Tag Archives: Andy Burnham

July 20, 2017 · 16:14

When the trust is gone

In an age where we see an abundance of political issues, an overgrowing need to sort things out, the news that was given visibility by the Guardian is the one that scared and scarred me the most. With ‘Lack of trust in health department could derail blood contamination inquiry‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/19/lack-of-trust-in-health-department-could-derail-blood-contamination-inquiry), we need to hold in the first stage a very different sitting in the House of Lords. You see, the issues (as I am about to explain them), did not start overnight. In this I am implying that a sitting with in the dock Jeremy Hunt, Andrew Lansley, Andy Burham and Alan Johnson is required. This is an issue that has grown from both sides of the Isle and as such there needs to be a grilling where certain people are likely to get burned for sure. How bad? That needs to be ascertained and it needs to be done as per immediate. When you see “The contamination took place in the 1970s and 80s, and the government started paying those affected more than 25 years ago” the UK is about to get a fallout of a very different nature. We agree that this is the term that was with Richard Crossman, Sir Keith Joseph, Barbara Castle, David Ennals, Patrick Jenkin, Norman Fowler, and John Moore. Yet in that instance we need to realise that this was in an age that was pre computers, pre certain data considerations and a whole league of other measures that are common place at this very instance. I remember how I aided departments with an automated document system, relying on 5.25″ floppy’s, with the capability that was less than Wordstar or PC-Write had ever offered. And none of those systems had any reliable data storage options.

The System/36 was flexible and powerful for its time:

  • It allowed 80 monitors (see below for IBM’s description of a monitor) and printers to be connected. All users could access the system’s hard drive or any printer.
  • It provided password security and resource security, allowing control over who was allowed to access any program or file.
  • Devices could be as far as a mile from the system unit.
  • Users could dial into a System/36 from anywhere in the world and get a 9600 baud connection (which was very fast in the 1980s) and very responsive for connections which used only screen text and no graphics.
  • It allowed the creation of databases of very large size. It supported up to about 8 million records, and the largest 5360 with four hard drives in its extended cabinet could hold 1.453 gigabytes.
  • The S/36 was regarded as “bulletproof” for its ability to run many months between reboots (IPLs).

Now, why am I going to this specific system, as the precise issues were not yet known? You see in those days, any serious level of data competency was pretty much limited to IBM, at that time Hewlett Packard was not yet to the level it became 4 years later and the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) who revolutionised systems with VAX/VMS and it became the foundation, or better stated true relational database foundations were added through Oracle Rdb (1984), which would actually revolutionise levels of data collection.

Now, we get two separate quotes (not from the article) “Dr Jeremy Bradshaw Smith at Ottery St Mary health centre, which, in 1975, became the first paperless computerised general practice“, as well as “It is not developed or intended for use in any inherently dangerous applications, including applications that may create a risk of personal injury. If you use this software or hardware in dangerous applications, then you shall be responsible to take all appropriate fail-safe, backup, redundancy, and other measures to ensure its safe use“, the second one comes from the Oracle Rdb SQL Reference manual. The second part seems a bit of a stretch; consider the original setting of this. When we see Oracle’s setting of data integrity, consider the elements given (over time) that are now commonplace.

System and object privileges control access to application tables and system commands, so that only authorized users can change data.

  • Referential integrity is the ability to maintain valid relationships between values in the database, according to rules that have been defined.
  • A database must be protected against viruses designed to corrupt the data.

I left one element out for the mere logical reasons.

now, in those days, the hierarchy of supervisors and system owners was nowhere near what it is now (and often nowhere to be seen), referential integrity was a mere concept and data viruses were mostly academic, that is until we get a small presentation by Ralf Burger in 1986. It was in the days of the Chaos Computer Club and my trusty CBM-64.

These elements are to show you that data integrity existed in academic purposes, yet the designers who were in their data infancy often enough had no real concept of rollback data events, some would only be designed too long later, and in all this, the application of databases to the extent that was needed. It would not be until 1982 when dBase II came to the PC market from the founding fathers of what would later be known as Ashton-Tate, George Tate and Hal Lashlee would create a wave that would get us dBase III and with the creation of Clipper by the Nantucket Corporation, which would give a massive rise to database creations as well as the growth of data products that had never been seen before, as well as being the player that in the end propelled data quality towards the state it is nowadays. In this product databases did not just grow with the network abilities within this product nearly any final year IT person could have its portfolio of clients all with custom based products all data based. Within 2-3 years (which gets us to 1989), a whole league of data quality, data cleaning and data integrity base issues would surface for millions of places, all requiring solutions. It is my personal conviction that this was the point where data became adult, where data cleaning, data rollback as well as data integrity checks became actual issues that were seriously dealt with. So, here in 1989 we are finally confronted with the adult data issues that for the longest of times were only correctly understood by more than a few niche people who were often enough disregarded (I know that for certain because I was one of them).

So the essential events that could have prevented only to some degree the events we see in the Guardian with “survivors initially welcomed the announcement, while expressing frustration that the decades-long wait for answers had been too long. The contamination took place in the 1970s and 80s“, certain elements would not come into existence until a decade later.

So when we see “Liz Carroll, chief executive of the Haemophilia Society, wrote to May on Wednesday saying the department must not be involved in setting the remit and powers of an inquiry investigating its ministers and officials. She also highlighted the fact that key campaigners and individuals affected by the scandal had not been invited to the meeting“, I am not debating or opposing her in what could be a valid approach, I am merely stating that to comprehend the issues, the House of Lords needs to take the pulse of events and the taken steps forward from the Ministers who have been involved in the last 10 years.

When we see “We and our members universally reject meeting with the Department of Health as they are an implicated party. We do not believe that the DH should be allowed to direct or have any involvement into an investigation into themselves, other than giving evidence. The handling of this inquiry must be immediately transferred elsewhere“, we see a valid argument given, yet when we would receive testimonies from people, like the ministers in those days, how many would be aware and comprehend the data issues that were not even decently comprehended in those days? Because these data issues are clearly part of all of these events, they will become clear towards the end of the article.

