Tag Archives: Boris Johnson

April 20, 2016 · 18:41

Waffles, the Welsh Sidestepper

On my side, my party (specifically George Osborne) is stating that Brexit would leave UK ‘permanently poorer’, whilst on the other side we see Boris Johnson stating: “‘Its b******s’: Boris Johnson hits out at David Cameron over impact of Brexit on trade and jobs” as given in the Independent.

I stand by my party, but there are questions that need to be asked. Brexit, as well as a bankrupt America has been forever about greed moving, about giving in to banks and financial institutions. When we look at the Panama papers (and the debatable method how they got out in the first place), we see a banking structure that is completely greed driven, whilst we see again and again how the US (Congress, the Senate and the White House) give in to that greed whilst being unable to manage their debts and their budgets. In that same light we see the EEC remaining unaccountable for too long, pushing debts, overspending and non-accountability.

The Conservatives need to realise that scaremongering is no longer a method, yet here, is my usage of scaremongering correct? Are they scaremongering? You see, when we see statements from the PM, the Exchequer and the governor of the bank of England, we need consider the positions they hold. We might all consider the fact that we are being ‘misled’ because of a desperate, clueless and greed driven America, but is that the actual fact here?

I wish I could give you a clear concise and utterly precise answer. That I cannot do. Yet, what can I show you? Let’s take a look at that part!

The first consideration is given in the Independent (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/its-bs-boris-johnson-hits-out-at-david-cameron-over-impact-of-brexit-on-trade-and-jobs-a6988236.html), where Boris Johnson gave us the following: “Now there is this idea that trade is entirely controlled by governments, that no trade takes place unless governments agree with each other” and “Well, b******s. It’s nothing to do with governments. It’s to do with businesses, people and enterprises deciding they have something to buy or sell“. We can to some clear part agree towards this? America is the best example here. They will sell anything and anyone at the mere drop of a hat (any hat), business is merely the operation of a seller selling its goods. Every corporation needs sales, whether locally or internationally. As the UK is selling, it is also buying, because these two go hand in hand; there is an equilibrium (at least some form of). As long as a nation exports more than it imports it is making a clear profit (whether taxable or not is another matter). This simple truth gives validity and power to the words of Boris Johnson.

The Bank of England gives us the following (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/14/bank-of-england-warns-brexit-could-do-serious-harm-to-uk-economy). We get to see: “extended period of uncertainty about the economic outlook, including about the prospects for export growth. This uncertainty would be likely to push down on demand in the short term,” then we get “A vote to leave could have significant implications for asset prices, in particular the exchange rate. The MPC would have to make careful judgements about the next effects of these potential influences on demand, supply and inflation. Ultimately, monetary policy would be set in order to meet the inflation target, while also ensuring that inflation expectations remained anchored” and finally there is “A Reuters poll this week found that 17 of 26 economists thought a vote for Brexit could prompt the Bank to cut interest rates for the first time since the financial crisis“. First the last one, because it is an easy option. I think that is a reality that the UK would face no matter what. Do you think that Mario Draghi setting negative interest rates would not impact the UK? Do you think that Draghi starting a spending spree, one that monthly exceeds the total fortune of Bill Gates will not be felt (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-01/draghi-begins-ecb-monthly-bond-spend-exceeding-gates-s-fortune)?

We see in the News that Draghi has a planned total of about 1.74 trillion Euros of purchases in mind. That much debt added on the Eurozone. Who is paying for that? No one in Europe has that kind of cash, so explain to me how this would end well for anyone except the bankers and the financial sector? What will you expect when you send your 13 year old child with your credit card into a mall? Do you think that this teenager (regardless of gender) will come back with only the rashers of bacon, a pair of socks and a yoyo? Perhaps the storekeeper will talk your teenager into the consoles, shoes and lollies. It’s a credit card and the bill does not need to get paid at present. This is the reality the people at large have had enough of.

Now, back to the main line, because neither is lying, but in this first part, does the forecast of the Governor of the Bank of England matter? This situation is already out of hand, getting out seems to be the better of choices as no one is muzzling Mario Draghi, or those behind him trying to make sure that the money is spent. The Irish Times gave us another headline regarding the shopping spree of Mario Draghi: ‘In a world of negative rates borrowers get paid and savers penalised‘, in an age where the golden age group is the largest, the governments at large are using whatever they have saved to damage the elderly even more, whilst the criminals causing the damage are not required to be accountable. You might wonder how I am now labelling a party Criminal.

You see, in the Crimes Act 1900, where we see section 195 Destroying or damaging property. At Section 195(1) we see: “A person who intentionally or recklessly destroys or damages property belonging to another or to that person and another is liable to imprisonment for 5 years“. Seems odd doesn’t it? Yet, this conviction could make for an essential claim form the government as well. You see Austlii gives us “‘Property’ includes every description of real and personal property; money, valuable securities, debts, and legacies; and all deeds and instruments relating to, or evidencing the title or right to any property, or giving a right to recover or receive any money or goods; and includes not only property originally in the possession or under the control of any person, but also any property into or for which the same may have been converted or exchanged, and everything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise“, which means that money and valuable securities, meaning ones retirement coin. In that regard, Draghi is playing with cash he doesn’t have, diminishes money he is not entitled to and the people at large are left with nothing.

Is anyone even surprised that the Brexit group is growing so fast?

So back to the Bank gov. You see, he is talking about forecasts, expected events and non-expected events. This is done as he should, but the silence around irresponsible spending has not been addressed for years now and this has the people scared, panicky and riled up, a really lousy combination if I might say so.

Now we get to the big one. The exchequer giving us “Britain would be “permanently poorer” if voters choose to leave the EU” as well as “The conclusion is clear for Britain’s economy and for families – leaving the EU would be the most extraordinary self-inflicted wound”, you see. I am not convinced. Moreover, I am not convinced that the 6% downturn would not happen. When we see spending into the trillion plus, what shortage would not happen? The question becomes how reliable is the quote “Britain would be worse off, permanently so, and to the tune of £4,300 a year for every household“. So where did he get those numbers from? There is a real risk of an economic contraction, but that risk is already there. I reckon that should the Exchequer want to regain any reliability and trust, than this full calculation with all evidence would be made public for scrutiny. That is massively unlikely to happen. This gives us the problems we currently face. Those who are needed in the trenches do not seem to be correctly informed and going public on those numbers would cause too many searchers for a document that has no longer value after the scaring is done.

Or is that scarring?

You see, this current government is not sitting safely where they are. When we read “It is a well-established doctrine of economic thought that greater openness and interconnectedness boosts the productive potential of our economy. That’s because being an open economy increases competition between our companies, making them more efficient in the face of consumer choice, and creates incentives for business to innovate and to adopt new technologies” we see the initial part of the problem.

