Tag Archives: David Cameron

October 28, 2014 · 22:36

They don’t know what they do!

The article started funny enough. The headline ‘Leaked universal credit memo shows jobcentre staff struggling with rollout’ gave me a clear indication that this is another one of these, let’s get into a world we do not understand (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/27/universal-credit-leaked-memo-scheme-rollout).

I admit that my words here are presumptuous, but I have seen this before, to be honest many of us have seen this before. There was the NHS with 14 billion plus wasted and there were a few other projects, all gone down the drain. So, why can’t some people get their act together?

The first quote is likely the most offensive one, especially in my eyes: “The DWP had promised to have 1 million people on the scheme by April 2014 but, dogged by delays and tens of millions of pounds of IT write-downs and write-offs, the original timetable has been scrapped. Just 15,000 people are on the system“, you think what is wrong with this picture. Consider a $389 notebook, not a great piece of equipment, but I can install a variety of SQL products and have these filled with a database containing the population data of Poland in about an hour, so why do we see a system with only 15,000 records? (intentional trivialisation was used here)

When we get to the timeline (which by the way was not chronological), we see several issues. Let us take a look at them.

28^th April 2013 – Trial begins for Universal credit (UC), which is covered in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/31/liberal-conservative-coalition-conservatives)

Universal credit introduced.
The new in- and out-of-work credit, which integrates six of the main out-of-work benefits, will start to be implemented this April in one jobcentre in Ashton-under-Lyne, Greater Manchester. The aim is to increase incentives to work for the unemployed and to encourage longer hours for those working part-time. It had been intended that four jobcentres would start the trial in April, but this has been delayed until July, and a national programme will start in September for new claimants. They will test the new sanctions regime and a new fortnightly job search trial, which aims to ensure all jobseeker’s allowance and unemployment claimants are automatically signed onto Job Match, an internet-based job-search mechanism. Suspicion remains that the software is not ready.

The issues are as follows:

‘Will start to be implemented this April‘, this means that the system had been prototyped, this means that the software has been tested and that the interface has been tested by users, so that a nearly clean version goes online.
The information ‘Suspicion remains that the software is not ready‘, should have been a very clear indication that the brakes had to be applied and at this point, investigations on the entire track should have commenced.

24^th May 2013 The Major Projects Authority review expresses serious concerns about the department having no detailed “blueprint” and transition plan for UC (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/24/universal-credit-danger-failing-whitehall-review)

Universal credit in danger of failing, official Whitehall review says
The first official government admission that Iain Duncan Smith’s flagship plans to remake the welfare state has hit trouble emerged on Friday night when the Cabinet Office’s review of all major Whitehall projects branded the universal credit programme as having fallen into “amber-red” status, a category designating a project in danger of failing.

You think? How about, the issues shown after a month when there were already doubts we see an utter lack of commitment, there is no other way to describe it. When I see the quote “Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, hailed the publication: ‘Major projects need scrutiny and support if we are to succeed in the global race’“, which in my book comes across as ‘only silent scrutiny is allowed. This project is too big‘, which in my eyes is nothing less than a joke, one the taxpayer is paying for by the way. I must also clarify that this is how I initially read it, not how Francis Maude stated it, he seems to want accountability, so do I, it is just too convenient that many involved are not named at all.

In addition we see “An MPA rating of amber-red will anger the DWP, which has insisted that universal credit is on time and on budget” furthermore we see “Data has been exempted from only 21 projects in the review by the Major Projects Authority (MPA), where disclosure would damage commercial interests or national security“.

So now we get the following:

Who at the DWP had made that statement? We want to see his name and his dismissal; I say again dismissal, not his resignation.
Was the same person making the claims in regards to October 2013? This means that we were at that point faced with two delays on a pretty expensive endeavour. More important, until now, there has been a slacking handle on this project, which is likely to be only one of many.

Now we look at two events:

5^th September 2013 A National Audit Office report reveals ministers have written off £34m on failed IT programmes and the launch may be delayed beyond 2017 (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/05/david-cameron-24bn-universal-credit-problems), where we see ‘David Cameron’s £2.4bn universal credit project riddled with problems‘, so the entire UC is more than just a few pennies and we are not seeing any accountability, no criminal charges and no product. We can look at the quote, which is “The National Audit Office said universal credit, the £2.4bn project meant to consolidate six welfare payments into one, has been beset by ‘weak management, ineffective control and poor governance’“, I am about to call it something else entirely.

