This is not our defeat

reblogged with thanks to red and black leeds The results are in, and once again, the British electorate have voted in the party the rich and their friends in the media told them to. Despite pre-election predictions of hung parliaments, "progressive" coalitions, or minority governments, the Conservatives walk away from this election with a slender majority, having increased their share of seats in parliament to 330. Another five years of Tory government now seems assured. There are those on the left who are greeting this news with despair. Despite it’s history of betrayal and failure, every election season the British left lines up behind the Labour Party time and time again. This campaign was no exception. The trade unions, of course, backed Labour to the hilt. Even the left-wing nationalist SNP and the anti-austerity Green Party were touting themselves as eligible partners to a Labour government. Many on the radical left were trying to talk themselves into believing a Labour victory would bring meaningful social change just a fraction closer. Even for those of us who put no stock in parliamentary politics it’s easy to slip into the habit of rooting for the parliamentary opposition. Just the mere fact of them nominally opposing the repulsive Tory crooks who’ve been in power for the last five years made Miliband and his outfit instantly seem sympathetic. But the truth is these people have nothing to offer us and we know it. We’ve been down this road before, for 13 long years of Labour administered misery. This is the party that brought you tuition fees and the Iraq War. They are not friends to the working class. They never have been. As anarchists, we’re critical of voting and elections in general as a strategy for change. For a summary of the anarchist arguments against electoralism, it’s worth reading the recent series by Phil Dickens for libcom.org - amongst other things, the idea that we can get what we need by just voting for a different set of politicians to run everything fosters illusions in the very system we’re trying to oppose. As Phil puts it: parties can’t pull the state leftward, but mass social movements can force concessions from it. The former is a massive drain of time, energy and effort from the latter. Worse, it creates the illusion that the latter isn’t necessary since we can just vote ‘radically’ instead of all that inconvenient hard work of organising and fighting. No government, Labour or Tory, will offer us anything unless we fight for it. Left-wing electoralism, when it succeeds in capturing state power, encourages us to trust the state and in state officials, bureaucrats and politicians – instead of trusting each other, and our own collective ability to take action and change things. But the other side of this problem is that when left-wing parties fail, as the Labour party did catastrophically this time round, those who’ve invested so much, both emotionally and physically, in electoral success are faced with despair. We see friends and comrades who believed a Labour government would bring at least some relief from the horrors of Tory austerity now downhearted, defeated, at the point of giving up hope altogether. This is just another pitfall of the tried and tested and failed strategy of trying to vote things better. So to all of you out there who were disappointed with the result of Thursday’s ballot: you have our sympathies, but remember, Miliband’s loss is not ours. The Labour Party has failed you, but they would have failed you anyway. Your best chance to make things better isn’t some Oxford-educated millionaire with a red rosette – it’s ordinary people getting together to fight back. It’s your workmates, your neighbours. We’re still here. We’re not going away. Our struggle will go on, under this government, and the next one, and the one after that, until they have no governments left to throw at us. Until we win. jolasmo | 05/09/2015 at 12:49 | Categories: Blog | URL: http://wp.me/p59VzD-4b

Should revolutionaries standin elections ?

