Thursday, 4 June 2009

Time to go Gordon

A political post this morning as I've just gone and placed my vote for Conservative in both the local and European elections...

What a shame that Gordon Brown is so ruled by ego that he cannot see what damage he is doing to both his party and to the country. He was so desperate to become PM that he got rid of the only thing that was good about Labour (Tony Blair) and after a brief honeymoon period everything he has touched has turned to dust. He has no charisma and a smile that looks completely forced. He is a shambles and so is the government.

He should put his ego to one side and realise there is no glory in being PM if no one likes or respects you.

By the way, I took action yesterday on a life aim which I set for myself long ago, I emailed David Cameron and asked if I could stand as an MP for the Conservative Party. Hey presto everything I needed came back within an hour! Whether they will accept me is another matter but I would love to be in a position where I can be a force for positive change in the world. Particularly in creating an enterprise and empowerment culture within the UK.

I will let you know how my dream unfolds...

Have a thrilling Thursday!



Anonymous said...

It was time for him to go when he became an MP.


Stephen said...

Politics and bourgeosie propaganda is all just one big washing machine designed to keep us all in a state of relative apathy.

It keeps the general publics attention and plyable.

When the machine breaks down, that's when the anarchists will have their day.

Whatever we think of out politicians and political system in UK, this is hardly Bolivia.

Just remember that when order is replaced with a state of total anarchy.

I don't want to see politicians replaced by celebrities.

We really could lose all sense of reality then.

Anonymous said...

So who should replace the politicians then Stephen?


Stephen said...

This is not a time for reformation dlog. One must ask - into what might we reform?

The powers that be have shown themselves to be too immature to handle reformation and any significant changes are likely to be mis-HANDLED and lead us down an even darker path.

Now is the time for "no change".

We must pick through the rubble and stick with the governement we have now. Rather than allow greatly more subversive elements usethis change to take hold of power.

Peoples attention has been diverted away from the true enemy of the people (the greedy money manics) and at a different target.

We must never forget that the real enemy lies in the shadows behind our leaders.

Behind Cameron is a long line of maniacs like the Barclay twins who one the Telegraph. People who have used the Freedom of Information act to fuel their own agenda.

Mr C said...

Stephen is right. This is not a time to put celebrities into parliament. Nor is this a time to start building barricades. The expenses row has been blown out of all proportion; there are far more serious things happening in the UK but these are now below the radar.

Where I don't agree with Stephen is the idea that the 'big washing machine' is inherently designed to keep people in apathy. He may believe in intelligent design but I suspect it is more evolutionary. Where I think we would agree is that it needs to change to better represent people and their needs.


Mr C said...

Oh and Rachel, why are you proposing to stand as an MP now? Opportunism coupled to an opportunity to re-kindle your own celebrity perhaps?

If you are serious about making change then do it at the local level where frankly you can have an impact. If you have a compelling argument and the passion to see it through why be constrained by the straight jacket of party politics.

Of course local politics and charity doesn't carry the glamour of being an MP...


Anonymous said...

Perhaps you are oth correct, STephen & Mr C, with regards to NOT having celebrities in parliament, but the BIG question is then, who should we the public have in parliament to represent us, the public, the majority.

MP's have been having an easy ride for so, so many years, conning us the public, why should we stand this, why should we be pushed around, why should we be paying fore second homes of those in parliament, there are so many of, yes again, the public who are homeless, about to lose their homes, and all the time our so called wonderful MP's are living the life of riley, thanks to us, again, the public.
They, the MP's, fucked this country/planet, now it is time for them to go, to a land far far away, and live the same shit that they have made us live in for so many years.
They, the MP's, have caused nothing but heart ache, wars, misery, and all the time they sit in their lovely comfortable chairs and dictate to us the public how we should behave, what we should do, political correctness, what a load of bollacks.
Send them out to the MIddle East to fight for what THEY supposedly believe is the right thing.
But you all know why they will not go and fight, cos they ain't got the balls, let some other poor fucker be maimed or die in the name of so called fucking peace in the world.
They are all a bunch of greedy, conspiring, hipocritical, thieveing bastards, only it in for what they can get out of it, money and life of luxury, one rule for them, and another for us, and yes here is an example:- they are allowed to smoke in the House of Commons, public place right, but they stop us from smoking in a public place. Oh, and another thing just to show what a bunch of hipocritical bastards they are, some years ago an MP was filmed and photographed with a brace of pheasants outside they House of Commons, with a BIG smile on his face, didn't have a problem with blood sports, and then hey guess what, yeah he was the fucker that started the campaign about banning blood sports, what a hipocritical bastard.


Stephen said...

