Tag Archives: Australia

September 25, 2013 · 16:30

Scolding Labour’s Energy call

In the UK Ed Milliband is at it again. Of course, as Labour is getting closer to the elections, more interesting offers will be made to the electorate in a hope to get the votes up by a lot. As Mr Milliband is not polling to strong, more is needed.

Sky News reported on the notion that Ed Milliband has voiced options to freeze energy prizes, should Labour make it as the new tenant, getting the keys to that famous door on Downing Street (I think it was number 10).

Yes, freezing prices. It is an option to offer, but as Sky news showed in more than one way, it is not a very realistic one. I reckon that all parties need to realise that the next 3 terms will be about cutting the deficit. If the economy is to have ANY kind of a chance to get stronger and to get the UK back on some level of forward momentum, then the deficit and the debt need to go. Not realising that this is to be the number one priority is the party that has self, not the nation in mind.

The Dutch are dealing with this in a bad way. They have to cut 6 billion, or face a billion in fines. The survival of ALL the European players is to cut outstanding debts. It is a lesson the USA is currently not willing to face and it is about to get a lot harder for them.

Labour has more issues, but about that more soon. If we focus (not just UK) on these options, then we have options to strengthening all our economies. When we consider the option to unite the labour surplus and shortage of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and UK then we might cancel out a few shortages. If the world is a global workforce then the Commonwealth has one of the most global covering work force on the planet. Why is this not more strongly investigated? if we can get work flowing, then we get revenue moving and the reduction on welfare could be the start of it all. If we believe the news then there are many young workers looking for a job. Why not enable that workforce to work in any of these nations in certain areas? Even, if it is only for 1-2 years. That means hundreds of thousands could end up having an income. And the nice part is except for Quebec they all speak English (in Quebec they speak an additional language, so you could end up learning a second language there).

Anyway, this is not about language. Or is it?

The language of Labour has been off in several nations. In the UK the language is stretched for the votes, yet that could change sooner rather than later. In Australia Labour lost on message and on a public getting sick to watch the labour bickering. First there was Kevin Rudd, then Julia Gillard, then Kevin Rudd again and now after the Labour defeat the new ringleaders are in a rope pulling match between Anthony Albanese and Bill Shorten. Watching the ‘who gets to be in charge fight’ is immensely less entertaining to the labour supporters, if nothing (I mean way too little) is getting accomplished.

Ed Milliband has a different power struggle. His is about energy and the non-reality that these prices can get frozen. The margins are not that great when investments and infra structures are considered. If we believe the Guardian, then the energy moguls are in the market for cold blooded profiteering, which came from an article they published in April 13th 2013. Is this about profit? Who pays for the investments? We all are so nice about carbon emissions, getting green energy and such, but how does that get paid for?

Let us not forget that these are Commercial energy providers and they live on that pesky little thing called profit. British Energy is part of EDF, a combination that pays for almost 20,000 people. So if the income in Pounds is set to an average of 26,500, then they need to make a profit of over half a billion to just pay the average income (and this is only one of the six providers). Where will all that money come from?

So, apart from the workforce there are the plants, which need gas, oil, Uranium or other materials to create the energy. Not really a high yielding profit margin. I know about those ‘cheaper’ options, but for now a water powered fusion reactor remains a non-reality.

So as Ed Milliband makes this vow to freeze prices and as we know everything gets more expensive and these workers want a raise at some point. How can this promise be met? I do apologise for playing the realistic focussed pragmatist. It is just not a reality to see that happen. Not without adding to the debt by large steps, which in the end will be the UK downfall, missing whatever small curve of industry they could get.

So I remain, to be honest, as a conservative in a mindset that the UK alone might not hack it (not because they do not want to), but because the negative waves are too strong. Yet, the UK does not stand alone, we are all together the commonwealth. I prefer the old name, we ARE the British Empire. If Australia has such shortages in engineering (Western Australia), and healthcare in the UK is falling short, can we not slam our hands together? There is also Canada. With these three, we cover the entire global timeline. So many companies promise 24:7 support and then outsource it to India (also a Commonwealth nation), which gave many all kinds of language issues at times (not all the time mind you).

