A VIEW OF MODERN BRITAIN

 REAPING THE REWARDS OF POLITICAL FAILURE

BY PHILLIP E JONES

Boy! What a fair old country we have become in 21^st Century Britain. It must be deeply gratifying for all of the UK’s former and present political leaders to finally realise their ambitions of fundamentally changing a country’s national character, from public tolerance to simmering intolerance, from mutual moderation to personalised greed, from social concern to individual indifference and from widespread consensus to factional disagreement. What a legacy they have been able to leave current and future generations?

The blindingly obvious reasons for these highly negative changes in British society can easily be summed up in one word, FAILURE!

It was a failure by the government of Edward Heath to anticipate the adverse effects that membership of the then European Community would have on our own economy, including the loss of tens of thousands of British jobs. There was then a second failure to anticipate and to fully address the almost guaranteed reaction of Britain’s Trade Union Movement who were outraged by the loss of employment in the country.

It was a failure by the government of James Callaghan to purposely confront the politically motivated Trades Union Congress who had effectively brought the country to its ‘financial knees’ during the mid 1970’s, which resulted in the dead not being buried, rubbish in the streets, the 3-day week and intermittent power supplies. It was Callaghan’s utterance of “Crisis! What Crisis” that finally killed the national Labour Party as a credible political alternative for the next 18 years and was possibly the greatest social and political failure that Britain has ever suffered in the 20^th Century.

Not only did Jim Callaghan’s failure to accept that the country was in crisis end his own government as well as consigning the national Labour Party to the political wilderness, his party’s blatant refusal to identify and adapt to changes in British society generally, effectively reflected a failure on their part to both modernise their party and to constructively amend their largely socialist agenda.

Additionally, the deliberate failure and refusal by union leaders like Arthur Scargill to recognise the dissatisfaction and anger felt by large sections of the British electorate at being held hostage to the unrealistic demands of the TUC ultimately led to potential voters turning away from the political parties which were themselves seen to be supporting the wholly unrepresentative Trades Union lobby which was thought to be imposing its political will and control on Britain.    

Having been voted out of office by the British electorate, it was then a failure by Callaghan’s successor, Michael Foot, to modernise the party apparatus and to fully engage with the electorate with a modern socialist agenda. Publicly slighted by the British press for his generally unkempt appearance, including his attending the Armistice Day celebrations dressed in a Donkey Jacket, it was his wretched and unsuccessful attempts to free the Labour Party from the influences of the militant socialist groups who had infiltrated the party, that would help to keep Labour virtually unelectable long after he had stepped down as party leader.

Aided by Labour’s seemingly unswerving ability to continuously ‘shoot itself in the foot’ (excuse the pun), the Conservative party led by Margaret Thatcher continued to dominate the mainstream of British politics. Her suppression of the powers of the previously almost untouchable Trade Unions and the patriotic fervour generated by the Falklands conflict combined to make her one of the most popular and respected British political figures of all time. Somewhat ironically though, it would be her tough, uncompromising and autocratic style of leadership which would ultimately prove to be her political undoing. Her failure to listen to the British electorate or to anticipate the highly negative effect that her party’s policies would have on voters lives eventually proved to be too much for the Conservatives and Thatcher was effectively deposed by the very people she had showed so much personal contempt for, her Parliamentary colleagues.

Although responsible for introducing some of the very best legislation into English Law, including those pertaining to Industrial Relations and Homeowners, these too have continued to have an immensely negative effect of modern Britain. The failure of the Thatcher government to reinvest the monies raised by her Right to Buy legislation in new large scale replacement social housing projects has brought misery to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable citizens, who continue to struggle to keep a roof over their head on a day by day basis.

Where at one time a significant number of British workers were represented by a Trades Union, who guaranteed their terms of employment, pay scales, etc. the early high profile disputes of the early 1980’s, which matched Union manpower and their financial muscle against the political will of Margaret Thatcher proved to be a turning point in British labour relations. By enacting new legislation which could sequester Union funds and by employing Britain’s Police forces as a ‘strike breaking’ implement, the Conservatives effectively neutralised the power of the TUC and essentially handed a ‘big legal stick’ to the private employer, with which they might beat an uncooperative workforce.     

Now led by the ‘Grey Man’ of British politics, John Major, the Conservatives continued to hold national office, largely as a result of the opposition’s failure to provide a credible and effective alternative to the Tory party. Neil Kinnock, the new Labour Party leader found himself constantly battling the militant forces which continued to operate within the organisation and which effectively made his shadow government an unthinkable choice for the British electorate.