Psychological operations, news propoganda, black pr, apocolyptic marketing, cataclysmic imagery, cognitive hacking, reality shows, teen advertising are all devices I have seen used on the public to condition them appropriately.

It is true that i have no evidence of an overall plot to maintain us in a "bullring of apathy", Mr C.

But i do believe that there are influences out there that have been attempting to create such a scenario.

It is such a shame since their lives aren't very much longer and healthier than our own.

You would have thought they would have better things to do, given their own purpose appears to be:
1. be born
2. cheat, steal and destruct
3. die

Silly buggers.

Stephen said...

dlog, i do agree with you.

Before, the target was the bankers and now its the politicians.

Strange that - don't you think?

If you bring the whole thing into disrepute, then those who are the real enemies of freedom can escape, unseen into the darkeness.

There is a power struggle going on.

Its the big game they all love to play. The chips are ordinary peoples lives

- the ultimate victory

the maintenance of power for the bloodlines.

Anonymous said...

Bloody hell Stephen, YES, how true.

The world to these people is a Roulette Wheel, and yes, we are the Chips, that they are playing with, and they do not care if how many chips they lose.
God, that is scary don't you think to see like a game of Roulette in a casino. It is so, so much like the game of Roulette.


Cranberry said...

Am I the only one who is not 'horrified' by the MP's expenses scandal?

MP's had an expenses system that was generally accepted as a salary 'top-up' device and they all used it – most ensuring that they claimed right up to the £24k limit every year. They've been busted yes – but what for? For using a system in the way it was supposed to be used? And before you jump on me for saying that – it WAS supposed to be used in the way most MP's used it – they were encouraged to use their expenses as much as they could – in just the same way that councils start crazy road projects in the summer as they need to ensure that they use up their annual budget lest it gets cut the following year.

The fuss seems to be about what the money was spent on: a duck house, massage chair, plasma tv, interior designer fees, etc, etc. Those who used their expenses right up to the max – but used the expenses for mortgage interest payments and the like, seem to have come away with some kind of higher moral authority. It's all media nonsense. If you save £2,000 on your mortgage payments, then you can spend that £2,000 on a plama tv if you like – you're still using the same amount of public money. They've all mostly received similar amounts of money (because they've mostly all claimed up to the annual limit), it's just some put in less credible claims than others.

However, back to my point: there was a system in place that was open to – and even there specifically to be, abused. It was a way of MP's boosting their salaries without it appearing to the general public that their salaries had suddenly taken a massive hike.

So, let me ask you, if joined a new company and they said: “the way it works here is you get paid £50k a year but you're expected to use your £24k annual expenses as much as you can. It's just the way we do things here – it's worked like this for decades.” Would you suddenly start crying fowl? I don't think you would – I think you'd accept it as the way things were done and get on with it. Even if you felt some of your expenses claims were somewhat dubious you'd say to yourself: “well, everyone else is doing the same thing – and I'm doing a lot of good work in my constituency”. You'd block out any concerns you might have had (if any) because that was simply the way the system worked.

I really don't think MP's are all a bunch of morally corrupt individuals simply based on the expenses scandal. You let kids into a sweet shop and you know what's going to happen – so don't act surprised and horrified when they pig-out.

Anonymous said...

Expense are 'normally used for business puproses, ie; taking your customer to lunch for business, then you claim it back, using a company mobile phone for business, then claiming it back, Expenses are not mean't to be used for mortgages, videos, DVD's, ponds in the garden etc etc, if I were to do that, cor, could you imagine what trouble I would be in with the Tax/VAT man.

Oh, and by the way Cranberry, Kids don't go in shops, they eat grass and the like, normally in fields!!


Cranberry said...

But that's the thing dlog, it boils down to semantics – call it 'expenses' and seems all so wrong. Call it 'living allowance' and you get a more accurate idea of what the system actually was and how it was used.

Kids, grass, fields?

Anonymous said...

Sorry Cranberry, it's just of those little things that niggles me -

Explanation:- Kids are baby Goats.
Our off-spring are children, our boys/our girls.


Cranberry said...

Ah, ok. Each to their own I guess?

Stephen said...

This is not a revelation.

We've known for years that the powers that be take more than their fair share.

Its called being "priviledged".

Just this time, they've all decided to turn on each other and the shit rolls out.

Like i say, this is just a well choregraphed circus with the clowns being the Politicians - as opposed to the real criminals (the money men behind the scenes).

This is just a frenzy being whipped up by the media barons and money men to bring the rest of the country into disrepute.

Then (when we're not looking) they can grab more power, whilst the rest of us get ready for the big Noah's Arc road show.

I think they call it "swine flu" or something. They call it that because its how they perceive the general population. PIGS.
Give the PIGS, illnesses.

