Please see our A-Z INDEX or return HOME




TRANSPARENCY - As part of the application process, and as continuous monitoring of candidates and especially Members of Parliament, all politicians, local and national should have their bank accounts audited for anomalies. To wit, Lady Michelle Mone and Boris Johnson's speech making overseas, while still a paid MP in the UK. Local councillor's interests and conflicts should also be monitored for proceeds of crime. Here, we are talking of planning crime, that is costing the earth, in climate change as well as in £Billions of pounds of illegal profiteering. Many Councillors only join councils to gain from planning consents.







JESUS WEPT - We are too. Looking at the Conservative party, and wondering how the stupidity of British voters, and the helplessness of the Opposition parties (all of them put together) allowed a party whose policies are corrupt to the core, to ruin the United Kingdom. Yes, that is right. It is not just the fault of the elected party. It is also the fault of the opposing politicians in failing to come up with anything better. Why did they not explain to the electorate, how never ending borrowing would end in tears. Why did they not explain that never ending growth would fry the planet?


It's not sufficient to join an opposing party, you must think of something better. Or, get out of politics - and just admit that the UK is buggered.


It's mainly to do with lying to the electorate, because there is no accountability in British politics. And no Article 13 in the Human Rights Act 1998, to allow a member of the public to mount a challenge. This was and is a deliberate move on the Adolf Hitler scale of "disarming" the public, to take control of a Nation without voters having any real recourse to removing the slime that has infected English, Irish (Northern), Scottish and Welsh society. Being the Dis-United Kingdom.


It's also the fault of the Monarchy. Because, that is where the Buck stops. And that is one of the best reasons we can think of to dissolve the Monarchy. It's about time we had a written constitution based on telling the truth and transparency. Full accountability, with the right of every citizen to challenge injustice and corruption, built into the Constitution. The Monarchy have done everything they could to prevent accountability. Rewarding failure and corruption with titles. Sir this and Lord that. Really means, well done for towing the party line - or not rocking the boat.


That of course means corrupt cops. Using police to harass and stitch up dissenters. Those who do rock the boat. Such as taking a protestors rights away. Locking them up, and criminalizing them. Smearing their characters, sometimes with false convictions. Knowing, there is no right of appeal in Great Britain. And the single judges who control "Leave" to "Appeal", are bought and paid for.


Hence, being at Her Majesty's Pleasure. Now, His Majesty's Pleasure. Prisons are controlled by the Head of State. Tax collection is controlled by HM Revenue and Customs.


It is just as bad as Nazi Germany in reality. But the sheep who accept corruption, never come up against 'The System,' that is ultimately controlled by 'The Firm.'


King Charles recently petitioned Parliament for a change in the law, to disarm Meghan & Harry, and keep Prince Andrew out of the limelight. Thus, we know the power exists for change, when it suits. The King could ask for a Written Constitution to correct all of the defects we have identified, but will never do so. Since, it would probably mean abolition of the Monarchy - as well they fear. Allegedly. As much as proportional representation. As much as transparency and accountability. Corruption is inbuilt into the system, to keep control or a corrupt system.









n the day ambulance workers chose to strike, inevitably putting lives at risk, there was another piece of news that should have made everyone's blood run cold.

Last month the Government borrowed £22 billion, a record for November. A year ago the figure was £13.9 billion. Interest payments alone surged to £7.3 billion in a single month.

These are staggering figures. In 30 days the Government borrowed an amount of money that is roughly half the UK's annual defence budget, or a fifth of expenditure on education in England.

Next year the Government expects to borrow £177 billion so that debt, already standing at a record £2.45 trillion, will continue to climb. Interest payments on that debt are already running at more than £100 billion a year, which is about 10 per cent of total public expenditure. [Making financial slaves of worker Britons, due to gross maladministration]

If HMG were a company, it would be given a stiff talking to by the bank, and told to get its finances in order or face bankruptcy. As developed countries don't usually go bust, it is able to persuade the markets to cough up extra loans — just. [But for how much longer, if this carries on?]

Ministers keep repeating that meeting huge public sector pay demands is 'unaffordable'. That is a grotesque understatement. We are living on borrowed money, and yet most of the general public — and certainly the strikers — seem blithely unconcerned.

Why can't the Government get across the precariousness of our situation? Is it because it believes most people don't understand big numbers? That would be a very patronising point of view.

Only three months have passed since Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng's infamous mini-Budget unnerved the markets and precipitated an economic crisis. The pound plunged against the dollar, and the interest rate that the Government pays for borrowing soared.

It really shouldn't be too difficult to persuade the general public that this country is only one step away from skid row, and that agreeing to astronomical pay claims would take us perilously close to the edge.

And yet a recent YouGov survey found that 66 per cent of the public support nurses' strike action, and 63 per cent back yesterday's walkout by ambulance workers. Admittedly, enthusiasm for striking border force staff and railway workers is less marked.

