Monday 20 May 2013

In it for the money – How many council workers does it take to cut the grass?



For a long time I've been meaning to write about where modern Left wing politics is going wrong; why the idealistic followers are deluding themselves as their incompetent Leaders attempt to delude everyone else. But obviously it’s a big topic, it’s an over long blogpost let alone a Doctoral thesis or an entire life’s work…

So in a way I've been waiting for the right story or issue to latch on to, something to just let the subject flow and illustrate the situation in modern Left wing politics, particularly in the Western world.

Well there probably have been suitable topics, but the one I have doesn't necessarily encapsulate everything, but it does show up both the reality of what Labour did during their 13 years of power and also what can happen under Left wing regimes of any pretty much any kind.

    North Korea - Extreme Left?
    According to the BBC; so extreme it's actually Right wing... 

On a recent edition of a popular prime time game show in this country, one contestant gave his job title as ‘Monitoring Officer’ for his local council. So far so vague, the presenter clearly wanted some illumination and with light pressing; discovered that the contestant, for a living, checks that the grass has been cut properly… Grass the Council is responsible for and cut by Council employees, of course.

There was a just audible gasp in the crowd, with perhaps a smattering of laughter. The contestant provided only a minor justification, saying it has to be level and so on. The presenter asked if he just went back to the office afterwards and the contestant, clearly mildly embarrassed, could only shrug.  

The answer to that question is more than likely, yes. Possibly completes a report and if at all possible, has a kip before knocking off…

If there were more to the job, surely he would have thought about how to present it? He must have had time to think beforehand, even if one might then falter under those bright studio lights… So let’s just assume that is  pretty much all he does, maybe he does have other ‘monitoring’ responsibilities but clearly grass was most important. Truth is I would hope to God they find him something else to do in the winter…!

    The Grass Monitor assesses the situation…
    ‘Yeah I don’t think there’s much point coming in today…’

Does this situation need dissection? A Council employs someone to monitor their own grass cutters’ work. It’s not left to the grass cutters, no, they obviously can’t be trusted…

    The Monitor finds the job half done...
    This is what happens without close monitoring...! 

So the answer to the title question is one (or more) to cut the grass and one to check it’s been done correctly…

Salary and benefits, to monitor grass…? Build up the pension, retire early if at all possible, I don’t give a s**t whether or not it’s gold plated, it’s a stretch to call it ‘hard-earned’ whatever comes out on retirement!

And of course that is what we hear so much about; ‘hard working public servants’… Do they include the Grass Monitors in that?

    Hardest game in the world…  
    The Monitor seems happy with his day's work...

As I commented on Twitter at the time, there is no justifying a full time position like that, in any economic climate. The notion of ‘non-jobs’ is a staple of Right wing criticism of the public sector, I struggle to recall many clear rebukes from the Left, it seems the commentators are more inclined to ignore it.

Here the BBC try to offer some balance on the subject - Council cuts: Just what is a 'non-job'? Councils try to defend the jobs when directly criticised, a classic in the article regarding 'Diversity Co-Ordinators'; the defence is that the role complies with their obligations under equality legislation. OK, well all companies would have to comply, but is there really a need for a whole separate position...? And therein is the mentality of it.  

How could anyone possibly argue the case for a separate grass monitoring position? It is clear this won't be isolated, not this one role in one council, that in itself would be ridiculous. This is merely a good example.

Now this type of role may have been around a very long time, but this is what happened under Labour. The Labour Government threw money at the public sector and this is the kind of thing that resulted. That’s not to say that no workers in the public sector were pushed into difficult circumstances, but then the existence of a job like this just exemplifies poor management and ludicrous inefficiency.

Probably the most important question that arises from this is why is it still happening? Why wasn't his head first on the block? These are hard times, whichever way you look at it.

If they talk about staff cuts and ‘vital services’ being reduced, well most people are annoyed by reducing policing, nursing, etc, but the fact it is the people feeling the sharp edge of the cuts should be the most indignant of all that this job still exists!

