up for the next four or five years, depending on the length of the parliamentary term.

In fact, this is very well laid out in the German term for voting, that of “Stimme abgeben”, which could be translated as it should be, and not into casting one's vote, as “to cede one's voice” or to “give up one's voice”, and that is exactly the way it is being seen by our so-called representatives, namely that once we have taken part in the game of elections we have given our voice to them and have to remain silent as now they have the say on our behalf.

Make no mistake, folks, that is exactly how it is and pans out and it is for that very reason that they do what they had planned anyway, regardless of what they stated in their election manifesto. They know that the voters have abdicated their power, their voice, to them in the election process. The only ones who do not know that fact are the voters, the electorate. They have no idea as to what games are being played and that so-called democratic elections are but for show to keep them, the people, quiet and in the belief that they have a choice of how they are being government, while being told that they are free people.

And don't think that it is any different in other so-called democracies. Not one iota except, maybe, in Switzerland being an exception where plebiscites have to be held for any major decision, almost, to be taken by government. But in all cases there is still the state and the government and that is where the problem lies.

© 2014

Government council cuts are punishing the most vulnerable

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Mass scale cuts to council budgets will lead to the death of local government and heap punishment on the most vulnerable, as ministers announce a further 2.9 per cent cut in funding for 2014/15, warns Unite, Britain and Ireland’s largest trade union.

Many of the country’s most deprived councils will bear the brunt, with Liverpool city council facing a 62 per cent cut in funding between 2010 and 2017. Local government workers, who have already suffered a £3,544 cut in pay since 2010, will be pushed deeper into poverty as they are forced into a jobs versus wages tussle.

Unite, Britain’s biggest union, fears that by 2015 there will be little local government left after a 43 per cent real terms cut in funding in the five years since 2010. Cuts of this scale will lead to the complete demolition of services including care for the frail and elderly, children services, support for vulnerable families and youth services.

Despite the huge pressures faced by councils, Unite appeals to councils not to slash before thinking, but to work with unions to find savings and to protect service quality.

Responding to the government’s provisional local government financial settlement, published on December 18, 2013, Fiona Farmer, Unite national officer, said: “This government is presiding over the complete meltdown of local services. Ordinary hardworking people are, again, the ones being battered by the loss of the services they rely on to educate and care for their families.

“This is a shamelessly political settlement which rewards wealthy Tory councils and punishes the less well off.

“In some of the country’s most deprived areas, including the prime minister’s Oxfordshire constituency, services such as care for the frail and elderly, support for vulnerable families, children’s centres, sexual health services around teenage pregnancy and Connexions services, have already been shut or are threatened with closure. The wealthy Tory shires continue to escape relatively unscathed.

“The government will be gambling on the public blaming local councils for service cuts, but it is wrong; the public understand where the real blame lies - at the door of the communities and local government secretary, Eric Pickles.”

Unite is Britain and Ireland’s largest trade union with 1.4 million members working across all sectors of the economy. The general secretary is Len McCluskey.

In spite of warnings such as this by the leaders, so to speak, in the labor movement the British Labour Party has stated that it will continue, should it win the 2015 elections, which cannot come too soon, with the austerity measures and cuts.

While it is true that the finances of the United Kingdom are rather in disarray and the country is heavily indebted to the bankers of the world there are savings and cuts that can be made elsewhere and which would be real cuts in expenditure and not to vital services.

Alone abandoning the stupid idea of a nuclear deterrent which is laughable in the extreme would save billions upon billions which could be better used elsewhere and that is just for starters. Abandoning ideas of wars in countries where we have no business of being would be another great saving that could be made, not that the generals and warmongers would like this idea and neither the industries whose “vital interests” might be abandoned if we did.

The brief of our armed forces is the “defense of the realm” and the realm, last time I checked, does not include Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or any other country. It also does not include Bosnia and such like. It ends with the territorial waters of the United Kingdom and may, if we so want, include Gibraltar and the Islas Malvinas and other so-called dependents.

Let's look at savings there and to creating a peaceful country that regards the sovereignty of other countries and to a green economy which could create masses of jobs and give us energy and food security and much more.

© 2013

Plastic bag 'tax'

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

In October 2013, after the gods only know how long, it was announced that the government has at long last decided to follow the lead of some other countries by introducing a charge, albeit a paltry 5 pence, which is about 8 cents Euro and about the same in US money, for plastic bags from 2015. Better late than never I suppose but one can but asked what (a) has kept them that long and (b) why will it almost two years before the levy will be introduced.

Now, in a way that only politicians can, they appear to have completely confused a simple issue by – firstly – making biodegradable bags exempt, which will clearly do nothing to prevent bags littering our environment, and – secondly – by exempting retailers with fewer than 250 employees.