Unfortunately for Kinnock and for Britain generally, the main opposition parties had failed to realise that the basic character of the country was already beginning to change, as a direct result of the Thatcher era. Driven almost entirely by central government, Thatcher’s wholesale ‘sell-off’ of Britain’s publicly owned housing stocks, transport systems, utility services and fossil fuel resources was carefully contrived to appeal to one of people’s basest instincts, GREED.

Millions of British citizens rushed to benefit from this modern day ‘Klondike’, eagerly grabbing at their slice of the privatisation cake, but ultimately only gaining a short-term gain from their investments, as most chose to sell on their shares for a quick profit, often to the major investment banks who were always likely to be the final recipients anyway. The social cost of Thatcher’s privatisation project was far more costly and far more damaging though, as it fundamentally altered and undermined the native culture of a country, from a sharing and cohesive nation to one that was dominated by selfishness and division. It is little wonder perhaps that some 30 years later our modern politicians struggle to fully understand the reasons for widespread social breakdown, public disorder, large scale anti-social behaviour and people’s general indifference to the plight of their fellow citizens. Thatcherism ultimately taught the British people that being part of her stakeholder economy was a good thing, provided of course that you could afford to be part of it in the first place. Millions could, but just as many couldn’t and we are all continuing to live with the social consequences of this particular Conservative experiment right through to the present day.

Seemingly unassailable at the ballot box, it was in part the failure of John Major to fully maintain personal and political control over his party colleagues and their often indifferent attitude to public scrutiny that finally sounded the death knell for 18 years of continuous Conservative government. Marking the advent of what became known as political ‘sleaze’, the Major government singularly failed to understand or indeed address the cause of the British electorates irritation at an administration that was perceived by many to be both dishonest and arrogant.

However, the New Labour party’s successes at the 1997 elections was also tainted in part by a failure on the part of Tony Blair to understand that much of his electoral appeal was based on direct voter antipathy levied towards successive Tory governments, as well as a level of public sympathy attached to the untimely and unexpected death of his predecessor, the then late Labour leader John Smith.

Perhaps swayed by an acknowledgement that British society had been essentially altered by both the Thatcher and Major years there was then a deliberate failure by Tony Blair to retain any semblance of a Socialist agenda which had been an integral part of the early Labour Party. This in itself marked a second failure on his part to deliberately create any sort of unique socialist policies or strategies, which has inevitably led to accusations that he had simply chosen to steal a Tory manifesto and to call it his own instead. Additionally, this failure by the new Blair government to reinvent, reinstate and or reintegrate core socialist values into British society simply helped to reinforce the personally selfish and acquisitive culture which had been allowed to develop over the previous 20 years of Tory rule.

After a decade of Labour administrations in Westminster, it is probably true to say that the period has been marked by a litany of failures on the part of the three major political parties, rather than any sort of definitive root and branch reform of the British political system, which would work for all of our citizens, not just those that are particularly vital to the electoral needs of individual candidates or parties. 

Perhaps the most glaring oversight of the past 10 years has been the failure by Tony Blair to convince the British public about the need for war in Iraq and to sufficiently distance Britain and her armed forces from the American military and political agenda in that country, which would appear to be entirely separate. The public’s inability to clearly distinguish between the actual aims of the allied forces has been one of the most damaging aspects of the conflict generally, notably the suggestion that American political and military actions were largely motivated by both financial and private investment interests.

The subsequent and well publicised ‘scramble’ by numerous US and UK firms to financially exploit the need to rebuild Iraq following the military invasion of the country did little to address the concerns of those who had opposed the conflict in the first place. The failure of Tony Blair and his government to further support the case for war, with evidence of the massacres at Halabja, the brutal suppression of opposition parties in Iraq, as well as Saddam Hussein’s potential for building and delivering weapons of mass destruction, would have been a far more compelling and supportive argument, rather than the single issue of WMD which was so easily dismissed and disparaged once the military overthrow of Saddam was completed.

Along with his much criticised policies with regard to Iraq, Tony Blair will almost certainly be remembered for his failure to address and eliminate the ‘spin’ culture within the Parliamentary Labour Party and which has become synonymous with his administration, much the same as ‘sleaze’ had with earlier Conservative governments. It was also Blair’s inability or failure to address the personal and factional differences which existed between himself and his chancellor Gordon Brown, which fundamentally undermined the final years of his Premiership and resulted in him regularly being dubbed a ‘lame duck’ politician.