I thought i'd share this excelletn piece by A-Fed Scotland who put a very convincing case for organising outside of elections and for me this is the best critique of leftists who stand in elections in a long while and is worth a read. "By Mike Sabot in a personal capacity. The original article by Ben Wray (ISG) is here. http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2014/03/the-case-for-an-electoral-party/ The only reliable and sustainable basis on which to build a left party is to orientate it towards the only democratic institutions that everyone can engage in and the only institutions that have democratic authority over society – parliamentary elections. In Scotland that means, most importantly, Holyrood. Generally those in the parliamentary left don’t attempt to justify why they participate in elections and see it not only as a useful form of action but, in fact, the primary means of bringing about fundamental social change. It’s just what socialists do, right? Ben Wray should be thanked for elaborating on this. Nonetheless, I’d argue that his case for an electoral party is contradictory and rests on a number of unfounded assumptions. I doubt I can change his mind, but I do think it’s possible and really important that more people are brought around to libertarian communist politics. That means organising as a class where it matters, outside and against parliament. I’ll try and keep this brief and directly respond to some of the points made. Let’s start at the very end of the piece where it’s said that the broad idea is that of ‘challenging the system at its point of greatest weakness: the governmental level’. It seems a bit odd that I need to make this argument, but assuming we’re talking about capitalism here, surely other socialists would agree that the working class is strongest at the point of production and at work in general. It’s there that we can disrupt capital, through organising we can force our demands on employers, or harm their profits through threats of collective action, and actual striking, go-slows, sabotage etc. This isn’t to say that organising around unpaid labour, in our neighbourhoods and against oppressions isn’t absolutely essential and isn’t just as important to transform society, but we need to try to link these struggles to the strategic site of production and work. By contrast, the influence we can have as a class at the level of government is minimal, except where our extra-parliamentary movements can ‘wring’ reforms out of it. Some leftists will recoil immediately, arguing that ‘parliament isn’t democratic, it doesn’t serve the people and the working class increasingly don’t trust it and don’t vote’. This is all true but it isn’t a convincing argument against engaging in parliamentary elections because there are no alternative democratic institutions which possess anywhere near the same democratic legitimacy in society as parliament does. On the one hand, it’s accepted that parliament isn’t ‘democratic’ but on the other, it still has ‘democratic legitimacy’ and is the only institution that ‘everyone can engage in’. In practice, the mainstream left really does accept and endorse parliament as democracy in action, or close enough, and that it’s possible to control it for progressive ends. Otherwise, why bother? But the critique of the institution isn’t explored because it’s seen as unrealistic to reject something which undeniably a) has real power, and b) is understood to be the political arena by the majority. This is what ‘democratic legitimacy’ really means here. The communist argument would be that you don’t start with what is seen as ‘legitimate’ or not, or where the majority are. It is axiomatic that, outside of a period of mass struggle, most people won’t seriously question existing social relations. Gradualist reform and social democracy will be seen as all that’s on offer. What works and how we can recreate a militant labour movement is a different question entirely. What are some basic points against electoralism? Most people can’t meaningfully engage in it. That’s the point. Representation takes decision-making power away from working class people and invests it in a small minority. This order-giver versus order-taker split is an expression of the wider class society. If they’re to be successful, electoral parties have to become ‘popular’ rather than ‘class’-based. They seek coalitions and try not to appear too radical to attract support. The more mainstream they become the greater the chance of gaining seats. Often these parties are mobilised behind a dominant personality with charisma and oratory skills. How exactly do you avoid the situation where some individuals accumulate more power or importance? Some like to argue that it’s possible to be both ‘on the streets’ and in parliament. In reality, parliament takes first place and tends to push out everything else. Where parties are involved in extra-parliamentary activity it’s usually to its detriment, by co-opting things or exploiting them. Whatever the manifesto of left-wing parties, parliament and government is concerned with the political management of capitalist society. It isn’t structurally possible to challenge capital through the state and it’s questionable to what extent reforms can be passed without the leverage of a militant labour movement, and in this conjuncture. The function of electoral parties on the left, arguing the case for a better-run capitalism – whatever the radical rhetoric – is to demobilize and divert from more serious threats, like rank-and-file direct action. Don’t get me wrong, I am not for becoming like the politicians. I believe representatives should take a workers wage; I believe they should be accountable to the community they are elected from None of these things would let the electoral party off the hook from ‘becoming like the politicians’. A workers’ wage doesn’t challenge the hierarchical relationship of representative to represented. And politicians speak all the time about being accountable but most people know this is meaningless. Only recallable delegates are genuinely accountable. Those who don’t vote aren’t setting up co-operatives to run communities or workers’ councils to run workplaces. Their process of re-engagement and democratic renewal will likely pass through parliamentary elections on their way to participatory democratic control of society, if we are to ever get there. Not voting isn’t important in itself, and for the growing distrust of politicians and the electoral process to achieve anything it would have to find expression in new forms of organising. But it’d be naive to think that participatory or direct democracy is something that will be proclaimed one day by parliament – handed down from above. Rather it needs to be prefigured in whatever struggle we’re involved in. The point is, however apparently dire our situation and despite the broad extra-parliamentary left being a small minority, it is both possible and absolutely necessary that we create new directly democratic institutions. Coming from a revolutionary unionist or syndicalist position, I see unions ‘as associations of workers’, rather than as representatives or service-providers, as probably the most crucial institutional forms for class struggle.* The fact that the trade union movement is so weak means that we actually have an opportunity to go about building a new labour movement controlled from below and rejecting collaboration with bosses. A false dichotomy is sometimes raised by the mainstream left that you either have to accept electoralism or you’re for some sort of revolutionary insurrection tomorrow. Instead, we need to take the long road of trying to spread militant rank-and-file organising, of winning small but significant victories and gaining strength. Whether it’s the IWGB in the Tres Cosas Campaign, the IWW in organising service workers or in setting up rank-and-file networks in, for example, the education sector, SolFed’s campaign against workfare – these are all examples of radical unions ‘as associations’ doing really inspiring work. I’d also add Glasgow SolNet’s direct action victories for private tenants and ECAP’s actions by and for claimants, as examples of union-like structures outside the workplace. Put it this way – what do you think the capitalist elite want us to do? Leave parliament to their mates and focus on extra-parliamentary activism, or challenge for democratic control over society? The question should answer itself. The history of left-wing electoral parties around the world is one where the elites were not threatened by their entry into parliament. In fact, in Britain, the Labour Party was welcomed by many existing parliamentarians as a reasonable, collaborative bunch who would help to control the extremists in the labour movement and work for the national good. They were right. The working class is strong to the extent that it is autonomous and can act in its own class interests outside of the state. Where left-wing electoral parties exist in parliament, the extra-parliamentary left should try to argue the case for class struggle politics with their grassroots, use pressure to gain concessions, and keep up a constant critique of the leadership. * For the difference, see the excellent SolFed pamphlet Fighting for Ourselves, pp 12-13." with thanks to A-Fed Scotland for this excellent critique of electoralism http://scotlandaf.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/quick-reply-to-the-case-for-an-electoral-party/

