World mysteries.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The letter to Gordon Brown that I posted in this blog was the second letter I sent to him, and having received a reply to the first a couple of weeks later, from him, or more likely his secretary's secretary, I expected another this time.

Maybe it was the fact that the election was taking up his time and he, or his secretary never had time to act on it, but whatever reason, I never got a reply this time, and as he has just taken the steps I suggested in the said letter, by packing his bags and leaving number ten Downing Street, resigning his post as leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister of Britain, I am beginning to think he at least read it.

The first letter I composed to him was inflamed by the elimination of the ten pence tax rate, and other prominent moves that would make the poor of this country poorer, and the rich richer (more of a Tory policy) or basically getting the poorest of the taxpayers to bail the country out of it's crisis rather than the more well off.

Refusal to tighten the country's expenditure while forcing US to tighten our belts, going ahead with the costly ID cards, and replacing our nuclear weapons system at a cost of billions of pounds was also mentioned in the letter (although seemingly we can still afford that, regardless of which party gets in or how much more debt it puts us in) to which each subject was touched on, albeit lightly, but not to my satisfaction.

He did reimburse the lost money from the tax rate for that year, but only for that year, never reinstating it, and whether my letter had anything to do with it or not, I will never really know, as most of the country was up in arms over it, but I would like to think I had played my part.

As for the other subjects, he stubbornly stood by HIS beliefs, a fact that led to his downfall, one of the many other issues I warned him in my letter that would lead to his eviction from Downing Street, a fault, I pointed out to him, other Prime Ministers before him had also made.
It is all very well being stubborn in your beliefs, as long as it is in agreement with the electorate, but as we all know the biggest mistake politicians make is ignoring the people who put them there, and regardless of which party they represent, when they do this they are rejected.
It wasn't very difficult predicting the demise of Brown with all the blunders he and his party made, the problem we face now is that none of the present candidates are much better, that is why we have a hung parliament, NOT because we were disillusioned with any one party, but because we are disillusioned with them all.

Labour turning more Conservative, conservatives turning any way they could as long as it was to try and get away from the Labour policies, which meant no solid manifesto, and the Lib-Dems coming up with ideas that both the other two parties tried to cash in on was also a contributory factor.

We have a hung parliament because, not one of the parties installed enough faith in the public to give any of them a clear victory, and until one of them comes up with a sure and definite solution to the financial problems we now face, without it costing "US" the taxpayer who bailed out the banks too much deprivation, then we will be no further forward.

We the public, should never have been put in this position in the first place, and we should not be expected to use our hard earned cash to bail out the cities of the world, AGAIN!

Its time the banks took some responsibility, and paid back some of the money LOANED to them by US, from the profits they are now making, which would ease the burden on the public, a burden that they caused in the first place.
ALL PARTIES TAKE NOTE!

One consolation that has come out of all this is the end of Peter Mandelson's influence on the Prime Minister's decisions, another reason for Brown's downfall, as by introducing this arrogant clown into politics for a third dismal spell was no better than putting the noose around his own neck.

As I have asked before, where did all the money disappear to in the first place?
One year the banks were making big profits, the next, the world banking system goes into meltdown and all the money in the world vanishes, EXCEPT, THAT IS, all this money that is suddenly appearing to reimburse the world funds.

If every country was hit by the banking crisis, and all countries are in debt to the tune of BILLIONS, where did the trillions come from that we have all borrowed, and to whom are we paying these loans to, plus interest of course.

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye, trillions do not just disappear, and reappear into new and mysterious hands overnight, and as David Cameron takes over as the new Prime Minister (with the help of Nick Clegg's Lib-Dems) that is the answer I am more interested in at the moment, rather than who is going to lead us through the mess left by these mysterious hands.

WHO may I ask is in the position, or is willing to answer that question?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Gordon Brown resigns as Prime Minister; Path paved for David Cameron to lead coalition government in United Kingdom (trueslant.com)
• Britain's David Cameron on Brink of Power (abcnews.go.com)
• U.K.'s Brown resigns, Cameron to take over as PM (calgaryherald.com)

Poverty for pensioners thanks to Browns plunder.

Image via Wikipedia

Here is an item I read in yahoo about pensioners, I think it was published in "THE TELEGRAPH" newspaper.


Myra Butterworth, 22:23, Monday 26 April 2010

Couples need to budget nearly £600,000 to cover the cost of their retirement, new figures have disclosed.

