Tag Archives: British Labour Party

September 27, 2016 · 10:58

What the Frack?

I have stated in several occasions that I am at heart a Conservative, I believe in the conservative plan and for the most, the damage Labour has achieved, on a near global base gives me the certainty that I will nearly never see eye to eye with labour. Yet, it is that nearly part that is today the issue. You see, the one part I do agree with is their opposition to Fracking.

I myself grew up in the Netherlands. My grandfather is British and served in WWI , my mother was British, so I am unofficial (for now) British too. I have seen the damage that Fracking has done in the Netherlands. The historic buildings that are now damaged, some beyond repair is just unacceptable. The North of the Netherlands (Groningen) has a unique historical architecture, which is now partially diminished and that is not a good thing. Consider the people who are losing their houses so that a little more gas can be obtained, and the expense that it had to go through to get it. In addition, the Dutch gas company NAM that was the instigator of this approach lost its case last year, which had as a consequence that loss of property value has to be repaired, with over 2000 claims in 2012 alone, the NAM is currently looking at claims totalling into the billions of Euro’s. The good part in this for British Barry Gardiner is that Common Law torts is actually stronger in protecting the home owners’ rights than Dutch law was, so the moment anything goes wrong (it will), the parties that will start fracking will end up paying a lot, possible even a lot more than the value of the gas obtained, so that story could go south fast and a lot faster than any administration would like it to be.

In addition, the UK has one additional issue the Dutch do not have. Fracking in the UK, because of the rocky foundation requires a higher pressure than the Dutch required, giving the UK a slightly larger issue with earthquakes and in addition to that, if the chemicals enter the groundwater in any way (a very likely issue), the damage to people’s health because of water pollution could have the realistic danger to hit water sources that people and farms rely on (being an island surrounded by salt water adds to that danger). That last is not a given, but if it happens, the UK would be in a perilous situation. You see, the Dutch have a collection of waterways and water sources that outdo the UK by a lot, considering they have larger (drink) water provision, with the Dutch at 17% of the size and only 25% of the population, if anything had gone seriously wrong (water wise), the Dutch have alternatives, the same is not clear and should be considered as doubtful for the UK.

In the Netherlands there is an issue, however, we need to clearly look at both sides. The anti-Fracking sites are giving the readers the ‘burning water‘ example, whilst the pro fracking people claimed that this was swamp gas that had found its way into the ground waters. There are issues here, but it was not a given that fracking caused this instance. Still, the county of Groningen has access to 45 billion litres of water, and that is one of the least populated areas of the Netherlands. The Technical University of Delft had this paper that was done for the Drinkwater cooperation in the Netherlands (at http://www.vewin.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/Dossier_schaliegas/Schaliegas_gevolgen_voor_ons_grondwater.pdf), their site vewin.nl has an English version of the site.

An important conclusion is: “De overkoepelende conclusie van voorliggend rapport is, dat schaliegaswinning in principe veilig zal zijn voor het drinkwater, onder de voorwaarde dat maatregelen worden genomen die de zorgpunten van de sector adequaat wegnemen. Dat vergt in elk geval openheid over de gebruikte chemicaliën en monitoring die start voorafgaand aan het boren en wordt voortgezet tot en met de nazorgperiode (30 jaar na het voorgoed sluiten de putten)“.

The paraphrased translation “The conclusion of this report is that Fracking is in principle not hazardous for drinking water, with the clear condition that safeguards are set in place, with openness of disclosure of all chemicals used and monitoring starting before fracking commences with continued measuring of the chemicals for a period of 30 years after fracking stops“. There is a little paraphrasing here. Yet the foundation that monitoring for 30+ years will have a massive impact on the profitability, with the added situation that the Dutch, due to the soil, required an expected lower pressure. Also, the risk was still there, yet lower due to what I regard of vast water supplies. Elements the UK does not have to the extent the Dutch have, meaning that the risk here will be higher. This is one of the principle reasons I am on the side of Barry Gardiner. The interesting thing is that he is a lot more fearful than the Scottish are, which is also weird because should any water get a case of fracking chemical pollution, one of the main ingredients for making whiskey is gone, ending that market for a very long time. So, buying a 100 cases of Scotch, the day fracking is approved in Scotland, might be a very worthwhile investment indeed.