War and capitalism

War is part and parcel of capitalism all around the globe all wars are related to capitalism and the drive for increased profits all the time. So for organizations like the Stop the War coalition fronted and lead by counter fire who have their roots in the SWP in Britain to celebrate the vote in parliament last week which by the way was by a very narrow margin that this is a victory for democracy and for the anti war movement is just horrid. War is a big business industry with weapons and arms being mass produced and creating jobs and huge profits for capitalism. The Second World War for example increased the rates of profits for war nations as huge investments were made to produce things for the war effort. A snippet from a comrade of mine who I’ve been lucky enough to meet who runs his b log at the socialist way you can follow and read at http://thesocialistway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/capitalism-cause-of-all-modern-wars.html?spref=tw&utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffer2d98b&utm_medium=twitter "So when we say that capitalism is the cause, it is also necessary to recognize a distinction between what may in general be called ‘economic’ causes of past wars and the particular causes of wars that arise under capitalism. For instance, insufficiency of food in the past ages could induce a tribe to make a war on a neighbouring tribe to gain control of more fertile land. Such a war would accordingly be described as being due to an economic cause, the absolute shortage of food; and it might be impossible with poor tools at hand and methods known at the time to solve the problem in any other way than fighting it out for the chance that the victors might survive. In our own time the problem is a different one. Now at this present time the means exist for producing enough to supply continuously the needs of all. With modern industrial and scientific knowledge ample food, clothing, houses and the rest of the needs of human beings could be produced if all the resources were used and none were wasted. The trouble is that they are not used to the full. In a multitude of ways production is deliberately restricted; land and materials are utilised for profitable non-productive purposes; millions of men and women through unemployment or military service and armament production, are withdrawn from the task of satisfying human needs; growers are given financial inducements to curtail production, and periodically vast amounts of food and other materials are destroyed in order to keep up prices - quite apart from the destruction that takes place in war itself. If in our own day millions of people are still undernourished or starving, while simultaneously in the US and other countries enormous quantities of foodstuffs are withheld from the market (with deterioration or even destruction as the likely end), it cannot be said that undernourishment or starvation is economically unavoidable. It is capitalism that presents governments with the choice between releasing the food for sale at what it will - which would ruin farmers by depressing prices - and withholding the food to get the high prices with the result that poverty-stricken people cannot buy it. Capitalism and capitalist interests induce every government to behave in a manner which creates antagonism with other capitalist groups and governments, with war as the threatened outcome. The needs of the world’s population could be satisfied by co-operation but it is in the nature of capitalism to prohibit genuine co-operation. " It is clear that war is a necessary enventuallity under capitalism where resources are fought for and markets are competitively fought over. Most wars come down to economic reasons behind it even if it’s not spelled out. Under socialism three would be no need for wars and conflict due to the fact that people’s needs will be met under a democratically planned system. To get there we have a long long way to go but there can be no pace on this planet for as long as capitalism exists and reigns supreme.