31^st October 2013 The Guardian reveals ministers have been presented with a radical plan to restart UC and write off £119m of work over the past three years (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/31/universal)

Now we see the following additional quotes “Ministers attempting to put the troubled universal credit welfare reform programme back on track have been presented with a radical plan to restart the scheme and write off £119m of work over the past three years” and “The risk assessment warns that the plan to start again, the ‘design and build’ web-based scheme, is ‘unproven … at this scale’“. It says the plan to fix three years of work on universal credit is still “not achievable within the preferred timescales“, describing it as unrealistic”

These two give us the following:

If we revisit “In March 2013 Duncan Smith told parliament that universal credit ‘is proceeding exactly in accordance with plans’“, then why on earth is Duncan Smith in any government building? If we look at statements from Margaret Hodge and the NAO, there is a clear indication that extreme sanitisation is needed at the DWP, the fact that this multi-billion pound fiasco is still around at that time should give cause to many serious questions.

Just to make sure the reader understands the gravity of this situation, the bungling and wasting of resources at that point could have given nearly every current university student a FREE University degree, which is saying a lot, in addition, those studying IT, might have completed the project for the price of their education, which is saying a lot!

Writing off 119 million of work delivered. A failure is not work delivered, who was minding the stores, the contracts as well as the targets that had to be met? The fact that the amount in the database at present (15,000 people) could have been achieved with a $99 program called Microsoft Access, so can we have the 118,999,901 back please?

When we revisit the September quote “The DWP said the department would continue with the planned reform and was committed to delivering it on time by 2017 and within budget“, we can clearly see that either the DWP has no clue what it was doing, or we have another echelon of people and their ‘goals‘ messing things up.

Are my assumptions valid? Well, so far I did not waste billions, so I am inclined to say yes!

By the way, who did the original costing, who presented the plan and what remains of the initial plan? Because a blowout of these proportions should be regarded as clear evidence that the thought might have been nice, but none of the deciding parties had any clue on what was being decided on (my evidence here are the squandered billions as we see them melting away).

You see, in the old days, in my life, designing a database system was relatively simple. It took 5 weeks and a few iterations of tweaking to get the customer this container system. It worked like a charm! That is what is needed here. People have been overcomplicating things by massive portions.

Web based solution.
Really? With all the intrusions, phishing and other forms of malignant issues, you are going to a web based option? Let’s be clear, this system is all about letters and numbers, so an ASCII based system, which in the old days it was called a DOS program. In this situation a UNIX solution should be sought, but the overall idea is clear. In addition, UNIX is much safer, better protected and scripting allows for evolution when needed. I knew a guy once, who created a scripted solution for product distribution for a global Fortune 500 company, it was one of the few innovative software solutions that actually worked and worked when most systems had to be upgraded, it worked on a Pentium 1 with 90 MHz, a system we now buy for $49 (if even for that much), It conversed with several dozens of locations.

Now, today, when we look at the UC, something bigger is needed, but the systems of yesterday are already 2000 times stronger than the initial system it was designed on, so we can clearly see that the spending of a few billion require a deeper digging, as well as a serious interview by the members of the House of Commons towards the involved members of the DWP.

more web-based system
“The risk assessment, dated 11^th October, says the plan for a faster, more web-based system would involve writing off £119m of previous work, and cost the DWP £96m to develop. However, it warns ministers that they will have no idea if the web-based system will work until the summer of 2014 ‘when it is live for 100 claimants’“

And the laughter just does not stop here, ‘more’ web based system? The people here did not learn the first time? If you want speed, consider simple ASCII, with perhaps local formatted XML. You see, you get loads of characters across in mere milliseconds (36 characters including 10 numbers tends to be fast), and let us not forget, this is all set towards 6 systems, so you need speed. So only this summer was there any chance of knowing anything, so can we wonder again where the money went, because someone is getting pretty rich here and it is not me (alas).

In these two issues we see a reiterated failure, which gives a clear signal that the original design, which would have been BEFORE money was spend, should not have passed any hurdles as I see it.

When I think ANY project I see the following

request
design
prototype
finalise
test
implement

Now, I will admit that a large project needs a lot more, but these 6 steps for the initial trial should have been done in 90 days for 7 tests. One test of each system and the 7th to see one person collected on all 6 systems. Now we have a master that gets us trials where this simple program could be used to star testing everywhere and see if data comes across, yes, this is nowhere near finished, but in the foundation we see what happens if the data of 150,000 people gets requested, so now we know that data can be obtained and we see a timeline of speed and more important bandwidth, because that will be the killer. If we revisit the original time line where the plan was offered in October 2010, which means that this test could have been done before Christmas, so how was time and money wasted, because as we see the Multi Billion pound bill that would be the direct question evolving from this.