The problem with biodegradable shopping bags is that they are still plastic and the biodegradable part to this is rather a questionable one as well. Very much in the same way that we keep hearing abut bio-plastic, that is to say, yes, plastic made from bio-matter. And even if it is so-called compostable and biodegradable (only in commercial composting plants, however) it is still plastic and much of the plant-based plastic in fact is neither compostable nor anything else but PET. But, according to some in the recycling industry, cannot be recycled in the same way as oil-based PET.

But back to the issue of the plastic one-time shopping bags. The first thing is that the bags should be at least charged at 10 pence at least in order for people to remember to bring their own reusable shopping bags and secondly, as said before, I cannot understand why (a) so-called biodegradable bags are exempt and retailers with fewer than 250 employees. I am totally lost as to what difference the number of employees of a retailer makes to the use of shopping bags.

Once again inconsistency, incomprehension and confusion reign! In fact, I believe the government has, once again, lost the plot (if ever they had any).

© 2013

92% of Britain is undeveloped says Lord Wolfson

Therefore we must develop at least some of the the countryside into garden cities.

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Obviously the noble Lord does not eat and thus does not need farms nor does he breathe and thus does not need air purified by trees. Assuming however that he does eat it is the countryside whence the food cometh and we cannot carry on assuming that someone else can provide the food, as seems to be the believe also of some ministers. Some of them, not so long ago, stated that we do not need farming in Britain as we can buy all our food from abroad and yes, it was a member of the Conservative Party.

The countryside provides food, employment, housing and environment and while you can improve all of those it does not mean that you substitute one for the other.

Lord Wolfson, head of the clothing retailer Next in the UK and a major contributor to the Conservative Party says that we need more new garden cities and they must be built on countryside land as the countryside is underdeveloped and empty.

We trapped ourselves in tight urban areas giving ourselves the impression that there is no countryside left, he said, and continued to say that the reality is that 92% of Britain is undeveloped but we don't just see it.

Lord Wolfson then further stated that there is an enormous amount of land that could be developed into beautiful garden cities, not urban jungles. According to him those areas of the countryside are empty and unproductive and of no use. I would say he needs to get out more and get a life.

Those areas would be more bio-diverse than the agriculture that they would be replacing.

Lord Wolfson is offering a quarter of a million Pounds to whoever comes up with the best plans for a new garden city (or should that, maybe, read cities) in Britain.

Whilst the majority of the country may be undeveloped that does not mean that it should all be developed,. But that appears to be something that Lord Wolfson has in mind.

A lot of the agriculture and the countryside management that goes on in the countryside is a good use of land and we must away from the feeling that just because there is no development going on there.

Lord Wolfson does seem to be alluding also that the 92% of the underdeveloped countryside is available to be exploited for development which is a total fallacy and as stupid as the people who he showers money upon.

Garden cities could have a lot to offer as far as housing is concerned as long as they are planned and developed in line with the needs of the countryside and the environment. Otherwise you just create another block of unsustainable housing.

However, when it comes to housing we do NOT need more homes. We have more than enough empty homes and properties that could be turned into homes all over the country. In fact, there are enough homes to house the homeless of this country, those of Eire and of one or two other smaller EU nations and still have room to spare.

The idea of garden cities fail in the provision of housing as they would be built to the detriment of the existing settlements, no doubt, and thus the existing settlements would be left – as derelict often and with all the problems that they have – that is to say as they are in favor of new developments and this is not sustainable in the same way as the idea that the last Labour government floated of Eco-Towns was another one of those silly ideas that would have benefited builders and developers and no one else.

Instead we must redevelop our existing settlements and make them more livable. We must build viable communities and while garden cities are one way a much better way is to actually turn our existing settlements into such viable communities. Build on what we already have rather than design and build new settlements in the middle of nowhere with the need for all the infrastructure and everything else that goes with it. Making the existing communities more sustainable and making them into places where people actually want to live (and work).

We have already once had so-called garden cities but some of them were basically Legoland of the real world designed on the drawing board and then plonked into the countryside with little or no consideration of the people in the countryside and also for the people that were moved to those new cities.

The problem with garden cities or so-called eco-towns plonked into the countryside is that they also need infrastructure, such as water, gas, electricity and roads leading to them and would add even more to the commute that we are – I thought – want to get rid off.

In order to do the latter, however, we must either move the jobs to where people live or have people move again to where the jobs are and, while living in the country is great, if you work in the city that's where your home should be also. Leave the countryside and the living therein to those who actually also work there.

Britain does not have a housing crisis. That is utter baloney. Britain has an empty homes crisis and many of those homes are, in fact, local authority ones that are being earmarked for destruction and “redevelopment”, as in the case of the Ocean Estate in Stepney and the Robin Hood Estate in Poplar. And those are but two examples of many that could be listed.

Thus we do not need new garden cities and ideas such as those – except in order to make money for the builders – but we need to have the existing homes refurbished and the areas in which they are located made more livable and improved. A much better and cheaper option and also a much more environmentally friendly one.