In a perverse reflection of some 20 odd years earlier, New Labour’s stranglehold on political power was in no small way aided and abetted by their Conservative opponents, who in common with the Labour Party of the early 1980’s went into a political ‘meltdown’ following their election defeat in the 1997 General Election.

The former Prime Minister John Major had resigned his leadership of the Tory party following his defeat by Tony Blair in 1997 and was subsequently replaced by the relatively unknown politician William Haigh. When he was annihilated at the polls in the following General Election, he made way for the ‘Quiet Man’ of the Conservative Party, Iain Duncan Smith, who was clearly so quiet and ineffective that he too was ‘hammered’ at the ballot box and quickly and quietly left the national scene. Unbelievably, the next Conservatives candidate to challenge the New Labour election machine, was possibly one of the least personable and most unelectable Tory leaders of the time. Michael Howard had been a pivotal figure in the Thatcher administration and as such, simply provoked levels of personal and political antagonism that was very difficult to match anywhere in the country. As a result, he suffered a similar election outcome as John Major, William Haigh, Iaian Duncan Smith, with his career path following a familiar route to that of his 3 immediate Tory predecessors. It was these abysmal failures by successive Conservative Party leaders to offer any sort of effective and popular opposition to New Labour, which has ultimately resulted in little if any real choice for the British electorate and effectively ‘gifting’ the current Labour administration at least 2 victories at the ballot box.

Currently the Conservative party has yet another political leader, David Cameron, who they hope will lead them to victory at the next General Election, whenever the current Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, decides to call one. However, for both men, who are both trying to claim the ‘centre’ ground of British politics, the present state of our country suggests that in reality they have both failed to identify and meet the hopes and expectations of the wider British electorate.

Gordon Browns policies and strategies are fundamentally straightforward, as we all live with them on a day-to-day basis. Reading through the list of the failures listed below though, it is abundantly clear that the current Labour Party either lacks the political will or the personal imagination to solve many of the issues that actually blight peoples’ daily lives. Equally worrying though, is that a prospective Tory Prime Minister shows little sign of being able to offer solutions to these very same problems, but is simply content to repeat Tony Blair’s political strategy of stealing the oppositions clothes and pretending that they’re his own. If that is true, then both men are equally guilty of failure, even before they have begun.

Over the past 30 years or so Britain’s politicians have singularly failed to;

1) Protect the physical and cultural borders of the United Kingdom, by preventing the widespread infiltration of our country by illegal refugees, bogus asylum seekers, alien ideologies as well as foreign malpractices and traditions

The advent of the cult of ‘political correctness’ has proved to be one of the most invasive and damaging cultural developments of the past 3 decades, one that has fundamentally undermined and could so easily destroy the traditional ‘British way of life’ which is supposedly the greatest attraction for foreign incomers. The very idea of multi-culturalism is in reality contrary to many of our own native traditions, given that one is highly variable and inherently foreign, whereas the other is accepted, known about and understood. Modern political correctness seems to require the mass of the British people to basically suppress or throw away elements of their own native humour, language, art and common practice for the sake of not upsetting or alienating a relatively small section of the population, many of whom are not British born in the first place. The resentment felt by large numbers of native Briton’s by these changes has been further compounded and exacerbated by the reaction of politicians from all parties who have simply sought to reinforce this new and pervasive mood of political correctness by actively legislating against a mass of people that don’t actually share its aims or indeed agree with its purpose.

For hundreds of years Britain has provided a well ordered and generally friendly home for hundreds of thousands of refugees who have fled their own homelands through hunger, poverty, dispossession, religious intolerance or political activism. These new immigrants have included Jews, Muslims, Christians, Roman Catholics, people who were Black, White, Asian, European, Hispanic and Oriental, but all were generally welcomed to a country that was more than happy to share its mix of more than 2000 years of Celtic, Roman, British, Saxon and Norman influences which made Britain the safe haven that people perceived it to be.

It is really only during the 20^th Century and the emergence of mass migration which was often orchestrated by our own national governments that finally broke the racial balance which had previously existed in Britain. The massive influx of foreign workers brought into the country during the 1950’s and 1960’s, generally to fill the often low paid and mundane employment posts, which were unwanted by the native British workers, almost inevitably led to a build up of resentment, much of which was directly focused at the new immigrants themselves, who for the most part were entirely blameless. It is ironic perhaps, that British political leaders seem to be predisposed to repeating the mistakes of their predecessors, by overseeing yet again a massive influx of foreign workers, only this time from Eastern Europe, an event that will almost inevitably lead to even greater division, resentment and social fragmentation of our society.