Now, be aware, I am not giving some kind of a free pass, or give rise that those who got the bad blood should be trivialised or ignored or even set to a side track, I am merely calling for a good and clear path that allows for complete comprehension and for the subsequent need of actual prevention. You see, what happens today might be better, yet can we prevent this from ever happening again? In this I have to make a side step to a non-journalistic source, we see (at https://www.factor8scandal.uk/about-factor/), “It is often misreported that these treatments were “Blood Transfusions”. Not True. Factor was a processed pharmaceutical product (pictured)“, so when I see the Guardian making the same bloody mistake, as shown in the article, we see and should ask certain parties how they could remain in that same stance of utter criminal negligence (as I personally see it), but giving rise to intentional misrepresentation. When we see the quote (source: the Express) “Now, in the face of overwhelming evidence presented by Andy Burnham last month, Theresa May has still not ordered an inquiry into the culture, practice and ethics of the Department of Health in dealing with this human tragedy” with the added realisation that we have to face that the actual culprit was not merely data, yet the existence of the cause through Factor VIII is not even mentioned, the Guardian steered clear via the quote “A recent parliamentary report found around 7,500 patients were infected by imported blood products from commercial organisations in the US” and in addition the quote “The UK Public Health Minister, Caroline Flint, has said: “We are aware that during the 1970s and 80s blood products were sourced from US prisoners” and the UK Haemophilia Society has called for a Public Inquiry. The UK Government maintains that the Government of the day had acted in good faith and without the blood products many patients would have died. In a letter to Lord Jenkin of Roding the Chief Executive of the National Health Service (NHS) informed Lord Jenkin that most files on contaminated NHS blood products which infected people with HIV and hepatitis C had unfortunately been destroyed ‘in error’. Fortunately, copies that were taken by legal entities in the UK at the time of previous litigation may mean the documentation can be retrieved and consequently assessed“, the sources the Express and the New York Times, we see for example the quote “Cutter Biological, introduced its safer medicine in late February 1984 as evidence mounted that the earlier version was infecting hemophiliacs with H.I.V. Yet for over a year, the company continued to sell the old medicine overseas, prompting a United States regulator to accuse Cutter of breaking its promise to stop selling the product” with the additional “Cutter officials were trying to avoid being stuck with large stores of a product that was proving increasingly unmarketable in the United States and Europe“, so how often did we see the mention of ‘Cutter Biological‘ (or Bayer pharmaceuticals for that matter)?

In the entire Arkansas Prison part we see that there are connections to cases of criminal negligence in Canada 2006 (where Canadian Red Cross fell on their sword), Japan 2007 as well as the visibility of the entire issue at Slamdance 2005, so as we see the rise of inquiries, how many have truly investigated the links between these people and how the connection to Bayer pharmaceuticals kept them out of harm’s way for the longest of times? How many people at Cutter Biological have not merely been investigated, but also indicted for murder? When we get ‘trying to avoid being stuck with large stores of a non-sellable product‘ we get the proven issue of intent. Because there are no recall and destroy actions, were there?

Even as we see a batch of sources giving us parts in this year, the entire visibility from 2005-2017 shows that the media has given no, or at best dubious visibility in all this, even yesterday’s article at the Guardian shows the continuation of bad visibility with the blood packs. So when we look (at http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/aug/04/bad-blood-cautionary-tale/), and see the August 2011 part with “This “miracle” product was considered so beneficial that it was approved by the FDA despite known risks of viral contamination, including the near-certainty of infection with hepatitis“, we wonder how the wonder drug got to be or remain on the market. Now, there is a fair defence that some issues would be unknown or even untested to some degree, yet the ‘the near-certainty of infection with hepatitis‘ should give rise to all kinds of questions and it is not the first time that the FDA is seen to approve bad medication, which gives rise to the question why they are allowed to be the cartel of approval as big bucks is the gateway through their door. When we consider the additional quote of “By the time the medication was pulled from the market in 1985, 10,000 hemophiliacs had been infected with HIV, and 15,000 with hepatitis C; causing the worst medical disaster in U.S. history“, how come that it took 6 years for this to get decent amounts of traction within the UK government.

What happened to all that data?

You see, this is not merely about the events, I believe that if any old systems (a very unlikely reality) could be retrieved, how long would it take for digital forensics to find in the erased (not overwritten) records to show that certain matters could have been found in these very early records? Especially when we consider the infancy of data integrity and data cleaning, what other evidence could have surfaced? In all this, no matter how we dig in places like the BBC and other places, we see a massive lack of visibility on Bayer Pharmaceuticals. So when we look (at http://pharma.bayer.com/en/innovation-partnering/research-focus/hemophilia/), we might accept that the product has been corrected, yet their own site gives us “the missing clotting factor is replaced by a ‘recombinant factor’, which is manufactured using genetically modified mammalian cells. When administered intravenously, the recombinant factor helps to stop acute bleeding at an early stage or may prevent it altogether by regular prophylaxis. The recombinant factor VIII developed by Bayer for treating hemophilia A was one of the first products of its kind. It was launched in 1993“, so was this solution based on the evolution of getting thousands of people killed? the sideline “Since the mid-1970s Bayer has engaged in research in haematology focusing its efforts on developing new treatment options for the therapy of haemophilia A (factor VIII deficiency)“, so in all this, whether valid or not (depending on the link between Bayer Pharmaceuticals UK and Cutter Biological. the mere visibility on these two missing in all the mentions, is a matter of additional questions, especially as Bayer became the owner of it all between 1974 and 1978, which puts them clearly in the required crosshairs of certain activities like depleting bad medication stockpiles. Again, not too much being shown in the several news articles I was reading. When we see the Independent, we see ‘Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt to meet victims’ families before form of inquiry is decided‘, in this case it seems a little far-fetched that the presentation by Andy Burham (as given in the Express) would not have been enough to give an immediate green light to all this. Even as the independent is hiding behind blood bags as well, they do give the caption of Factor VIII with it, yet we see no mention of Bayer or Cutter, yet there is a mention of ‘prisoners‘ and the fact that their blood was paid for, yet no mention of the events in Canada and Japan, two instances that gives rise to an immediate and essential need for an inquiry.

In all this, we need to realise that no matter how deep the inquiry goes, the amount of evidence that could have been wiped or set asunder from the eyes of the people by the administrative gods of Information Technology as it was between 1975 and 1989, there is a dangerous situation. One that came unwillingly through the evolution of data systems, one that seems to be the intent of the reporting media as we see the utter absence of Bayer Pharmaceuticals in all of this, whilst there is a growing pool of evidence through documentaries, ad other sources that seem to lose visibility as the media is growing a view of presentations that are skating on the subject, yet until the inquiry becomes an official part we see a lot less than the people are entitled to, so is that another instance of the ethical chapters of the Leveson inquiry? And when this inquiry becomes an actuality, what questions will we see absent or sidelined?

All this gets me back to the Guardian article as we see “The threat to the inquiry comes only a week after May ordered a full investigation into how contaminated blood transfusions infected thousands of people with hepatitis C and HIV“, so how about the events from 2005 onwards? Were they mere pharmaceutical chopped liver? In the linked ‘Theresa May orders contaminated blood scandal inquiry‘ article there was no mention of Factor VIII, Bayer (pharmaceuticals) or Cutter (biological). It seems that we need to give rise that ethical issues have been trampled on, so a mention of “a criminal cover-up on an industrial scale” is not a mere indication; it is an almost given certainty. In all that, as the inquiry will get traction, I wonder how both the current and past governments will be adamant to avoid skating into certain realms of the events (like naming the commercial players), and when we realise this, will there be any justice to the victims, especially when the data systems of those days have been out of time for some time and the legislation on legacy data is pretty much non-existent. When the end balance is given, in (as I personally see it) a requirement of considering to replace whatever Bayer Pharmaceuticals is supplying the UK NHS, I will wonder who will be required to fall on the virtual sword of non-accountability. The mere reason being that when we see (at http://www.annualreport2016.bayer.com/) that Bayer is approaching a revenue of 47 billion (€ 46,769M) in 2016, should there not be a consequence of the players ‘depleting unsellable stock‘ at the expense of thousands of lives? This is another matter that is interestingly absent from the entire UK press cycles. And this is not me just speculating, the sources give clear absence whilst the FDA reports show other levels of failing, it seems that some players forget that lots of data is now globally available which seems to fuel the mention of ‘criminal negligence‘.