But no, that’s not how it works, no malice towards their fellow workers whatever they might do, perhaps with the exception of managers and HR…

    Protesting Council Workers 
    A message to their managers?

It’s been identified before; the ones making the cuts are the people who should be cut. The Tories don’t make the cuts directly; the budgets constraints are put in place and the manager have to make the decisions. Only the managers and the one eyed supporters of the public sector will overlook the fact that they could easily remove a number of their own positions and reduce their pay and benefits, instead of cutting ‘vital’ services.

The grass monitor must have friends in power…

    It always helps to have friends in power...
    Ed Miliband asking which way to go next...

Here’s a simple management lesson for those in charge at the council; get the monitor out cutting the grass and just add to the job description ‘check it’s level when you’re done’...! He can have a couple of extra quid for that. He’s obviously qualified for the job, but I suppose the actual grass cutting is a different skill set to the assessing of the work…?

    This could get tricky.
    That bit will need to be checked for sure...

It is the world Labour created. While indeed money was made in the private sector and this funded Labour profligacy with the public sector, conditions in the low end of the private sector worsened. Labour may have introduced the minimum wage, but wage inflation was dragged down and the pressure put on workers was steadily increased. At the same time Labour tried to build their idea of a utopian workplace in the public sector, continually increasing wages and staff numbers, and improving conditions. Gordon Brown’s socialist ideals, paid for by the boom in the private sector.

They tried to justify the increasing salaries of managers by claiming they had to compete with the private sector to ‘attract the best talent…’ Utter b*llocks.

With all the money and staff thrown into the public sector, was there really any substantial and noticeable improvement for the average tax payer, let’s say particularly in the case of councils? They’d claim that practices and delivery have changed and improved, but so to has the world of work changed mainly due to technology. It’s essentially circumstantial (like so many of the ‘improvements’ that happened under Labour), not driven by increasing salaries for managers and their ‘management skills’.   

When salaries are compared between the public and private sector, a favourite public sector adage is that they could ‘earn more in the private sector for the same job…’ A line often touted by public sector IT workers, as I've mentioned in a previous post.

Well I wonder how much a ‘grass monitor’ would earn in the private sector…?

Labour did preside over a fair amount of cutting back in certain areas of the public sector. Services were privatised for instance and in fact early on when the comparisons between wages in the sectors were highlighted many defenders of the public sector pointed to the workers who’d been affected by privatisation, they were the low paid, cleaners for example. So this increased the average wage in the public sector and essentially vice versa, though the complexities of private sector wages were never touched upon. To many the ‘private sector’ means bankers and estate agents, or so it seems…

When Labour promised a "Future fair for all” in the 2010 general election, that certainly meant ‘fair’ for the Grass Monitor, but what about those facing cuts or being privatised? One must assume they meant ‘fair’ in a different respect…

    Labour's comic book Manifesto cover for 2010 
    There was a lot of grass in Labour's vision of the future...

This is a good example of the fallacy and delusions of Left wing politics; this is what would happen under a Left wing regime of any kind. Who knows one day maybe it won’t matter, in a changing world with rapid technological advances, but in the here and now, it matters.  

When workplace decisions are not based on the needs of a business and the pressures of a market, of any kind, they are or should be based initially on function, but then after that, they’re based on the whims and prejudices of those in charge.

It’s just jobs for the boys and if a business can afford a load of hangers on then so be it, but in state institutions, the rest of society are supporting it. It is a feature of any Left wing or Statist regime; the people in power will make themselves comfortable and surround themselves with favoured parties. Right wing governments will do the same thing, governments of any kind, but this is an argument against the self righteous, holier than thou Left…   

So what’s the difference between the bloated state institutions created by the Leaders of ‘the people’ and the old establishment? Just the entry requirements change a little and people are still potentially born into it; it’s never what you know, always who you know…

    North Korea's Finest
  
    Clearly his favourites...