Yet again, the same old reasons and excuses for this foreign influx is offered, both by government and by many of the private employers who utilise much of this new manpower. British workers are said to be lazy, unreliable and unwilling to accept the low wages which the processing and agricultural industries typically pay for a days work, or indeed work the number of hours generally demanded by such employment.

Every society will have its fair share of idlers and loafers, those who have no real interest in fully contributing to their local community or indeed to the national economy of their country. However, surely the reason why most native Britons do not choose to accept such extremely low paid and often tenuous employment, is entirely because they cannot afford to do so. In a country where personal wealth is key and both local communities and individual citizens are continually subject to escalating house prices, private rents, local taxation, fuel duties, etc. then where is the real motivation or incentive to take what are little more than poverty wages.

The argument might be made of course that British workers should willingly accept the same pay and conditions as their Polish, Czech or Portuguese, etc. counterparts who currently dominate such low paid industries. However, to follow such a proposal to its logical conclusion then British workers should also allow themselves to be subjected to excessive hours of work, seasonal and often overcrowded and unsanitary living accommodations, unreasonable deductions being made from their wages and general exploitation by unscrupulous employers or ‘gang masters’ who occasionally operate within such low paid industries. Why then would a native born British worker, who has been raised to expect a decent days pay for a decent days work and who has to meet society’s daily demands on his pay packet, choose or be expected to accept such a tenuous or unattractive employment position? In reality and in most cases it’s not a case of British workers being lazy, unreliable or indeed uncooperative, but of them having realistic aspirations for themselves and their families, which Britain’s government, employers and society are singularly failing to meet.

As well as the risks posed by the long term influx of foreign workers, immigrants and refugees to Britain in terms of our own country’s limited housing and employment markets, the secondary effects their own native cultures can have on British life can be highly marked and socially destructive. Arranged marriages, honour killings, a reluctance to learn the English language, to integrate fully into British life and the fairly alien concepts of women somehow being inferior to men all run completely counter to an equitable British culture which has successfully developed over the course of the past 2000 years.

The deliberate and regular practice of a vocal and vociferous foreign minority to try and effectively foist such alien ideas upon the British people and their native culture simply helps to reinforce the suggestion that both are being threatened and helps to endorse and support the aims of extremist parties who believe that any sort of foreign integration or multi-culturalism is both dangerous and undesirable. The relatively small scale rise of extreme right wing parties over the past decade or so might in fact reflect a preamble towards even greater social fragmentation as the perceived dangers of even greater inward migration to Britain is fully exploited by those political parties with a less tolerant and more racially motivated agenda. The rise of and move towards a much more extreme political agenda in Britain although regrettable, seems to be almost inevitable, given that almost all successive post war governments have completely failed to publicly and actively protect the established and widely accepted British way of life which the majority of its native people crave.

The very fact that any British government would publicly admit to not knowing exactly how many illegal aliens currently reside in Britain is in itself a damning indictment of their abject failure to protect our physical national borders, as well as the obvious and wholesale ineffectiveness of any implied or clearly stated policy statement. Any national administration which is unable or unwilling to provide accountable, secure and efficient processing procedures and centres to deal with inward migration to Britain must be deemed to have failed in their duty of care to the British electorate, as well as to legitimate migrants themselves.

Ultimately, our national politicians and the British electorate have to decide as to whether or not the much vaunted advantages and inevitably of multi-culturalism represents real progress for our future society, or is simply an unchecked and dangerous dilution of the mainstream British social values and culture which have been carefully developed and nurtured for the past 2000 years?                                         

2) Provide a visible and effective law enforcement agency which offers a sense of security to every legitimate citizen of the UK and to every section of our society regardless of their race, colour or creed.

It is perhaps ironic, that typically and far too regularly, the one thing that gets in the way of our regional Police forces actually doing their jobs properly seems to be the law itself.