So you have a nice day and when you see the next news cycle with bad blood, showing blood bags and making no mention of Factor VIII, or the pharmaceutical players clearly connected to all this, you just wonder who is doing the job for these journalists, because the data as it needed to be shown, was easily found in the most open of UK and US governmental places.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 12, 2015 · 18:51

Identitatis simplifico

You know, I have rented places all over the world. The US, the UK, Netherlands and Sweden. So when the BBC article ‘Landlord rent checks could cause ‘everyday racism’, Labour warns’ (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34498836) passed my screen, I was a little confused. That confusion did not go away with the quote “But shadow home secretary Andy Burnham told the Independent on Sunday it could cause problems for “anyone with a foreign-sounding name”“, he has been on my radar before (‘Dr Temp MD‘ at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/06/03/dr-temp-md/), where Brandy Human (read: anagram) seemed to imply that the mysteries of the spread sheet had not been revealed to him by this universe, but I digress. How can a foreign sounding name be an issue? You see, I have at all times been required to show proper identification, in my situation a valid passport. So why would there be an issue? The quote “Mr Burnham, describing the bill as “disproportionate, divisive, deceitful”, said: “The aim of the Immigration Bill is to make Britain a ‘hostile environment’ for illegal migrants”“, which does not even sound nice. I remember the issue that being somewhere illegally was, you know illegal. Hence the ‘stigma’ that there is. And in addition, why should illegality be protected or encouraged? Let’s state that this is indeed the case. Mr Damn Ah-by-Nun who came towards the UK illegally, goes towards the first legal centre he can find, or church for that matter and states: “I got here illegal, I am applying for refugee status“, now we have ourselves an old fashioned horse race. The proper people get informed, and Mr Ah-by-Nun goes into the refugee system and that person gets processed. You see, perhaps over simplified, but at no point was a rental place required. When we look that the UNHCR site we see “Everybody has a right to seek asylum in another country. People who don’t qualify for protection as refugees will not receive refugee status and may be deported” this is often the problem. We might state that they know that they are not allowed, but the fear that these people have also makes them not investigate as ignorance is key for many of these people, do they qualify for refugee status?

The UK defines the eligibility of a refugee as: “This persecution must be because of one of the following:

race
religion
nationality
political opinion

membership of a particular social group that puts you at risk because of the social, cultural, religious or political situation in your country, eg your gender, gender identity, sexual orientation”

Basically Syria is in a war, it sounds extremely inhumane, but that does not qualify. We can argue that as the war is based on political opinion, the verdict of eligibility should be yes. It is a thin wire to consider; yet as UK political views are against Assad, their plight has a much better chance. So they can go through the refugee system. At any point, they would have either a place to stay, an option to stay or proper paperwork, so the issue of Andy Burnham does not hold ground.

The response is also clear. We see the quote: “A Home Office spokesman said: “The government has made clear that the Right to Rent scheme is about reducing illegal migrants’ access to services – it has never been targeted at people with a lawful right to be in the UK”“, which makes sense, because people with a right to be in the UK will have the proper papers (like a VISA). The Guardian also took a look about 6 weeks ago with ‘The UK’s new immigration bill creates perfect conditions for slavery to thrive’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/aug/28/slavery-uk-immigration-act-2014-hostile-environment-undocumented-migrants-focus-on-labour-exploitation-flex). They are making a much better case. This would indeed be a danger, or would it? You see, true refugees can as far as I can tell still get into the refugee system when they register themselves. This means that once in the system, they either get their papers, or they get ‘replaced’.

One of the quotes I had an issue with was: “The prime minister says he wants to use the immigration bill to tackle the undocumented migrants who undercut the wages of British workers. Yet the cruel irony is that, far from preventing illegal working, the ‘hostile environment’ is creating conditions in which slavery can flourish“. This is a fair call and stating anything to the contrary or making some smart remark will not go far here. We can postulate that the Immigration Bill is making a first step in making it harder to stash away these slave labourers, but it is by no means their only option (for the slavers I mean) so there is a long way to go and with rental pressures it could make a difference. Is that true in the end remains to be seen.

It is the final quote that makes the difference as Caroline Robinson states: “A recent parliamentary answer showed that from January to June this year, just 28 out of 987 employers who were issued a ‘civil penalty notice’ for employing people without permission to work in the UK paid the full amount. This creates a win-win situation for unscrupulous employers, who can maximise profits by exploiting undocumented workers and then report them for deportation if they dare to demand decent labour conditions“. That path becomes a bit of an issue when these labourers have no place to stay, pushing the pressure in another direction. It will not be enough by itself, but it could be the start of closing the options for these unscrupulous employers.

Yet, it was not Andy Burnham that came with that part, Caroline Robinson brought valid points 6 weeks before Andy Burnham failed to make one. It seems to me that he missed the boat and the train all in one topic.

The independent shows the quote: “As Labour’s motion on Tuesday will make clear, we are prepared to support the Government where it has proportionate proposals to tackle illegal immigration, strengthen our borders and stop the exploitation of migrants by unscrupulous employers and landlords. But what we will never be prepared to do is let the Government pander to prejudice and legislate in haste to entrench the kind of casual discrimination which the Prime Minister claims to oppose“, the quote remains the issue, it is all about emotion and not about facts. the part ‘to entrench the kind of casual discrimination’ has no connection when a rent applicant has a proper VISA/legal papers. How can this be discrimination?

Now there will be many that shout outraged and a list comes, but it will be an emotional list. If there is one issue that is valid is that by itself the immigration bill will not work, more work is needed. Yet, what are the facts? The overview as published (at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/462004/Immigration_Bill_Factsheet_01_-_overarching.pdf), shows one part that matters. “The Bill complements the immediate action we are taking to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees and further secure border control in Calais“. As stated before, this bill does not stop refugees; it is a first step in taking care of the people with unsubstantiated asylum claims, whilst opening these options for the valid Syrian refugees. In the end, with the housing pressure as is, 20,000 refugees will place a serious pressure on housing. It is about the services becoming available to those who should be getting them.

Can we state that there will be pressures and that some will get hurt in the process? That cannot be denied, yet the overall issue is the illegal part, contrary to or forbidden by law is more than a term. It is set situation that the UK, the commonwealth nations and many other nations are nations of laws. These laws have been trampled on for a long time and this change is likely only a first step in thwarting illegal immigration and the pressure that this brings to the support system in the UK (as well as in many other nations). In the Netherlands there is a paper going round stating that illegal immigrants costs the Dutch treasury 7 billion Euro per annum. I will not go into this part, as there are some concerns as to how valid these numbers are, yet from more reliable sources we see that there is a massive shortcoming in medical care.

Again, we seem to be thwarting the issue at hand. These are not refugees, or asylum seekers; these are either rejected asylum seekers or people who entered the nation illegally. Is it too inhumane to consider the question why we cater to this group? I have never stood against giving medical aid to the needy, the refugees, or even humanitarian medical aid in other nations. With all these options in play, why do we cater to criminals? It is slightly politically incorrect, but the foundation in all this is that many nations have overstretched their credit card by a lot, things have to change. In that I am willing to consider that some options should not be stopped. I would limit the influx of refugees, but in this day and age, as the Syrian situation becomes less and less humane, can we afford to say no here? These are at least valid refugees, but at some point, one part has to give way. The immigration bill is a first step. I feel certain that if the financial situation was not the way it was this might not be playing, but that is not the hand Europe overall has been dealt.