You see, my aversion to all this is that it requires openly revealing all chemicals used and monitoring. I have never ever seen any profit driven company adhere to these terms. Like the Dutch report shows the Halliburton side of it all and how spiffy their technology is. It is in the end an academic presentation to a set of requirements most large companies will ‘accidently’ ignore and when it goes to court a ‘fine’ will be advocated for that allows them still a degree of profits, whilst the elements in nearly all reports require a level of responsibility and adherence to issues that make profit a near non-issue as there will be no profit. This beckons me to think why any consideration to allow fracking is even considered to begin with. By the way, should any drilling organisation decide to go bankrupt, the aftercare of 30 years would not be possible, meaning that suddenly the government would be required to monitor all this, an expense no one is waiting for.

For the most, there are issues that cannot be guaranteed how deep it will impact the UK, yet the dangers, the risks and the long term consequences, whilst the profit is not even close to a guarantee makes me wonder why the UK Government on both sides of the isle have abstained to unite in banning Fracking on the grounds of risks and uncontrollable costs after the fact. That alone, whilst a trillion in debt should be enough to keep people away from Fracking. Only today, the Dutch NOS now reports that the Dutch NAM is going to appeal last year’s decision regarding the loss of value of houses. A Statement of Appeal, in Dutch named ‘memorie van grieven‘ has been submitted, at 16.5 Kilograms, or in a slightly more metrical definition: 3400 pages. The quote “The Company calls the verdict outdated and vague, saying it creates a huge administrative burden for the NAM“, which I find hilarious. There has been too much damage and clearly proven damage because of fracking, now that the NAM is finding the loss of profit too large, it drowns the court with a document that will take months to read. So as this case will now see another legal iteration that will not start until 2017, the people at NAM will get out fast with as much cash as possible and leave others to clean up the mess (speculation on my side). This is in my view another reason to support the view Barry Gardiner has. If not for the mere logic, then for the common legal sense that any mishap will bring with it.

The last side is the US, when we look at sourcewatch.org, we see the claim that go a lot further. There have been cases where the monitoring labs falsified data and ended up paying $150K fine with 5 years of probation, which was in East Syracuse New York. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has shown and found water safety issues with residential drinking water wells in Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming. Cases of elevated levels of Arsenic and Selenium (not the healthiest in even minute traces), places where there were elevated amounts of Ammonium and Iodide, which would be devastating to environment and wildlife and in Wyoming they found Benzene at 50 times higher than safe levels advice. What was even more upsetting is that a June 2015 report (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-04/u-s-epa-study-finds-only-limited-water-pollution-from-fracking) is reported by the news as ‘EPA Study of Fracking Finds ‘No Widespread, Systemic’ Pollution‘, there is no way to tell who to believe, but the reports stated in the past as well as some of the actions give way to the notion that big business has a hold over the EPA, not the other way around. What is also interesting in the Bloomberg article is ““Now the Obama administration, Congress, and state governments must act on that information to protect our drinking water, and stop perpetuating the oil and gas industry’s myth that fracking is safe,” said Lauren Pagel, Earthwork’s policy director, in an e-mail“, I myself would have gone a step further and make the children of the people behind the EPA report drink the water from these wells and watch how scared those parents would suddenly become. I wonder if we see any proclamations that their children are allergic to water. The crisis in Flint Michigan is another piece of evidence. Important that this is NOT about fracking, but about the mishandling of evidence regarding the quality of water. Water with heavy metals (lead) tends to be really unhealthy and the fact that one member of the EPA was involved only shows that big business finds a way to take the lead, or is that lead to profit.