It is very worrying that some of the members of our government have absolutely no idea as to the way things are in real life and that also includes the one who, when challenged as to the ancient woods that are threatened with destruction in the path of HS2 states that there is nothing to worry about. The government would just move the woods. In which parallel universe do those people actually live?

© 2013

If you do not work you shall not eat

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

According to information that is going through media outlets apparently the latest attitude of the Tory Party is that people who do not work shall also not eat (and, as far as some reports state, this may include children).

We have known ever since Thatcher that the Tories want to bring “Victorian values” back to the country but that it was going to include those measures very few have only foreseen. By now it would appear it is not just Victorian values but Old Testament values and ways.

It is no wonder that they are seen as the “Nasty Party” and do deserve this image and description to the T. Very few of their Members of Parliament ever as much as stand up for the common man and woman in the street and the environment.

They only seem to be interested in giving as much support to the 1%, the ones that gave the country, and the world, the Great Recession in the first place.

And the successors, as they believe themselves to be, of the Whigs, the Liberal Democrats, who would not understand, it would appear, since they are in the coalition with the Tories, what liberalism actually means, appear to be happily allowing it to happen.

Under this Con-Dem coalition Britain is beginning to slip back towards not just the Victorian era but much further back towards around the Middle Ages if we are not careful.

Given only half a chance the debtors' prisons and workhouses will be back in no time and we are already headed for government slavery. Feeding the homeless is already being outlawed and they are also intending to make rough sleeping a crime. In other words being homeless is becoming a crime in Britain and not just in Britain alone. Other European Union countries are walking the same road right now also.

© 2013

We just move threatened woodlands, says minister

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

They walk among us (well, not really, but) and worst of all they are running, or should I better say ruining, the country.

Responding to concerns raised by objectors to the High Speed Two route to Birmingham and its extension to Manchester and beyond as to the proposed route cutting through many ancient woodlands a minister from the Con-Dem coalition government stated that that was going to be no problem at all.

“We just move the woods to a safe place”, said the minister.

Really? One can but wonder on which planet those people actually dwell or do they think that they are gods. Maybe they really think that they are the latter.

The old adage of engaging brain prior to opening mouth should be one that our politicians really should take to heart. It shows that they are either stupid or do not listen to people or, possibly, both.

It would be most interesting to watch, I am sure, as to how the minister is intending to accomplish the moving of ancient woodlands. I for one would like to book a front row seat. May I can learn a few tricks of how to move an entire forests. Could come in handy some day.

© 2013

Govt over-states eco-town's green credentials

by Michael Smith

The Department for Communities and Local Government has been rapped over the knuckles by the advertising watchdog for misleading claims that a proposed eco-town in Staffordshire would be built on brownfield land.

Now who would have thought that about our government agencies doing that with regards to eco-towns? How much else then is a lie about those eco-towns?

An advert put out by the DCLG inviting the public to share their views on the proposal suggested that the entire development would be built on a brownfield site, while the truth is that the greatest part of the site would be built on greenfield land adjacent to the formerly-developed site, an old airfield.

The Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint about the advert made by Lichfield District Council and a local pressure group, which is opposed to the eco-town.

The advert read "An eco-town near you? Curborough, Staffordshire where a bid has been made for 5,000 homes on the brownfield site of the former Fradley airfield."

DCLG accepted that the advert was inaccurate and said that the error had been made because it was based on information from a former consultation document, itself also inaccurate, which suggested the entire development would be built on existing hard standing at the airfield.

It said there had been no deliberate attempt to mislead and agreed not to publish the claims again.

What a lame excuse by the government department in question. No no deliberate attempt to mislead had been made and someone else is obviously at fault. I am afraid that my bullshit meter here is going well off the scale.

The way things appear more and more, to me at least, is that there are lots of lies being circulated from this government – and no, I do not think that a Tory or Lid-Dem government would be any more transparent and honest – as to this and that with regards to the environmental projects, such as those eco-towns that no one, but the government, wants and that are not the answer at all.

We need to green existing villages, towns and cities and NOT build eco-towns in the middle of the countryside. If we want to build anything like that and use old airfields then, please, use just that land only and nothing else. Maybe 2,500 homes instead of 5,000. That still would make an eco-village, and why not?

But this government knows it needs to build more homes and the eco-towns, initially claimed they were going to be counted in that number, are now going to be included in it and hence they need to be pushed forward regardless. This is total and utter stupidity. Not that we have come to expect much else form our governments.

I will say it again, just in case it might thus sink into the heads of those who make decisions: what we need is not new eco-towns but to make our existing villages, towns and cities “greener” and sustainable. It can be done. In fact it is being done in other countries. Here we are, as per usual, harnessing the horse the wrong way onto the cart. Surprise? Not really. When it takes a government extremely expensive studies to discover that wood can be burned and that inland water ways and canals can be used to carry freight, in the latter case they were initially built for that very purpose, then what can one expect.

© M Smith (Veshengro), September 2008
<>