Anonymous said...

Bit like starting a little fire, the sort that can hardly be seen, then the one who started it says "oh shit a fire, best call the fire brigade to put it out", then everyone thinks, ah, isn't he a good fella, look he put the fire out.

Or to coin a phrase - from some one else I might add -
"don't piss on my shoes then tell me it's raining"


Stephen said...

The patterns are obvious.

Create a Problem.

Watch for the Reaction.

Sail in and Solve the Problem.

Nothing new. Its called the art of indirection.

Look beyond the obvious. Thats what we do in the security business.

Rachel Elnaugh said...

To put MPs expenses in context they each earn something like £60k a year.

That is way less than MEPs - or CEOs in most SMEs for that matter

The expenses system has been encouraged as an 'easy way' to top up on pay.

What should happen is that the expenses claims should be stopped and a proper pay structure introduced eg £120k pa.

You then decide whether or not to stand based on that figure.

I could not live on £60k, it's a pathetic amount of pay for any senior role, let alone an MP.

Raise the pay to £120k and you reduce the need for people to swindle.


Leona said...

I disagree, the government are there to represent the people, how can they effectively look at the country from the general public's view point if they are earning far more than your average Joe. Can someone on a 120K salary really understand the difficulties a low income family face in making ends meet on a day to day basis and represent them fairly? Surely this would just encourage further policy bias towards high income constituents.

I would personally lower the pay rate which would weed out the useless idiots that are in government to simply get a large pay packet and expense account whilst frivolously spending the tax payers money on crackpot schemes that cost millions and cause more problems than they solve. Thus clearing the path for the people whom want get into government because they genuinely want to help their country.

Anonymous said...

Aside form a genuine interest to help the country and makes lives better for others, we also need capable people to become MPs. More often than not, these are people who, if they had devoted their lives to their own careers, would earn money to the tune of £120,000 or even more when you include bonuses.

Now, to lower pay rates in the name of wanting to attract people with a genuine interest in wanting to make lives better for others - that could spark of an exodus of much needed talent. Lowering pay rates seems an ideal but unreal solution.


Stephen said...

A1, I think the current economic and political situation shows just how much talent is worth.

Talent is worth nothing without sincerity.

To fix everything on financial gain is to ensure that there is no sincerity in the system.

Its everyman for him/her self. Which is not conducive with behaving like adults.

Running a country is nothing like being the CEO of Coca Cola.

The people should give power to sicerity - not to a bunch of selfish, ammoral morons.

Anonymous said...

Stephen, I am not advocating a system of fixing everything on financial gain. I agree with you when you say running a country is not like being CEO of coca cola. LIke you, I desparately want sincerity and honesty too because I am just as fed up of corrupt morons.

It is just unreal to not pay for capable efficient and sincere talent. How would you then set out to reward this type of sincere talent? I have no idea myself and have not set out to advance a view of high pay either. Like you say, it is every man for himself. And I believe at any level of sincerity, this everyman for himself instinct will still lurk in the foreground. I think this very dilemna of how you balance things out with rewarding MPs is now being played out in the current MPs expenses "scandal".

Set a fixed pay that is rewarding for the efforts required. And it would cap abuse of the expense claims system.

The question is what is the right amount to pay? Catch-22 really.

Stephen said...

True leadership needs no reward.
Needs no comfortable appartments.
No comfortable shoes.

True leadership is what it is.

True leadership.

Where has the instinct of True Leadership gone?

Nobody knows.

Anonymous said...

Exactly. And I quote you:

{As the great Sex Pistols used to say:


May the best man (or woman) win at this greatest illusion - we call life! }


steve said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stephen said...

True leadership always does rise from the ashes.

Rises from it
Because of it
in spite of it

Let us hope that it is the right kind of greatness that rises above the "apathy sway".

Anonymous said...

Stephen, I'm really glad we share the same views and hopes in this particular instance :-).

Mr C said...

"I could not live on £60k, it's a pathetic amount of pay for any senior role, let alone an MP."

A true woman of the people then.

As you have been so critical of consumer consumption in the past perhaps you should look to your own household first. Mind you lets be honest you do have a bit of form as far as struggling to manage outgoings is concerned...


Anonymous said...

I could live on 60k, and would love to be an MP.
Imagine the good I could do for the people of this country, and have the 60k you talk of as a wage.

You see sometimes it is not about the money, it is about helping others to live a comfortable life, and that is the job really of our PM/MP's, to ensure the whole of our population has a comfortable living standard.

So, perhaps I should seek to be an MP, atrue and honest sincere MP


Mr A Dragon said...

"I could not live on £60k, it's a pathetic amount of pay for any senior role, let alone an MP."