Along with other ‘first world’ countries, as our society has supposedly developed in the modern age our legal system has become overly complicated, perceptibly lenient and apparently too easy to circumvent. Where right and wrong, or black and white were once the only measures to be accounted for by the British judicial system, now it seems we have choose from indeterminable shades of grey, when deciding if an accused person is innocent or guilty of a crime. As things stand, we seem to have effectively absolved the regular British citizen of any sort of personal responsibility for their behaviour and then we wonder why our society has become so obviously lawless and increasingly dangerous?

Where the legal ‘rights’ of the perpetrator fundamentally outweighs the implicit human rights of the victim of crime, then our political leaders have obviously led us too far down the road of liberalism and penal reform. The very fact that Police Officers have to consciously and deliberately accommodate the rights of the criminal, for fear of losing a later prosecution through a legal technicality, is both systematically tragic and is in reality nothing short of social and judicial madness.

Where a Police Officer has to effectively abandon his patrol to process a suspect and then spend half of his working shift completing the relevant paperwork, is not only incredibly inefficient but also largely indefensible. With new technologies in existence which can digitally record each and every incident, then why do we still require a ‘hard’ paper copy to be produced for each individual event? When a suspect is arrested, why is the officer concerned physically required to attend the formal booking-in of that person, when quite clearly that particular procedure could be done either remotely or on a mobile basis? We live in a digital age and yet we still largely process criminals using an outdated and time consuming method. Why? We still engage with and utilise a penal system which sees even minor suspects held in Police cells overnight, when in fact the Police themselves or ‘Night Courts’ could just as easily settle the matter within a relatively short time and have the suspect ‘on his way’ before the arresting officer has even come off duty. Why doesn’t it work like that?

The reasons for these inefficiencies, inadequacies and failures all come back to central government of course, because solutions to these problems all cost money and to fix this particular problem would cost millions of pounds. Tax increases which would finance better policing, health services, national defences, transport services, etc are regarded as being poor policy statements for any political party and as a result the British public are effectively left with second rate and poorly delivered services. It is hardly surprising therefore that large numbers of serving Police Officers are either taking early retirement or looking abroad to pursue a career in catching ‘bad guys’, because they’re not encouraged or indeed able to do that in the UK. Instead they’re too busy completing unnecessary paperwork!

There is of course an equally bad ‘flip’ side of that particular coin. In a country where the Police are generally and mistakenly viewed as being part of the problem in the first place, a career in UK law enforcement has become far less attractive, both financially and personally. Whereas at one time a Police Officer was held in awe and respect by his fellow citizens, nowadays they’re lucky if people will even acknowledge that they have some legal authority over them. There is a argument to be made which suggests that in part respect is built on fear and the obvious and widespread lack of respect shown to the modern Police force in Britain would seem to underpin that very opinion. But until central government is fully prepared to redress the balance in favour of our currently antiquated, invisible and legally hamstrung law enforcement agencies, then those halcyon days of the world famous British Bobby will remain little more than a longed for memory.      

Successive British governments seem to have continually withdrawn from imposing the severest of criminal sanctions on serious wrongdoers, whilst at the same time ensuring that civil penalties remain relatively stringent. Consequently we now have a judicial system that will simply fine people found guilty of criminal damage and yet jail elderly householders who refuse to pay their Council Tax. The teenage ‘boy racer’ who steals a vehicle to race around city streets putting other citizens lives at risk, can often expect to receive a more lenient sentence, than the car owner who might physically restrain the youth from taking the car in the first place. How bizarre a system is that?

Because the British Parliament has singularly failed to suppress the rise of the highly Americanised and overtly litigious nature of our judicial system, we now have the peculiar situation where a burglar can legitimately sue a householder for injuries he might receive, despite the fact that it was his own criminal act which precipitated the confrontation and the householders defence of his property could have been easily anticipated. This apparent lack of commonsense and common justice for the victim has to be laid fairly and squarely at the door of government, simply because they are ultimately responsible for both the introduction and dissolution of the various legal statutes which permit such abject and inequitable situations to arise in the first place.

Added to the seemingly unending list of new legislation which simply helps to both confuse and undermine public confidence in our judicial system, there is the glaringly obvious lack of ‘Bobbies on the beat’, a situation evidenced by the widespread emergence of the Community Support Officer, the largely untrained, less publicly respected Deputy Sheriffs, who have been charged with upholding the more mundane, least dangerous and less palatable aspects of daily policing.