What is written is a clear truth, but it does not touch on the issue that resides in all this. The image is given, with in personal mind that we are all accountable and that correct scope in usage is there. Yet the truth is that this required proper taxation laws where corporations can be held accountable. Governments all over (including the UK) have created a labyrinth of shelters leaving them with a mere shadow of a coffer, a government coffer that is empty, giving us the nightmare scenario we all currently face. You see, as I see it, greater openness requires accountability and the law at large has been remaining too short on the facts and yes to the options. Now we see an additional piece from the Guardian where they are explaining that magical number, still it reads like a presentation and not a journalistic piece. It is like the article is mainly the treasury making its case and no critical eye is falling on it. Yet, there is absolutely no indication that any of it is a lie. Yet, the countersign is equally a worry. The article implies that the UK could only exist through the coat tails of the EEC, that is not the image I ever held of the UK, this, not unlike the Panama papers, seem to give off a feeling that there is American orchestration. There is absolutely no evidence of it, but the way it is presented, it implies that high investment only comes from EU connections. I disagree, we only need to see how absurd luxurious and unaffordable sky scrapers come into existence in the UK to see that cash will remain on course towards the UK, the nice thing of an island is that space is finite and London is built to the max of its land size. The cost of irresponsible spending seems to be neglected as well as the paper downplaying the pressure of paying the EU. In equal measure is has (as I personally see it) downplayed the consequences of recessions. Greece has another one now, soon to be followed by Spain. Both France and Italy running high risks of two years of recession, all downplayed. The IMF added the last drop to the bucket. Again embellishing the effects of a Brexit, whilst they attacked Osborne’s austerity path in January 2013 (Olivier Blanchard), 1 year ago to the day Christine Lagarde is now admitting that Osborne’s plan was good as well as the best option.

So neither party seems to be lying, you are merely seeing different cogs of different engines in this entire play whilst you expected to see only one engine. That is no longer the case. What is still equally worrying is that the US is involved in all this. For them to not be involved is just too ludicrous to contemplate. That will be part forever overlooked. You see, the consequence that the Euro will have on the dollar has been trivialised.

This is where we stand, we see that there are no lies, but certain statements aren’t getting the proper back-up from open data. It is the rhythm in all this that we expect an American link to come forward sooner rather than later, for the mere reason that the collapse of the Euro will hit the US dollar like a sledgehammer, one that will spark collapses all over the financial field. This is something we see more and more in publications at present, but the one source I am referring to is the one I predicted on January 30th 2013, over three years ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/01/30/time-for-another-collapse/), there was no time line of the event, but I had initially (wrongly so) predicted it to be before now. So the entire Euro mess has been going on for 3+ years and again and again we get the unbelievable projection that next year will be better. Can anyone explain to me how that can become a reality when 41 trillion is unaccounted for? (US, Japan, UK, Germany, France and Italy)

Apparently debts are not dealt with, that whilst the top of banking on a near global scale ends up with a bonus exceeding 5 billion dollars (just the bonuses). Where does this money come from and who is getting the invoice on all this? It is that part that is pushing Brexit and Frexit forwards (although the massive reason for Frexit remains to be Brexit).

Waffling, sidestepping, welshing all terms to avoid dealing with the issues that are on our front door and let’s be clear, we all elected those people to do just this. If you didn’t vote you don’t get to complain! Even now, the bulk refuses to deal with anything, especially with the US element in all this. As for the perjury bit, is intentional misleading not the same as lying? It is the intentional part that bothers too many people, which is making Brexit fans as well as UKIP slightly too happy.

The final part

Here we get the final pat as excellently brought by Phillip Inman (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/19/brexit-is-a-risk-to-uk-growth-says-carney). Not that word for word is such an achievement in reporting, but the article gives the part everyone should read. Here we see Marky Mark of the British bank (aka the Governor of the Bank of England) riding in on his shiny leased equestrian solution. Here we see a calm report given at the House of Lords. The important side is not the quotes, it is the way the parts were brought. The quote “Any positive impact of a [sterling] depreciation on activity would need to be set against any net negative impacts [whether on investment, consumption, exports or potential supply] stemming from its underlying cause.” He does not hit the nail with a hammer, he pretty much drives over it with a tank. You see, all he tells us in the article we get, we all understand and accept. The important side here is not what the immediate issue addresses, it is the indirect consequence of the act. A version of what lies beneath. Even if the Pound drops a little extra, that part is not the issue, the interest on a 1.5 trillion debt is the issue, that wave will hold too many people under water for a little too long, creating wrinkle upon wrinkle, each wrinkle drowning a few people with every wave. That part is addressed with the quote: “These are balances of probability, but the likelihood is that it will become more expensive to fund that deficit [if the UK leaves the EU] and, with a shift in the structure of it, it may mean that for a period the UK economy cannot run as large a current account deficit – it means that there would be less activity in the economy, less growth”. This is the brilliant side, because we waited until the Brexit crew was done waffling, we waited until UKIP shouted itself horse and the calm composed voice of Mr Carney now gives in clarity the part we all need to hear.

In perspective against the utter stupidity of the EEC with non-accountability and unregulated overspending, the British people are confronted with the simple fact that moving out of the EU will stop the ability for England to pay its debts (the interest on it). Until the economy improves the UK would go the same way as America with its unsustainable debt. It is by far the first clear element given to keep the UK within the EU for now. I have been on the fence for quite some time, but here is the one fact that matters. The British people by themselves cannot survive by itself to deal with what lies beneath.

It does not take away that the EEC needs to make massive changes, changes it needs to do tomorrow, not next week. Which shows a second part that the voters had forgotten about. You see, both David Cameron and George Osborne have been adamant and fighting to get the debt down, the one part forcing the UK in the EU, is the one element none of the conservatives want to see on the books. They prove that they want the best for England, which also gives more worry about Labour and the path Corbyn is putting the UK on, because in deep debt the UK will never have any options of choice.

So I say: Well presented and well played Mark Carney!

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

April 3, 2016 · 14:10

The Medic and the Medici

There are several issues exploding, yes, they are literally exploding in the faces of people all around us, especially in the UK. The first event is ‘Leaked Brexit email claims David Cameron has ‘starved’ NHS‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/01/senior-tories-brexit-vote-leave-attacks-david-cameron-letter-nhs-staff).

This article gives us the following quotes: “David Cameron and Jeremy Hunt must accept responsibility for this – they have starved the NHS of necessary funding for too long.” The claim is more than outlandish, it is for all intent and purposes a clear fabrication. So who is Cleo Watson? What evidence has she produced? These two elements are important. Apart from her short time with the Vote Leave campaign, she is an unknown. This letter is also a clear visible act where both Michael Gove and Boris Johnson need to question their support for this group. Michael Gove gave his reasons clearly and well written in the Independent. Boris Johnson has his business and governing mental experience regarding the link between the UK and the European Union. I am on the fence, yet to some extent I am leaning more and more heavily towards Brexit. Yet I want to do this on the facts that matter, people need to vote based on actual facts. Cleo Watson is just making a joke everyone needs to ignore. This we see when we take the following facts into account:

#1. 2011, NHS pulls the plug on its £11bn IT system, a system abandoned after 9 years of spending and no result.

#2. 2013, The NHS says it has lost millions of pounds in the last year because of the number of patients failing to turn up for appointments.

#3. 2015, The NHS saw the worst performance by A&E departments since records began in 2010, with only 91.4% of patients being seen within the four hour target time.

#4. 2016, Nurse staffing levels, missed vital signs observations and mortality in hospital wards: modelling the consequences and costs of variations in nurse staffing and skill mix.

Now, this is not about laying blame with the NHS, yet serious questions need to be asked. You see, only the arms industry has at times the luxury to blow away 11 billion and not feel the consequences. It’s pretty much the operation expenses of the Patriot Missile system in the US. Oh wait, the UK cannot afford that system, so it selected the Aster which gives more bang for the buck (50 missiles more bang for the buck). It had issues after that in both quality and availability. In addition, a study to be completed in 2017 is costing the NHS half a million.