In all this I see that many sources go into the emotional state. In here I would like to try and raise the issue of Mohammed Zulfiqar, who smuggled himself into the UK on a false passport, got a woman pregnant as fast as possible (5 times) and now even though through criminal means, he now uses Article 8, ‘the right to family life’, of the European Convention on Human Rights legislation to demand the Home Office allow him to stay in Britain. My issue is that only places like the Express and the Daily Mail seems to have taken a shine to this, as such, the source becomes unreliable pretty fast. The final quote in the express is “Last year 200 offenders, including rapists and muggers, ≠successfully challenged removal from Britain by citing Article 8“.

In my article ‘Cleaning House!‘ on July 1st 2014 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/07/01/cleaning-house/), I stated a change to the act. I opted for 2 changes. The first one: ‘3. In case of conviction of a serious crime, that nation can decide to ignore rule 1, providing a connection to a long term partner and the existence of biological off spring, born in that nation, not criminally conceived has been established.’ would take care of rapers, yet in this case Mohammed Zulfiqar could still remain. However the second change:

‘ARTICLE 12 Right to marry,

  1. Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right
  1. The right to marry is temporary postponed if one or both persons have been deprived of his/her liberty by arrest or detention, until 6 months after release and was not been deported because of these events
  1. Paragraph 2 will not be valid, if a court has ordered the release of the involved parties due to non-lawful detention’

In here a fourth point would need to be added:

  1. The right to marry is only valid when both parties are legal residents of that nation.

 
Now we have a solution! Actually it is only one of two places. It does not need to be added in article 12, the simple provision that UK registration for marriage must be done with official papers should be more than enough.

Gee, took me 5 minutes to get this ball settled, why have the lawmakers not been more astute in solving this? With these amendments there is a proper humanitarian law, you see, humanitarian law gives too much protection too criminals and not enough consideration to the victims. How is that humanitarian in any way shape or form?

In all this more is needed, but until The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg realises that catering to criminal elements is a first likely cause for nations to start rejecting Humanitarian law, their Ivory tower will only continue to falter and crash. There have been several levels of criticism towards the ECHR in the past and that would never go away. Any nation that deals with the ECRH tends to see the ECRH cases as an invasion to their national laws. In my view, another side should be regarded. The ECHR building’s use of glass implies the openness of the court to European citizens. Yet in my view, this ‘transparency’ gives options for criminals to plot their path, whilst the solidity of glass becomes a fence holding captive the victims of those criminal transgressions. We could consider Mohammed Zulfiqar to be the lower grade transgressor, depending on the rights of the ‘wife’/’spawner’ of his UK residency ticket. The story from 2011 involving Akindoyin Akinshipe, then 24 year old who got to stay as his rape resulted in childbirth, so what about that 13 year old girl? How did the ECHR protect her?

How do the two issues relate? The ECHR is all about setting the rights of a humane foundation; I do not disagree or disapprove of that notion, yet the foundation is not correctly set. The transgressions from illegal and criminal act do not invalidate certain steps. The ECHR falls short here. Even though we accept article 12: ‘Right to marry’, ‘Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right’. We see the failing that the ‘Marriages and civil partnerships in the UK’ (at https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/giving-notice-at-your-local-register-office) does not mention or give proper direction that Marriages and Civil partnerships in the UK the need that both partners must be valid residents of the UK at time of registration, failure to do so would result in nullification of marriage and residency rights. The added issue ‘You can only give notice at a register office if you have lived in the registration district for at least the past 7 days‘ is something that needs addressing for the simple reason is that the added ‘and can prove your legal residency in the UK through proper identification and residency permits‘. All that could have prevented several issues (and avoid a few Strasbourg cases too I reckon).

Identitatis simplifico (meaning simplify identity) is about the rights to be in a place, which seems to leave the illegal immigrant out in the cold. Yet in all this, my choice is simple. If the choice is to leave either the refugee or the illegal immigrant out in the cold, than I am all for giving that extra mile to the refugee, who has seen their ordeal and have miles to go before they get to sleep, that is humanitarian in its foundation. The first step in dealing with the criminal element is to no longer cater to them. That part seems to elude Andy Burnham by a lot, but I could be wrong!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , ,

June 3, 2015 · 19:18

Dr Temp MD

It did not take too long for things to get outspoken, the elections are gone, Greece is against the wall making all kinds of claims regarding Blackmail and creditors and the NHS issues are also waking up. Actually, it is the Health Secretary that is waking up. Actually, that is a little too unkind. Jeremy Hunt was not asleep, let’s just state that the elections slowed issues until the ‘after’ election moment. That moment is now!

I have kept my eye on the NHS issues that play. The NHS IT, which partially collapsed the NHS due to 11.2 billion under labour, which impacted all sides of the NHS, yet it is not all political, the NHS has many sides that do need addressing. It was not their fault, I am not laying blame here, but the pressure that the NHS gets from binge drinking must stop!

If we go by the BBC (at http://www.bbc.com/news/health-32418122), we might see that a detox centre is saving millions, which sounds nice in theory, yet the problem is not the saved millions, it is the £3.8bn a year that is a concern, a worry and the NHS can no longer afford it. So we can go two ways, we can shift the problem with drunk tanks like in ‘the good old days‘, which suits me just fine, and if you have enough money to pay for private treatment, that that is fine too, yet here we see a debatable injustice, should the rich be non-accountable? Do we approach this from a ‘if you can afford it, fine!‘ which amounts to the same. When we see statistics that 1 in 3 for A&E is alcohol related, than there is a clear issue, if there is the additional pressure that the weekend gives up to 70% of the cases which are alcohol based, we have an issue.

There are of course other means, three strikes in the weekend and your academic options are forfeit, it is an option, but will it actually make a difference? The article also has a worrying side, the quote “as much as 50% of the patients [that we see], were not open to any services and some of them had never been seen by alcohol services before“, in that quote Dr Chris Daly is illustrating that the drinking population is changing, which makes for an uncomfortable truth, is it truly alcoholism, or escapism from austerity and bad economy? It makes all the difference, but the NHS is still getting hit, so it is time to seek alternative solutions, but where to go? You see, many solutions is about shifting blame and responsibility. In my case it is about shifting responsibility and in my view, the responsibility is given to he/she who drinks! They get the bill or go into the drunk tank. My view has not unique, I did not know this last year when I championed the idea, it seems that in 2013, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO for short) coined that same idea, those who get thrown in are fined and that pays for the upkeep. The ACPO is now getting replaced by the NPCC (National Police Chiefs’ Council).