It means each pensioner needs an income more than double the basic state pension just to cover everyday costs such as food, petrol and clothing.

The annual expenditure is a third higher than five years ago, with retiring workers hit by a double whammy of falling income from their pensions and rising costs.

Laith Khalaf, a pensions expert at wealth managers Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "Millions of people are sleepwalking into an impoverished old age. You cant expect to spend twenty or thirty years in retirement without stashing away a substantial amount of money while you are still working."

The latest figures, compiled by MGM Advantage, suggested the average household needs £564,227 to cover the cost of the first 20 years after quitting the workforce.

The calculation is based on annual household expenditure for those aged 65 to 74 at £23,107, compared with £14,926 for those aged 75 and over. Five years ago, the figures were £17,737 and £11,700 respectively.

The higher cost of living in London means an average retired couple needs a total of £668,553 over 20 years while the lower cost of living in the North East means households need £473,178.

Chris Evans, chief executive of MGM Advantage, said: "There is significant pressure on pensioner income. Those people retiring today can expect to live for twenty years but with annuity rates falling and the cost of living rising, funding retirement is a difficult task.

"With such large regional discrepancies in the cost of living in retirement, we wouldn't be surprised if more people considered relocating to other less expensive parts of the country in order to search out a better quality of life.

As expenditure has risen, pension incomes have declined as investment companies factor in the cost of the aging population and lower returns during the financial crisis.

A pension pot of £564,227 currently secures an annual income of £35,806, compared with £37,656 five years ago, according to Hargreaves Lansdown.

The basic state pension of £97.65 per week equates to £10,155 per year for a couple in retirement.

Only the very wealthy and those in the public sector with generous gold-plated schemes can guarantee a financially secure retirement, experts said.

Ros Altmann, a pensions expert and governor at the London School of Economics, said: "We have a real pension crisis and politicians have not woken up to it. Most peoples pensions are not going to deliver the figures they would have expected when they first started saving unless of course, you happen to work in the public sector."

Separate research by equity release specialists Key Retirement Solutions suggested pensioners are entering retirement with average debts of £36,000, including credit cards, loans, mortgages, and overdrafts.

With more immediate financial concerns such as avoiding having their homes repossessed and covering the cost of rising petrol bills, charities said households were failing to save enough for their retirement.

Michelle Mitchell, charity director at Age UK, said: "This report is another powerful reminder of the need for adequate pension provisions. Its not surprising many people are shocked by the drop in income and standards of living they experience at retirement."


Gordon Brown still has no conscience about his plundering of the pension funds which added to pensioners problems.
We did our bit to keep the pensioners that were around when we were working, with the pledge that we would be looked after in our retirement but quite the opposite has occurred.
We are among the poorest pensioners in Europe, with our savings for retirement in private, or work pensions, taxed three times before it reaches us, and a state pension that is impossible to live on thanks to Margaret Thatcher doing away with the earnings related pension, and Labour plundering our pension schemes.
Why in the world should we vote for any of them?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Couples must budget £600,000 for retirement (telegraph.co.uk)
• Pension Pains: States Slice Benefits (abcnews.go.com)
• General Election 2010: In this pensions mess, it's every man for himself (telegraph.co.uk)

Letter to Gordon Brown.

Image via Wikipedia

Below is a letter Gordon Brown will receive from me during the coming week.
You, my faithful followers have the chance to read it before him.
I hope it meets your approval.


22 March 2010


Dear Mr Brown

Here are some points you might like to ponder on transit from number ten Downing Street to your new abode that you will be forced to take residency in after the election.

As your party were in charge during the financial crisis, you should have had the gumption to put conditions on the ridiculously large loans you dished out to the banks, mainly a definite clause laid down on a repayment system, and a cap on the vulgar bonuses received by the greedy team of banking management, until the said loans of billions of taxpayer’s money has been repaid.

Your budgets and manifestos since do not take into consideration any of the money being paid back by the banks, only by the taxpayer whose money it was in the first place.
Perhaps it is time you realised that the majority of voters come from the poorest paid of the country, some through no fault of their own, which makes them no less clever than you or your fellow politicians, and are very capable of working out who, or what party is the best way forward.
Taxing these people more by doing away with the 10p income tax basement level is no way to gain their votes, and if you think that by returning the money fleeced from them last year will make its existence go unnoticed this year you are sadly mistaken as the difference it makes to a small wage is very significant in comparison to the large pay-packet you and your kind receive.