If labour needs a strong message, then why not focus on solutions, especially those not in the box. That part is shown with the NHS that does not fit into any box (apart from a coffin it might soon end up in, if nothing gets done right quick).

We should not rephrase messages, we should not change messages and we all need to look into new messages. Not doing so is a disservice to all constituents. The US to some extent still goes for the message “In god we trust all others pay cash“, Let our message not be some political clarion call, but a message that reverberated strongly throughout India, driving it to independence and turning it into a world power in less than 65 years. Not the worst example to follow! We all need to embrace both Mahatma Ghandi’s and Jawaharlal Nehru’s call for Global Cooperation. As they were both honourable members of the Inner Temple, we could see their view as one that had British foundations (that’s me thinking wishfully) and remains one that is worthy of pursuing.

Repeating lack of retirement insight

We have seen many plays in the past and present, where some are so short sighted on getting their own margins set, that they seem to be in short supply of common sense. Where is this coming from?

I remember issues evolving in 1997 that politicians did not heed the words of people in the know when it comes to the issues of retirement. It was stated within the corridors of those who work there that the retirement funds were not getting enough money to build the buffers needed for that generation to enter retirement. Those words were ignored by those who could do something about that.

It was not until the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics warned of the upcoming dangers of shortages in retirement funds a year later. (Source: http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/arbeid-sociale-zekerheid/publicaties/artikelen/archief/1998/1998-0129-wm1.htm ) This specific article warns the reader that the amount of people going into retirement up to 2015 will drastically increase as this will be the time frame where the baby boomers will go into retirement. Other documents gave the same warning. There was even additional warning that the group that follows was a lot smaller, as such the then current non-retiring population would not be growing the retirement funds to the degree it needs to grow. The consequence would be that the funds would grow dry really fast.

In addition, this was all before the crashes of 2004, so the reality was even grimmer then most thought it to be. That reality became truth as the retirement funds started to pay less in 2011. Whatever the reason that got voiced by those involved, in the end it was about an increasing lack of retirement buffers. Now, today (OK, yesterday), advertisements by groups like the FNV (Dutch Union of workers) is warning people about the dangers to retirements. Why?

Political parties are now in the mindset to lower retirement payments by people. They are hoping that fewer costs mean more income into the streets. Also, as retirement payments are not taxable, lowering the tax deductibility will result in more taxation entering the coffers of government. So, there is now a clear impression that certain people in government are really willing to betray those who need retirement later on and base that risk on the ‘I need to look good now’ option.

Am I exaggerating? Is it about their view, their look? That is a fair question, yet messing around with long term pension building, not just the basic fear that people might end up with no more than 55% of their retirement funds is a dangerous act. This is not even taking into consideration dangers of additional future bank and investment failings where the buffers are currently still way too small and too much danger is placed upon funds that needs to feed a generation is just short sighted and completely unwarranted and therefor unacceptable.

What is the opposite side? Well, if we pay a little too much now, then we do get into a field where pensions will be a true safety net, especially in ages where all costs keep on rising and rising. The AOW (Government paid pensions) will remain a true safety net and could be a future foundation of safety. All that should not now or ever be endangered by unproven and assumed options for revitalising the economy. This looks like an upcoming excuse where the statistics of a better economy in 2014 (a claim that is nowhere near any level of certainty) should not be fed with long term securities. I personally see that any politician signing of on this one is to be held liable. There is the crux; they will not care as it is all about the now! Can we allow politicians to remain in office as they overspend for such a long time, not being able to balance their accounts and now are willing to endanger the next generation?

This is not just about the Dutch system. We should investigate these issues as they are likely to emerge in the UK, Canada, Australia, France, Italy and other nations. These nations are all in a state of deficit and as such, politicians in those nations would also seek a way to look good. Playing poker with the retirement funds of a next generation is an unacceptable gamble which should publicly be stated as null and void.

