I was there, and this post will explain why.

People coming together to show their opposition to the governments cuts.

I agree that cuts need to be made but I don’t agree with the depth and short time in which the cuts are being made. I don’t believe other options have been fully considered by the government. I don’t think that the private sector has the capacity to pick up the redundancies from the public sector. I don’t believe that the private sector in the majority needs the knowledge, skills and experience of Nurses, Youth Workers, Community Workers, etc. whereas the public does, if we don’t image the issues we will have in our society in future. I don’t think our NHS should be for sale to the highest bidder.

Finally I don’t think the government is listening to the people it is suppose to serve and I feel lied to by David Cameron, Nick Clegg and their parties. I believe things need to change and I’m playing my part.

I was in the heart of the protests, which for the most part were peaceful. I heard the roar of the crowd, the growing anger and frustration. There were reportedly 500,000 people there, but looking around I think the media may have under reported.

I hope that the next step is a National Strike by all Unions, if they wont listen to protest let’s him them with what they care about money. One day’s loss of production.

Blog soon,

Antony

I’m a public sector worker and what I see from the government greatly greatly concerns me. I’m seeing massive budget already ahead of the governments budget review in October. This means seeing colleagues at risk of loosing their jobs and I’m at risk too, we all are. I’ve trained and qualified as a Nurse and a Youth Worker so if I’m made redundant where I am going to work? I doubt the private sector has many jobs for Nurses or Youth Workers. But of equal importance, if not more important, the cuts mean front line services for vulnerable people in society will be adversely effected.

Now I know the budget deficit needs reducing, there’s no disagreement on that from me, but I do disagree with making cuts that in my opinion are too deep and too quick. Services will be effected on a massive scale and I believe it will lead to a substantial rise in unemployment. The TUC’s response to the government cuts are to organise coordinated strikes so that all union workers are striking at the same time. It’s not about creating the maximum amount disruption to the public, although I have to admit there will be some, it’s about showing unity to the government. It’s about telling the government that we disagree the cuts need to be made so deep and so quickly.

I’ve not been in a union for some years, but the TUC’s response to strike is one I agree with. How else can we get through to a government which ironically isn’t listening to the people who they are suppose to work for? And that’s why I’m thinking of joining one of the TUC unions.

Write soon,

Antony

I ask this open question with the recently aquired knowledge that epetitions at No. 10 Downing Street online has been suspended. From their website:

With a new Government in place a review is taking place of online services, including e-petitions. We are committed to improving the e-petitions process and are looking at ways of ensuring that it functions as part of a cohesive approach to public debate and transparent government. A full announcement on how we plan to use these and other services across Government will be made as soon as this important work is completed.

Existing e-petitions, submitted to the previous administration, will not be carried forward to the new administration as part of this process. E-petitions that were live at the time of the election announcement on 6 April, when the e-petitions system was suspended, will therefore not be reopened for signatures. We will respond to e-petitions that had exceeded the 500 signature threshold as of 6 April 2010.
(From: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/, Last Accessed: 16 June 2010)

I think it´s a real shame this service has been suspended and is being reviewed – with the possibility of being discontinued. It was a way for any UK citizen to tell their goverment what was important to them in a way that was quick, easily and convenient to all.

Despite being poorly promoted and marketed unlike some other of the governments ideas to get people involvement in politics, it was used by thousands who logged on and signed the hundreds of petitions on every area of government policy. Most importantly though petitions were created by your ordinary every day peerson and anyone could set one up.

Labour had set up epetitions, so is it simply that the coalition government didn´t like that fact that it was Labour´s idea? And does this mean that it´s going to be harder to tell the coalition government how we feel about their policies?

Or is it that they are going to come up with more innovative ways for us to express our views on government policy?

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Antony

Nanny State Definition

patronizing government: a government that brings in legislation that it considers is in the people’s best interests but that is regarded by some as interfering and patronizing

(From http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561505575/nanny_state.html, Last Accessed: 28th November 09)

I say England because I am aware that Scotland and Wales have their own parliment and I can’t really comment as I have only lived in England.

I’ve thought this for a while, but it’s become more apparent to me after digesting the recent Queen’s Speech a few weeks ago. The government decides what is acceptable and not acceptable in society by legislation, which is ever increasing. This legislation is usually around capitalism and helping capitalists make money.

