Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site or return HOME





The Conservatives are selling us out. Their election promises are not based on clever management of the country, but the deceitful practice of borrowing to underpin their administration. If the electorate had been told the unvarnished truth, that they were going to borrow, borrow, and borrow some more - because they did not have the gumption or the brains to do anything else. Do you think they would have voted in another Conservative Comedy Act?


Are they frauds? According to the Fraud Act 2006, there is a duty to disclose honestly and to perform, or where money has been accepted for the position of Prime Minister, obtaining monies by deception appears to be a criminal offence.






Politicians should study economics before stepping up to the lectern, and take a truth serum before answering questions as to where all the money is coming from to pay for their election promises. Boris Johnson was one of the biggest fibbers, talking the talk, but actually more interested in clowning, parties and expensive wallpaper, than "getting the job done." Then misleading Parliament, for as long as possible, until he was fined for breaking Covid rules - and even then failed to confess to his sins. Even lying to the Queen. Thus earning a reputation as Shitfinger.


The problem is that British policies are not equitable. Corruption is so inbred, that instead of wiping the slate clean, each new Prime Minister, just carries on as if they had it right before. But if they had it right, why are we in a cost of living  and energy crisis?


Simple. They had it wrong. And it is still wrong.


The policy mire is so thick, it is almost impossible to thin down, to get the lifeblood of the country flowing again. Thus, forcing politicians to lie to get elected. If they told the truth, they'd never get a chance to even try and fix it. Never mind climate change, housing, transport, food and energy security, the bedrock of any sustainable society.


The economy is (or should be) simple, Income Vs Expenditure:




There are only so many people working, in so many companies - as taxable income. Income also comes in from property, VAT, death duties, and so on. In fact we are taxed to the yin-yang.


If they could, they'd tax sex and breathing: Sex Tax and Breath Tax. If they can't tax it, they don't want it. Like cheap renewable electricity and electric cars. They don't like those, because electric cars can be run from solar power, from home roofs. Oh dear. How can they tax that and look reasonable.


The cost of operating the country is (or should) be fixed, except for procurement fraud and corruption built into the equation. Especially in local politics, where grants of permission are often rigged, denied to ordinary citizens, but granted to mates, once a property changes hands.




From the income the country has to pay for a Health Service (because they charged for that service), Roads (because they charged for that service), and the armed forces (because we may need to defend ourselves from overseas tyrants, more tyrannical than our own politicians).




Other services are provided by companies. For example, houses are not built by the state. Electricity is not provided by the state, nor is water, nor sewage disposal. All the government has to do is make these independents operate fairly, for the benefit of the public. And that is where the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems get it wrong. Mainly, because of the corruption that they have allowed to flourish in local Councils. Because they will not correct faulty legislation. Nor will they force utilities to do the right thing. They have bodies to whitewash complaints, such as Ofwat and Ofgem. Who should be locked up for the decisions they make.


Faulty legislation is like a computer program that does not work. Only in the case of a computer, it just locks up. In the case of an economy, the end user -  the voting public - are squeezed harder and harder, until there is a revolution. A revolutions is called civil disobedience these days. Because revolutions proper are almost impossible with corrupt police and military, who are there to head all of that off at the pass - using the Courts - that operate for the state, even fabricating evidence to stitch dissidents up. Despite being supposedly impartial.* Making the police, potentially, the most corrupt of organizations in the UK, a bit like the Gestapo and FSB. In the UK, police forces work with councils, to bury corruption and discrimination. The media tend to steer clear of such cases, so that they don't get reported.


But let us assume a rosy picture for now - even though it is anything but. And then we have local taxation.




The problems start with a lack of transparency. Politicians (esp. local councils) don't want transparency. Or we'd know all about their discriminatory blunders, and favours to mates. They will do anything they can to muddy the waters. Why? Because their officers and executives are on the take. What they are actually looking out for is enhanced pensions and golden handshakes. Planning officers are looking for bribes (brown envelopes). They don't want affordable houses, because that means less Council Tax, for them to squander, and no brown envelopes.