Will Britain still go to war in Syria?

Well they will have to do it without the approval of parliament after a motion from David Cameron and the government as surprisingly voted down tonight thankfully in my view. David Cameron: "It is clear to me that the British parliament... does not want to see British military action" Tonight British MPs have voted to reject possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons. A government motion was defeated by 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes. Prime Minster David Cameron said it was clear Parliament does not want action and "the government will act accordingly". It effectively rules out British involvement in any US-led strikes against the Assad regime. And it comes as a potential blow to the authority of David Cameron, who had already watered down a government motion proposing military action, in response to the opposition Labour Party's demands for more evidence of Assad's guilt. Labour had seen its own amendment - calling for "compelling" evidence - rejected by MPs by 114 votes. But - in an unexpected turn of events - MPs also rejected the government's motion in support of military action in Syria if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating claims President Bashar al-Assad's regime had used chemical weapons against civilians. So where does David Cameron and his pro imperialist supporters go now? I don’t think they’d get away with pushing forward with military action now without a vote before parliament. It shows that Cameron and his authority are weakening all the time and he can be defeated too. This should spur the working class on to know that the government can be defeated if organised and willing. Will there still be intervention in Syria? Well possibly but it may have to be without America’s good friend Britain. This will be interesting to se what America in particular does next.

This feels like Iraq all over again

With a recalling of parliament for a debate and a vote on what action to take in Syria this all feels like de JA vu from 2003. I was not so political back then but I do remember what happened very vividly and it feels too similar for my liking. Do we ever learn? Apparently not the government is a Tory lib dem one yet Labour who was in power in 2003 with Tony Blair famously taking the country to war to remove Sad am Hussein we were told. It later turned out that there were no claimed weapons of mass destruction as claimed and we could not be hit in 45 minutes. The Iraq invasion still haunts this country and the political class in particular they claim as labour do that they are sorry and Ed Miliband is sorry for watt happened this is all very well and good yet nothing has changed his party under his leadership has backed the Libyan intervention of a no fly zone and now look set to back western intervention in Syria. Lessons clearly have not been learnt then. I put a tweet out tonight saying if labour support intervention here will they loose members or face a back lash and I don’t think they will as most good socialists are no longer members of labour anyway and those wishing to reclaim it unbelievably still will look even more ridiculous than they already do. The likes of Owen Jones who claim to want to reclaim labour will have a difficulty explaining this latest pro war intervention and pro imperialist action by their party. What is labour if it is not acting in the naked class instincts of global capitalism now? Clearly there will be a few good Labour MP’s who may oppose this vote but on the whole it will be minimal and the government will have its so called mandate to go ahead and move towards military action in Syria. What form this will take is still not clear. Syria is not Libya and has a much more densely populated areas and where the apparent use of chemical weapons was used and it is still apparent as UN weapons inspectors never ones to support the mass’s have not been able to get in to investigate on safety grounds so I’m suspect right from the start. I will say that any action taking by our government will not be in my name I do not oppose this intervention for the sake of it or just because it’s the Tories and America is involved but quite simply this will not solve anything and will do more to create more toil and division in the region than doing nothing at all. This may seem like I’m standing back and advocating doing nothing but I’d suggest as socialists we support the worker son the ground in Syria and we should point to uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia in recent years to show how a brutal dictator can be removed without western intervention. I’d far more support a popular uprising of workers and the oppressed than an American backed intervention that have no regard for local rights or feelings on the ground. In the desperate pursuit to rise the rate of profit America and Britain are turning to more and more desperate ways. This latest jaunts will do nothing to help any sort of recovery if anything it may create further tensions in the market especially in oil prices. I’ve said for a long time there will be another bigger crisis of capitalism around the corner as the contradictions of the system have not been solved still so could we see an oil price spike set off another slump in the world markets. Only time will tell.