There are other issues that play, they are all with the NHS; the issue is that these things just happen. Any machine has cogs that aren’t pulling their weight, they are there in case something else goes wrong, or they are in support, or even just idle because the system requires them to be. The response in the Guardian was also direct: “A senior source at the Department of Health hit back by claiming the government had provided an additional £10bn for the NHS and said that “every Conservative MP stood on a manifesto to deliver this package”. They added: “So we expect every Conservative MP to have absolutely nothing to do with this letter”“, which for the moment might sound very correct, but within all this a serious question remains. How could any project go this far out of bounds? In a time when the NHS is not smothered to death, but only a step away from drowning in costs and costings, we must demand a firm hold on expenses. Yet, this goes a lot deeper than just expenses, you see in all this, especially in regards to the squandered £11bn, questions must be asked of the political side, did they interfere, was there interference at all and how did that explode costs? That is an equally important question in this race for comprehension.

So as we see one part nullified from Vote Leave. We are not done, not by a longshot. You see, these matters are tried again and again. This becomes more outspoken when we see ‘Female doctors may be forced to quit over new contract, experts say‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/01/female-doctors-new-contract-medical-royal-colleges). Now, let’s be fair. There was always a small chance that this was the Guardian entering its own April fool’s day article of the year. Yet that part can be ignored when we read: “The MWF is worried that will force female doctors who are mothers to try and find childcare at those times. The new contract could breach junior doctors’ right to a family life under the Human Rights Act“. In addition there is “Dr Roshana Mehdian, one of the leaders of the junior doctors’ campaign against the contract, criticised the DH for saying that women should make “informal childcare arrangements” if they are affected by having to work more antisocial hours“. When we look against “This is ludicrous in the 21st century when childcare costs are spiralling and access to out-of-hours childcare is limited. This discriminates against women, single parents and working couples“, we must ask ourselves ‘Are these doctors on drugs and please can we get some of them?’

You see, there is no denying that the MD’s in this world work really ungodly hours. I do not think it is fair, yet the current system does not have that much margin to work with. In addition, a personal view is that any woman who now goes into medicine, who also wants to be a mother needs to realise that she can do one or the other, not both. Those in the medical and legal industry tend to work an easy 50-60 hours a week. Unless those women have chosen to marry a househusband, that option is gone! All this bickering and especially Dr Roshana Mehdian who not unjustly stated “This is ludicrous” is forgetting that in the old days the man worked, the woman stayed at home. Now, if we accept (and I do), that someone has to be with the kids (to some extent), in an age where a man and a woman can make the same fortune, she must also realise that if she is making the fortune, she needs to realise that Mr Mehdian might be expected to be at home to raise the kids. In a bad analogy I would rephrase this into, you can’t be a hooker and expect to be given the options of a virgin. One excludes the other. And in an age of spiralling childcare costs, the cost of living went up for all. This is not about fairness, this is about reality and realism. Because only labour seems to feed the public the idea that all can have a job, free education is a given and childcare is priced under the tax deduction act, those who believe will not have a life, not have a family and they will not have any money left.

The article calls for another two quotes that have relevance and importance. The first is “The DH analysis, published on Thursday, has intensified the long-running dispute between the profession and ministers over the contract. There is particular unease about its statement that “while there are features of the new contract that impact disproportionately on women, of which some we expect to be advantageous and others disadvantageous, we do not consider that this would amount to indirect discrimination as the impacts can be comfortably justified”“, the second is: “This contract is a huge step forward for achieving fairness for all trainee doctors”, a spokeswoman said. “For the first time, junior doctors will be paid and rewarded solely on the basis of their own hard work and achievement. That is ultimately what employers and the BMA they want and everyone deserves: a level playing field.”

You see, these might seem like two sides of the same coin, but I reckon they are not and this is a lot more of an issue that some might realise. You see, the Guardian and the Independent are both on the same side when we see “the measures would discriminate against single women“, I disagree! From my point of view, being a single parent and in law or medicine is massively stupid and selfish. It is clearly given at the beginning of your career, already in University for some that the immense amount of hours made will equally mean that being a parent (in any other way than the old way is the real story that will not be a reality). I reckon that any person becoming a parent whilst working 50+ hours a week is a bad parent and should not be allowed to be a parent. You can’t have it all and for the most, most of the population knows this to be a truth. Is it possible down the track? That remains to be seen, there is a clarity that unless the economy does not drastically improve the family life for many will be a mere concept that will never become a reality to many couples. Nourishing any act in that direction is self-delusional.

Is it fair?

Of course it is not, but the current economy is not about fairness, in all fairness the previous administrations should not have pushed this government with a 14 hundred billion pound debt, but that happened and until now, no serious acts have been performed to rein in spending and to reign in debt, which is part of all this as well. The full contract can be found at http://www.nhsemployers.org/case-studies-and-resources/2016/03/junior-doctors-terms-and-conditions-of-service. I am not going to bore you with the contract as such, because some of the elements discussed require a person much more versed in contracts than I am. Yet, I feel that it is imperative to mention: “The work schedule for a doctor on a general practice training programme working in a general practice setting should reflect the 2012 COGPED guidance or any successor document on the session split during the average 40-hour week that comprise a minimum full-time contract. Any additional hours of work above 40 must be included in the doctor’s work schedule and linked through to the curriculum, as per those for doctors in hospital settings“, which we see on page 28. This part has a reference to “The doctor’s actual total ‘new contract’ pay at appointment to the first post and subsequently at appointment to each new post under these TCS will be calculated as per the provisions of Schedule 2 of these TCS” I cannot state whether this is fair or unfair. Yet there is one given, there is no mention of gender here. I have seen how Emma Watson gave her speech at the UN (I am completely in support of this), yet when we see equality, for me it means on all fronts. This also implies that you do not get to have a career and be a mother. You see, in that same view, nearly every man worked every day (and sometimes nights) and did not get to be a father, they merely became the provider of the family. We have to accept that, because the rent and the food must be paid for, in that same light women will have to face that too. So, they do not get to complain that as a single mother there are debilitations. So is this what the Department of Health claims to be, a ‘level playing field’, or is there another side? You see, Dr Roshana Mehdian did not convince me of her side with: ‘when childcare costs are spiralling and access to out-of-hours childcare is limited’, in that same light, it took two to tango, so why is the child not with the father? If there is true gender equality that question is fair and valid. Of course, reality tends to be not in equal measure and we would accept that, but in all this when we see the pressures in the medical profession, it makes sense that having an equal weight responsibility means that in the medical and legal profession, having a child will impact your value on that market, merely because your head was not in the game, for 15 hours it was with your own bundle of joy. That premise is valid, it will make massive sense for some to start a family, but in equal measure it means that it will either cost you a family or a career. We have come to the stage that both is no longer an option, especially as a single parent. From my personal viewpoint, raising a child is a career all in itself. Now answer the following question honestly: “How can you have two careers and do right by both?”

An answer not easily given, because it is not an easy question!