If we look at the Banks as a recent example following the capitalism model. They’ve become vast money-making machines making billions of pounds doing dodgy deals. When they messed up, individual bankers who’ve made millions of pounds in bonuses aren’t bothered. They simply came cap-in-hand to government, knowing they’d have to bail them out. And somehow they’ve got away with it, how did that happen? If you or I as individuals had messed up our own finances, would the government of bailed us out? Probably not, we’ve have had to go to court and potentially prision.

While we are on this topic – does anybody remember bailing out National Rail a few years back? The private train companies had been making millions of pounds in profit and then all of a sudden didn’t have the money to pay for maintance to the rail network. We the tax payers bailed them out too, but I’ve never heard that they paid any of the money back? But I have heard that they are making millions of pounds of profit again recently in the news. Everybody just seems to have forgotton about that.

The common denominator seems to be that the few people in power politicians (who usually have stakes in big businesses, if not own them) can bend, change or ignore legislation to suit them. Giving them the power to do what they like with no accountability. Indeed they’ve set up systems and processes that work for them. The regularatory bodies (such as the Financial Services Authority for banks) have no power. And in the political system in order for an MP to advance their career they have to vote for legislation that may not be in the best interests of the people they supposedly work for (the tax payer). They have these “chief whips” people who state that they will let MP’s sit on certain committee’s (to advance their carrer) if they vote for certain legislation. These systems and processes need to be changed, but this isn’t going to happen when it suits the capitalists and the pro nanny state politicans.

All these systems and processes seem to disempower the average person from making a difference and making changes for the better to their local community. They also seem to have created a culture of as long as I’m ok. The legislation also helps to supress freedom of speech and our option to voice our honest thoughts about things. We are less likely than ever to stand up and say: Hey I think that’s wrong.

Of course we can’t blame it all on the government and legislation. The mainstream media plays it’s part too. Always negative and with it’s own slant. How come we never see anything positive in the media? Is it perhaps another way of trying to control or suppress expression of our opinions? Over the last few years several people have been branded racists, homophobic, etc. for using a politically incorrect term. I often feel sorry for these people. Usually they have used the wrong words to make their point (a thing we can all be guilty of at times?), but their intention was not in anyway to be racist, homophobic, etc. Surely we need to look at their intention rather than the word they have used that might of offended a minority?

In summary two phrases come to mind:
“Devide and Conquer” and “Power to the few”

Is it just me who feels this way? Perhaps if we all get together we can make a positive change?

Thinking Politically,

Antony

As a gay man living in these times he was convicted of homosexuality in the hetrosexual world he lived in. He had a choice to under go chemical castration or go to prision. He choose to under go the chemical castration and later commited suicide.

Looking back now he is seen as a brilliant and intellegant man. Think what he could have achieved in his life, if he hadn’t cut it short as a result of british law at the time.

Gordon Brown according to Pink News apologised for his treatment after a petition signed by over thirty thousand people. There has been some debate on Gordon Brown’s apology amoungst the gay community. Peter Tatchell said to Pink News:

Peter Tatchell called the apology “welcome and commendable” but said an apology was also due to the estimated 100,000 British men convicted of similar offences.

He said: “Singling out Turing just because he is famous is wrong. Unlike Turing, many thousands of ordinary gay and bisexual men were never given the option of hormone treatment. They were sent to prison.

“All these men were criminalised for behaviour that was not a crime between heterosexual men and women.”
(Pink News, last accessed: 12th September 09)

However Zefrog said:

And this brings the next question, that of the worth of an apology. This is not a new debate. It is a particularly heated one, for example, in the black community around the issue of slavery, where it is complicated by the question of financial reparations.

An apology is, of course, a potent symbol…
(Zefrog, Last accessed: 12th September 09)

My opinion is that Gordon Brown could of better used his time and political influence to change the laws against homosexuality that still exist in the world. There are still places in the world were gay men (and sometimes lesbian women) are hung, shot or killed in some other way because of their sexuality. Because they have relationships and or sex with the same sex. You only need to look this world map below (provided by Wikipedia) to see how far spread homophobia still is in terms of governments laws against it.

(Click on the map for full size readable version)

Blog politically again soon,

Antony x