Dave Nellist: The Coventry MP who gave away half his pay

In a rare sense of inpartiality or maybe more in a sort of looking back at what used to be the BBC has commissioned a fantastic piece on former Militant Mp and now fine socialist party activist Dave Nellist I think its worth sharing below : Dave Nellist is still an active member of the Socialist Party Many MPs rush to condemn proposals to give them an 11% pay rise; few have taken the lead of the former member for Coventry South. From his election in 1983 to his deselection by Labour in 1992, Dave Nellist kept less than half his salary. Along with two other Labour politicians - Terry Fields, MP for Liverpool Broadgreen, and Pat Wall, MP for Bradford North - Mr Nellist chose to "get by" on a wage closer to that of the people he represented. Mr Nellist, now 60 and still an active member of the Socialist Party, was unemployed for the six months before he was elected, but had worked in a factory for many years. He would only accept the average wage of a skilled factory worker in Coventry, which amounted to 46% of his salary as an MP. Each year the remaining 54% was donated to charitable and political causes. 'Want for nothing' Mr Nellist said he saw his political career as being akin to that of a union rep in a factory. "At the time time, we were going into the [MP] job like a convenor in a factory, we had the time to do the job but not three times the wage or holidays," he said. "The engineering union used to work out the returns of all the factories in Coventry and averaged their wages - equivalent to £28,000 or £29,000 nowadays - so that was what I took home. “Start Quote We should pay our MPs so they share the pain and the gain” End Quote Dave Nellist Former MP "I accepted every penny of the full salary, but as the Labour Party we gave away roughly £35,000 [per year in today's money] to help the families of miners in the 80s, community groups, pensioners." He said receiving less money did not damage "the responsibility" he had to his family and he was very proud of the way his children grew up. "They didn't want for anything. We went camping as a family for two weeks every year - and still do - like many people. "I came off factory wages and into that job on the same. I've never had anything different so you don't miss what you've not had." Mr Nellist added that as a Coventry City Councillor for 12 years until 2012, he continued to take home the same wage by reducing the hours of his full time job at an advice agency. He dismissed the idea that the more someone is paid, the more they will achieve. "Why should MPs be any better? How many millions have we been paying the bankers, how many millions do we pay footballers? "I don't accept the idea that those prepared to live the same life as their constituents are going to be any fewer representatives." Pay rise 'bung' On Thursday the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said salaries should increase to £74,000 by 2015, but perks should be cut and pensions made less generous, something Mr Nellist described as "scandalous". "The suggestion by [Ipsa chairman] Sir Ian Kennedy that the pay rise would be a way of keeping MPs from claiming more expenses is frankly amazing - I was almost lost for words," he said. "It's basically saying they'll get a bung on their salary as a way of keeping them in line." Mr Nellist believes public representatives like councillors and MPs should be able to empathise with the people affected by political decisions. "With a 9% average fall in people's earnings, MPs should not be getting a rise - it insulates them from those day to day problems like food and fuel which have rocketed. "Millions have to get by on much less [than MPs] so that is why we should pay them so they share the pain and the gain." Mr Nellist fears the impact of the proposed pay increase for MPs will add to a perceived disconnect between the public and politicians. "I think it will contribute to a growing disillusion in politics and politicians in general - at a time when millions are having it very tough, those people who may lose their jobs could become very angry if this happens. "The best people go into politics to do a proper job and to represent the people, not for the money."