What is a matter of concern is that the political parties (on both isles) have taken certain stances, both are debatable and both have had little options and the shortage that was strangled upon these parties is equally a problem. By trying to maintain a medical elite in the UK, the balance shifted. You see, when we consider the Social structure within the United Kingdom as it was, where the upper class included the barristers, judges, dentists and doctors, yet were also in the middle class. We see a shift after WW2, so those who were in the high field tried to keep themselves and their family in that higher echelon, therefor rejecting fiercely a foreign infusion of highly needed talented workforce. After WW2 this became a shift towards a services-dominated economy with additional mass immigration. The medical profession, due to unrealistic standards saw their workforce diminish over the last 10 years giving us the issues we see nowadays. Consider the following response “I wrote my exam on 12 Dec 2015 and got my result 24 Dec 2015. I promptly went online and started the application and 2 days later I got the Pearson Vue testing reference number and booked and paid $280 for the computer based Test of Competency. I could have sat this next week but I chose to sit it on 2 Feb to give myself more time to practise as I can’t afford to fail. So far the process has been really smooth and quick“, another voice was a lot less positive, but there could have been a clear issue of timing involved. Overall the issue remains that by making a transfer of knowledge so hard, especially as some applicants have degrees in Commonwealth nations, it seems to me that some players are trying to dampen the influx of foreign talent, which is just my personal view in all this.

This path could have been smoothened out by the politicians a long time ago, but it seems that schooling and re-schooling nurses does not sound as sexy as a new innovative IT system (which didn’t work anyway). Last I get to that list of 4. The first one is old news now, but 11 billion is a lot to lose and it has to come from somewhere. The second one is one that can be dealt with. If the patient misses two appointments, they can either pay a penalty fee for not cancelling in time. Cancelling an appointment is just a phone call away. If you forgot it, there is a fair assumption that there was not a pressing medical need (I know the ice of that statement is very thin). In all this we must realise that doctors work ungodly hours, so steering clear from giving them additional pressures seems to be a given first. A task at which, as I personally see it, Jeremy Hunt failed miserably at present. The third in my list is the one I would give A&E a pass for. My reasoning is that the skewed scale that A&E works with has not been properly adjusted for growth in patients and stagnating staff numbers. We get these numbers from http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06964.pdf, where we can see in the introduction and the summary that the title ‘Accident and Emergency Statistics‘ is ever so slightly misleading. I wonder what Carl Baker had in mind with this paper and what purpose it serves. It seems to ‘focus’ on the +4 hour people way too much. The one summary number that does matter is ‘There were 4.0 million emergency admissions to hospital via A&E in 2014/15 – up 4.8% on the previous year’, which only paints a partial picture. You see, ‘Chart 2: Annual A&E attendance, England, 2004-2015‘ seems to tell the story, but other ways could have been more explicit to deal with the issue. Over a period of 10 years, the attendance of the minor injury units nearly doubled. Yes it doubled! The major injury unit also rose, but not by a large part, although, from just over 13 million to close to 15 million is still a growth that is not to be ignored. This report ‘writes it off’ as a mere 10%, which still amounts to 1.4 million additions. Yet in all this staffing levels are not addressed at all, leaving this ‘work’ with some uneasy questions. What I like the most is the disclaimer at the end. “This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties. It is a general briefing only and should not be relied on as a substitute for specific advice. The House of Commons or the author(s) shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any loss or damage of any kind arising from its use, and may remove, vary or amend any information at any time without prior notice”

So how does staffing levels in answer to 4 hour waiting times not assist? From this I must question what the Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP had in mind with this writing? From my point of view, a bad paper does not make the NHS look bad, it makes the Secretary of State for Health look bad not less good than he should look, especially as he should be fighting for the plight of the members of the Department of health, a side I have yet to see at present. He has been called a lot worse by many, it seems unproductive to go that way. What is matter of urgency is the fact that the Prime minister needs to ascertain if Mr Hunt is the right person in the right place and if not, he needs to get someone there that will take the side of the doctors and fast, because at present they do have the power to let it all collapse, and woe be onto the administration that is governing when that happens.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

December 10, 2015 · 20:49

Defining progress, a deadly process

Something really dangerous was announced today. The Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/09/council-tenants-lose-lifetime-right-to-live-in-property) gives us: ‘Council tenants lose lifetime right to live in property‘, which in itself might not have been a bad thing, yet the text “new secure tenancies with local authorities forced to review contract at end of term” might be a lot more dangerous than people are realising at present. In this I am taking a rare position, which is in support of labour. Now, it might very well be that we are both doing it for different reasons. I agree with David Cameron who stated at the time: “There is a question mark about whether, in future, we should be asking when you are given a council home, is it for a fixed period? Because maybe in five or 10 years you will be doing a different job and be better paid and you won’t need that home, you will be able to go into the private sector”, which is fine. I will not oppose that, yet instead of making the council tenancies linked to an income with a grace period, setting them to 5 years for all will give huge problems (not just logistics) down the line. In equal measure (which was my issue) is that these temporary tenancies could open up the door to hungry developers to sneakily move in and grow their influence and take over block by block. There have been too many stories (many of them not confirmed) where property developers have had too much influence in areas, not just in the UK. With the greater London area in so much turmoil, adding the dangers of diminished tenancy, those dangers will grow and grow. The problem here is that by the time people act and stop certain acts from being done, too much danger has been imposed to the people who used to live there. So I have an issue with this approach. It is clear that changes are needed, even from the governmental standpoint to grow its own portfolio of affordable housing, but this is not one of those moments as I personally see it. To emphasize on this danger I am taking a look back at the past, the year that Windows 95 became a hot topic of discussion, some regard windows as what was on a PC, but when you look through an actual window, those people in Birmingham got a little more than they bargained for. The article (at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/behind-the-birmingham-scandal-1609640.html) gives us the dangers that could become a reality again. The quote “This year, the Birmingham urban renewal budget was £38m – for both public and private housing. The problem of matching supply and demand is complicated by the latest variation in housing legislation. Anyone who applies for a grant – on a statutory form – must receive a response from the council within six months. The Government’s object was to take the initiative for urban regeneration out of the hands of councils and their professional planners. The result was a free-for- all in which the self-confident, the articulate (and invariably the prosperous) went to the head of the queue and monopolised the scarce resources” has a front seat here. So Birmingham ended up having two problems. An abundant amount of Ashton Villa fans being the first, the second one was that the brass and the articulate got to have a free go at the Birmingham Piggy Bank. The biggest fear is not the issues that have happened, but the schemes that cannot be stopped because they are still legally valid, so to say, the options that the government did not prepare for. Is that a valid fear? That is the question that matters and my answer is ‘Yes!’. You see, until 2009 we never knew that almost Draconian law would be required to keep bankers in their place, soon we will learn in equally drastic way that tenants are placed in immediate danger, yet with people and housing the problem becomes a lot more pressing and this new 5 year tenancy limit will soon become the danger because of something a member of parliament ‘overlooked’, which is why I side with Labour this one time.

In my view, that danger could have been thwarted by offering the following

  1. A 5 year extension if no equal alternative would be available.
  2. The clear side rule that the 5 year tenancy becomes active when the income has risen more than 30% in the last 3 years (which would still give that person access to rule 1).
  3. An option to become the home owner, which must go to the home owner first and must be public in the second (no under the table deals for developers).

Yet when we see the quote “The new legislation forces councils to offer all new tenants contracts of between two and five years. At the end of the fixed term, local authorities will have to carry out a review of the tenant’s circumstance, and decide whether to grant a new tenancy, move the tenant into another more appropriate social rented property, or terminate the tenancy” is that not what is on the table at present?