I know that there are issues and it is not the best solution, but in a perfect world, the large corporations would not be ‘screwing over’ the nations it is draining of income and as such, the tax coffers could have paid for it all, but that is not the case at present. When a trillion in commerce is taxed at less than 1%, any government comes up short and that is exactly where the UK is now and changes, drastic ones will need to be made. If the pressure of 1,000,000 patients goes away, staff will be under less pressure, £3,500 per shift doctors become less on an issue, which saves additional coin and the NHS can than better be reassessed. The problems of the NHS will not be gone, but the £2Bn gap it faced as was stated on the BBC in June 2014 would suddenly drop to almost zero. How is that for a good idea? Now if we can find a few options for generic medicine by cooperating stronger with India and the NHS will suddenly show signs of life again. Now, there is every chance that people will object. They will mention that there are medical risks and I agree, but guess what, the ‘adult’ who thought he could quickly have 15 pints was supposed to be an adult, now he/she gets to see the consequence of this choice. Should the patient ‘pass away’ than we could also see a drop in rental pressure, which helps more people, and possibly another job opens up, lowering unemployment rates further. Now, if you think that this is over the top, than I will not disagree, but my side states, ‘well, stop them from binge drinking!’ It might seem hard, but dying solves everything!

Hey, that could make for a nice health care advertisement.

The doctor walks into the waiting room, states “I apologise, your … passed away”, “I have a cousin who is very interested in the apartment, and we gave his job details to our janitor, he thought it was a cool job, I heard he starts on Monday!”

Then it fades out and we see the slogan “Alcohol kills!” and under it we see “your apartment and job were filled quite quickly! Only your mother/spouse will possibly miss you”, is that not a killer advertisement?

No, it is not! But it seems that being soft around this subject is not solving anything either, that part has been proven for some time now. I think I know what you will state next. ‘It will be about the alcoholics and their mental health!’ This could be valid, yet some studies show that binge drinking is for over 70% associated with the premise that it is ‘really fun’. Most doctors and nurses disagree and they are NOT laughing!

So, even though I feel that it is not fair on the population at large, the NHS can no longer facilitate any of it. There is a small shimmer of hope, consider that the drunk tank comes with a £150 fee to get out, that invoice should be scary enough, because there will be no more money for food, rent and a few other things, which will reset the focus of such a person. Perhaps once is all they need to get a grip on the consequences, apart from looking like ‘road kill’ and smell like nothing anyone want to be next to, so that person will hopefully sober up, has to walk home and will have no other options for a little while. I personally am not convinced it would work, but if the binge drinking group is lowered by a mere 5%, we would see massive savings, deep into the millions, which opens up the debate, is it worth the risk? I would say: “look at Greece, inaction has now pretty much made them slaves to the creditors for the next 5 generations”, as binge drinking is self-inflicted, I would go for the yes vote, but in all this there is another side, how are they able to get into the binge drinking habit? There are a few options that comes to mind, but this is not about binge drinking, this is about the NHS.

Alcoholism and drugs are only a few factors, the NHS has a massive problem which for one part was addressed in the article.

We now get to the issue that is hard to oppose (but I will try). The quote “Dr Mark Porter, chairman of the British Medical Association, said the NHS’s greater reliance on agency staff “is a sign of stress on the system and the result of poor workforce planning by government”“. Is that entirely true? I think that there is a hidden non-mentioned fact here. The NHS stresses have been an issue for a longer time and yes, there are issues, but let’s go over all this. Simon Stevens is the government CEO now (that title never stops making me chuckle), before that it was David Nicholson and before that it was Lord Nigel Crisp. I want to step over all the scandals as they are just getting in the way of the issues. You see, the entire chuckling bit is an issue. It is hilarious to see a political appointed CEO, I personally believe that it is a recipe for disaster with a 100% chance of leaving a sour taste in the mouth, one way or another! It needs to get a more commercial appointment with a new board, a board of executive advisors, one political, one financial and a few medical advisors. It would be great if the CEO is a medic, but the UK is short of them already, pushing them to a governing desk is not really a solution, which of course is a little shoulder thump to Dr Mark Porter (with the friendliest intention). Of course, the quote by Shadow minister Andy Burnham is equally entertaining “mistakes by the Conservatives had led to the expanded use of agency staff“, which sounds a little over the top as the staff issues would be resolved by an IT overhaul, which Labour fumbled whilst spending over 11 billion, so that solution did not pan out and now, the conservatives are still fixing the mess. In addition, the statistics show a sheer increase of costs. In the term of Labour 1997 – 2010, the costs for the NHS doubled. The earlier mentioned IT failure being a chunk of it. Before Labour the hospital services represented 4.9%, whilst by 2010 it had grown to 21%, which is like 400% more. Yet, be careful and do not just blatantly accept my numbers either! My source (at http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/spcc/wp02.pdf) has a few issues, and there is a lack of clarity on reasons here. However, pharmaceutical services went down from 43.5 to 39.8 and even in 2010 to 31.8, which is good, but the history of generic pharmaceuticals is not clear in this regard, which is reliant on the ending of patents. Dental services has a fluctuation around 5%, so there does not seem to be a lot of options here. Yet, we must give clear admittance that there are elements that Labour could not foresee. The NHS costs went from 6.6% of GDP in 1997 to 9.6% in 2010, which happens when people grow old and do not die, they require treatment. The adjusted GDP was £279Bn in Q1 1997, £373Bn in Q4 2010, which means that the shift is a lot more than 3%, it is an additional £11Bn on top of the 3% shift. That shift in this ‘greying’ population will only get stronger. I am all for giving them the best care, they did their job. Which made me look at the drunk tank for those who have not done anything yet.

Yet, there is also other evidence. One part is found in the Public expenditure on health and care services (at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmhealth/651/651.pdf). On page 35 we see “The evidence presented to the Committee demonstrates that the measures currently being used to respond to the Nicholson Challenge too often represent short-term fixes rather than the long-term transformations which the service needs“. I do not disagree with that statement, yet the commercial side remains an issue. Sir David Nicholson needed to cut 20 billion, or more. The Nicholson challenge was there to (attempt to) achieve this. When we see the political side whinge left, right and decently less from the centre, we need to accept that they are not paying the bills, when was there an agreement on both sides on how much the NHS was allowed to cost? Drastic cutbacks were the challenge and I am not stating that it was a great or the right solution, but it was close to the only solution. By the way, these cutbacks got started under the previous administration, headed by none other than Andy Burnham, so as he is stating issues with agency staff, I need to voice ‘howls of deriving laughter!’ it amounts to this blogger calling MP Andy Burnham a dunsel. You signed off on the need to cut back, you now do not get to steer the conversation in that manner Mr Burnham! The additional quote in his name is “Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, has further complicated the picture by suggesting a reformed NHS may need less than £8bn“, in what universe? After we dehydrate the drunks and drown the elderly? The mere increase in needed funds over the term 1997 – 2010 is an adjusted £11 billion that is just the increase, not including the required amount, which was already £18 billion in 1997. If I was a mean man I would point out to Mr Burnham that Excel does not treat the mean and the sum function in the same manner. So the sum over 4 years is not the same as the average per year per 4 year term. As stated, I am not a mean (not the same as average) person, so I will not say that to Andy Burnham MP for Liverpool. However, we need to be fair, Liverpool has its share of famous people, but perhaps no famous science people? In music there are the Beatles, in comedy there is John Bishop, there are actors, writers, but perhaps not any math people? Ah Darn, the famous John Horton, who came with the Combinatorial Game Theory (CGT) as well as revelations in Quantum mechanics. Mr Burnham, you should have known better!

Back to the NHS issue we go!