As I personally see it. Fracking is nothing more than fake money. Some call it printing your own cash, which is one side, but consider that you are printing £100 that note would cost you £30 in paper and £85 in ink? How profitable is printing money then? Especially as the increased price of ink is one that both government ignore and corporations forget to mention. And the image of Balmoral Castle? Well, to cover the losses, that ‘piece de resistance’ could actually got on the market to cover the losses and that is not too far-fetched I reckon. So far there is not one place that can clearly show the benefit without the out of control risks, making this solution a non-option before it even starts.

Fracking? Get the Frack out of here!

Pointing where?

An interesting article is hitting the Guardian, the title ‘Child poverty rise across Britain ‘halts progress made since 1990s’‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/20/child-poverty-rise-uk-halts-progress-charities-claim) is hitting out at choices made, and let us be frank here, we have to point at certain actions and certain choices, but are we pointing at the right one?

In this both Labour and Conservatives are at fault. My own party of choice has made choices (bad ones) in the past, yet is the bedroom tax and are the benefit cuts truly the reason? They might (they do) have an impact, but are they the factors that are central in all this?

The quote “Child poverty is on course for the biggest rise in a generation, reversing years of progress that began in the late 1990s, leading charities and independent experts claimed on Saturday” is important. you see, at minus one and a half trillion cuts need to be made, in all this we need to see that unless the Commonwealth take responsibility in getting a budget, we are all doomed, the children aren’t even the first one to feel this. Both sides of the political isle have squandered their duties to a larger extent. Now, even though the conservatives are working on fixing this, we cannot ignore that certain damage was done under leadership of The Right Honourable Sir John Major. You see, the budget is set on two parts. What is spend and what is received.

It is the ‘what is received’ that is now a global issue. As individual governments were so eager to see industries grow, they decided to give tax breaks as an incentive. It did work, but guess what, it lowered the maximum received coins, which at that point was not a biggie. Now, we have created a different behemoth, as globalisation started stronger in 2002 onwards, no one (me blaming BOTH sides here) was looking at the cookie jar and wondering how continuation of feeding the future would be ensured (or is that insured?). No, many politician went by ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it‘, which gave us a different scenario after 2004. When the banking crises hit, it hit every shore on a global scale. So large corporations decided to maximise their ‘interests’, which I see was divided between shareholders and personal commissions, many combined, merged and used every tax break possible to avoid taxation. Now consider in an age of industry that the largest player (the industry) does not get to be held accountable for the needs of governing. They want their politicians in their pockets, their bonus in the other pocket and protection without invoice. They pulled it off because the parties on both sides did not correctly adjust legislation the way it had to be. Now, 11 years later, much of this legislation is still missing. The corporations see the sustenance of government not their responsibility, it is for the people, let them pay! They might not say it, but they will think it loudly!