The complications
Yes, I am not ignoring this. A system with this much data access will need all levels of security and encryption, there is no denying this, yet using a ‘web-based’ approach seems to me that we might as well give a copy of all this data to the cyber criminals. There are always suite options of security, and yes that needs work, yet some local test could have been made, in addition, a system this vast will need all kind of implementation servers and trained support staff, steps that were not even anywhere near implementing, were they costed for?

When we see the timeline and the involvement from ‘interested’ parties, I cannot stop but wonder what could have been if the right people had sat down, because those involved screwed the pooch big time and the taxpayer can see the billions they have to cough up for a system that never worked.

We will end with three quotes all from the October 27^th 2014 article.

leaked Whitehall documents warned of a failing IT system, more than £1m in wasted expenditure, and how only 25,000 claimants would likely to be served by the system by the general election next year.
The government has written off or written down £130m on the project, which is designed to revolutionise the culture around claiming benefits. It now expects 100,000 people to be on the system by May 2015 and for 100 centres to be involved in its delivery by the end of this year.
When fully rolled out, UC will make 3 million families better off by £177 a month and lift up to 300,000 children out of poverty.”

From the three points we get the following, if the system is turning nuts and bolts at present when there are between 25,000 and 100,000, what complications will we see when the other 2.95 million are added, if we see the issues with less than 4% populated, what happens when the other 96% is added?

When we see the quote in regards to a couple not getting paid, whilst in addition changing their details took three months, we can conclude form the quote “The DWP said the couple’s claim had been delayed because the pair had failed to complete the correct forms. Responding to Dispatches’ findings, a spokesman told the Guardian: ‘Universal credit’s IT system is robust and effective, and we have trained 26,300 work coaches who are successfully providing new support to claimants to help them better prepare for work’“, well if there are 26,300 work coaches and there are currently 25,000 in the system, why did it take three months to correct this? In addition, how come the wrong forms were filled in, what was the cause of that? Should the system not have reported (almost immediately) that the forms did not constitute their current social status/predicament?

This is more than a simple failing; this system seems to lack basic foundations, especially with three months delays.

The sad part is that this is not the first issue we see, when we consider the NHS debacle which I discussed in ‘the second exploitation‘ on August 10th, how the NHS options resulted in a wasted 15 billion, whilst no one seems to take a deeper look at how such large amounts get wasted. Now with the UC we see a similar development, it would be so nice for someone in Whitehall to recognise the need for actual change so that squandering might be minimised be a lot more then it currently is.

Leave a comment

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

Tagged as Ashton-under-Lyne, David Cameron, Duncan Smith, DWP, Francis Maude, Greater Manchester, Iain Duncan Smith, Margaret Hodge, MPA, NAO, National Audit Office, NHS, Parliament, the Guardian, the second exploitation, UC, UK, Universal credit, Welfare Reform Act 2012, Whitehall

October 24, 2014 · 21:04

Where the Wild Geese go!

It is so nice to read about how the EU migration is a fact that is here to stay. The subtitle containing ‘56% support in Britain for remaining in union‘ gives a pause for thought, yet what pause should there be and who should be pausing (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/23/juncker-tells-cameron-cant-destroy-eu-migration-rules)?

Party 1, Jean-Claude Juncker on free movement of people and how this is not to be destroyed! Well, Mr Junker, that sounds like a nice option, but when the population of Poland, Bulgaria and Romania moves into the UK, the UK ends up having a massive problem, which is what it boils down to. When we see “three million people from Bulgaria and Romania living in other European Union member states“, we do have an issue to deal with. Then we see the quote “more than 60 MPs are backing a campaign to extend the restrictions for a further five years, saying the British economy has not sufficiently recovered from the 2008 recession to cope with the change and that it will put pressure on public services and reduce job opportunities for British workers” (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-25549715), these two facts seem to be ignored by many parties. We see some papers on the let them in side and some opposing that view, yet none of them give us a clear number of who is coming from where and how many from all over are arriving in the UK. Let’s not forget that London is still the place to be (I know, because I still miss it). What the Guardian article only casually reports is the fact that the 56% comes from an Ipsos Mori poll. Now for the good stuff, this comes from 1002 respondents, whilst the UK counts 64 million. So which person signed off on that little part? Perhaps some should consider that anything like this requires a few thousand responses, like, more then at least 5000, not 1002!

Party 2, Alisdair McIntosh, director of Business for New Europe. Many seem to see the benefit of staying within the EU, well nobody is debating that, but you see, Mr McIntosh is speaking for ‘his’ lobby and those people need a level of non-accountability, people in movement are in many ways interesting for exploitation, this has been seen in the Netherlands where immigrants hoping for a new future, willing to work hard are exploited in most inhumane ways. In addition there are also the views on how the influx of immigrants also came with a large influx of smaller crimes (theft and pick-pocketing). The good and the bad is a given fact, yet business is above such accountability, not stating that they are accountable! So yes, Alisdair McIntosh likes the borders to remain open.