You see, it is in its most basic concept a simple equation BUDGET = SUM(COST1,COST2,,,COSTn); budget is known and for a while budget had to go down, which implies (using the word ‘means’ here might be confusing) that costs MUST go down. The biggest ones are usually location, maintenance and personnel. Location can usually not be tempered with, maintenance can be looked at, but with too much specialist equipment in NHS locations, there is not too much you can do and these devices usually come with a servicing fee that is not the cheapest one and with 20 devices you are usually looking at 15+ contracts. There are more devices and parts that fall under maintenance, yet there tends to be minimal movement here, so personnel remains. It is not fair, I completely agree, yet the list tends to be not that large and staff is usually the first cut (or not replaced). We all agree that it is short sighted, which The Health Committee agreed with. By the way, how many committees are there in the NHS and how much do those events cost? I’ll bet you that they are not playing for the cat’s violin, so there are costings there too. So as we see the following “As set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, each CCG must have a governing body. This body must have an audit committee and a remuneration committee“, now what will that part cost?

So you see, the list goes on and on. Some costings are a given, some are not and the needed funds increase every single year. In 10 years, the percentage increase over the GDP growth amounted to those eleven billions alone. We would like to do it better, more intelligent and cheaper, but how? If healthcare depends on high quality, there was never that much leeway to begin with. So are we left with the inhumane choices? I refuse to believe that, but to start to be less pampering to the binge drinkers seems in my humble opinion to be an acceptable first step.

I also believe that Jeremy Hunt is on track with the agency staff cuts, which is outrageous, but where to get the people then? I mentioned to him that he should consider opening the door to Australian medical graduates. Even though there is a rural shortage (no one wants to go there) the urban shortage is less true shortage. Perhaps Canada has that same option? What if these graduates work in the UK for a few year, for a decent income and an annual percentage payment to their study debt? It is usually easier to find graduates willing to be a little adventurous for a few years. It could work (at least lessen the pressures) and it will be a lot cheaper than £3,500 per doctor per shift, that will be an absolute given. If this solution works in getting the issues of the boil, the agencies will have no other option but to lower prices, their prices are linked to demand plain and simple. The NHS is literally experiencing the pounding the CIA got in 2003-2010, analysts went external as their income went up by 250%-400%, which was all the rage back there! So as the NHS HR literally knows how a CIA HR representative feels, we giggle a little more. But it is no laughing matter, analysts are 13 a dozen, Medical practitioners and nurses are an entirely different ball of wax and that equation is not easily solved.

So as the pressure of shortage remains, so will the existence of Dr Temp MD, it could even shift further into the temp direction, which spells bad times for the NHS. There is however one final part. In that Dr Mark Porter has a role to play too. The British Medical Association (BMA) is the trade union and professional body for doctors in the UK and has always ‘pushed’ for the highest standards, this was done to such an extent (before Porters time) that willing graduates from several nations were unable to get a VISA and rebuild their life in the UK, there is something to say for that ruling, but by keeping the ‘projected’ level of care so unobtainable high, the UK now faces a shortage issue. I think that these rules of immigration need to be looked at and additional solutions should be tapped into. I cannot guarantee that this will be THE solution, but it seems clear that not looking at this possibility will leave the NHS in the near death state it is now!

It is only one step, but any solution for the NHS should only be taken step by step, which is always better than no action at all.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 17, 2015 · 23:41

The politics of dancing

Yes, as the best party is continuing to govern the nation through a path of cautious progress, we see articles on how the parties can get back on their feet, what they need to do and what went wrong. It seems to me that those people were not out in flock ‘protecting’ their party so to speak. For a few players there is some good news. It seems to me that there is massive infighting in both Labour and UKIP, so as such, as they waste time, effort and resources on who is the Alpha, the top dog. The additional issue is how those players are going about influencing the base of their own party. It is time to see the works of Machiavelli to be executed in its most basic form. You see, we look at what others write (including me), we look at what others predict. Sometimes it helps us to clear our mind, but we must all realise that whatever we read is often coloured. That includes what you read regarding what I write, just so you know.

So as we read the Guardian, take a look at the following paragraph: “A quickie contest was assumed to favour Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, and Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, because they start with the widest name recognition. A longer contest is thought to be of greater help to the younger, less established contenders. The more important point about a long contest is that it gives a greater opportunity to assess the candidates. Chuka Umunna came out of the stalls as the bookie’s favourite only to pull out of the race before the first hurdle“, there are two parts here. It is a little surprising that the former minister of health is short listed to be the new boss of Labour. Like in soccer, is it not the midfielder that is at the helm of it all? It seems to me that the same ruling applies to politics. From that point of view, it seems to me that the true favourite for labour is Yvette Cooper, yet in all this it was Chuka Umunna who got painted ‘favourite’. The Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, was regarded as ‘the one failing at the first hurdle’, one part that we should not forget any day soon! Not the fact that he allegedly ‘failed’ but who was behind that hurdle pushing the button. Yes, I do mean the press! But back to the Labour race!

There is a second article in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2015/may/17/labour-must-come-up-with-a-better-offer-for-voters), which is connected to all this. The title gives the point, but not all the elements ‘how Labour must work out why Britain stopped listening‘ is perhaps not entirely true, from my conservative view it is more ‘when will labour give us something worth listening to?’ The promises Labour gave before the election were never realistic. I pointed them out in earlier blogs, no reason to repeat them here. People know that 1 trillion debt is a problem, it needs to be dealt with and the NHS had a 12 billion pound bad ticket. All due to labour! All issues the conservatives are working on fixing. This is not about blaming Labour (not here), these are all issues that need fixing and the public at large do not see a solution under labour. Ed Miliband talked a nice talk, but none of it was going to come true, it was not feasible. So here we have the issue, the issue of Britain not listening. Labour needs to be real and to get real. There is no extra spending and reduce deficit, not in this economy. The issues linked to this is about to get worse when we take the Eurozone in consideration. When we see the headline ‘Eurozone recovery accelerates as France and Italy return to growth‘, which was in the Guardian last Wednesday, we are being told a story which is repeated by the press. How the large Euro nations are doing a 0.3% growth. Who are they kidding? You see, growth in economy only works if you do not spend it, so when we are confronted with ‘The public deficit, will remain at around 4.4 percent of gross domestic product, up from 4.2 percent last year‘, which came from the French finance minister Michel Sapin. So they grew 0.3% whilst spending an additional 0.2%, this is not progress. By the way, this is 1.4 percent more than the Euro rules allowed for, so that beast is still to be tamed. The Italian deficit might only be at 2.6%, meaning that they are spending more than they are receiving, but with the Italian debt being at 2.25 trillion euro’s the only thing they are feeding are the bankers. So, the UK is in a spin to get back up and the two parts to get back up is to get out of debt and either leave the EEC, which is the Nigel Farage solution, or to change the rules so that the deficit rules are changed to make all governments budget neutral or better. The conservatives are hoping to ‘educate’ the European Community. The latter one would be good, but it remains doubtful whether that would ever work. Which is why the Farage solution is getting stronger and that is how Nigel got his 4 million votes.

