The Tory Record of Strong and Stable Finance - Pull the other one

This morning Teresa May was interviewed on the Andrew Marr show (Sunday 30th April 20107), inevitably Andrew asked if his was going to be an election of sound bites and then the words 'strong and stable' were used. Of course May then goes on to state this is the most important election she has experienced in her lifetime. It would be because she's the who is running for PM it doesn't take an idiot to realise this. The underlying emphasis of Teresa's interview is the Tories are doing their best to build a strong economy and it is only through a strong economy the country is able to finance everything, be it the welfare system, education system or the NHS. But really we have to ask how effective has Tory governance been in achieving this? For it seems a strong economy means to the large disadvantage of many and the advantage of a few.

The Tories and May are constantly arguing it is only possible to have good Education, NHS, Welfare benefits etc etc if we have a productive and strong economy. Yet the UK has probably the worst economy since the second world war. With the total deficit now reaching £1.7 trillion pounds of debt. Under Tory leadership in the last 70 years than any other government. Counting 42 years of Tory rule and the total borrowing of the Tories £961.80 billion pounds. Since 2010 that is the last 7 years this Tory government has borrowed £555 billion pounds. It is working families who are now using food banks more than they have ever before, not just those who are living of the welfare system. May tells us 'she' has taken 4 million of people out of the tax, however this begs the question why is it 4 million people earn so little they don't pay any tax, for it shows we are increasing the number of low paid employees. Fact, nurses have had a reduction in their income by 14 percent since 2010 and are having to attend to food banks because they are unable to afford food to feed themselves as well as those people claiming benefit or in work benefits. The Trussell Trust has reported last year a massive 1.4 million food parcels were given out by food banks the most ever provided. Lets add a few more important items since the introduction of Universal Credits and austerity, the UK is now seeing a rise in infant mortality rates, child poverty is rising to such an extent there is nearly 1 in 4 children living in it. Additionally the rise of elderly deaths due to poverty is now higher than it has been seen the second world war.  The Work Capability Assessments have led to 600 suicides and highlights how this government deals with the disabled.

The table below can be seen with others from Richard Murphy see link below

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

As mentioned in yesterday's BLOG making a dividing line between rich and poor will kill the prospects of a Labour win in this election even if the statistics are true and clear that poorer people the disabled, the elderly and even the working people die and the middle classes are being neglected. They are not represented by the Tories.  Whilst the wealth of the business classes always look to the Tories in search of support reducing their taxes and increasing their profits. Their big bucks get a voice and it is heard whereas the voting voice only gets heard when there's an election.  There is no apparent social conscience because the Tory's respect wealth and it influences every legal decision made in the House of Commons. The consequence is the streets of Britain are now lined with more homelessness and poverty than they have ever been before. Policies implemented by the Tories are creating the worst an most unequal society ever, which will continue to get worse than it is now if the Tories continue to remain in power. Tax avoidance and non payment is the game, as we all witness the largest multi-corporate companies making their money and not paying tax because the find a way to offset it against some other expenditure.

BREXIT has been a massive spanner thrown into the political works of government. And unfortunately it has become a contributing factor in the decision which are being made by MPs. Yet it was not necessary to have an election to cement BREXIT, for the EU does not care what the majority levels are of any government. They are only concerned with screwing the UK over as hard as they can. Rightly Tim Farron leader of the Liberal Democrats has highlighted how crazy the notion of BREXIT was, we all know Cameron's decision to bring about the referendum was to shut up his own Tory MPs and to give him a get out of jail card, for he was tired of government. Perhaps it must of been taking a toll on him telling all the lies he has.  BREXIT like the current pending election was for one thing, for the benefit of the Tories.  It should also be noted Tim Farron didn't want to remain in the EU but he could see the impact of being taken out of the EU was far worse than breaking free. It is sad to see how easily the electorate has been split by an issue which is likely to be based more on immigration that actually anything else. For immigrants are seen as the easy scape goat of blame rather than the party in power.

The first past the post system of of politics does not work. It would only be through some kind of proportional representation true political awareness and issues could come forward. But it's not going to happen. So to vote is to vote tactically, vote for that candidate who is more likely to be a stronger opposition to the Tories just to ensure the Tories are out of office than to split the votes into smaller segments which will ultimately no be represented at all.