It is very tempting for the young, restless and party generation to not care about those issues now, but those who are not in a field where they are assured of long above average paying employment will soon thereafter learn the hard way that they are looking towards working another 15 years just to make the bare minimum.

If a politician has one clear responsibility, then it is not about getting by now, but to create safety, stability and security for the future. We are used to the short-sightedness of ‘Excel managers’ managing the needs to their next commission with a lack of long term vision, we should not allow politicians to do the same to the future of so many.

Has the case of UKIP been made stronger?

It seems that the EU is starting to hand out slightly less restricting measures. Commissioner Olli Rehn is removing for a short time the 3% deficit limit. This is a slippery slope to say the least. Yes, it is correct that the economy is a fact that needs to be fought. Yet all (including the UK) are spending money that they do not have. UKIP is riding on the waves of these fears, where we the taxpayers will end up footing that bill no matter what. And in the European picture the ‘we’ is simply any citizen paying tax. Governments writing checks, for which they have no money. However the difference of that small point that they can no longer cut is still amounting to billions. In the UK with a vastly over the 1 trillion pound deficit such sliding numbers will really add up. Like me, Nigel Farage saw this coming from a mile away and now he is ready to play his move to start walking towards a landslide victory.

If these driving reasons are not dealt with then both Labour and Conservatives who are currently nowhere near changing the economy are heading to a legendary defeat. There is however a comical side to this. (One should always find reason to smile) It would be the first time in history that the opposition could get crowded by both Labour and Conservatives, with day one likely becoming quite the show. How would that fall in the House of Lords? In that case Black Rod (the Usher) will have a field day! A role currently assigned to Mr David Leakey, former Lieutenant General in command of European Union Military Staff. He was awarded ‘Companion of the order of St. Michael and St. George’. Take it from me that when the members of Club Carlton and the Reform Club are on the same side of the isle, the Usher might need a little back-up to break up slight differences of opinion and he better bring a bigger Dragon then the one St. George slew to aid him.

Yet, the shortage is the issue. How to stem the tides? It is clear that spending more and more is not making it happen. I personally think that it is time to join hands together (not singing Kumbaja). As Commonwealth nations we have a duty to stand together. We have always seen the US as a brother, yet when it comes to accountability, their actions have a massive bearing on our situations, yet they just shun accountability, they have remained absent in stemming the tide of the economical Tsunami, they themselves are creating. My suggestion is that we the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand start uniting economic solutions together. Being parked in London, Sydney or Melbourne is no longer an option. All three have to deal with shortages on one hand and unemployment rates on the other. What if we seriously start to change that? What if we push for a preferred partner in solutions? I myself experienced last week the answer from Canada, that they (one consultancy firm), when it comes to foreign workers limit themselves to US citizens. Perhaps our English is not good enough? There might have been a very valid reason in this, yet I cannot stop to wonder whether we are ignoring possible options to make the Commonwealth economically great again.

We are under such pressures to adhere to ‘corporate’ standards, and the bulk of all those companies are American. This is not about pointing fingers, but to restart an economy. If we look at the gaming industry nowadays, then that war, which was a former war of innovation, which is now diminished to a war between Microsoft who is about to hurt low income gamers and Sony, who is true to the gamers. The interesting side is that they for the most come with the same titles. There is still Nintendo, yet they seem to be lagging way behind. This is a multi-billion dollar industry and the shares are almost 40-40-20 with Nintendo in the 20% group. What is stopping us to take the Google OUYA Android Gaming Console into that market and start growing a market that is now, but has massive potential. Let’s face it, getting 10% of that market is still serious money and the economic downturn to people will remain at least another 3-4 years. So with a play to a cheaper solution is one they would love. It also forces the other three to become innovative and competitive again. Smaller playable games at less than £ 5 makes it possible for starting developers to make many millions. Consider that families can afford 4-5 games instead of 1 Microsoft game with a £5 surcharge. It does not end there.

