It is so nice to read about how the EU migration is a fact that is here to stay. The subtitle containing ‘56% support in Britain for remaining in union‘ gives a pause for thought, yet what pause should there be and who should be pausing (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/23/juncker-tells-cameron-cant-destroy-eu-migration-rules)?
Party 1, Jean-Claude Juncker on free movement of people and how this is not to be destroyed! Well, Mr Junker, that sounds like a nice option, but when the population of Poland, Bulgaria and Romania moves into the UK, the UK ends up having a massive problem, which is what it boils down to. When we see “three million people from Bulgaria and Romania living in other European Union member states“, we do have an issue to deal with. Then we see the quote “more than 60 MPs are backing a campaign to extend the restrictions for a further five years, saying the British economy has not sufficiently recovered from the 2008 recession to cope with the change and that it will put pressure on public services and reduce job opportunities for British workers” (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-25549715), these two facts seem to be ignored by many parties. We see some papers on the let them in side and some opposing that view, yet none of them give us a clear number of who is coming from where and how many from all over are arriving in the UK. Let’s not forget that London is still the place to be (I know, because I still miss it). What the Guardian article only casually reports is the fact that the 56% comes from an Ipsos Mori poll. Now for the good stuff, this comes from 1002 respondents, whilst the UK counts 64 million. So which person signed off on that little part? Perhaps some should consider that anything like this requires a few thousand responses, like, more then at least 5000, not 1002!
Party 2, Alisdair McIntosh, director of Business for New Europe. Many seem to see the benefit of staying within the EU, well nobody is debating that, but you see, Mr McIntosh is speaking for ‘his’ lobby and those people need a level of non-accountability, people in movement are in many ways interesting for exploitation, this has been seen in the Netherlands where immigrants hoping for a new future, willing to work hard are exploited in most inhumane ways. In addition there are also the views on how the influx of immigrants also came with a large influx of smaller crimes (theft and pick-pocketing). The good and the bad is a given fact, yet business is above such accountability, not stating that they are accountable! So yes, Alisdair McIntosh likes the borders to remain open.
Party 3, José Manuel Barroso stated “What I can tell you is that any kind of arbitrary cap seems to be not in conformity with Europeans laws. For us it is very important – the principle of non-discrimination“, but is that really correct? (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/19/jose-manuel-barroso-david-cameron-eu-migration), “the number of Portuguese looking to settle in Britain was up by almost ten thousand people last year, climbing to 30,120 official arrivals who were recorded at British national insurance offices“, which comes form http://theportugalnews.com/news/portuguese-workers-flood-britain/30837. So as we see, the Portuguese unemployment rates are going down, but how many from leaving Portugal and where else are they going to? So, we see that José Manuel Barroso has two hats on, one is still all about Portugal, which we cannot fault him for, but the information is unclear as many ‘hide’ behind percentages, when we see the mentioning of numbers the face changes, like 560 Britons willing to stay in the EU, but what do the other 63,999,440 want? You see, 1002 weighted is in no way a real usable number, not when it is compared to the size of a nation.
These clear thoughts give us two dangers
- What is ACTUALLY the best for the United Kingdom?
- These simple realities only enable the growth of UKIP (which is not really good for the UK).
Some numbers consider the NHS the most important issue, yet consider what the influx does to an already stumbling NHS, when this falls over, there will not be any support remaining, with all the consequences of those trying to stay healthy when the doctor is not available and those who need help will only get it for a fee, which gives us a clear view on the dangers for the future. David Cameron needs to stop the massive influx that the current infrastructure is less and less able to deal with.
A weakness that gets pressed forward by the UKIP engine, which seems to be driving the people in an incorrect direction. In the end, I feel that there is no way that UKIP is a force for good, but the other parties have been stumbling all over the field trying to statistically trivialise and ignore the issues as reports are posted left right and centre. I truly hope that Scotland was not an empty lesson for the parties at large.