The alternative march TUC 26th of march should be accessable

As many of you who read this blog know i am disabled being visually impaired and as this little piece below outlines we are under heavy attack from this horribly right wing coalition governemnt trying to take apart the welfar state in the name of deficit reduction. It is a complete lie and is an political ideaology so please read this piece below i had forwarded to me today about making this TUC march in central london on the 26th of March accessable to all concerned.

the TUC have agreed to all coaches dropping people off at Wembley on March 26th. For anyone on a low income this will add £8 to the cost of getting to central London, there are also a number of access issues not only for anyone with a mobility impairment. I am sure for those with MH or ND or visual impairments having to crush onto a very limited range of transport with up to 2 million other people will present a problem too.

Please contact bbarber@tuc.org.uk and complain about TUC agreeing to people, especially disabled people, being dumped at Wembley in this way.

here is DPAC's email fyi
Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) believe it is imperative that disabled and older people are afforded the opportunity to support the TUC ‘March for the Alternative’ demonstration on 26 March in central London. At the latest count it was found that disabled people were facing fourteen separate attacks against our lives and living standards as a result of the Coalition government’s policies. What we are witnessing is our human rights, supposedly guaranteed under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People, being violated by regressive and draconian cuts to benefit and care funding. Increasing numbers of disabled people are being driven to contemplate suicide; with others actually going the whole way. Members of our community are living in daily terror that they will become further scapegoated, demonised and subjected to hate crime violence.

Against this backdrop DPAC demand the right to be fully included in this march and rally as our non-disabled peers would take for granted. As it currently stand the initial planning for the March is creating unnecessary disabling barriers which will both exclude and marginalise disabled people’s ability to participate. So far however the TUC have not responded to any requests from us for support for accessible transport to attend the march and now we have been told that the TUC have agreed (for anyone who can access coaches) that the coach dropping off point will be at Wembley or some other outlying part of London.

As I am sure you are aware the London underground system is one of the least accessible in the world, only one wheelchair is allowed on each bus at any one time, and disabled people cannot afford to pay extra travel costs from an outlying suburb to reach the centre of London. To agree to this as a dropping off point will therefore exclude us from exercising our right to protest.

It is possible to park in central London without bringing London to a grinding halt. When 2 million marched against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, coaches were parked all around Hyde Park and there were no major problems with people arriving or departing from this historic demonstration. Further we are certain that there must be at least 500 or more tourist coaches entering London on any day which does not seem to cause any traffic problems at all.

We have also asked TUC to organise with the police for us to have a static protest in central London for those unable to march but so far have had no response regarding this. We were able to do this very successfully with forward planning at the Tory Party conference protest in Birmingham.

Further we would wish to be kept updated with details of where the march will be going so that we can check its accessibility for our members with a range of impairments.

Both disabled Trade Unionists and other disabled people who attended The People’s Convention last Saturday asked conference to support a motion that the TUC march would be fully inclusive to all disabled people and that all of the required reasonable adjustments would be put in place by yourselves to fully include all of us.

We are willing to work with you to ensure that our full inclusion can be achieved and to assist you in any way practicable. We look forward to your response which we will pass onto our members.

do MP's get into politics for the right reasons ?

Here i am again wiwht another blogpost. This time i am going to outline my thoughts and feelings on this current crop of MP's who are in parliament. This is not a attack on any party of MP's in particular but in MP's in general.

Not one to generalise but i ahve noticed over recent years the last 10 or more more and more polititians coming into politics for their own self interests.

What disapoints me sometimes is there are fewer and fewer polititians coming into politics with a message. Very few actually stand for something clear and exact. Alot just like to appeal to the mass's sit on their huge majoritys and live a good life off it all.

If i was to ever gain a position of power from a election i would want to do something with it. Make a difference in the world. I would want to change things for the better, make the placea fairer world.

People like Caroline Lucas of the Green party is one example who stands for something. She is not afraid to tell things how it is. She spoke excellently at the new economics foundation event i attended in october titled where has all our money gone.