Europe is outsourcing customer care centres, technical care centres and we cannot find a way to get 100,000 a job? We need to rethink corporate thinking that is smaller based, makes money and pays taxation. That makes those places 3 times a winner for all parties involved. It does not matter who gets to be in office, in the end we need to fight to make sure that this office survives!

And as we go back to that multi-billion dollar gaming industry, when these people get a pre-owned game surcharge where will that be taxed? It is time to put a stand and make these chargeable items taxed in the gamer’s nation, not in a virtual server location where no taxation is due. When these companies move into the nations of the world, demand rights, protection and support, yet walk away from taxation that is due as they receive all those rights, then we should look at the abundance of non-accountability and make it an accounting matter.

We need to start moving. It is nice and essential to fight over the GCSE A-levels, but without an economy they have no future, and we must fight for both!

Cold War Two?

When we look at the news and other media, then we see immigration issues on many levels and in many nations. There is no denying that every nation has its own issues with immigration.

Here in Australia there has been an uneasy issue with refugees for a long time. Many claim that options could be found, especially when processing off-shore, yet the initial issue was clear that this could never be done as it breached humanitarian law. Yet, only one year later PM Julia Gillard seems to look at additional options to press this solution once more.

The issue that brings this to the top of the list is the issue that the NOS reported in the case of the Russian Dolmatov, which was also reported by Fox News and the BBC. The BBC was even so clever to put the word suicide within quotes. Perhaps they have the same concerns I have. Was this truly just a suicide, or are these levels of miscommunications set to such an unusual level that more is going on? Perhaps some of the involved parties were doing Putin a personal favour? Before we consider this to be another thought of conspiracy theory, let us take a look at the facts involved.

First
The Dutch IND (Immigration and Naturalisation services) conveniently concluded that Dolmatov’s life was not in danger should he return to Russia. Perhaps they want to rethink their status? If a band like Pussy Riot, likely nothing more than a nuisance can get placed in a small cell, then someone with ACTUAL knowledge of Russian missile systems could be regarded as a more serious issue to Russia, only fuelling the evidence that wrong calls were made.

Additional evidence was shown by the Dutch Newspaper NRC where information was brought that there was information that the FSB tried to recruit Dolmatov. Whether that part can be proven, it does clearly indicate that Dolmatov’s return to Russia would have much further reaching consequences. There is no doubt in my mind that these facts should have been in the IND report and as such this entire immigration process would have taken another turn from day 1. If these facts were intentionally ignored or omitted, then the question becomes, were these facts tampered with, and by whom for what reason?

In the rebuttal, if those facts by NRC were incorrect then even so, the fact that he was a visible activist against the Putin administration was a known fact. The fact that the Russian police had been actively engaging anti-Putin protests is well known. Several newspapers had reported on some anti-Putin activists to be jailed for terms in excess of four years.

We see support to the status as it SHOULD have been in: “Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees”

For this we look at the General principles (31).

“The inclusion clauses define the criteria that a person must satisfy in order to be a refugee. They form the positive basis upon which the determination of refugee status is made.”

That document also states that: “There is no universally accepted definition of “persecution”, and various attempts to formulate such a definition have met with little success. From Article 33 of the 1951 Convention “it may be inferred that a threat to life or freedom on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group is always persecution“.

So we seem to have a proven point. The Netherlands did sign that charter and it even specifically states that the Netherlands extended the application to Aruba. With additional evidence from Dutch press sources (the NRC is often regarded as one of the highest quality sources in Dutch Journalism), I can come to no other conclusion that this was NOT just an administrative (data entry) error.

Second
I was stated in the Dutch NOS newscast that the immigration police did not mention the right that he was allowed to have his own lawyer. Such a basic right omitted? Can we deduce that there is a structural problem?

This can be supported by a report in a case that was judged in November 2006 where was stated “in een geval waarin ervan wordt uitgegaan dat het aan verweerder – de IND of de politie – te wijten is dat geen advocaat bij het gehoor aanwezig was, sprake is van schending van het recht op rechtsbijstand. De rechtbank verwijst daartoe naar artikel 5.2, vijfde lid, Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000 en artikel 18 van de Grondwet.”