That is the reason that the United Nations identifies transparency as a Sustainability Development Goals (SDG).


Liz is all Trussed up in her roots. She is not about to try and untangle the morass that operates on cheap (slave) labour, financial slavery and unfair taxes, all designed to keep the wealthy nice and rich, and subdue the working class, who might be bold enough to start questioning their ethics.


This is all a leftover from our colonial days, when the British Empire was built on exploitation full stop. Exploitation is still number one at number 10 and 11.


Politicians cannot afford ethics. Especially in a Britain up shit creek without a paddle.






Margaret Thatcher, is an example of a politician (known as the Iron Lady) who thought of the voting public as slaves to her view of British politics. Her attitude towards the citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, showed her for what she was, an uncaring tyrant propping up unsustainable policies by any means. That kind of pothole politics is still prevalent.


Instead of getting the basic policies right, taskmasters try to extract yet more taxes from the electorate. In the case of the Poll Tax, they wanted to extend a property tax to those without property. Ludicrous thinking. Conservative elitist thinking.


They wanted to tax the homeless and destitute, with no fixed abode, to pay for services for those with homes.


Liz Truss is on record as wanting people - already with two jobs just to stay afloat - to work harder. Presumably so that she can tax them more. Liz dear, you have to cut your clothes according to your cloth. And there are only so many people working in the UK. You already tax the hell out of those not working via the rising cost of living, and charge tuition fees for those looking to gain skills for better paid work.


No wonder there is a skills shortage.


How about the fact that there is no affordable housing in the UK. Again, because policies are shot to bits to favour rich landlords. Because, wealthy landowners and property developers give donations to the Conservative Party. Who then keep policies in place to allow landlords to keep on profiting from those less well off in society.


That is the essence of Conservative Party Politics.


But there are none so blind as those who will not see. The media bombard us with news in such fashion, as the electorate believe corruption is normal. That is how Bojo got away with his shenanigans for so long. In a society that shunned bullshit and evasiveness, the Clown of Europe would have fallen before he was elected.











To be fair to Liz Truss, any politician that is fool enough to try and dig the UK out of the shit, is in for a rough ride. So, they might as well borrow a bit more and make Britain poorer. This of course halves the value of your savings and reduces the buying power of your pensions.


At least those coming up as new shoots, with young families, don't have to worry about their savings. Because they won't have any.


The answer is to devalue the pound. Admit defeat, and start again. But with policy changes at the ready, to prevent white collar workers from living off blue collar workers, without bringing something to the party.











It was Margaret Thatcher's biggest political misjudgment - and brought her career as prime minister to an ignominious end. In our view she deserved nothing less. And that brings us to another institution that is long overdue for review: The Royal Family. We need constitutional reform, by way of a written constitution.

The poll tax (or community charge) was supposed to make local council finance fairer and more accountable. Instead it triggered civil disobedience and riots and a rebellion in the Conservative Party.










Mr WE Jones and his wife were in their 70s, living on modest pensions, and under the poll tax would be paying more than twice what they paid under the old system of rates, while better-off people in large houses would be paying less. He accused the prime minister of being uncaring.

"You have taken advantage of your position to impose your will upon us to the point where you are now virtually a Dictator riding roughshod over anyone who opposes you," he wrote on 3 March.

In the files released today the couple's address has been redacted, though a later memo reveals they lived in a house called Dream of Delight in the village of Great Snoring.

Howell asked for a meeting. The prime minister's adviser Mark Lennox-Boyd suggested he should be granted an audience: "The meeting will be a waste of time, but I am afraid she will have to do it to keep his frustration at bay."

Yet the files suggest it may not have been a waste of time, for this was the point when Mrs Thatcher finally realised that something must be done.

She turned not to her environment secretary Chris Patten, who had the job of bringing in the new tax, but to her recently-appointed chancellor, John Major. On 25 March (six days before an enormous demonstration against the poll tax in London which developed into serious rioting) the files contain a "note for the record" of a phone conversation between the two.