I am afraid I agree with C, this comment is a bit ill-judged.

£60k a year is a very good salary and with that you can provide a very good standard of living for you and yours, theres no arguing with that.

I am lucky enough to earn more than this, however, it wasnt that long ago that I was earning a lot less.

I had really thought that the days when how much you spent was a badge of honour had gone...

That said, whether £60k a year is the right level of income for an MP is up for debate.


Stephen said...

you don't need any qualifications or money to be a great leader.

Look at Jesus!

I don't think he was even a particularly good carpenter. lol

Anonymous said...

But Stephen, we crucified Jesus on the cross and chose a criminal over him. So much for no pay and sincere talented leadership!


Anonymous said...

....any leader who runs the risk of being persecuted like that (not to mention the stress)...surely 60K doesn't look like such a big sum now.


Stephen said...

Can't see where you are coming from there A1.

If the stories were accurate he surely was a great leader.

It was everyone else, that turned out to not be so great.

Money doesn't buy sincerity and great leadership. If it did, economists and executives wouldn't have been living a fools dream.

To me, they are all f* idiots now.

Kind of levels the playing field.

Anonymous said...

Go for it Rachel. You've got my vote.

MS3000 ;-)

Anonymous said...

I am not saying Jesus was a bad leader. I am saying despite all his goodness, we still went ahead and crucified him.

So, all good leaders who lead do make sacrifices.

Reality wise, adequate payment is needed for this sacrifice.

Of course, I share your hopes and views that true talent and sincerity will rise from the ashes, but that doesn't mean we can willy nilly take a free ride on true talent and sincerity.

It is you I don't get. One moment you are all for the principle of everyman for himself and the sex pistols philosophy of life. The next moment, you contradict yourself by expecting good and sincere talent to come forward and voluntarily and honestly lead this everyman-for-himself-in-the-jungle-mob free of charge.

Or perhaps you are advocating a different form of leadership since you are happy to let the ship sink wihout further ado?

I am sure though, even if we disagree on some issues, we do share the same hopes and dreams. After all, who does not wish for a better way of doing things, a better and kinder world, a world without any suffering or corruption?


Peter Cook said...

Good job. However, I'm a little uneasy about celebrities in Government. Alan Sugar does not demonstrate anything other than his own 'I did it my way' experience of entrepreneurship. It is not a very good example to show to young people, nor the only one by any means.

Peter Cook said...

On the subject of Jesus and his qualifications to lead, we must remember a few contextual things that probably helped him:

1. There was no 'Business Link Jerusalem', insisting that he gain an NVQ in carpentry before he could become a leader

2. We did not have HR departments searching through CV's - he would have surely been rejected if there were such things

3. Jesus did however use some 'PR tricks' - turning water into wine, curing lepers and so on. The general public were wowed by such things, and probably ascribed other virtues to him, based on these dramatic events


Stephen said...

The Sex pistols bought us the recognition of individuality and authenticity.

Thats the stuff of great leaders.

If Gordon gives way to the madding crowd - then he will have neither of the above.

Great Leaders don't cut and run. They remain true to the bitter end.

If he takes the ship down - then so be it. That's what captains have to do sometimes.

The only payment great leaders need is to know that their time was well spent nurturing others and reducing sufering.

If they are in it for the money, then i feel very sorry for them cos they will miss the greatest feelings of all.

Love and equanimity.

Leona said...

"Aside form a genuine interest to help the country and makes lives better for others, we also need capable people to become MPs. More often than not, these are people who, if they had devoted their lives to their own careers, would earn money to the tune of £120,000 or even more when you include bonuses.

Now, to lower pay rates in the name of wanting to attract people with a genuine interest in wanting to make lives better for others - that could spark of an exodus of much needed talent. Lowering pay rates seems an ideal but unreal solution.


Not necessarily, not all talented and capable people make decisions based on financial reward. Many talented people are vastly underpaid but remain exactly where they are because they love doing what they do, that is their reward. Hence my point.

60K is a reasonably high salaried position on the grand scale and it does not accurately correlate with the pay scale of the majority of people they are there to represent.

They don't face the same problems of your average constituent which leads to biased policy changes such as the abandonment of the 10% tax rate.

If your local MP had to juggle like may to afford petrol, council tax etc would the rates be as high as they are now and would they be as quick to sink so much money into ill conceived projects like the millennium Dome?

I don't think it is unrealistic at all, it could open up the playing field so that us as voters are actually presented with a real choice rather than a barrel of the same apples with different shades of green.

Peter Cook said...

On the subject of the Sex Pistols, authenticity has also been summed up not by the business gurus, but by Lou Reed, who said:

"I do me better than anyone else"