I pressed on this more than once in the past. If the Labour party want to get itself out of the ropes it needs to realise that the massive debts are only serving a community of less than 5,000 people. Now, those people will go into the rhetoric on how it is only a small fee, but 1% on bonds and 1.02% on 12 trillion is still 144 billion, gives those ‘bankers’ 28 million each for not doing anything (just a very lose calculation mind you). In addition, the last batch of Greek bonds gave the traders 50 million to divide amongst them. So, as you see, the debt is a millstone making a few people rich, just be leaving the status quo, this is why the debt needs to go down. The politicians giving that ‘let’s make your life easy now’ are selling you a stale crumpet, one that you will pay for year after year. Not having the crumpet now is the only safe move.

Everyone knows it and most people accept that the debt is a really bad thing. The part Labour is just not getting (and their fumbling 12 billion of NHS IT did not help any either).

So, will Labour change? Well that is up to them, but in my view, they need to show a united front, the quicker they do this, the quicker they can restore faith to the party. The longer the infighting and power seeking last, the less faith the voters will have. There is no 5 year time! Whatever they want to start, they will have to start doing this within the next 8 weeks. I reckon that personally the best idea they can have it to get the new leader and Miliband together, as public as possible. The reasoning? Simple, Ed Miliband has 5 years of experience, ignoring that is just really really silly. The fact that Ed Miliband did not win is beside the point. This is about getting the new person ready!

So, the politics of dancing is as simple as the Re-Flex made it out to be in 1983

We’re under pressure – yes the Labour party is!
Yes we’re counting on you – only if you make sense!
Like what you say – and it better be real!
Is what you do – and do what you say you do!
It’s in the papers – yup, clobbered by the press any way you go.
It’s on your TV news – filtered by the news and the ’emotional’ presenter
Oh, the application!
Is just a point of view – and it is that view of the voter you need to get voted!
Getting on the ballot is as easy as eating pancakes, to get elected you need to be real.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 11, 2015 · 22:36

The day after the election before

It is nice to see the fallout reign over papers and TV shows alike. How some Tories see the demise of Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage entertaining, I myself have mixed feelings on such an act! The right party won as I see it, yet that is no grounds to see the others kicked when they are down. It also seems a little silly to replace one leader for the next wannabe because the previous one lost. That is a loser’s mentality! You see, in my view there is no better Labour consideration, who will fill his seat? Liz Kendall? I took her apart in that tech article she added her name to in the Guardian, if she takes control, great! That means the next two administrations are extremely likely to be Tory too, works for me! Andy Burnham? Seems like a decent labour man. I do not know too much about him other that he seems to be devoted to his wife, his children and the labour party (in that order). He does not seem to be a strong leader, but his last true test was when he turned 40, so he might have risen to the occasion, if he wins time will tell!

If Miliband is not an option, it seems to me that Angela Eagle, Rachel Reeves and Chris Leslie are worthy options here. I consider the two ladies because no matter what rises to leader in any party, it is best that this person comes with a few awesome economic degrees. Chris Leslie is not that but still has a decent view on matters, in addition to whatever he brings, he was able to overturn Keighley from Tory to Labour and did so with a decent margin. That makes him a tough opponent and a possible political price fighter. The fact that he was a former private secretary to Lord Falconer would work in his favour too (footnote: not the same Falconer as in R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30).

I have a limited view on who should lead Labour. Even though Ed Miliband made his share of errors, especially as he went into the final lap, there is no guarantee that the replacement politician will not make the same mistakes (or worse).

When we look at the Liberal Democrats, there seems to be only confusion. That is to be expected, the Liberal Democrat fighter goes into the ring, got his fists ready and gets clobbered with a spiked bat. That is what losing 49 seats is likely to feel like. I always thought of Nick Clegg as a decent fellow, yet how wrong was his message to lose THAT many seats? Of course Scotland costed him a bundle (except for Shetland, them pony’s be faithful). The only way to restore the party is by finding a true visionary. It seems that Lord Ashdown has one massive fight on his hand finding that person. To be honest, I reckon that as we see the current choice is Norman Lamb and Tim Farron, Tim Farron would be the favourite here as I see it. The main reason is that Tim is a little left leaning. He can rally the ‘deserters’ on the right and sway several labour players on the left. This would give him the tactical move to restore the party to power, but that is not done overnight, it will likely take more than one election, so if He can sway enough people before the next general election, the Liberal Democrats would regain party fame as well as visibility.

Now we get to UKIP. I will not bore you with too many details, the issue here is who would be good. Here I take the current achievements in consideration. Steven Woolfe falls off the map then. He is bright, but consider that he has Stockport and he trailed both Conservative and Labour by a lot, being 50% below conservatives and almost 75% below Labour is not a good place, if you have your constituency at 13% you are not doing too well and the same can be said for Patrick O’ Flynn, who is trailing the four bigger ones by an uncomfortable margin, which is the only reason why I do not see them as UKIP party leader successors. Even though, according to the BBC article Douglass Carswell took himself out of the race, I am not convinced that this would be in the interest of UKIP. He won his place from the conservatives with a comfortable margin and squatted Labour ‘choice’ Tim Young like nothing you saw (likely with support from Giles Watling). My only concern here is that I personally feel that any party leader needs to have a decent degree in economics, because the next 5 administrations will all be about the economy and finding new ways to boost it to better heights, no matter who gets to be in charge. Although, the reasoning Carswell is the right one, Nigel Farage might have lost his constituency, the rise in votes is almost astronomical. If we go by the numbers of the last election we can see that there are at least 5 constituencies where winning is a realistic option for the next time around. They can give serious worry to at least 6 additional constituencies. That makes for 11 constituencies that obtainable if the right paths are walked, before Farage that was never even an option. If UKIP keeps its heads together and do not waste energy on futile public exclamations that only confuse the voters they could win a lot more, they basically got 5% of the votes. If they can rise to 11%-13% several locations will fall in favour of UKIP, which is not an outlandish goal or even an unrealistic one.

Now to the Conservatives, my own side!

There is a comfortable margin for the Tories, but as stated above, UKIP has the power to grow. Tactically speaking the best thing conservatives can hope for is that UKIP takes over a few more LD constituencies and try to have a go at the labour won areas. That tactic will work fine form UKIP for now, yet, to some extent it will work favourably for the conservatives too. Yet, there are areas, especially around Manchester where UKIP is a close third to the Tories with Labour on top, getting those people active in a decent and thought out way could pave for a strong third administration in 2020. As UKIP needs to focus on the attack and swaying, the Tories can for now rely on building a strong foundations within their constituencies, that strength could be the path for administration 3 and 4. It is not a given, but it is a realistic view.

(Source: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/may/07/live-uk-election-results-in-full)

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

April 19, 2015 · 10:47

The economy of change

It is now three months to the day that I wrote ‘A seesaw for three‘, in there I spoke about the Swiss Franc and the changes they decided on. In that article you can read: “So the SNB decided to abandon the ceiling on the franc, in response, the spring-loaded franc shot higher“, makes perfect sense. Why should a nation with a relative low debt hold this much in risk? So now we get a new dance! “The SNB’s decision to suddenly go back on a previous policy it had claimed to be committed to will make markets think twice before taking the bank at its word“.