So in the current remnants of Labour’s regime, the 'Grass Monitor' remains… Of course a further characteristic of the public sector in full flow is that when you’re in, you’re in. You’d have to go so far as to kill someone to be sacked, and even then…

It has changed over the years and into the current climate, but claims about the likes of teachers (Have just 20 teachers been dismissed for incompetency in 40years?) have given some indication of what it can still be like and I've seen the evidence in the workplace.

I know social workers have long been under pressure in terms of time and resources, this has been raised again recently with new government initiatives for graduates, and is just one example of so very many, where you have to question wouldn't the money be better spent in social services than in the ‘grass management’?

    Social Workers on Strike
    Barking up the wrong tree...?

The Left frame the argument in defence of the public sector as it exists, in terms of both individual lives - the jobs and the wider economic benefits of those jobs. It is ignoring and excusing poor management, this argument isn't about economics and has nothing to do with 'austerity'; there does need to be investment to stimulate the economy and 'vital services' should remain. This is about having the state functioning effectively, removing incompetence, inefficiency and the bias and self interest in poor management. Public money should be spent wisely, not just thrown at state institutions...

As I mentioned why not have the ‘monitoring’ role as a function of a different job with wider remit, if it is then I'd like to hear how and why that wasn't clear? I'm sure the defence would be that the role does have more functions, but it was apparent ‘grass’ is the most significant and it shouldn't be like that, that’s the wrong way round.

In terms of grass cutting obviously there are private sector equivalents we can compare with, I wonder how many gardening firms employ a grass monitor…? Well if they are making enough money and want a monitor then that is their business, it can’t be and shouldn't be justified at the expense of the tax payer.
 
Just as the Left say the Tories distract from their failings and the Bankers by saying look at the public sector, so to do the Left distract from this kind of state extravagance, for that is what it is, by saying look how much money those rich people have and look at the Tories protecting them....!

But the Left fundamentally do not care about this kind of situation; everyone should have a job, and it is in that world where some will slave away and others will sit back and enjoy the benefits, one way or the other.

Some slave, while others live easy lives? Kind of sounds like a Right wing regime...? The BBC's Panorama would probably say that such a regime is by definition; as linked above, the programme claimed North Korea was so Totalitarian that it was actually more like the Nazis and therefore not Communism.

    Obedient North Koreans
    When Communism goes bad...?

It was a pointless attempt at a technical definition, the fact is the same s**t ends happening whatever the original intentions, however noble...

Leftist politicians and commentators must assume they will keep their comfortable positions 'when the revolution comes', over here… Owen Jones for instance, he's bound to be Junior Minister for Propaganda. Can't imagine him getting hands dirty.

    A Champagne Socialist in Training...?
    Owen celebrates his new role in the Ministry of Propaganda...

As I was writing this post Liam “There’s no money left” Byrne has raised the issue of ‘full employment’, a classic policy of the post war social democratic years. There is nothing wrong with it as an aim, and forgetting any notions of Right wing views of unemployment, you’d have thought most governments would see low unemployment as desirable. But how would Labour go about achieving full employment? More Grass Monitors? Fair for all?  

You think Liam Byrne gives a s**t who’s doing what, as long as the stats look good? 

    Liam Byrne is asked how many grass monitors Councils need?
    ‘You think I give a f**k about anything other than my career?!’

Shouldn't the actual people cutting the grass be the most insulted of all? They work harder and probably earn less… Do they even know, does the Monitor do his ‘work’ surreptitiously…?

    As the grass cutters take a break...
    The Grass Monitor takes evasive action...

Thursday 17 January 2013

Apathy in the UK – Handing power back to an unchanged Labour Party…?