So we have created a sea of chaos, and as the larger players avoid taxation, the people will end up with less. Now we get the quote “Ministers were remaining tight-lipped about the release on Thursday of the Ministers were remaining tight-lipped about the release on Thursday of the Households below Average Income statistics. Any increase in the number of children in poverty since 2013 would be an embarrassment. Child poverty fell from 3.4 million in 1998-99 to 2.3 million in 2010-11 – a reduction unparalleled in other wealthy nations over the same period – after the last Labour government promised to eradicate it by 2020. Any increase in the number of children in poverty since 2013 would be an embarrassment. Child poverty fell from 3.4 million in 1998-99 to 2.3 million in 2010-11 – a reduction unparalleled in other wealthy nations over the same period – after the last Labour government promised to eradicate it by 2020“, here is the second reason why Ed Miliband had no chance of winning, moreover, it shows a little more than that. The entire promise of child poverty eradication was never realistic to begin with. You see, by 2007 that given goal was no longer possible under both the economic meltdown as well as the tax evasion numbers, so did either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown inform the people that child poverty was there to stay? I have a hunch that this was not done. You see, ‘Households below Average Income statistics‘ is depending on income and cost of living. Income is still down due to past events, yet cost of living is going up and is going up slightly faster than wage corrections can provide for at present. So as we see these dwindling statistics, there should not be the wondering of how it is happening, we need to look at the way to deal with it. Lowering taxation is not a solution, it must be replaced by other means of taxation, which means that corporations need to pay their fair share, a part still not addressed. By the way, that part is also not addressed in Australia, as we see in the Australian Financial Review, the quote “The Business Council of Australia, comprised of the chief executives of big companies, cautioned the government that “global tax issues require global solutions”“, that the Business council of Australia is working for Global Companies, not for the Australian government. You only need to look at their board to see that they have the Managing Director of Rio Tinto Australia, the Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director of Qantas, the Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director of the Westpac Group, the Managing Director of Origin Energy Limited and a few more, all people very intent on paying as little taxation as possible, for the need of their shareholders and their personal bonuses. Guess, what, the Australian Financial Review does not really state that part, does it? No, they state “The Law Council of Australia has told the government not to enact the laws as they are currently drafted“, which might be a valid part, but valid to what extent? You see, last year I already stated part of the solution, make all purchases taxable at the location of the consumer buying it, or better the point of delivery. You see, the person buying the iTunes track, that video game, those bracelets or that suitcase is buying an item online, instead of in the shop. There might be valid reasons for why it was done, but it affects that nations GDP, so, as such, GST and other taxable parts should be paid there, not in Ireland or another low taxing nation. So, we do not begrudge the sale to be online, but on the same foot, just as a storekeeper pays its fair share of local taxation (read GST and such) the online store should do the same, it is just fair trade).

In all these years, those super clever members of the Law Council of Australia did not come up with this solution? If they did, why did the government not enact it? This directly reflects back to the UK. As taxation is now so unbalanced, the government is forced to scrap things.

No one is happy, everyone complains, but are they complaining in the right direction?

So as we see this article on child poverty, we also see the new Labour run “Yvette Cooper, who has put the fight against child poverty at the heart of her Labour leadership campaign, said the government’s record was a “damning indictment” of its approach and meant many children were being denied the start in life they deserved. “Their policies have delivered the biggest increase in child poverty in a generation and they have abandoned any pretence of even moving towards the target they promised to meet [to all but eradicate it by 2020].”“, no Yvette, this is not about ‘their’ policies, it is about your lack of realism, you should unite with the Tories to find the taxation that halts corporate greed and hold them to account for the protection they receive, the responsibilities that they should face, when that is correctly done, and as the coffers fill up again (move towards less or no debt), that you will see as a result that child poverty goes down again, yet as you ‘advocate’ your ego, realise that eradicating child poverty by 2020 was never realistic, getting it down by a lot is. By the way, whatever promise Yvette Cooper, or any other runner for the Labour Boss chair makes, make sure you realise that the pounding hammer of ‘interest payments’ is stopping many restorations in social projects, cutting and diminishing the debt is a first need, so as you contemplate that the next government should be labour, then also realise that they will spend it all again, they will do a ‘Gordon Brown’ on the treasury coffers! Now you, the reader, consider what is happening in Greece, when that hits the UK shores, it will be a massively larger and poverty will not be the nightmare. It will be that 23:00 news where they found a baby that starved to death, only because certain politicians had to feed their ego instead of realistic common sense. So where are we pointing? I want to point at a solution, which means properly fixing legislation, properly adjusting sentencing and fines. When you consider that some at the banks are still laughing at the 1.5 billion fine for Libor, than wonder how much they made. When the fine is 15 billion, they will wake up and stop feeding greed!

Oh, and before you think I have it simple, these cutbacks are hurting me a lot too, yet I realise that our future will depend on us not being in debt to the levels we are in now.

Oops we’ll do it again

That is the image the British Labour Party is handing down to the people, via the Guardian I might add (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/01/labour-nhs-health-data-liz-kendall-election). You see, the article gave the view of a politician, which is fair enough, which it all seems to be, a tech driven article (it was in the tech section, so that makes sense).