You see linked to all this is one part that gives a little credit to Labour, specifically to Shadow Housing minister John Healey. The Financial Times reported “The national auditor is considering whether to investigate the government’s programme of subsidies for home ownership, after Labour raised concerns that it is a waste of public money” (at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05703522-9dc7-11e5-b45d-4812f209f861.html#axzz3tuDm7ySX). You see, there is my issue to some extent, in light of the tenancy ruling point’s one and two always made sense, there is no argument here. My issue is that ‘buy to own’ is noble in thought, but as I see it, it is a shadowy entrance point for developers to quietly sneak in and start acquiring the area. Yes it take a fair bit of money, but the returns once the plot is complete is too massive to ignore. In my view this was the option that opened doors we tend to ignore.

There are good guys in this field, we will not deny that, but for every 5 good guys there is one that is a lot shadier than we bargained for. What happens when the overly positive calculations get some of these people to consider a BTL (Buy To Let) option, only to see in year 6 (or a little earlier) that the yields are worse than imagined, when these are ‘sold’ through, who picks up the bonus parts and who got the misrepresented losses invoiced?

They might seem like a different thing, but they are not. This is why I mentioned the issues in the same way I mentioned the Birmingham 1995 event. I believe that unless the legislation is a lot stronger here, the dangers become that these social places become reaping fields for ‘entrepreneurial’ (read exploitative) commerce and the people who always relied on a safe place to sleep will end up having no place at all.

This is where the road between me and Labour differs. You see shadow housing minister John Healey wrote to Sir Amyas Morse, The National Audit Office auditor general “a short-term windfall for builders and buyers at a long-term cost to the taxpayer”, a part I do not completely agree with. I think that the underlying text is “a short-term windfall for builders and buyers at a long-term cost to the taxpayer, which will transfer to developers at a massive loss to both the Treasury and the tax system as a whole”, which is not the same. I agree if someone states that it is my speculation and that John Healey does not go into speculation. To that person I state ‘You are correct, yet in equal measure that legislation should have been intensely tested for optional shortcomings towards developers and exploiters, has that been done?‘ It is my firm believe that it is not. We might all agree that this is not what legislation is about, yet legislation is about setting safety moments and a clear denial of transfer of ownership or a limit to the options any developers has in councils. A side we saw exposed by Oliver Wainwright (at http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/17/truth-property-developers-builders-exploit-planning-cities) in: ‘The truth about property developers: how they are exploiting planning authorities and ruining our cities‘, you see, personally I am not convinced that this has been addressed. It is even possible that certain councils are even more toothless than they were a year ago and that is a bad thing. When you look at the article, take another look at the image with the caption ‘A scale model of London on show at this year’s Mipim international real estate fair in Cannes‘, you think that they gave a second glance at the tens of thousands of pounds that this scale model costs? The returns on that invoice are so massive it is a mere drop on a hot plate. In that environment the Conservatives changed lifetime tenancy. I agree that something had to be done, but the timing is off on both logistics and legislation surrounding this, that is what makes the event a lot more dangerous than parliament bargained for, which is at the heart of my issue here. Some will see “the Royal Mail Group has proposed a fortress-like scheme of 700 flats, only 12% of which will be affordable” as an issue. I think that the quote “The mayoral planning process is based entirely on achieving the maximum number of housing units on any given site, aimed at selling to an international market. The London-wide target of building 42,000 new units per year is predicated on a lot of very high density developments that don’t even comply with the mayor’s own policies on density” shows that the entire issue is greed driven and is not likely to yield anything affordable, which the 5 year tenancy that is likely to change even further. It is very possible that these moves allow the affordable housing to be placed on an income scale, which I would partially favour, but at present as the math does not take realistic economic values in mind, that scale will be based on 10 year old values, which means that the cost of living could be off by 35%, making food not the issue it already is. So in that view affordable housing is there for those who never need to eat, making the tenant deceased in more ways than one.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

July 23, 2015 · 21:23

London Cemetery Inc.

The Guardian is back with an interesting twist on how London is ruining its own future. The article ‘Come see London’s latest luxury housing venture – where a car space is £50,000‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/22/come-see-londons-latest-luxury-housing-venture-where-a-car-space-is-50000).

Behold The Aykon Tower, the first step to truly remove equality to a population and push exploitation to new heights. The following quotes should raise alarms “London’s first fashion-branded tower went on sale on Tuesday – prices start at £711,000 for a studio – with each one of the 360 luxury apartments designed with the “elegance and sensuality” of Donatella Versace“, the second more disturbing is “But in yet more evidence of the city’s extraordinary property boom, visitors attending the launch of the 168m-high Aykon Tower were told that all of the Thames-facing apartments had already been snapped up in ‘pre-sales’“, I personally believe that this is incorrect. I believe that the quote should be “all of the Thames-facing apartments had already been offered to the in-crowd and those to be considered special ‘friends’“, the fact that we see the added information “Forced by planning rules to include social housing, the developers are erecting a separate, rather more squat building for housing association tenants. It will have a “poor door” – a separate entrance to the main tower – and no access to the luxury amenity floor“, now we can accept that like with a luxury liner or a plane, the first class has extra options and those travelling coach do not get those, yet, the fact that this is approached with ‘a poor door’ shows how eager London realtors seems to be pushing for class distinction. The added issue is not just what is pushed for classes it is the part “In a revealing insight into the economics of London’s residential tower-building frenzy, Hamptons reckons that buyers need only put down a 5% deposit now – around £50,000 on a typical one-bed flat – and another 20% over the next 18 months, yet they could then walk away with a profit projected at £230,000 on a £1m apartment without even stepping inside” that takes the cake, a side of growth that will benefit less than 1% of the top incomes of the UK, which amounts to a little less than 500,000 people. And this is only the first of several projects. So is this an overreaction on my side?

Consider that this market is about resale, a form of resale before the apartments have been completed, the fact that this entire setup, even though it is set for regeneration of the Nine Elms district and it is nice that the US Embassy is going to that area, but how is this helping the 99% that can never afford this? So, even as we read that 25% of this building is for social housing (minus the amenities), 90 houses does not go far, even though I will admit that 90 is a start, considering it needs well over 35,000 new social rental properties each year, this in an age where the London cost goes up almost 20% each year and the pressure of homelessness and rents blowing out of proportions and poor conditions in existing homes only pushes up pressures, giving additional illustration on how inappropriate the Aykon Tower seems to be.

In addition, the fact that this seems to be a money rush from foreigners to foreigners is added ammunition for the people of London to get truly disgruntled.

Yet the issue remains, how to solve it all? You see, as I see it London is only digging its own grave here, by allowing for London to become unaffordable, how will hospitals continue? When nurses require 3 hours travel every day in a time when they are already exhausted, how long until they find a hospital with affordable living nearby? How will shops continue when staff can no longer get to where they work? Never mind the shops closing down due to the internet. London is already unaffordable, now with the overload of foreign investors who are buying property they will never live in, that shift of living balance will deteriorate even further. You see many shops rely on more than just tourists and when the London population are wealthy foreigners just parking their ‘however begotten gains’ London will face the silence of the grave sooner rather than later.

Still, how exaggerated is this view?

Well, first off, several sources already claimed in 2013 that buying a house whilst earning less than £500k ($800k) is pretty much no longer an option. Now consider the quote “the mid-ranking banker on an income of less than £500k ($800k) – he (or she) often can’t afford to buy a house in London“, which pretty much states the issue, if even bankers can no longer get by, what remains? And that is just housing, schooling and other elements have not been considered. So as we consider the dangers for London, please keep in mind that upcoming jobs will soon not matter as those working cannot afford to pay rent at all. This means that either new jobs are paid higher from the start, or a switch pushing jobs away from London into other regions (where possible) would become the next set of nails into the Coffin named London.