[Translation]: in a case where the defendant (the IND or police), that no legal representation was present at the interview is a transgression on the right of legal aid. The bench refers to article 5.2 paragraph 5 of the refugee act 2000 and article 18 of the constitution.

There is additional evidence to state that the IND has had its failings longer than that. Can we therefor reject the assumption that this is ‘just’ miscommunication as was reported? This gives a view by both Gertjan Bos (Chief inspector of Security and Justice) and Fred Teeven (Secretary of Security and Justice) as insincere and an utter fail. The words by Gertjan Bos where he was unable to answer whether better dealing with the situation would had a different result cannot be answered as something too funny to consider to be a serious response.

The first seems to clearly prove that Dolmatov did make pass the requirements of Refugee. As such, as the detainment of Dolmatov was unjust, it would already be evidence that reason of a possible ‘suicide’ is no longer an issue.

Third
The NOS reported that Dolmatov had already tried a first attempt to take his own life, after which no physician was assigned to his case. That in itself is a failing too. This does have a two sided issue. On the one hand there was a suicide risk and no proper care was taken, which is an even worse ‘foo foo’ point for the government. Yet on the other side, the responses that there was pressure and intimidation in regards to Dolmatov taking his life is also an issue, as there is no mention that this pressure was there in the first attempt (or at least so it seems to be the case).

So, are the Dutch dealing with a failed IND system, or was this all a very convenient solution for the Russians. The fact that the Dutch government is very vocal in accepting blame after a three month investigating is not strange. So that is not a factor. What is a factor is that Secretary Teeven did not want an investigation into the dealings of the IND after the murder of evicted Serbian Kosanovic only a month before the Dolmatov case hit.

The NOS did report that Secretary Teeven will adopt the findings in regards to the Dolmatov report. Yet, part of the newscast is a worry, where this has been set as a failing with inaccurate computers and miscommunication. Blatant right violations seem to be at the centre of this all and as such we could deduce that the IND has a strong infrastructure failure where the rights of refugees are set. I read more than one article where it is stated that the IND prefers to do a first interview WITHOUT legal representation, as to ascertain whether a person is a true refugee. This is fair enough, yet, in a legal state, such a solution should be regarded as inferior. This I voice as we know that many western nations have a high amount of freedom and refugees come from places where these rights are missing. This means that refugees who are trying to escape a place of intimidations (often worse) as placed in a setting where they are highly intimidated. They are in their own job interview where failing the interview would mean certain death. Would you not be intimidated?

Going back to the Dolmatov case. There was an interesting mention made by the Amsterdam Herald on the 4th of April. There it stated the following: “Ludmilla Doronina, Dolmatov’s mother, said that as the note went on the style became less recognisably her son’s. Towards the end it contains an elementary spelling mistake which she insists he would never have made. ‘On the first page every comma is in the right place,’ she told Dutch state broadcaster NOS. ‘I think he wanted to give a sign that this had been written under the influence of something or someone.’”

I mention this as I found it. I am not sure how reliable this is, yet as the Amsterdam Herald seems to be the only source, some question marks should be added. I do wonder if any of the Journo’s took a serious look at those insinuations. It does not matter whether the mother is an emotional source (some papers live on emotions). It is a fact that could support or reject certain issues currently under discussion.

In the end we are left with an interesting question. If refugee issues are mounting up, and in this case where a nation as evolved, liberal and free as the Netherlands has a failing of this magnitude. Should we worry about certain issues that are now visibly in play all over the commonwealth?

Is this the second cold war? A war that decides who gets to live in freedom? For if freedom is a right subjected to conditions then what defines freedom and what is the future of any refugee?

2 Comments

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as Amsterdam Herald, Australia, Dolmatov, Dutch, Fred Teeven, Gertjan Bos, Immigration, IND, Julia gillard, Kosanovic, Ludmilla Doronina, NOS, NRC, Putin, Refugee