Instead of the tax shining a spotlight on spendthrift local councils, she said, the government was getting the blame for high charges, and the impact was falling on those in middle income groups, what she called the "conscientious middle".

Major agreed with the need for what he called a "radical review" to find a way to cap charges and give local authorities more money, but without increasing overall public expenditure.

Over the next two months the files reveal a succession of crisis meetings as ministers desperately tried to find a way out of their predicament, including the perceived unfairness of a system in which "Dukes and dustmen" both paid the same.

One idea was to raise more money. Should councils be allowed to use cash from the sale of council houses to subsidise the poll tax? Or should people on higher incomes pay more? That idea was floated by the prime minister herself in an unusual signed "personal minute" to Major on 9 April.

And she had another idea: putting an extra penny on a gallon of petrol and distributing the proceeds to councils. She wrote in the suggestion by hand three times on a memo of 10 April listing options. But none of her colleagues seems to have paid any attention and the idea went nowhere.

Meanwhile there was a growing split. Patten and the local government minister Michael Portillo wanted to increase central government grants to local authorities. Mrs Thatcher wasn't having it. "No," she wrote firmly in the margin on one occasion.

Then she and Major, without apparently consulting Patten, came up with an idea for allowing local councils to levy a higher poll tax than stipulated by central government, provided they first put it to a local referendum (a "poll tax poll").

Patten was opposed, believing the necessary legislation would be "massive in its political significance" and difficult to get through Parliament. One of Mrs Thatcher's private secretaries, Barry Potter, suggested that Patten was feeling "bruised" at being ignored.

By the end of June Potter told the prime minister that Patten and Portillo, still arguing for more government funds, were now "isolated".

Today Michael Portillo says he and Chris Patten really wanted to find a way effectively to abolish the poll tax: "We wanted to take the guts out of it, take the bits that were hurting out of it… but we recognised for her sensitivity that it would still have to be called the poll tax."

They also believed the problem would take central government money to resolve. "It's worth remembering that when the poll tax was eventually replaced by the council tax, it cost about £6bn in money of the day - an enormous amount. And I'm pretty sure that Chris Patten and I were asking for only a fraction of that," says Mr Portillo.

As to the lessons to be learnt from the debacle, he draws a parallel between the decision to introduce the poll tax "without thinking it through" and David Cameron's decision to hold a referendum on Europe without thinking through the consequences.

"The lesson ought to be, think carefully before you do things. But the chances of prime ministers learning that are, I think, slim."

But nothing worked. The practical difficulties and the political pressures were too great and Mrs Thatcher's career was foundering. In November Michael Heseltine, an outspoken critic of the poll tax, triggered a leadership contest from which John Major emerged the winner.

He appointed Heseltine as environment secretary, increased VAT to generate extra cash for councils and announced the abolition of the community charge, and its replacement by council tax, in March 1991.





CAUGHT OUT - Most people think that Margaret Thatcher got what she deserved, in being forced to resign. People power finally toppled the uncaring dictator.







A creek is a small stream or a narrow, sheltered waterway, especially an inlet in a shoreline or channel in a marsh. "A sandy beach in a sheltered creek." A Shit Creek is a situation that is untenable, akin to be in a rowing boat in a river of shit, without any means of escaping the crap you are sitting in, because you have no oars.


* Sometimes the Courts are impartial. Providing there is no Masonic influence, with a high percentage of judges being Masons. It is the luck of the draw. Unfortunately, the Crown Prosecution Service is also infected with Masons.








This Prime Minister caused untold suffering to the poorer members of the United Kingdom, mostly seeking to further enslave them. Since 2010, the Conservatives have trebled our National Debt, getting themselves elected by borrowing to (try and) pay for their election promised. The trouble with borrowing is you have to pay it back - and with interest. Meaning, that you have less to live on during the pay back period. if you borrow more, you have even less again. And so on. Making the country poorer as it sinks into a debt whirlpool - from which it is impossible to recover.













Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site or return HOME