Meanwhile, the BBC and most of the broadcast media are acting as the nurses' unofficial propaganda arm, sympathetically interviewing strikers, and portraying them in the most favourable light.

I don't believe the general public are stupid. The problem is that ministers have failed to convey just how bad things are. They have allowed trade unions and striking workers to argue their case on the basis of justice rather than of economic realities.

Of course the nurses deserve a significant pay rise — though I am less sympathetic to ambulance workers, who are better paid and have received a significant real terms increase during the past decade. [What about an economy where there is zero inflation, based on an AgriDollar - something tangible like agricultural produce. Paper money is worthless where it can fluctuate so much at the whim of the markets. The Gold Standard was far preferable to lending paper on paper. You cannot lend against what the planet cannot produce sustainably - or face global warming]

But nurses haven't. According to the Nuffield Trust, the average NHS nurse earned £35,989 in the year to March 2022, a 5.9 per cent fall compared with 2010-11 levels (when the Tories came to power) once inflation is taken into account.

Ministers should declare that nurses should be better paid. But in the real world what is desirable is not necessarily practicable. This is not the moment for a very substantial pay rise because the public finances are so fragile. [Why should any group get a better deal than everyone else, also suffering from a devalued pound and recession. It's belt tightening from here on, as the realities of overspending and over-borrowing kick in.]

According to the Department of Health and Social Care, meeting demands by the Royal College of Nursing for an increase of around 19 per cent would cost £10 billion a year.

Did I hear someone say 'only £10 billion'? That is a fatal argument. If the bill for the nurses is £10 billion, other striking public sector workers will insist that their pay claims are also met. The Government reckons that settling all of them would cost £28 billion, which is an awful lot of money in present circumstances.

Ministers are not being mean. They're not being selfish, nasty Tories. In fact, they are being responsible and surprisingly brave. One can't help wondering whether Boris Johnson would have held the line if he were still in No 10.

The message to nurses and other deserving workers should be that the present economic squeeze, which is principally caused by the energy crisis arising from the war in Ukraine, will pass. The Government should then be in a position to pay them a reasonable increase, but it isn't now.

Maybe it's not entirely the fault of current ministers that they are losing the public relations battle. The Government's sometimes reckless largesse during the pandemic gave people the impression that there really is a magic money tree which can be harvested at will. [And that may turn out to be because of the opportunity for backhanders, as in the Michelle Mone scandal]

There isn't. Covid cost the country — that means us, our children and grandchildren, and their children — over £400 billion [£29 million to Mone - so how much to others, MPs, etc], which will have to be paid back. Billions were undoubtedly wasted. But there was the justification of a national emergency. [Procurement fraud always requires some justification, the sums involved in munitions and armaments is staggering]

So expenditure during the pandemic shouldn't be invoked as evidence that there are boundless resources. Our economic position has been made weaker, and as a result the Government has less scope when dealing with the present crisis.

I should point out a contradiction in the nurses' argument. They say they are partly striking to improve conditions in hospitals. But if their full claims were met, the money would come out of the NHS budget, weakening the health service they say they want to protect. Another example of the absence of realism in this debate.

Will ministers inject some realism? This is a battle that will be won or lost in the forum of public opinion. As things stand, the nurses are winning by a wide margin, and the Government is plainly on the ropes.

It really is the moment for eloquence and the full panoply of political skills. Instead, we have a succession of grey ministers tramping around broadcast studios. They repeat the mantra that we can't afford large pay demands without spelling out the consequences of caving into them.

Where is Rishi Sunak? Almost invisible, though he sounded robust in an interview with the Mail earlier this week. He's right to refuse to negotiate with the trade unions, since there's no point in such talks if no money is available. Besides, the unions would spin the inevitable breakdown of negotiations as evidence of his stubbornness.

Mr Sunak must persuade the country that the Government isn't being intransigent. He can only do this if he ventures out of No 10 to make speeches and perform in television studios.

The message should be that the Government cherishes nurses and other public servants (perhaps not the RMT's Mick 'The Grinch' Lynch) and accepts that the pay of some of them has declined in recent years. But the Government owes it to the country to be responsible. Whopping pay rises would hurt us all. [What about savings being devalued and pensions, etc., thanks to Boris lying about Brexit, pursuing policies based on borrowed time.]

This is a big test for Mr Sunak since the striking nurses are not going to go away, though the RMT may fold because Mr Lynch is losing the support of his members. [Health Service chiefs, like Council executives earn staggering sums with enhanced pensions as a golden handshake.]

Is Rishi Sunak a sophisticated bean counter, or a statesman who won't give in to blackmail and is prepared to tell the country some home truths? We will soon find out. [In our view, the more honest he is, the better. He might even consider a Loan Moratorium]






BANKRUPTCY DEFINITION - When an organisation is unable to honour its financial obligations or make payment to its creditors, it files for bankruptcy. A petition is filed in the court for the same where all the outstanding debts of the company are measured and paid out if not in full from the company's assets. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy can stay on a credit report for up to 10 years from the date the bankruptcy was filed, while a Chapter 13 bankruptcy will fall off a report seven years after the filing date. After the allotted seven or 10 years, the bankruptcy will automatically fall off your credit report.


