April 25, 2011
Dear Sir Sometimes people are accused of being either a fool or a crook. With regard to Wednesday’s public sector day of action, the Coalition Government could be said to be either incompetent or Machiavellian. Consider this: for some of the cabinet, this is their first proper job, which may explain why they went into “negotiations”, saying this was their proposal on the table, take it or leave it, and then they were surprised when the Unions didn't’t fall over in gratitude, but wanted to negotiate. As for being Machiavellian, the other side is, the Coalition Government may want to see strike action happen. Think about what happened with the miners. First threaten the industry and stir up problems and strife, thereby weakening the unions; then shut the pits. Now consider a possible agenda – provoke public sector strikes, then make public sector strikes illegal, then reduce the number of employees, then bring in friends of the Coalition Government from America to run things when privatised I wonder what are the Coalition Government’s true motives? !

NHS reforms: American consultancy McKinsey in conflict-of-interest row

Firm receives £250,000 a year from government while also providing paid-for advice to GP's affected by changes
      www.guardian.co.uk

April 25, 2011
There are some dichotomies regarding the present government’s housing policy, which I hope a member of the Conservative Party can explain, but do not expect they will be able.
Firstly can they explain the reasoning behind  forcing people out of their council properties just when there is a shortage of low rent accommodation. Then why are they increasing social rents to 80% of market rents at the same time as trying to cap housing benefit, not to mention also trying to hold down the wages of the lowest paid in the name of competiveness. 
Further, the same Government wants to increase the discount on council house sales, thereby encouraging sales of council housing and further exacerbating the problem of lack of social housing  which they caused in the first place in the 80’s.
These actions will make a lot of people angry, but they maybe not be Conservative voters, so like the miners, they do not matter.
If the Government wants to get the debt down why try to sell more council houses which puts individuals in debt and  cause the banks  to borrow more from abroad and have less to lend to business.
Mix that with another Great Idea  - increasing our job insecurity, which the rest of Europe does not bother with, and making it harder for people to get mortgages.
With the social housing gone, high rents and limited accommodation if these people  lose their job, they will be homeless. Who will pay then and what will happen to our society.
The government’s policy needs a total rethink !

NHS reforms: American consultancy McKinsey in conflict-of-interest row

Firm receives £250,000 a year from government while also providing paid-for advice to GP's affected by changes
      www.guardian.co.uk

Iain Duncan-Smith talks of the sin of idleness
What of the greater sin of forcing idleness on others as the Thatcher Goverment done in the past.
When instead of using the oil revenue to modernise British industry the money went on the dole .the idea of a post-industrial economy was to produce a servant class.
Somewhere in economics, is something called supply and demard
The present Goverment is either stupid or telling fibs as takeing money out of the economy and sacking loads civil servants may increase the labour supply,but at the moment there is no labour shortage and no wage inflation.So how will creating unemployment again help the private sector create jobs?
This caused by ingorance of the Goverment, as most are millionaires, who stayed on at school into their twenties, and when they bothered to get a job it was more likley well paid and through friends. To them jobs fell into their hands, but for the rest of us the supply of jobs is less.

14 August 2010
 

David Cameron talks of broken Britain: well who broke it? The Conservatives' in the eighties with mass unemployment! Before then most people left education and went straight into a job. Then with youth unemployment the chain was broken and the idea of getting a job earning a wage: working with and being treated as an adult was gone. People left school and did not have to grow up
As regards employment the previous incarnation of the party of unemployment said " The old jobs will go and new ones come, in banking and insurance".
They did not believe it! How many people from Redland Bricks, Coopers Stick Factory or RFD finished up working in the City of London?
The post industrial economy did not work, Germany still manufactures there they have better jobs.
No the idea was to destroy the uppity working class; the policy of selling off council houses was to break up communities and now the idea of short term tenancies which will destroy communities, families even more having the same neighbours for years is helpful such as hospital runs, shopping, key holders, does social services want to spend more time and money looking after the elderly etc.
The next group to target is the unemployed Cameron's recent speech about dole scroungers demonised the unemployed they become undermenchen
So remember with this deficit reduction, austerity the new monetarism whose turn next to be unemployed no sympathy like that ,for those who caused this disaster(the City people ) ; but the real plan is so the employed the majority will not care about the unemployed and everything will look rosy

The Thatcher Years were an less an aberation than we thought
This is the true face of the Tories