If we are not careful about the game some play and many observe, we will see that soon after the stumbling becomes irrecoverable we will see the people leave for other shores, then what will happen? Because when the system collapses we will soon see that the ‘The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel’ was not just an imagination, consider the cost of living in India and what will happen when a million retirees take their money and move to sunny shores with living expenses at 18% of what it is now. So, what else are some ignoring? Let’s not forget that these people will also cause the brain drain that will hamper growth down the track. Those who ‘rely’ on cheap youthful labour will soon learn that there is a downside to that. In addition, a million retirees spending THEIR money out of the UK is also a coffer drain the treasurer has not fully considered, or the consequence of such a shift.
Well, personally I see an issue that some seem to ignore, but it is the most dangerous one that many face. You see, several politicians, especially in the labour side, will get these scientists to make economic predictions, after which the analysts will get a go to agree with. Yet, all is not clear here, the politician (the absolute worst of referees) will decide, what information the two parties will receive and as such we get skewed results, moreover, there will not be an open debate and we see reusing of certain ‘weighted’ metrics, which will make too many people walk too close to the edge and as such the damage will be done and the politician will start to emotionally scream and hover BEHIND the ‘miscommunication’ sign. The approach of ‘if the result does not fit, change the initial question‘. There is only one problem, the damage will be lasting and debilitating and whilst Mr Politician has a nice dry income with zero risk to him/her self.
All this comes to fruition when we take a look at the NHS issues. You only have to look at the BBC News and look for NHS articles on the site and you are treated to a myriad of voices all with their own street in the passing of the voice. If we go back to 2013, whether it is just NHS, code 111 or GP, there are all kinds of thoughts, each with their own percentage of validity, but in what regard?
When we look at the Article by Hugh Pym, where he talks about punch packing documents (at http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29731646), we see the following: “He is signalling a big shift in the way the NHS in England is managed and organised, in some ways the most radical since the service was born in 1948“, “There should, in his view, be no more top-down reorganisations, but instead the development of new models to suit local needs” and “For Westminster and the political parties, there is one key message – you have to find more money. Blanket demands for cash at a time of government austerity were never going to cut much ice. But Mr Stevens, with the support of the health regulator Monitor, has done some careful financial modelling“.
Of course it is about the money as the NHS costs more than just two bundles of cash, but when we consider terms like ‘careful financial monitoring‘ and ‘no more top-down reorganisations‘ we see a jump in the width with a financial picture that is nowhere close to be estimated. In addition, if we regard my article ‘Concerning the Commonwealth!‘ on June 19th 2014, where we see several options, take especially my quote ‘the Labour IT systems of the NHS have proven that ten billion pound invoice, and yet doing nothing is another non-option‘ to heart! So as we change an NHS model, how much more will it cost and how is IT not ready to deal with that part?
Yet, is Simon Stevens wrong? No! In the foundations of it all he is correct, the NHS needs a massive overhaul, but here we see that part of the politician, the economist and the analyst. It takes but a whiff of ‘miscommunication’ and the UK is down a few more billion, whilst it is dealing with 1000 billion pound overdraft. So, here we see the reason to change the NHS, but not in drastic ways, yet in ways where we see the successful dealings with basic errors which will cost the NHS hundreds of millions a year. the expression ‘he that cannot keep a penny shall never have many‘, comes to mind, we need to make massive changes, but we need to close holes too, If we can save first, we get change to implement iterated evolution, one that does not cost the taxpayer. The problem for Simon Stevens is that this is not sexy and that is not good for (his) image. This is why I have been in favour of a stronger evolution involving Indian generic medicines, it will not help GlaxoSmithKline and its 14 members of the board, but it will make a massive impact on the 12 billion pound bill the NHS is getting and the kickback that is called quality of life for tens of millions of patients. We can never get around loads of medications, but if we get a cheaper generic option for an increasing number of them, the NHS might end up with a much lower bill, yet that part is often not shown in clarity, I wonder why?