Popular Alliance

Umbrella Group Required

Even under the AV system smaller parties have little chance. We need to co-operate under one banner. This is about having a larger voice and sharing ideas/policies, not losing identity. Please contact us.

Main Menu

Home

About Popular Alliance

Political Video Media

Pressure your MP

Facebook

We always value opinions on politics or the Popular Alliance.

To log in to our facebook page please click on the icon below:

myspace

You can access the Popular Alliance myspace page through the following link:

Skype Contact

Our Skype Name is popularalliance

Please feel free to contact the Popular Alliance through Skype.

If you wish to download Skype then click the symbol.

Destruction of an Institution

Once there was a British company with a monopoly position that provided a national service, which benefited the whole country, no matter how remote, or how small a community was. This service was exemplary and provided the model upon which other countries based their own services and for many, looked upon with envy.

The service provided communities with an outlet for communications and contact, worldwide; at a price affordable for all. In more rural areas, it made a wider contribution as a centre for social cohesion and offered additional services such as vital day-to-day provisions. These direct services, which had other indirect benefits, were available twice daily, in the morning and the afternoon. Whilst the full actual cost of delivery was never understood, neither was the true economic value to society as whole.

One day, the major shareholder said, I know! Let us open up our market to competition, this will make us sharper and more efficient and as a true test, the shareholder used the new, mostly foreign, competing services in place of the tried, tested and reliable service, albeit increasingly inefficient, it had enjoyed for more than 100 years.

After some time, the new players complained that they needed a bigger slice of the cake to provide a more economic service; of course the shareholder had to pay increased prices to achieve this but the long-term benefits were worth the price. The new boys complained that service provision to remote and uneconomic areas could not be supported and that the main company must support these areas.

As a result of a lack of investment over many years, in new technology and personnel practises the company appeared less and less efficient when compared to the other new boys that had benefited from their own national support over a long period of time.

After a short time, the company started to report major losses of business, so the major shareholder decided it needed new leadership at the top. In an innovative move it brought in an expert from the retail business (with part time interest) and a full time head from the football industry, with a recent track record of abject failure. With these two at the helm, not hindered by having previous industry experience and understanding, surely everything would be OK, as they would see things with fresh eyes.

Their first actions were to completely ignore the industry history as a national and community service and try to compete openly with the newly players. This of course meant increased cost of services as the company was losing money due largely to the major shareholder using competitive services. Despite losses of valuable and sensitive deliveries between the shareholders own divisions by the new players, they were further encouraged in the misguided belief of increased competition would benefit the company. The effect being to greater contraction of the market, once dominated by the company, which in turn lead to further closures of outlets and reduced services.

As a further blow to the company, the shareholder took away the right of the company to provide services to the elderly and remote communities in a manner it saw fit and determined by its customers, this resulted in a further deterioration of the business.

However, despite all of these hurdles put I its way by its own shareholder, the company managed to turn in a performance with good operational profits.

Not to be out done, the shareholder stated that this was irrelevant in the bigger picture as the company had to support the pension rights, which far outweighed this achievement.
Of course, the shareholder failing to state that the dire situation with the pension was as a direct result of other disastrous actions by the same shareholder.

So in a last throw of the (loaded) dice, the shareholder declares that the only way to survive is to sell a large proportion of the company to the competitors, as they will bring in new know how and investment to modernise the company. Obviously not something the retailer and football executive could do. Could it be that those involved would benefit directly from such a move?

Why would a shareholder so systematically destroy its own asset? Maybe it was only doing the bidding of another power.

Who are the players in this story? If you have not already guessed, the shareholder is the UK Government and the company is the Post Office or Royal Mail if it can still be called that. The other power ? The EU of course.

All is not yet lost; there is still time (barely) to stop this travesty and complete lack of business sense. Why is the British Government intent on handing over control of our national utilities and services such as the Royal Mail to the Germans, French, Dutch etc.?
The answer is because they are powerless to stop it.

Join the Popular Alliance and together we will bring about the change necessary to put some common sense back into the management of the UK.

Harperson Blunders Again

Harriet Harperson was caught up in a row over whether women will suffer most in the recession.

The Equality Minister claimed in the Commons that women were worrying more than men about the economic crisis.

But her views were undermined today by figures from the Office for National Statistics and a Cambridge University study.The ONS claimed the economic downturn 'impacted less' on working women than on men. It stressed that estimates showed fewer women than men had lost their job.

The redundancy rate for women was 6.6 in 1,000 employees in the three months to December, compared with 13.6 for men.The unemployment rate for women also grew at a slower pace, up 0.3 per cent to 5.5 per cent in the three months to December, which contrasted with a rise for men of 0.6 per cent to 6.9 per cent.

The employment rate for women was down 0.3 per cent, compared with a drop of one per cent for men.Ms Harperson vowed in the debate in Parliament that women would not be allowed to become the 'victims of the recession'.'Both men and women are worried about the effect on our economy of the global economic crisis,' she said.'Men are worried about their jobs, of course they are, but it appears that women are even more worried.’

Studies believe men handle losing their job worse than women and are more vulnerable. This was because of the male 'macho' belief that they have to be the breadwinners.Men, unlike women, have few positive ways of defining themselves outside of the workplace between when they leave school and when they retire.

Popular Alliance Comment

Thanks to her boss Gordon Brown everyone is suffering. Comments like these show how far out of touch she is with society. She is trying to placate women but actually managing to annoy everyone. It should be noted that the huge rise of female employment since 1997 has been approx 93% in the public sector, whilst only 7% in the private sector. This would account for so many being sat in secure government employment, whilst more men are employed in the private sector and thus fearing the chop.

It’s about time you went Harriet. A blunder a week is not sustainable and certainly not future party leader material or is it ??

[ Back ]

Previous Months Blogs

Topical Comment

Prince of Darkness

Gordon now knows that when you sell your soul to the devil there will be a payback. He gambled on bringing Mandelson back to save his position which backfired so badly. This was one of the worst decisions he made and affected the country badly, indeed creating this period of Darkness. This shows without doubt that there is no loyalty in political circles.

As the gaggle of pretenders shuffle themselves around still spouting “New Labour” speak in a closed shop environment for the leadership contest, it has to be asked what real choice do the Labour faithful have?

It is now time for a total rethink about British politics and how we are governed. We can only hope that the days of Spin and manipulation are over!! Pigs might Fly!!

PA PayPal Donations

Events Calendar

September 2010

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
29	30	31	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	1	2