Funding the Future

How can we have a serious parliament that can do its job when there aren’t enough seats for all MPs and when so many of parliament’s systems are so antiquated it’s hardly got into the 20thcentury as yet, let alone the twenty first. Isn’t it time it got its act together?
 
 

The 92 remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords are a historical anachronism that preserves privilege for the aristocracy when that should have been gone long ago. It is time for them to go.

People are tired of meaningless badges, titles, rosettes and banter in politics. They don’t want symbols and logos. They want conviction and delivery. And they’re not getting it.

Towns and large villages across the UK are being blighted by bank and post office closures. By making a simple change to banking regulation Labour could require that every place with a population of more than 10,000 in the UK must have a banking hub – from which every bank and a post office could meet the needs of the local community, and at no cost to the government at all.

Labour governments have a long history of changing this country with measures that cost the government very little, or nothing at all. In a new video series – which will go on for some time – I am going to suggest how Labour might do that now. It’s time to be positive about the changes that Labour could deliver without any arguments about economics.

Wealth is not just pounds saved. It’s also good health and education, a sustainable environment, decent housing and so much more. So why does Labour, when it talks about growth, only seem to talk about finance?

A couple of days after the election I feel even more strongly than ever that we need proportionalrepresentation.

Labour is planning to base all its policies on the basis of growth and wealth creation. Neither makes sense, and they’re in direct conflict with each other economically. It’s as if they have announced in advance that they plan to fail.

Starmer received gifts of more than £18,000 to polish his image in the run-up to the election – including £2,485 on glasses. Really? Does this mean he’s a man who is more interested in style than substance? And does it mean he’s also a man willing to be in hock to his donors? None of this feels good about a new prime minister.

Trump packed the Supreme Court of the USA with his mates, and now they’re returning the favour by granting him immunity for his actions when in office. Will he use that power to persecute those who he sees as his enemies? You’d be a fool to think otherwise.