Obviously, those responsible for creating the bankruptcy, must not be allowed back into office for at least seven, but more like ten years. And if found guilty of procurement fraud, should be banned for life from any political position of trust, involving public funds. The alternative, is constant monitoring of any politician's assets and accounts, using anti money laundering computer algorithms. And totally independent policing, not involving local constabularies, who are themselves corrupt in many cases.







A Conservative council has said it will not make any ‘non-essential’ spending after they found themselves £469,000,0000 in debt.

Thurrock Council in Essex has declared itself in financial distress and issued a section 114 notice.

A section 114 notice means a local authority is in financial distress, cannot balance its budget, and is effectively bankrupt.

They are now seeking help from the government after a number of leaders have resigned.

Conservative leader Mark Coxshall said: ‘Today is a very worrying day but I see this as the start of our recovery.

‘Now we must look forward at how we can make a bright future for Thurrock.

‘I am absolutely determined to make that happen with tough decisions and working with all our council’s staff to do the right thing to get this council back on its feet.’

In 2018, the council were accused of having ‘an extreme appetite for risk’ after they provided £655 million to companies via bonds which included the purchasing of 53 solar farms.

Two years later the government said it was intervening because of the ‘serious financial situation’, and appointed Essex County Council to oversee any new spending.








The council said that they would not have to stop all spending aside from the reasons listed below, and cannot enter into new agreements that will incur a cost. Any proposed new spending must now be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by a formal spending review panel.

They said they can and will continue spending:

- on existing staff payroll and pension costs [what about enhanced pensions. Should they not be repaid as proceeds of crime, if part responsible for overspend?]
- on goods and services that have already been received
- required to provide of statutory services at a minimum possible level
- urgently needed to safeguard vulnerable citizens
- required through existing legal agreements and contracts
- funded through ring-fenced grants
- required to get value for money or reduce extra in-year costs

They said they will still pay refunds where they must do so.

Council leader Mr Coxshall however said ‘residents and staff should feel safe’ knowing that essential services such as street lighting, road gritting and social care would continue.

Non-essential services could include things like libraries, children’s centres, leisure centres, home pick-ups for disabled children going to school, and public events organised by the council.

Following this, council leader Rob Gledhill resigned, saying ‘the political buck stops with me’.

The council’s financial shortfall is one of the largest ever reported by a UK local authority. [What is yours like?]

Croydon, Slough and Northamptonshire have also issued section 114 notices in recent years.

John Kent, the former leader of the council and current leader of the opposition Labour group, said staff would be fearing for their jobs and vulnerable people fearing for the ‘services they rely on.’

‘This disaster has been made and delivered by Thurrock Conservatives and it’s high time they accept responsibility for their actions and resign.’ he said. [for sure, as they'd demonstrated only maladministration, so are not qualified for the job]

A full council meeting is scheduled for January next year. Get in touch with the Metro news team by emailing them at webnews@metro.co.uk.






The British debt situation is so bad that the United Kingdom have to have a Debt Management Office. A department that is failing dreadfully. Because, the UK's debt is out of control.


The UK Debt Management Office (DMO) was established on 1 April 1998 and responsibility for government wholesale sterling debt issuance was transferred from the Bank of England to the DMO. This re-organisation followed the transfer of operational responsibility for setting official UK interest rates from Her (now) His Majesty's Treasury to the Bank of England in May 1997.


The DMO's remit is to carry out the Government's debt management policy of minimising financing costs over the long term, taking account of risk, and to minimise the cost of offsetting the Government's net cash flows over time, while operating in a risk appetite approved by Ministers in both cases.


The bigger the debt, the greater our carbon footprint. Zero debt, equals a sustainable system, and carbon neutrality. Otherwise known as a Circular Economy.


But the UK is not alone in the Corruption Stakes. Europe has their problems. So too the USA and every other G20 Nation. Russia, is loaded with billionaires, so to China and India. You can only become a billionaire by profiteering, and giving very little back to the society you robbed that money from. It is called immoral earnings. But the State will not endorse a Wealth Tax. Why? Because they are on the same Gravy Train.


All such money is unearned income. Free of appropriate levels of taxation, to sustain society economically.


So, just you keep toiling away, building climate hot houses, wiring and plumbing them, and landscaping those executive homes that you cannot afford, for all those fat landlords to rent to the masses. So, to squander their ill gotten gains, and further warm the planet.


Alternatively, call for a Written Constitution and an outright ban on borrowing to sustain unsustainable policies and politicians who do not tell the truth, looking to serve out their term with benefits - not caring about the long term plight of the nation.







The Independent report on delays by Theresa May on climate change and BREXIT



MORATORIUM DEFINITION - When an organisatio














 Please see our A-Z INDEX or return HOME