The very fact that such a force was required in the first place, speaks volumes about the state of law enforcement in Britain today. Both real and perceived falls in Police Officer numbers throughout the UK is obviously one of the main reasons for greater public anxiety, escalating anti-social behaviour and a rise in people’s general indifference to the actual rule of law. If people see little if any visible deterrent to poor citizenship, then surely they’re more likely to ignore previously accepted conventions, safe in the knowledge that they’re unlikely to get caught regardless of what unacceptable act they choose to commit.

3) Maintain every citizen’s basic right to access affordable social housing

In an age when the European Convention on Human Rights has arrived in Britain and has sometimes outraged public opinion with its implicit protection of and support for our least worthy citizens, it is worth remembering that successive British governments of the past 30 years have themselves failed to provide at least one basic human right to large sections of its own native population.

Introduced by the Thatcher government of the late 70’s and early 80’s the Right to Buy legislation was ostensibly aimed at giving council house tenants a personal ‘stake’ in the property that they had previously rented from the local authority. As a general principle this new Act was a great step forward in public ownership, but was fundamentally undermined by the glaring failure on the part of Thatcher and her ministerial successors to actually replace the hundreds of thousands of former council properties which were subsequently sold into private hands. 

Often regarded as the wholesale ‘privatisation’ of the public housing sector, the deliberate failure by all successive governments to adequately replace some or all of these ‘lost’ social accommodations would seem to reinforce the fact that this was indeed a deliberate policy and one that remains in place through to the present day.

This is not to say or to imply that some form of affordable social housing does not continue to exist in Britain, because clearly it does, albeit in much reduced numbers and with extremely limited access. Typically, those deemed to be the most ‘vulnerable’ are still catered for as a priority by both local authorities and their quasi-autonomous counterparts the Registered Social Landlords or Housing Associations, who have regularly receive millions of pounds in public subsidies, in return for acting as supplementary housing stock providers to the various local authorities.

Commonly, young single mothers, young parents, people over 60 years of age or those deemed to be in need of emotional and/or physical support are the main groups who are fundamentally guaranteed statutory accommodation as a basic right. Yet tens of thousands of British citizen who fall outside of these criteria-led groups are not offered any such guarantees and are typically left to the vagaries and expense of the private rental sector, a wholly discriminatory practice which is verified by the burgeoning buy-to-let sector of the British housing market.

For those native-born British men and women who are aged between 16 and 60, in reasonably good physical health and currently childless the opportunity to access affordable social accommodation is generally impossible and is in itself little short of a national disgrace. For British political leaders to overtly exclude and overlook an increasingly influential section of the national electorate is not only short-sighted but might be considered by some to be little more than party political suicide. The total absence of a national single person household pressure group or representative body is perhaps the only reason why this particular issue has thus far failed to become a vitally important factor, but at some point in time may well become a vitally important manifesto commitment for all of our major political parties and one that they would ignore at their political peril. 

The lack of sufficient affordable social housing, coupled with the statutory Right to Buy legislation has ensured that both local authorities and RSL’s are finding new and inventive methods of effectively ‘ring-fencing’ their remaining housing stocks, so that they cannot or will not be bought by prospective tenants. By registering and nominating specific council properties as ‘sheltered’ accommodation, only those who qualify either by age or tenant type can access them, regardless of their actual housing need. In theory then, a 60-odd year old who chooses to sell their own private residence can take the monies raised from such a transaction, put it in the bank and then move straight into affordable social housing which has been set aside and made available to their ‘type’ of tenant. The 40 year man or woman who might be having to cope with fairly squalid conditions, or is being made homeless by a central government road scheme would not be so lucky and would almost certainly have to subject themselves to the rigours and expense of either living in a community hostel or paying a potentially unscrupulous private landlord. How fair or equitable is that to the single people of Britain?

To suggest that any such ‘social engineering’ or overt discrimination doesn’t take place in Britain’s public housing sector is blatantly incorrect and would be laughable if it were not tragically true for many of this country’s single person households. As with the widespread and systematic ‘cheating’ being undertaken by many public, health and police authorities throughout Britain, such bending of the rules and misreporting of the real facts and figures arise as a direct result of central government incompetence and inactivity, as well as a complete lack of positive and long-term investment.    

(TO BE CONTINUED)

DOES YOUR LAND OR PROPERTY CONTAIN HIDDEN, LOST OR UNDISCOVERED TREASURES? CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

Produced and maintained by Phillip E Jones @ Mobile 07756 693258 Text: 07914 189032

Mail Contact: 3 Riverside Park, Sealand, Deeside, Flintshire, CH5 2JR