Nothing new at the start of 2013… No time to post anything during the latter half of 2012, but it turned out to be a pretty flat year, no significant changes in the overall state of affairs. Certainly no apocalypse, not even a revolution, well not in the West…

A brief review of the year; the Coalition has stumbled along, the UK economy has effectively flat-lined, Europe is still clinging on to its lower regions, the US is still coming to terms with itself, as China appears to continue its rise and the developing world is continues to develop, rapidly… And all the while the Labour Party are still spewing out the same s**t they have been for past two years, well actually the past 20 years.

The Left haven’t changed, they never do, occasionally they grow up, but… Anyway, is the Occupy Movement still going…? ‘UK Uncut’ is still kicking about and some of the UK Left’s hypocrisy and idiosyncrasy were recently exposed within their protests… (The tax avoiding Guardian newspaper giving significant coverage to UK Uncut’s campaign against tax avoidance, “Anarchists” opposed to Government joined in with the protests, demanding a bigger state (though they claimed a means to an end…) and all of this was seen as it turned out that Starbucks were pretty much the biggest tax avoiders of all… Haha!)    

And Argentina is still banging on about a ridiculous claim on the Falklands Islands, no less ridiculous than Britain’s… 

    Obama and Kirchner get close?
    'They're thousands of miles away and it's not like they're hot...'

Like Hawaii.

So yes nothing new, I’ll just pick it up where I left off; the Coalition have had a ‘mid-term review’  

    Cameron leaves Clegg behind?
    'You're a f**king liability Clegg...!'

And Labourites were spouting the same old propaganda at the Fabian Society last weekend, so I will review the relatively unaltered British political landscape; the Coalition are roundly criticised for everything they do, often rightly so, but Labour can say anything they like, with few picking them up on their hypocrisy, (so is the nature of the Liberal-Left…) and they have remained around 10 or more points ahead in the opinion polls

How that translates to the ballot box is another thing and that was part of the last post, nothing much has changed since… There were by-elections, a Mayoral election and Police Commissioner (PCC) Elections in November (ridiculous timing) and again the results highlighted how misleading opinions polls can be and how empty Labour’s rhetoric always is, it showed the true state of British politics, quite far removed from Labour’s fantastical proclamations.

There was no way that even Labour could try to spin the PCC results, so they focussed on the low turnout, instead of John Prescott humiliation to a Tory in Humberside, funny that…

I bet there were some aides running for cover when the result was announced...

    John Prescott might get handy?
    'You won't like me when I'm angry...'

His wife would have taken the brunt of it, one way or the other…

    Prescott's finest moment?
    'Who's f**king next?!'

There was an apparent anti-Labour vote in the only Mayoral election in Bristol and they were always going to keep that on the down low… And what resulted from that loss was a reaction from Labour HQ which showed a glimpse of the truly offensive side of Labour’s politics and philosophy, the aspects that we will all suffer if things run their present course; their use of manipulation and their desire to control. But I'll come back to that.

So Labour put their energies into spinning the three by-elections results and cranked up the bullshit production to overdrive. Three safe Labour seats Croydon North, Middlesbrough and Rotherham, so safe that even at their ‘lowest’ in 2010 in the midst of economic crisis with Gordon Brown in power, they still voted Labour in their droves in these constituencies… To put it into context, even at their very lowest in 1983, in Middlesbrough and Rotherham, they still won by some margin. The common phrase for this is they ‘could put up a pig’ and enough numbskulls would still scrawl a cross on the ballot paper, just fortunate enough not to dribble too much and spoil the paper… Ah it sounds harsh, but come on where is the self-respect…?

That’s not to denigrate everyone in these constituencies, far from it, only 25-33% of the electorate turned out to vote; the total percentage of the electorate voting for Labour barely rising above 15%.

Yet Ed Miliband saw fit to translate the results as an endorsement of “One Nation Labour” (the s**t he’d been spouting a few weeks earlier and again at the Fabian Society last weekend)… 15%?!!

One f**king Nation?!! 

    Miliband - A face you'd like to slap?
    Oh, you just could…

All this talk of 'One Nation', almost makes you think Ed might be worried about Scottish Independence...