An election and country at war with itself

Theresa May's call for an election is undoubtably a tactic to put the Tory party into power not just for another five years but possibly for an eternity, which will end in the complete and utter desimation of the British political system. They will entrench their base so firmly the UK will never ever be the same again. At the same time the inability of multiple parties other than the Tories to understand a necessity to make Tories redundant is stronger than every in our history feels like it is falling on deaf ears. To win an election the middle ground must be fought and gained, dividing the population into rich and poor will only alienate all those electors who fall between the two or who are oxymorons of political views. For lets face it were we just black or white then it would be simple, it's not.

Corbyn's latest speech for his campaign has centred on two aspects of the voting electorate, first he has yet again highlighted the divide between rich and poor and championed himself for the poor and working classes and secondly because he has sided with the young who fail to vote, going so far as to cite that forty percent of those between 18 and 25 don't vote. Never in my life time have I witnessed a time where there is not a politician and especially political group which do not represent me. Although I see myself as left leaning, I also see myself in many respects as a social democrat and also acknowledge in order for the country to be productive the business makers must be given assistance. That we need and require a manufacturing base just as much or even more than a banking sector. So in one sense my political view is a diaspora of collective views pulled into one. I strongly disagree with how public services have been decimated, the education system being farmed out by side stepping privatisation, how the welfare state is being degraded into a pauper state and how the health system is now being made into a death by default sustenance system. In each case, it is only those who can afford to pay for their own education, health care or services who are able to take advantage and keep the advantage. In a perverse way it is also obvious social migration has become harder and harder. If you are poor now it is likely you will stay poor until you die. The state and the systems in place are provided to keep you at bay and to never climb out of it. For every working moment possible must be used just to be able to live. Yet remarkably in the UK we have seen massive migration levels, with net migration at approximately 300,000 per year. As people come to the UK they look for a better life however, the life style of the UK is rapidly depressing, it is now getting so tough it will not be long before the UK is the poorman of Europe and we may even see the likes of migrant EU nationals returning to their own countries.

The solution is in the middle ground, get that right and the politicians will succeed in influencing voters. Pity they have all got it wrong.

Justine Greening - The decimator of state education

When a Tory government comes to power it means many things, the rich get richer, the poor poorer and the rich go on to perpetuate their advantages for as long as they possibly can. Systems change in a way so the financially better off are even more better off. The notion seems to be to give pain to the disadvantaged which should motivate them to do better and pull their socks up. In education the wealthy are now grabbing more opportunities and the hot topic is anything but state education based schools. Consequently the bare faced lies of Justine Greening are laid out for all to see. As the Tory party yet again decimate another inherent social structure, the education system.  They state more money has been put into the education budget than ever before. However rather than being disseminated to secondary state schools it going to, Academies, Free (often religious) schools and lastly Grammars with state schools getting a real time reduction in funds. The evidence for this has come from the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS).

The IFS, the report BN195 titled "The short and long-run impact of national funding formula for schools in England" goes into detail of how the national funding formula (NFF) is applied to the different educational systems in place. Some alarming findings from this report indicate, costs per pupil has been frozen in real times since 2015 right through to 2020 and has meant a 6.5% cut in real terms of money per state pupil. Additionally funding for those deprived schools is being diverted away to those schools of average level funding. Effectively, this government is making those schools in need worse off. They are already schools suffering from poverty, low class under achieving pupils needing all the support they can get and now it seems as if this government stamps those kids with the sole of its big size twelve boots into the mud. Your needy kids are going to get less, have less opportunity and do even worse than you did. Justine Greening says there is more money being put into education, perhaps so but not to those who need it. It is a simple statement which does not reflect the full reality of educational funding, a lying statement to appease the electorate, to whitewash over their dismal record. The full reality is education is so diverse and complex only idiots use a simplification such as this to justify their decision making.

I wonder who Justine Greening is, how can she agree with these disastrous policies to kill the working classes of Britain.  What visually used to strike me were the moles on her face but as you can see to the left here, she had them removed. Probably the best bit of PR exercises she's ever done.  Greening doesn't strike as a particularly intelligent, perhaps because she was educated in a state school in Rotherham. Which makes her one of the unusual breed of Tories who came from a working class background and to an extent a working class traitor. Unfortunately this seems to be a common nowadays, she came out as gay not so long ago, which was fine as by this time she'd already made it into government otherwise, there is remarkably very little on the internet about her life and it's a matter of reading between the lines from the articles which are available.