When we read the additional advertisements regarding The Abbey Tower boasting a ‘fully private block with no social housing’, I wonder why these people are coming to London to begin with. Even though it was met with the comment by London Assembly member Darren Johnson on how honest it was, I do wonder if he was biting his nails on this one, even as we read that London mayor Boris Johnson has been urging to give Londoners a chance to get on the housing ladder, it seems to me that the solution offered by  DICO UK Property Holdings Ltd is to make sure that Londoners cannot even close to afford it, this in light that the studio apartment is only affordable for the top 1% of the earners and how many of those are willing to go to a studio apartment?

Which takes me to an interesting find regarding the Canary Wharf Tower, that even though it went to the local population for 50% of it, the rest went to foreign investors, which includes a fair amount of Greeks, so where did THEY get the money from? Aren’t they down half a trillion and in that light, if these places are now regarded as options for possible tax evaders, how will others react to this? The danger of London becoming a haven for parking possibly ill-gotten gains is not one we can ignore.

Consider that I have been on a decently good income, even that income will now no longer give me anything within the M25 circle, whilst I was living across the street from former Prime Minister John Howard just a few years ago. That shift is weird and scary for any person to consider, so as we consider that Life in London would be limited to the Saturday visit, how scared does parliament need to get before they realise that they are largely responsible for making the housing market unobtainable for those under 40, so as they need another solution, where will they go and once they leave what will be left?

And even though the Labour party ignored this issue for what should be regarded as ‘their powerbase’, so as the Labour party whinges “a result of the Government’s failure to build enough new homes“, yet when we look at 1997 – 2010 we see that for every 170 houses sold under Right To Buy between 1997 and 2013, only one new social home was built. Minister Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat) stated “the number of social rented homes under Labour falling by 420,000 from 1997 to 2010“, so how surprised should Ed Miliband be that he did not get elected? Even now we see half-baked promises by the Labour party stating on their site (http://www.labourinlondon.org.uk/london_housing_crisis), which, pardon my British is a load of Bollocks (Johnny Rotten was a great English teacher). Consider the quote “We will start a massive increase in house building – to at least 200,000 homes a year“, this is nowhere near realistic. Where do they think to build them? Relabelling Anglia into Far-East London might not go over well. Considering that it makes Chelmsford Middle-Eastern London will be met with even more opposition, especially in light of the pummelling Chris Vince got by Sir Simon Burns (51% versus 19%). So as the Labour party is wondering why they were not elected, I wonder how a dose of realism will help them. Yet, this is not about just Labour, the Tories have made near equal disastrous actions in the housing department and it will take a massive realignment in off course actions to come even close to saving part of what was lost. As we see the massive profits that The Aykon Tower is making another arrangement is needed, especially as the builders know that they will make a really good living, instead of having them get away with their 75% option, giving them an option of only 10% in social housing with the added requirement of setting down at least two buildings first that are 75% affordable housing in another part of London might be an option. Still, we have to consider that as the space within the M25 is now dwindling down to zero, other options have to be considered, including the nightmare scenario of a population cap for London. That last part is not even close to realistic from my side, but consider the risk of choosing between London Partial Living Ltd. and Cemetery London Inc.

Which of the two would you choose?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

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

January 7, 2015 · 21:41

As we judge morality

This all started a few days ago, I was unsure what to think, for the most I remain in a state of disbelieve. I was also one of the last to come on board on the train regarded Rolf Harris. I could not believe his guilt, even now there is a sense of surrealism here. You see, when we see this larger than life types, their lives and fame, we see a life that we expect to be glitter and jet set. These people are in positions were we expected that women would throw themselves at them. In that regard we often see those who are beyond normal wealthy. Especially when we see men like that, who look a lot better than the average Joe Worker (like me). Why would they bother with certain acts, when women want these men all the time? You see, as you read this, this is all assumption. It is a view that me, myself and many of my fellow man believe to be the truth.

So when we see accusations against a person like Jeffrey Epstein, until he had been found guilty, we tend to regard them as the fantasies of a woman trying to score it big.

But the Law taught me to look at all sides, to be critical and to remain on the fence.

When we look at the Epstein case, we see that the press is all over the innuendo, but what about the facts? In addition, the circumstantial facts involved should count to some extent too. The smoking gun had the affidavit which would be really nice, but now, I can only get the first page to load, the rest is no longer there. Fortunately, ABC News had the goods (at http://abcnews.go.com/images/WNT/Palm_Beach_Records_Epstein.pdf). This report is more than just a smoking gun, even if there is one, perhaps more than one event where (as stated in the affidavit) that the girls claimed to be 18, there is at least one that mentioned that she was 16, now we have ourselves a game of balls!

Florida Statutes, § 794.05 (at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0794/Sections/0794.05.html), gives is the issue that it is statutory rape. A child who is at least 16 years of age and less than 18 years of age cannot consent to sexual activity if the defendant is 24 years of age or older, at least one girl has stated that he was 16, he was very much beyond 24 (almost a quarter of a century), however, the plot thickens by a lot after this, you see, when we look deeper, via for example www.findlaw.com, we see the following: “To prove a rape offense, a prosecutor must establish each of the elements for sexual battery given by state law. As required by the Florida statute on sexual battery, the prosecutor must show that the defendant engaged in oral, vaginal, or anal penetration of the victim with a sexual organ or another object. Alternatively, the prosecutor must prove a union by the defendant’s sexual organ with the victim’s mouth, vagina, or anus“, if you reread the affidavit after knowing this, then the report present itself to be a manifest of what a man can get away with, knowing he is doing something wrong, even though there was penetration at least with one of the women, the document reads (implied as how I read it) as the work of, not as he himself states as a predator, but as a manipulator. I actually cannot conclude what is worse; did these victims consider that they were meeting not with a ‘sugar daddy’ but with a masterful manipulator? When we consider sentencing guidelines (at http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/sg_annual/0001/intro.html) that a second degree felony gets you a hotel ‘Iron Bars’ stay for up to 15 years, his 18 months seem extremely light under these conditions, even with the top lawyers he was able to afford. However, when we look at the statistics when we continue the Florida DOC pages, we see that his sentence falls within the 45% that were convicted for the same crime severity, 30% got up to 2 years more than that, yet, this all falls into a field where less than 25% went to prison and over 50% got probation, so as I see it that he did not get anything ‘lighter’ then implied by the maximum punishment, through his wealth he could have ended up on the probation group.

All this happened after an investigation of 11 months; now we get to accusation regarding Prince Andrew in the Guardian and several other papers (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/06/palace-prince-andrew-links-jeffrey-epstein). You see, there is something seriously wrong here, which is why I was happy that the internet has so much, including the affidavit in PDF form, which several sources had for some time. The quote “claims made last week in a Florida court by Virginia Roberts, a former masseuse employed by Epstein, that she was forced to have sex with the Duke of York over 10 years ago, as well as the Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz“, now becomes central in all of this, especially in light of the affidavit by the Miami Police. The document shows (as I see it) a manipulator, one that never held anyone against their will, and who paid each girl/woman involved. This all looks wrong, a manipulator would not resort to violence, in addition, there is nothing indicating any indecent act EVER by Prince Andrew.