The issue here is not that this Labour lady with the name Liz Kendall for Leicester West is all pro data for the people, she seems abundantly ignorant of the complex nature of this dimensional behemoth called data, which is very much an issue. So as we take a look at certain statements let us also look at the other side of them. “Citizens should have control of their own health data“, really? Health data is there to help physicians and health centres to get aid the most efficient way to the people they need to care for. Then we see an introduction of two paragraphs where she whinges on parliament and how things are outdated. Then we get the quote “Technology has been neglected by every party in this election. Even the Conservatives, who published a simple but compelling technology manifesto in 2010, have failed to follow up for 2015. And Labour, which has been working with some respected UK technologists for months, developed a slate of compelling ideas that failed to make it into its manifesto“.

Well, let me help you here Liz! Your own party wasted well over 11 billion pounds (yes billions, not millions) on an IT system that never worked and never went anywhere. This administration is trying to clean up a mess and get rid of a 1.7 trillion pound debt, pushing more billions into any place that is not carefully thought through in this day and age is a really bad idea. Did I mention that is was British Labour spending those many billions on something that did not work?

Then we get a real beauty (after more generic information) “Tech is crucial to tackling inequality and giving people life chances, as well as getting the best value for public money. We should be open about how the government works and every department should be thinking about how it can use technology. We have to take technology into politics“. Here she misses the ball on several attempts by a massive margin I might add. Inequality is only tackled if people are properly trained, if the HR departments of those places are properly dealt with. Tech is not key here, data to monitor inequality is, but that is a sub article for another time. Taking technology into politics is debatable, first of all many politicians are not that tech savvy, so getting them automated might ruin more things, behind that there is the quashed reality is that tech is nothing more than a tool. It is a tool we use, not a golden calf we worship. Tech is not a solution, it is a mere means to get the place we used to go, but more efficient (we hope).

Then we get the ‘outlier’ in all this: “She is more animated about the potential of technology in the NHS. Kendall talks about visiting a constituent who suffered with the lung condition COPD that was significantly improved by a trial of tele-nursing. Rather than hospital visits and being on oxygen 19 hours a day, Clive Callow was monitored in his own home with data sent back to a team of specialist nurses who advise on adjustments in his treatment or visit him at home“, Yes Miss Kendall, you found an application, so how many patients per hospital need to be in a hospital on oxygen 19 hours a day? Without needing any other treatments or care? You are promoting tele-nursing on an outlier. This is really not that bright.

Let’s be fair, for this one person it is a nice thing, but if there are any complications, a doctor would be needed really fast, then how good was the solution? Then we get the Kidney dialysis ‘scheme’ as Liz Kendall points out. She has a decent point, yet when we see the information from britishrenal.org we get: “The number of patients on home haemodialysis is slowly starting to increase as the hospital kidney centres become more able to provide and support home haemodialysis and kidney patients are choosing to do their own dialysis at home. However there is large variation across the country“. It is the large variation that is the issue! Now, in all fairness, she is targeting a group that is set at 41%, which makes for well over 21,000 people, so it is not a small group and in that she has a case, but there is a long stretch of ‘teching’ things and ‘series of successful digital skills training courses’. These are all different sides of different coins and they are not the same currency either. So, the Dialysis option is fair enough and giving the hospitals options here is all good and fine, but this means more technical staff (high educated ones) medical technical staff and implementers. This will drain the NHS of other staff members. So the logic is missing here. I a world where the UK does not have a debt, is not in ‘near’ recession mode that idea is fine, but the NHS has massive issues, adding to them will not help.

How could I agree?

Well, for the options where there is a much higher renal issue, I would state, have 5-10 extra machines and 5 extra nurses and one extra doctor for THAT specific department. Guess what! Her tech people will not get a job and there could be other resource draining too, but it would secure a better position for 22,000 patients that is a real number we can deal with. But what is the price tag at this point? The NHS has the need for massive funds and tagging certain amounts for dialysis alone might not be fair (not stating that it is or is not, I just do not have all the numbers to make that call).