She spoke with real purpose and belief. Gone are the days of MP's like Tony Benn who wore his heart on his sleave, won alot of support for sticking to his beliefs and values. He was one of the people i'd say were in politics for the right reasons. His legacy as a result will live on.

But far too many polititians come and go and you do not remember them. THis is to do with them having no profile little public image and saying very little.

It is a wonder how these people ever do get elected sometimes as they are hardly well known and if you asked people in their areas what do they stand for and why are they standing for your votes few people could tell you i am sure.

I do think if any reform is to be made of politics there should be less and less career polititians in the commons just there picking up their wages and having a cushty life. What MP's often forget they are their to serve us and need to listen to us and not just shut yourself away and never approach the public. After all we are the people who elect you.

It would be great if more real people could get into politics and more people from the streets who are ordinary and live ordinary lives.

Perhaps when that starts to happen and real peoples views started getting heard rather than people who have always been acedemic going through uni and striaght into westminster having no life experience.

I am a big advecote of people in power gaining proper life experience before taking on powerful jobs and roles in the country. To mainly keep them grounded but to give them a sense of normality and reality.

So i do hope as politics changes and modernises itself that more ordinary peoples views are heard and listened to.

my trip to the houses of parliament

Hello and welcome to another edition of my blog, i hope by now people are enjoying this somewhat, it would suggest by my 1 follower this is not the case i hope i'm not boring you all. if i am please tell me and i'll blog about something else. This is my blog to take wherever i like really, i have focused in on my recent political life but it can litterally go anywhere.

This entry is not a political one as such, but does involved a political visit of sorts to the houses of parliament in London today. Westminster.

Today the 23rd of July was my first visit and hopefully not my last to the grandest building i feel that this country has to offer.

The houses of parliament for the United Kingdom in london Westminster. I have been looking forward to this t trip for a very long time. Finally it came today.

I went up with my friend Will and met my other friend Stephen Anderson up there already.
Will and myself had travalled up earlier in the day and had visited the old cabinet war rooms just behind downing street where Winston Churchill made all his key world war 2 decisions.

This in itself was very very interesting and i enjoyed this just as much i would say. gave me a real feel as to how the war would ahve felt for high up ranking officials at that time. scarey just like the rest of us would have felt i'm sure of it.

SO today i got to look down downing street and ask the police and securitya few questions there, sadly we werent allowed down there, maybe they knew i have it in for the coalition so i wouldnt be welcome down there i do not know lol.

But as for the tour of the houses of parliament we had a scotish tour guide guiding a tour party of about 20 people.

I had previously booked this trip with my local MP , Mr Mark Prisk MP for Hertford and Stortford. Mark's secterary was very helpful in this visit and arranging this that i will have to email her to say thank you i am sure.

As for the tour i enjoyed it. we got to visit the Lords and the commons and various other rooms of amazing importance. Just the grand scale of the building, despite my sight loss i really go ta great feeling for the place. The houses of parliament are steeped in history and everywhere you turned you got a real sense of waht it must have been like to work ther and carry out your daily duties in and out of offices there.

Sadly we never got to meet any MP's no labour ones either sadly but we asked some great questions on the toura nd i leartn a awful lot i must admit. My favourite part of the tour would be standing at the dispatch box in the commons and standing what would be facing the speaker and standing on both the opposition seats and the government seats, somewhere i hope my very own Labour party can return to one day.

All in all i really enjoyed this tripa nd is oen i will not forget in a long time. London as ever was busy and bustling, i always love going up there, even the undergound for me now is fascinating and not a fear at all anymore. I used to shit myself at the thought of the tube but now i relish it and find it all one big adventure.

I am glad i went and i hope i get to return one day to the commons.

Thank you for reading and i hope to blog more about this trip later over the weekend in further detail if i can. If i dont and am too busy i do apoligise in advance. I try to blog as much as i can but time this week has been at a premium

next week should be a little less busy

thanks for reading if yuo do.

Please dont forget to link this blog to other blogs you feel would link well to this if you do read this. if not why not ? i will be blogging about all sorts over the next couple of months so please stay tuned.


anyway bye for now

take care

mark