15% of those eligible to vote, this is the anger coursing through our streets…? Oh it’s palpable, in the public sector… It just doesn’t seem to be translating on election days. Because remember the country is on its a**e, so it appears, and this Government is widely despised, so surely it should be more than 15%? 40 plus percent of those polled, and then only 15% of those registered, in Labour Heartlands…

Or is that just the system, it’s a safe seat so why go out in the November rain…?

Whatever, it’s not a f**king endorsement of Miliband or Labour, or any kind of clear signal to anyone, about anything...! But what the f**k, the only result that matters is that Labour gain the seats, that’s First Past the Post…

Some 65-75% of the electorate had enough self respect to abstain, but what happens then? 15% of the electorate hold sway? How on earth can that be ‘fair’? To use a Labourite sound-bite…

This Government is certainly unpopular and many more than 15% do not and would not support them, or are in outright opposition to them, but they don’t necessarily support Labour. Yet that small percentage could see Labour return to power without having to do anything, no reform, no clear and effective policies, just the same old faces and ‘normal service’ resumed.

    The Labour Cabinet - The Usual Suspects?
    The Same Old Muppets...

People are angry at the Coalition Government; they should be incandescent with rage how cheaply power may be given back to Labour! If only they could do something about it… Like vote for a different party…? It doesn’t have to be the Tories.

Do average people even consider how cheaply power is given away in this country full-stop? Even at the height of their power New Labour didn’t get the support of over 30% of the electorate, in 2005 they had a useful majority of seats with only 22% of the electorate voting for them and how many of those voters were in Scotland and Wales…?!

22% and a strong enough Government, stronger than Major’s in 1992, they received the support of 19% of the electorate in 2010. Rock bottom with a hugely unpopular Leader… Only 3% between strong Government and Opposition? How is that right?

Not only that; more and more it’s looking like the same people are voting for Labour, keeping the party’s share of the vote consistent, and very little seems to effect their decision in placing their vote…

In my last post I looked at this situation, from the local elections. Some 15% to 25% of any electorate could easily be made up from local Public Sector workers, students and unionised private sector workers, or even Old Labour, not to mention the odd Liberal Lefty making their weary way in the Private Sector…

    'What do we want? 'Fair Pensions!'
    'When do we want them?' 'Next week if at all possible please...'

It’s an organised, vocal, minority, using their right to vote effectively and with little opposition, getting their way. Ultimately controlling the country; minority rule.

Becoming 40 plus percent when pressed in an opinion poll…

A lot of people don’t like either the Tories or Labour, but forgetting the recent economic records of both parties, it’s in part because of the similarities between them; from cut backs to benefits and pensions to the deregulation and privatisation in the economy.

There is great disillusionment with politics and people feel their votes are irrelevant. I think a lot of apathy does stem from some unrealistic expectations, of Government and in general, but that’s too deep an issue to go into now. Why though would people sit back and watch an unreformed Labour Party walk back into power?

They may not blame Labour completely for the economic crisis and of course the banks were more directly at fault, but Labour shouldn’t be excused and ultimately they will not solve the country’s problems; economic and social.

If they get back in with the support of their minority, with a few floaters, what more do they have to do than appease those supporters…? What more did they ever do???

And why would they change a system that can allow them access to power so easily?

The modern Labour Party is all about control, in almost every possible sense in fact; from controlling MPs and the party line to controlling the population through surveillance. But in order to achieve their objectives they have to maintain power and as I have pointed out the current system allows them easy access to Government. The First Past the Post system is now weighted towards them (though obviously the Tories still do ok…) and in what is supposed to be a “progressive” party, so a large proportion of them want to keep the current and would not consider Proportional Representation (they were divided over the Alternative Vote, which was only a watered down version of FPTP, but possibly the ‘slippery slope’ to PR…). This is the ultimate act of control from a party of progress, retaining the system that can see them hold onto power with the support of a minority.