Wikipedia indicates she is from a working class family, her father was in the steel industry but we don't know what his actual job was. Greening is probably a example of a averagely educated and not outstandingly intelligent person.  What was it like growing up as a young Justine Greening, what was her life like and her experiences? In a Guardian article published on the Friday 23rd January 2013, Greening describes her tendency toward the conservative party when at Oakwood Comprehensive school in the 1980s. All the kids around her also had family in the steel industry and Greening asked her father why they were going on strike. Her father opposed strike action and so apparently the union/labour view.  From this episode she gleaned her thinking was different. She didn't buy into having to continually fund an industry which was making no money, but rather it should have been re-structured. She kept her views to herself no doubt because of repercussion in the environment she was part. It seems she disagreed with the logic of the argument to strike and sided with her father's belief the strike wouldn't change the inevitable downfall of the steel industry. Given Greening's father was in the steel industry it is likely he had a higher than normal pay. Put it this way certainly not on minimum pay and highly unlikely her family claimed any in work benefits.

The Tories have inadvertently created and stepped onto their own landmine when discussing equality, education and the working classes. They have began to cite the income of an ordinary working class people (OWP). However, their definition is someone who has current earnings of £33,000 or more per year and doesn't receive in work benefits. The medium income in the UK (that is 50th percentile level) is £20,000 per annum and the reality is 40 percent of workers earn less than £18,000. So what is considered the OWP is actually someone in a pretty well off position. The government report further indicates it is the middle classes who will benefit the most from grammar schools and someone on an income of £33,000 can include themselves in this bracket. So what we have is a government using a definition which falsely represents a much smaller part of the electorate than they publicise. Because of course, this government doesn't care about those who are on much lower income and this is the majority of working class people.

Social mobility, has often been viewed as the great equaliser.  If there are opportunities and you are good at what you do then why not climb the ladder to the top? However, it is not true in respect of opportunities and it has never been true. The issue is rather more of whether we live in a society which is closer to better social mobility than previously? Unfortunately the answer to this appears to be no. The re-emergence of free schools into the educational system has seen faith school take a lead. However, what these faith schools do is to continue the segregation of society. Muslims then only interact with Muslims, Jews with Jews, Catholics with Catholics. Further, there is a question of whether what is learnt in school actually helps get a job in the wider society.  Religious schools by their very context of based in a religion will be biased and profile specifically for their religious group.  Yes, there are some examples now of faith schools not only doing very well in educational terms but also equally of being very bad. How can this help social mobility? In a similar way the same goes very much for private schools, where only wealthy parents can afford to send their children, children who it has now been found with mediocre talent will outperform in the real world job stakes than much more talented and educated state school kids. This emphasises more than anything we do not live in a meritorious society. We live in a society which favours those who have good financial status. Education then becomes nothing of value to the poor. No wonder there is a increase in crime and an increase in continued poverty. See the research from the Cambridge Primary Review Trust and their report titled: Mind the Gap, Tackling Social and Educational Inequality printed in 2015.

An example of the financial disadvantage state schools have to contend with is they are not considered charities. This costs them greatly in funds their receive because they have in fact to run like a business.  Private schools and Free schools have charitable status to compare state schools with them is like playing foot ball on a 1:4 gradient, with Private and Free Schools at the top of the hill. National non-domestic rates (NNDR) and pension liabilities for these charities are far lower or exempt than the state education schools. It begs the question of why in the first place are state schools expected to pay NNDR while charities get away scot free? They gain from charging parents for the education and by being charities, not even considering the funds they leach away from the state schools.

Education can be a great leveller in society, but only if said society values it and feeds opportunities to those who get educated. Further education should be a life long journey, regardless of age if you have decided to qualify for any kind of subject, pass exams and get into it then you should also have opportunities related to it. It is therefore grossly unfair education and opportunity should only be given to selected groups of people. Just because they are richer, privilege or born within a culture or religion which ups the anti in support, ensuring their kind always steps on the toes or the heads of the less well off to be on top. So the moral of this educational story in the UK is, take a early advantage continue with it and never look back and being smart doesn't come into it.