Now we get the next bit “And the CLASH project in Leicester helped an arthritis group learn how to use digital communication tools like Skype, which, says Kendall, helped to tackle the related depression and isolation that often affects sufferers“. Again a nice part, but that is not for the NHS. Getting locals with arthritis on a communication streak is not one I oppose but it should be with the responsible place, not the NHS. Yes, there is an NHS benefit (fighting depression) but we need to be clear about what can go where and how it can be implemented to work, not to cost money and to be forgotten 14 months later because of a costing error. She ends that part with “NHS has a huge incentive because treatment costs a fortune“, Yes Miss Kendall, it might cost the NHS, but so was the 11 billion for a non-working IT system which Labour fumbled.

Now we get to the ‘initial’ issue on health data. If you look at the possibilities of monitoring data about genetics and susceptibility to diseases, then there’s an even stronger argument for a national health service, because the principle of owning and controlling your own data, for example, is really important, this is the stuff of ‘legends’. Actually it is not, this has all the makings of a tech consultant speech, which comes with commission for him/her and massive costs for the NHS. When I read tech, monitoring and ‘susceptibility to diseases‘, my initial response is, ‘Are you for freaking real?’ The statistics, the data collection and the comparison is way outside of any budget, especially when you start collecting up to 65 million records. You see, there is a low tech solution that has worked. It is called Triage which has been around since World War 1. There is also Reverse Triage, these two require two elements and they require doctors and nurses (and equipment as the third element). We are for now in an age of debts, in here ‘susceptibility’ is a nice concept but let us focus on the ACTUAL sick, getting them better and making sure the NHS has a decent system to keep track on the actual events, not the forecasting of the possible but improbable. There we see the issue, what other ‘concepts’ would Liz Kendall like to waste money on?

I’ll be frank, the concept is not bad, it would not be a wasted effort under different conditions, but in this time and age and under the austerity we still face, giving it to some tech savvy scheme that is supported from a consultancy field is a really bad idea, I would rather see more doctors and nurses and less wasting billions for now.

She basically ends with having a go at the conservatives, which, as a Labour person she should be allowed to do (fair is fair), but she needs to realise that Labour has zero credibility when it comes to ‘tech’ projects in health care. The NHS needs change, it must evolve and as we see the claim “We have an ageing population, elderly people ending up stuck in hospital because we don’t have community nurses and social care to look after them at home“. This is a fair claim, but guess what! These people will end up being dead at some point! It is not a wish, just a simple reality. Yes, there should be more community nurses (not just in England), but the politicians have wasted tonnes of money, the Labour party being one of the better wasters of resources in that regard. Change must come, we all agree there, but without funds and trained staff that solution will not be easily solved. The only thing that Liz Kendall achieved as I see it, is to give chunks of fuel to Stuart Young, the UKIP member in her electorate. I would hope that the conservatives would make it a real battle, yet at present, I am not impressed with Paul Bessant. The generic information of a ‘successful businessman’ just does not cut it nowadays (as I see it). Stuart Young, a bookkeeper and as he states, devoted to Leicester, a Westcott’s man. with his one line “Westminster’s politics and economics are fundamentally flawed and they need a complete overhaul” he does two things, one he speaks a given truth to which pretty much every British person can relate, in the second, he blows the entire Liz Kendall element of ‘Technology can stave off the crisis in the NHS‘ out of the water. The title is not only realistic, the elements that need fixing will take 3-4 years and can only be done one step at a time, more important the second step is not even an option until the first step is successfully completed, the NHS is THAT limited on resources. I cannot claim that either Stuart Young or Paul Bessant would be a good choice, but the article gives proper weight to how bad Liz Kendall would be.

However, that is just my view on the matter, so feel free to disagree!

Tag Archives: British Labour Party

What the Frack?

Pointing where?

Oops we’ll do it again

Recent Posts

Archives