    Labour's No to AV Campaign - 'What do we want?'
    'Consolidated power...!'

For a clear illustration of the more despicable aspects of Labour’s desire to control, we should return to look at what happened in Bristol following the election of George Ferguson as Mayor. Labour HQ put a stop to Local Labour Councillors joining in coalition with the new Mayor, apparently due to some petty grievances, and this shows a clear example of both their centralised control and their apparent aversion to consensus.

The confrontational politics of the British Parliament are archaic, yet Labour wants to keep it like that. PR would be a consensus inducing mechanism, to bring about a new political culture, true representation and a system fairer to every voter, but Labour wants FPTP to allow them to rule alone…

    One Electoral System To Rule Them All...?
    Labour delegates leave the conference...

The move by Central Labour was quite significant and a deliberate signal. The people of Bristol should be concerned, if Labour Councillors are to act along the lines of the national political system by deliberately opposing any actions of the Mayor, whether or not they will be on any benefit to the city. The Mayor becomes a failure and Labour can regain power…? It’s really not good…

But most people don’t notice these things and Labour get away with it, time and again. For some it seems it’s almost become a case of ‘better the Devil you know’, perhaps recalling the days before the current downturn and cutbacks, of course we don’t know what would have happened if Labour had won the last election…

A lot of people must think they’ll be better off under Labour, even if only in the short term; while Labour gives with one hand and takes away with the other.

An example of this was raised again last week, as the Tories removed Child Benefit from high earners, this was one of Labour’s master-strokes giving a little back to everyone, including millionaires…! How very fair of them, they taxed you more over £35k, but they gave you a few quid back if you had kids and that’s always nice. You’ll remember that come election time… They froze the personal allowance so hurting lower paid workers, but they kept shelling out child benefit to millionaires.

Labour has decried the changes but they haven’t said they’ll reverse it…

Miliband believes in “Universal benefits”, so every family is dependent on, or feels indebted to, a Labour Government and low paid single workers can help pay for it without a break (even if you’re saving to start a family, but how could Labour legislate for that in the tax system and still make them dependent on a handout…?)      

Labour criticism has in part focussed on the application of the changes and it does seem a bit of an odd set up by the Tories, but Miliband is happy to keep shelling out to millionaires to save on back office functions? Never bothered them before… A few extra public sector pen pushers or hand outs to millionaires?? (They’ve changed…?)

But Labour do have more specific plans to take away with the other hand from higher tax rate payers (>£150k), announcing a policy that would reduce their pension tax relief

Give with benefit, take away tax relief, but who will remember their pension while they get a couple of extra quid in the pocket now; it might win a few rich votes, but the key is apparent ‘fairness’ of benefits for all, while also taxing the rich. It’s the middle income votes he wants; the “squeezed middle”. So this is great, screw the top and bottom…!

Miliband has claimed there aren’t many millionaires as part of his justification for universal benefits, but it’s everyone up to, you f***ing kn*bhead… And part of it is the principle, normally Labour and the Left are very particular about their principles…

    A pair of Pragmatic Idealists?
    More commonly referred to as a pair of useless c**ts...

Labour are so transparent, it’s astounding. Almost as astounding as a family earning 50k+ making out they are being hard done by… Depends how many kids you’ve got I suppose...? 

The ‘all caring’, standing up for the working man or whoever the f**k is relevant at the time, is what the New New Labour party are all about. This is the angle they will take on issues like benefits, often emotive, talking about ‘hard-working families’, patronising and contradictory, when they also talk about taxing high earners. The ‘squeezed middle’ or ‘the rich’, whichever is the appropriate sound-bite at the time…

As I have said it is easier for Labour in opposition, they can say anything they like because they don’t have to back anything up, yet…

For various reasons and in these caring times…, Labour and the Left have found it easier to control the prevailing political agenda in recent times and push their point of view to the forefront of public consciousness, as seen with the tax avoidance issue, where the Left (and Labour are happy to join in) have tried to turn tax into a moral issue. As I remember from childhood, the tax man was the one of the most hated in the land; Inland Revenue employees roundly jeered on the likes of Bull’s Eye…

Who wants to pay more tax than they have to? When an ISA is tax free savings and the self employed actively work to reduce their tax payments; at what point does avoiding tax become ‘immoral’?