Although the SNP has taken the brunt of the Megrahi affair and do not deserve to be put back in power in Scotland (the coming election will see to that) your party too influenced that decision, and is responsible for many other murderers, and sex offenders being released from prison only to commit the same offences soon after their release.
It is time the courts in our country were allowed to punish crimes rather than give in to the minority who think leniency is the answer, and are proved to be wrong time and time again much to the disgust of the victims and decent citizen of Britain who suffer through these stupid actions.

It seems to me and the majority of the voters that you have stopped listening to us, the people who put your party in power with the assumption that you were there to carry out OUR wishes NOT your own, and are turning this country into a dictatorship rather than a democracy.

If you were worth voting for you would forget about introducing ID cards, a system that the biggest majority of this country do not want whether we could afford them or not.
If there was ever any doubt in your mind of your betrayal, your persistence on going through with such a ridiculous scheme that we can ill afford until this country is back on its feet is one example of you not listening to the people who put you in power.

Another example is the Trident missile that will cost the taxpayer billions at a time when we are already over taxed thanks to your generosity towards the bankers, and your failure to consolidate a repayment scheme.

You tell US to tighten OUR belts while you go on squandering OUR money and expect to be re-elected.

You crucify the poorest of this country’s citizens, who as I have said make up the majority of the voters, and expect to be re-elected.

You do nothing about the leniency shown to our criminals, have no consideration for victims of crime, and expect to be re-elected.

These are the concerns of the people who put your party in power, and these are the concerns you should be addressing.

It is bad enough your betrayal, but not to have the sense to see where you are going wrong, treating the electorate like dummies and being stubborn enough to stick to plans that the general public abhor gives them no confidence in you or your party, so if you have not already made plans to move out of number ten, I suggest you do so.

The saddest thing about politics at present is the fact that none of the main parties seem to have the sense to act on the voters’ wishes and would rather act like a bunch of schoolboys in the House of Commons trying to score points off each other rather than get down to the reality of putting the country to rights.

Any party that has the sense to act on the points I have given you to ponder will show that they have the voters concerns in mind, which will show us a way out of this recession without punishing the very people whose money rescued the country in the first place.
It is not too late to show some sense, and give the voters SOME hope in the coming election, and maybe delay your departure from number ten.


Yours sincerely



D. Swarbrick.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Hung Parliament possible as UK polls tighten (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Brown and Labour show their true character (telegraph.co.uk)
• Dangers of the PM's Tea Party (iaindale.blogspot.com)

The saga continues

Image via Wikipedia

O.K. I might be wrong about Gordon Brown letting this go but even if he takes it as far as the courts it will be the taxpayers money that will be used to cover the costs, unless he checks the facts properly this time ,leaving no loopholes and gets Mr Goodwin to cover the costs on loosing.
On being interviewed on T.V. a lawyer remarked that he did not think that we had a chance to prevent this pension going through but given the facts of a NEW takeover by US and no contract with US which should be the case in these situations I don't see why we can't win given the failures of this man. In saying that it would be typical of our country and courts to reward failure while punishing the honest hard working SUCCESSFUL citizens of Britain.

The post office privatisation

Image via Wikipedia

The government has a cheek holding the royal mail pension scheme over the workers to try and get them to accept privatisation as it was Gordon Brown's raids on all pension schemes that put them in the financial mess they are in now and have never recovered from. (My blog 26 January)
The post office could be run as a very efficient business if the government would stop interfering by restricting prices and progressive measures suggested by management to benefit all concerned. It is a public company which should and could stay that way if it was given a freer range by government ministers. This is not the first time that a government has tried to privatise the Royal Mail. The last time it was split into three sections, (Counters, Parcel force And mail.) the idea being to sell it off as three businesses and make more money but that failed because parcel force was loosing a fortune and the mail side of things had to bale it out.
The mail side was contributing one million pounds profit each day to the government then, and although things have progressed in other fields of communication now, it shows the Royal Mail has the potential to be a viable concern if allowed. Lets stop hearing all this nonsense from the government and listen to the workers who are more honest and know more about the running of it. The government has had a lot more out of Royal Mail than the banks it baled out so perhaps they should bear that in mind also.