This was always the issue, why should nations with relative low debt pay for the short sightedness of the incapable? In addition, the claim ‘The SNB’s decision to suddenly go back on a previous policy‘ is also a loaded part, you see, as we see with Greece at present, it seems that policies are not being kept all over the field, even now there is an implied orchestration to let Greece ‘kinda’ of the hook. The words of Christine Lagarde for creditors to go ‘soft’ on Greece is not helping. Then there is the thought I offered with: “Perhaps the question that Katherine Burton (the writer) at Bloomberg should be asking is “How come such managed levels of foreign currency holdings were left out in the open to this extend, especially after the Cyprus issue”“.

The day before that one, I wrote ‘Year of the last Euro?‘ (17th January 2015), there I stated “previous administrations lived under some umbrella with the picture of a sun, which they took as an eternal summer! Instead of caution, they ignored basic rules and just went all out on a spending spree. Now that all the money is gone, the coffers are instead filled with ‘I OWE U’ notes. When every nation spends more than they are receiving, no one will have any money left, yet governments started to borrow to one another. So, those in debt were borrowing massive amounts to one another, even though no one had any money, is no one catching on?”

I saw the writing months ago, which is why I have been hammering on the Greek issue, it should not be prolonged, and there should be no ‘alternative‘ or a ‘continuation‘. Now we get the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/18/us-interest-rates-rise-federal-reserve-market-crash), the subtitle ‘Janet Yellen’s decision will have global consequences – and the end of ultra-low rates could mean meltdown for indebted countries‘, whatever are you saying Mr Bond?

I have stated again and again that those in severe debt will feel the consequence at some point. Now we see the increased risk that interest rates will rise. Yet again we see dismissals, now from Olivier Blanchard. Was he not the one who came up with “Rethinking Macroeconomic Policy” (at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2010/spn1003.pdf)?

So are we witnessing the start of targeted inflation? The quote that Olivier makes “companies may have hedged their position, while investors and finance ministers were well prepared“, well, in that regard, my response is: ‘companies that are credit maxed are never hedging positions, an elemental truth at times and as for the preparation of investors we can argue that they are usually geared towards greed (relying on a 15% turnover in a 3% world) whilst in addition, finance ministers on a global scale have been pushing things forwards for a long time, relying on the sun returning the next morning. This approach works for a week, but after 157 weeks of clouds, those finance ministers tend to project sunshine from memory, forgetting the reality of the sun’. If you doubt this then consider the list of finance ministers who correctly kept their budget. I tell you now that this list has diminished to zero for some time now. Some even exceeded their budget shortage through managed bad news, a growing trend all over Europe.

In illustration the IMF wrote in regards to the possible financial crash “It highlighted how any shock can send investors fleeing; with only sellers in the market, the price keeps plunging until someone believes it has gone far enough and starts buying“, yes this is how the rich get to be even richer, my immediate concern is the dangers that superfunds and retirement funds are sitting as they might be facing another 15%-30% write off. I wonder how people feel about the consequence of their retirement funds collapsing again and now they will have to work until they are 75-80.

So, is this realistic? Am I in an evangelising ‘panic’ mode?

One might think this, but if you have followed my blog, I have consistently written over a period exceeding a year that the first need was to diminish government debts. It was the number one issue that had to be dealt with, nothing else mattered, because those without debt would get by and those in debt will get a massive invoice. Now we see that danger. So the initial quote that the Guardian had “higher interest rates in the world’s largest economy could come this year” is not just a fab, it is a reality that will push interest payments to new heights. Did Switzerland foresee this, or were they just too unhappy with the risk the Euro had? No matter what, their act seems to have been a good one and releasing the debts they were holding onto is now a second need.

There is a side that seems slightly offensive to me. When we consider “But while it is almost certain Turkey, Brazil, Russia and many others that have seen their businesses and governments borrow heavily in dollars to maintain their spending will suffer higher borrowing costs courtesy of Yellen“, is that true? Is it due to the courtesy of Yellen, or is it because the bulk of politicians cannot get a grasp on their spending spree?

Let’s face it, rates would never remain low and many are following the good news cycle that it will remain, that change is not good and as such, they forget that in their eyes rate rises are not realistic, but they do not control the algorithm. So here we all are, in a place where change is about to befall many, the outcome largely relies on your personal stability, which is a lot easier when your debts are down.

So where lies the economy of change in our favour? That is the true question that matter and I am not sure if I can answer that. I believe it to be dependent on corporations having a balanced realistic long term view. I am however uncertain to predict who those players are. Yet, if we take a look at British politics, we should consider the following; Ed Miliband states “Labour leader tells ‘one nation’ Conservatives he’s on the centre ground and will keep Britain at heart of EU”, how is that a reality? Then there is the quote “Miliband says the past 10 days of the campaign have seen the Tories become the “incredible party”, whose unfunded promises on everything from the NHS to transport and housing have turned them into the party of ‘funny money’“, so how does this relate to the economy of change?

Well, the simple matter is that Labour decided to spend 11.2 billion on an NHS IT system, that system never came, the money is gone and the NHS is weaker still. These are simple facts that you the reader can Google in any browser. There is housing progress, but not as much as many would like. In this time of change, Labour wants to spend more money, get the UK in deeper debt, now consider the US raising the interest by 0.5%, in regards to the 1.7 trillion in debt, that change could cost the tax payer an additional 8.5 billion, considering that the IMF claimed that the UK will be short 14 billion, adding to that will be a very dangerous act.

So will the economy of change require us to throw Greece out of the Euro? Will the change of interest topple France and Italy? There are too many factors, but there is certainty that the markets will be massively impacted once the percentage changes. Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, will come ‘He will cite figures in Health Education England’s (HEE) Workforce Plan for England 2015/16, which he says shows the service will be employing nearly 2,000 fewer nurses over the next four years – for reasons “mainly driven by affordability”’ This is a fact we cannot ignore, yet the fact that many sides are not willing to make the hard calls on certain NHS issues, does have an impact in all other quadrants, this includes nursing staff. So before Andy Burnham comes with the alleged plan that the NHS cannot survive another 5 years of David Cameron, perhaps Andy would like to look into his own party and find the plus 11 billion that they had spent on something that never came to be. I am certain that the cutting of nurses would not have been a reality if the 11 billion had not been lost to virtual plans that never became a reality.

The last of the pork pies can be found here: “Labour has set out a better plan to invest £2.5bn extra each year, on top of Tory spending plans, paid for by a mansion tax on homes worth £2m, to fund 20,000 more nurses and 8,000 more GPs.”, the current UK plan is at a deficit, so where is the 2.5 billion coming from? Mansion tax sounds nice in theory, but those places need maintenance too, which means plumbers, electricians and so on. Also, why keep on pounding the ‘wealthy’ places again and again? It is like the wealth tax. Stating on how the rich can afford more tax. The simple reality is, is that those making more than 1 million is only 6,000 people and roughly another 16,000 make £500,000 to £1 million. So how will you tax them? 60% addition? Where will you get the money to fund 28,000 health care workers? The idiocy of Labour as they make these claims is just too unwarranted. Now add to that the news from 7 hours ago that the interest rates could rise. Once they do, the deficit will grow even more.

So as we see these interactions of change, many of them not realistic, we need to realise that Austerity is here to stay for at least two more administrations, not because we want to, but because the increase of a mere 0.5% amounts to the bulk of all NHS costs, we might not survive a third increase, so we must fight now, so that we can all move forward sooner instead of never.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,