The issue takes on another turn entirely when I read some of the news as portrayed by ‘journalistic’ sources. You see, the headline ‘Virginia Roberts’ new lease on life after escaping from billionaire sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein‘ reads mighty strong in the Sydney Morning Herald on January 6th 2015, as well as some of the headlines as we see the Daily Mail in the UK, yet when we see the quote “Virginia Roberts was allegedly kept as a sex slave by Wall Street financier Jeffrey Epstein and was forced to have sex with the Duke of York” we should look at all the angles. Yet, these so called newspapers are all about the emotion and little about the facts. Is it not weird that it took me less than 15 minutes to find the affidavit, and find that the officer involved Detective Joe Recarey, is now a retired police officer, still working and he is also on LinkedIn. Did anyone talk to this man? When someone is on a case for this long, is this distinguished (80 commendations), you might want to consider being an actual journalist and look into the matter, especially when it is about a member of the Royal family, or am I oversimplifying things again (as I usually tend to do)?

If we consider the ‘allegations’ by the Mayor of London (Boris Johnson), the man with a hairstyle not unlike Donald Trump had the following to state: “Prince Andrew, let us be very clear, is a guy who does a huge amount of unsung, unheralded work for this country. People go on and on about air miles and so on. But I’ve seen that guy get out there and sell this country, try and help British firms get business around the world“, that is one side of him, we can all agree that his connection to Epstein would be a bad idea, so when we read more Daily Mail junk with the headline ‘Prince Andrew’s billionaire paedophile friend given permission to land private jet at RAF base for visit Sandringham‘, we might all get a little unnerved, yet suddenly the small fact emerges: “The flight log of Epstein’s Gulfstream revealed it touched down at RAF Marham on December 7, 2000, before he was hosted by the Andrew at the Queen’s Norfolk residence“, which was half a decade BEFORE the Epstein case started, so is this just more junk and badly investigated trash, which relies on circulation through innuendo.

It is somewhat sickening to see that the press might be the fuel for falsely alleged trials and claims. Yet, I must also be aware that I need to remain on the fence as fair and as balanced as possible. The question becomes: “How much contract has there been between Jeff Epstein and prince Andrew since the conviction of Jeff Epstein?” there is no answer in any of the articles as I saw it and the allegations are about events more than a decade ago, which would have made it important, for any level of reliability to talk to former detective Joe Recarey, interesting that no one either tried this (and reported on the attempt) and no view from that side was given, it seems to me that someone investigating this for such a time might have interesting sides to show, but that might also immediately show the innocence of Prince Andrew, which calls to question the motivation of the press. Are they just about revenue and the ‘excitement’ factor, or are they about properly informing the readers. I will let you decide, but the fact that I got you some of the facts in less than one hour should also give light to work that these papers produced.

How the case progresses will remain an unknown for some time. I cannot judge on hearsay and all this might not reveal any valid levels of evidence, or they might, time will tell, yet the fact that all this comes to light almost a decade after the conviction of Jeff Epstein is what I personally regard to be a factor too. It is my personal believe that the claim would have had a lot more weight if it had been done either when the trial was on, or soon after the conviction, not a decade later. Yet when we consider the Sydney Morning Herald in the article that does offer something (at http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-the-prince-andrew-accusations-are-surfacing-now-20150105-12hz27.html), we should consider the following: “the US Attorney who agreed to the plea deal with Epstein now appears to believe it was too lenient“, which cannot be denied, yet the statistics as offered by the DoC showed that 65% of the people in this category got this sentence (if I read this correctly at http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/sg_annual/0001/desclevels.html), we see that over two years, around 45% got such a verdict (offense severity 6), whilst over 50% ended up with probation. My issue with statement “Prince Andrew’s relationship with Epstein is well known and has been a source of controversy” is that I have found no links to their ‘relationship’ after his trial, there is every indication that their paths might have crossed, but if we accept the statement by Boris Johnson, then there is every chance that the Prince will enter a room filled with billionaires, which (likely) means that less reputable billionaires will be present. If we limit a person by who might be there then we can pretty much end the option of doing any business, so if this is about morality, then try to visit Cannes next year, you will likely meet several dealers in narcotics, weapons, at least one chemical weapon dealer and possibly people who used to supply Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. So will you go to Cannes and shake hands with Bruce Willis, or will you stay at home and watch a DVD?

False morality is a state of delusion and morality often relies on false believes; so when we judge it should be on facts, in this case we see a lot of articles and many of the facts there are absent, misstated or severely out of date, why is that?

Palm_Beach_Records_Epstein

4 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

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

November 24, 2014 · 11:20

The reality for poor London

It is not a new concept, people who are getting drowned through greed, yet as the Guardian in a video shows us: (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2014/nov/21/new-era-residents-fight-us-owners-westbrook-london-estate-video), the dangers where greed will not turn people homeless. In addition, the people behind it, Westbrook partners are hiding behind walls and the law. Here is the first part I object to. The law is a shield of protection for victims, not a cloak of unaccountability for the greed driven. However, part of the article that is not shown is the fact that the UK government might have fumbled the ball in a massive way here. I reckon that David Cameron has to attack these issues immediately, because if left untouched, the move from all parties INTO UKIP might be one we have never ever seen before in the history of politics.

So what is actually the case?

Westbrook Partners has been buying real estate on a massive scale; London, New York and Tokyo have been met with a spending spree on acquiring real estate. Buildings have changed ownership, but this change has a difference. This is done for investors of American workers Pension funds (to name but one). They bought property as mentioned in Hackney (inner east London), the residents were told that the rents will now go to market value, this is stated to mean that rents will triple almost overnight, how is that even close to acceptable, moreover, how many will be left to afford such a rent? Consider a rent of 2,500 pounds a month, this comes down to $4,500, I have had decently good paid jobs in IT, but I cannot afford those levels of rent, not in the best of days. Hackney council is currently expecting Westbrook to issue eviction notices. This is worse than just a bad nightmare; dozens of homes will be uprooted for what? Replacement by high rise new building, offering a massive boost to Westbrook Partners, which by the way is a US firm with offices in the UK.

It is not just the immorality of it all, consider that investment firms are now focussing on lower yield options, lower yield locations. Is this because the American wells have dried up? Now, I know that for the most, these things are not an option (or were not an option) in Amsterdam. When Amsterdam saw the 70’s boom in London, they made sure that these dangerous times could not happen there, but it is not a given for all buildings in Amsterdam (outside of the inner city). Consider other places where governments have been lacks with affordable housing. With this I mean Melbourne, Sydney AND Brisbane in Australia, Rotterdam, Delft and Leiden in the Netherlands, Several places in Germany and a few other places. When Westbrook and companies like them start changing the game to this extent, what will happen to the population at large? San Francisco had some events in this direction as Google expanded its views, but this is only the tip of the iceberg, now it is not just housing for a large company, now it is about returns for investors, how long until that part collapses leaving people not just in a state of destitution, but homeless as well?

When we see the article, we see the American Workers Pension Funds, with an image of fire fighters, did these fire fighters know that they are not just saving people, but for their retirement, they are making them homeless too? So is there an issue? Well, Yes!

The issue is at present that what is being done in not illegal, but highly immoral. To force a population out of an area, because of income is like stating that the poor are not allowed in London in any way, how is that not discrimination?