Labour did nothing about tax avoidance in power, all of the situations brought to light recently, from Starbucks to Vodafone, occurred under Labour. Yet they have happily jumped on the moralising band wagon and few look back at their record.   

    Convicted MPs - Labour taking the moral high ground?
    Well it's not like they were cheating their taxes...!

The recent benefits cap is no surprising benefit to Labour, but another example this week which plays well into the hands of Labour is news such as high street chain Jessops going into administration. It’s incredible the number of people who directly blame this Government, apparently ignoring competition from the internet and supermarkets, the prevalence of camera phones and all the other factors involved in a particular business model failing.

HMV followed Jessops, but that has been coming for a long time and well documented, the whole music industry has been in turmoil for years. And it turns out Blockbuster have quickly followed HMV, but who knew they were still kicking about...?  

There is an underlying feeling that the situation would be better if Labour was in power throwing some money around and perhaps more concerning it seems to be a belief that the Government should somehow support such companies, to save their businesses and therefore the jobs. How is that ‘fair’? Forget the banks being ‘bailed out’ for a moment; it would be unfair to the bailed out company’s competitors, whether big or more strikingly, small; the independent traders, who will never get such Government support.

If someone thinks Government is there to simply preserve the high street and everything else as they remember it from childhood, then that is a worrying outlook…

    Newport's empty shops after the economic downturn.
    Actually it was pretty much the same before the downturn...

The feeling is underlying in Britain and there are a lot of expectations, but there’s a subject to tackle another time, on too large a scale, one which I’ve baulked at for most of last year…

At the next election many voters will be swayed by a feeling that things could be better under Labour and Labour are very could at propaganda, they learnt the tricks up to 1997 and they have not laid off since. The rest of the electorate will just stay at home; because they hate the Tories, might feel betrayed by the Liberal Democrats and maybe see Labour as the patronising bunch of c***s they are. Perhaps…

    Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, all having a laugh?
    What a choice...

There are other parties and people should vote for them. Obviously UKIP are polling well at the moment, but the way that is panning out and with a poor turnout, a higher proportion of the vote for UKIP will simply hand power to Labour, without a struggle.

I wouldn’t really advocate voting UKIP (certainly not in the current circumstances) and definitely do not recommend voting for the BNP, although far more people voted for these parties in the last election than the Green Party and the Greens got most of their votes in one constituency, to get themselves one voice in Parliament.

There are always other parties in every constituency and I would still advocate voting for the LibDems, despite their decision to go into Coalition, which was a mistake. But then it could be said that they have tempered the Tory Government, who knows what it would have been like had the Tories won a majority in 2010, raising the tax threshold was one of the LibDems’ flagship policies, and Labour having regained power doesn’t even bear thinking about…

    Brown reflects.
    'It should've been me...' 

A broad spread of votes with perhaps a few unusual MPs and completely disproportionate numbers of seats in Parliament would have to give weight to the argument for Proportional Representation. I’m not writing now specifically to make the argument for it, I did bring it up in posts around the last election and I will make a case for it again. The fact is it would put an end to minority rule and parties only concentrating on swing seats, MPs only have to actually promote the views of certain vested interests.  

We don’t need and shouldn’t have compulsory voting, but not voting in the next election is not an option, it would be throwing power away, giving it back too cheaply to the same old New Labour Party.

    Miliband has tried to move Labour forward?
    The past is never far away...

    Brown and Kinnock catch up...?
    'And the stupid f**kwit will do anything we say!'