More interesting is how Westbrook was unreachable by the Guardian, their website views like a two page joke giving no information at all. When has an investment firm hiding behind wall of unreachability ever been a good thing? Goldman Sachs has been bad news on a global scale, yet they at least remained reachable. This new era of Westbrook is something entirely different. To see just how dangerous this rent rise is, take a look at the image on this link http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/19/new-era-estate-scandal-london-families-international-speculators, even more interesting is how the New Era estates included a minority share by Conservative MP Richard Benyon, who is pulling out this month, when confronted with these levels of changes. We might think of blaming it all on London’s Westbrook Principle Mark Donnor, but is that fair? Consider that this mess is the continuation of a mess which I witnessed for well over 22 years! Prices in London have always been outrageous and now that the wells are drying up, rental spaces are one of the few low return yielding options. Both political parties should have harshly intervened long before 1995, but they decided not to, now we see a new iteration which could break the London infrastructure. If you wonder why, then let me explain.

London needs workers, they always needed them and most of them live a long way from London, yet now we see a new group, those on a ‘higher’ lower income like Nurses and some tradies who lived in places like Hackney, as they are evicted, they will move further away and they will try to seek work in a place that is not London, as London faces a rental crash, it will also face a workers crash as people are less willing to live 2-3 hours away from work, we see the need to find other avenues to contain their work-life balance, that means working somewhere else. You might think that this is exaggeration in regards to 92 households in Hackney, but do you think it ends here?

If we consider the quote “The letter said they had secured an agreement not to increase rents again until 2016. However, it added: “Since this week’s departure of the Benyon Estate we understand the council have now been informed that Westbrook no longer plan to honour that plan, and have been told that their plan is to refurbish the current estate in its entirety and then rent all the properties without secure tenancies at market rent levels, with no affordable housing”“, we get another view, we get the view of several investment firms seeing what could be acquired in London for refurbishment and upgrades to market value housing. Consider areas like Paddington and Kilburn, what happens when they get refurbished into market value? In addition, when we see “Councils are acquiring properties in Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Sussex and further afield to cope with an expected surge in numbers of vulnerable families presenting as homeless as a result of welfare cuts from next April” (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/nov/04/london-boroughs-housing-families-outside-capital), is this perhaps just the beginning? What happens when the situation goes from 92 households, to 992 households? What will happen to the smaller businesses as these places are all upgraded? The London economy is an interaction of classes and groups, when the city changes the dynamic that has worked for decades, we see a change in culture and options for all workers involved, moreover, what can we expect to see when these locations start to lose the reliability it has had for so long towards an entire iteration of workers and traders. Once that is changed, other elements will become in play as well, then what will happen?

In my view, David Cameron will need to make large strides in changing a current approach, to allow for long term sustainability. If not, we will see entire areas no longer in a state of survivability. These events that Westbrook has started will also make a change to the policies that London Lord-Mayor Boris Johnson is trying to introduce. No matter how strong the need for a living wage is, as Westbrook is pushing for market values, we will see a living wage that needs to go from £8.55 to £18.55, which is something that is not just unrealistic, it will be totally unmaintainable. The fallout will be long term.

In the end the UK government did this by not acting and others might be in the same predicament soon enough. I will be honest and state right here that no one anticipated the fact that rent would ever become the preferred return on investment for investment companies, which is an entirely different conversation I will have with my readers at a later stage. A change none saw coming, but now that it is here, it will prove to be additional hardship on the Conservative party, whilst giving even more options to UKIP.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

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

August 2, 2013 · 04:22

Fighters to Syria

The Dutch have started a trial against an Iraqi citizen who has been living in the Netherlands for 13 years. Now he is joining the rebels to fight in Syria. In this case the trial seems to be focussing on the mental health status of the individual.

It is an interesting view. In this case it is about people who will become militant, more extreme and the fear is that these people might return to the Netherlands in a more militant and extreme state with additional fear that these events might start a wave of extreme actions.

There is a case that seems to hold water, yet will it hold water in a legal way?

1. The person has not yet left the Netherlands and as such the issues are not proven (at present).
2. If we look back to WW2, Americans moved to the UK to fight against Hitler’s Nazi Germany.

Is this a similar view?

In the second case there are additional issues. These people are joining the fight against Assad. This is an internal civil war. In the WW2 case England was under direct attack by Germany. So there were other issues in play. In addition, these people all joined military fighting units that were part of a sovereign state. That is not the case with the Syrian rebels.

The issue that does not seem to be (overly) illustrated by the news at present, is that in this specific case (in case of Syria) that no matter how good the goal, these people are joining a non-aligned, combatant army. It could be seen as a group of people that are joining a terrorist organisation (from the viewpoint of Syrian government). There is supporting evidence in this case to some extent.

If we consider Humanitarian Law, then we must also accept the laws of war, which limits attacks to “military objectives.” Military objectives are personnel and objects that are making an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction, capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage. There is ample evidence that civilian targets have been fired upon. When we take that into consideration, then a government has a clear directive to stop this. It could send its own army to police and structure the events, yet, they cannot engage in war on targets that are prohibited by Humanitarian law. From that point, not only must these recruitment drives be stopped, they also have some level of evidence that recruiting for these tasks should be seen as criminal.

I must keep a little space for the chance that my information is not complete, or even worse, is to some degree incorrect (newscasts from all over the world tend to lower reliability a little). The spreader of the information that we see on the news might not be completely correct, or from a reliable source (not claiming that this is the case, but I must allow for this fact to be the case).

If we consider that then the statements of both David Cameron and William Hague are more than just dangerous. I am referring to a batch of statements that these two honourable gentlemen have made over the last 2-3 months. In that light, it is the statement by the Lord Mayor of London Boris Johnson that seems to be the correct one. (He stated “Britain could not end the conflict by ‘pressing weapons into the hands of maniacs.’“) Even though Humanitarian Law does not speak on the delivery of weapons, the fact that it is known that their weapons are used in transgression of Humanitarian law, even before these weapons had been delivered could bite any nation that delivers these weapons down the road.

The transgressions that are currently allegedly occurring are not from some obscure part of the Customary International Humanitarian Law. No, we are only at rule 1 when we find the collision with the occurring transgressions. So by allowing and not outspoken opposition of these transgressions, we are not giving support to regime of Assad, we are actually flushing our own standards down the drain. If the convoy that was attacked last week by the rebels contained goods as well as people then there is also the transgression of rule 55 of humanitarian law. Furthermore, there is every chance that these foreign supporters, as not being a national from Syria, could be seen, if arrested, as a spy, a mercenary or a terrorist by Syria’s sovereign ruling party. That would complicate matters in several ways and its unlikely that the end solution that the Syrian courts would offer is one that the supporter will be able to live with (like the firing squad).

Whatever choices the UK makes, they should be clear and outspoken on the transgressions of humanitarian law. The Dutch face a similar act to follow. In regard to the court case, it seems to me that in the British Nationality Act 1981 in section 40 it states:

The Secretary of State –
(a) shall not deprive a person of British citizenship under this section unless he is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that that person should continue to be a British citizen

This means that, even though it is decently bad Humanitarian law, that if the Secretary of state can place the fact that militants returning to the UK are not in the interest of Public good, they would lose their UK passport before they even make it past UK customs at the airport. The Dutch are less lenient here. In their case you would only lose your nationality is you are convicted for a crime against the Dutch state. It would be very conceivable that the transgressions of Humanitarian law would constitute enough transgression at this point. That part is not yet a given as the current case in the Netherlands is the first one of its kind ever in Europe.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,