Party 3, José Manuel Barroso stated “What I can tell you is that any kind of arbitrary cap seems to be not in conformity with Europeans laws. For us it is very important – the principle of non-discrimination“, but is that really correct? (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/19/jose-manuel-barroso-david-cameron-eu-migration), “the number of Portuguese looking to settle in Britain was up by almost ten thousand people last year, climbing to 30,120 official arrivals who were recorded at British national insurance offices“, which comes form http://theportugalnews.com/news/portuguese-workers-flood-britain/30837. So as we see, the Portuguese unemployment rates are going down, but how many from leaving Portugal and where else are they going to? So, we see that José Manuel Barroso has two hats on, one is still all about Portugal, which we cannot fault him for, but the information is unclear as many ‘hide’ behind percentages, when we see the mentioning of numbers the face changes, like 560 Britons willing to stay in the EU, but what do the other 63,999,440 want? You see, 1002 weighted is in no way a real usable number, not when it is compared to the size of a nation.

These clear thoughts give us two dangers

What is ACTUALLY the best for the United Kingdom?
These simple realities only enable the growth of UKIP (which is not really good for the UK).

Some numbers consider the NHS the most important issue, yet consider what the influx does to an already stumbling NHS, when this falls over, there will not be any support remaining, with all the consequences of those trying to stay healthy when the doctor is not available and those who need help will only get it for a fee, which gives us a clear view on the dangers for the future. David Cameron needs to stop the massive influx that the current infrastructure is less and less able to deal with.

A weakness that gets pressed forward by the UKIP engine, which seems to be driving the people in an incorrect direction. In the end, I feel that there is no way that UKIP is a force for good, but the other parties have been stumbling all over the field trying to statistically trivialise and ignore the issues as reports are posted left right and centre. I truly hope that Scotland was not an empty lesson for the parties at large.

If we are not careful about the game some play and many observe, we will see that soon after the stumbling becomes irrecoverable we will see the people leave for other shores, then what will happen? Because when the system collapses we will soon see that the ‘The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel’ was not just an imagination, consider the cost of living in India and what will happen when a million retirees take their money and move to sunny shores with living expenses at 18% of what it is now. So, what else are some ignoring? Let’s not forget that these people will also cause the brain drain that will hamper growth down the track. Those who ‘rely’ on cheap youthful labour will soon learn that there is a downside to that. In addition, a million retirees spending THEIR money out of the UK is also a coffer drain the treasurer has not fully considered, or the consequence of such a shift.

Well, personally I see an issue that some seem to ignore, but it is the most dangerous one that many face. You see, several politicians, especially in the labour side, will get these scientists to make economic predictions, after which the analysts will get a go to agree with. Yet, all is not clear here, the politician (the absolute worst of referees) will decide, what information the two parties will receive and as such we get skewed results, moreover, there will not be an open debate and we see reusing of certain ‘weighted’ metrics, which will make too many people walk too close to the edge and as such the damage will be done and the politician will start to emotionally scream and hover BEHIND the ‘miscommunication’ sign. The approach of ‘if the result does not fit, change the initial question‘. There is only one problem, the damage will be lasting and debilitating and whilst Mr Politician has a nice dry income with zero risk to him/her self.

All this comes to fruition when we take a look at the NHS issues. You only have to look at the BBC News and look for NHS articles on the site and you are treated to a myriad of voices all with their own street in the passing of the voice. If we go back to 2013, whether it is just NHS, code 111 or GP, there are all kinds of thoughts, each with their own percentage of validity, but in what regard?

When we look at the Article by Hugh Pym, where he talks about punch packing documents (at http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29731646), we see the following: “He is signalling a big shift in the way the NHS in England is managed and organised, in some ways the most radical since the service was born in 1948“, “There should, in his view, be no more top-down reorganisations, but instead the development of new models to suit local needs” and “For Westminster and the political parties, there is one key message – you have to find more money. Blanket demands for cash at a time of government austerity were never going to cut much ice. But Mr Stevens, with the support of the health regulator Monitor, has done some careful financial modelling“.

Of course it is about the money as the NHS costs more than just two bundles of cash, but when we consider terms like ‘careful financial monitoring‘ and ‘no more top-down reorganisations‘ we see a jump in the width with a financial picture that is nowhere close to be estimated. In addition, if we regard my article ‘Concerning the Commonwealth!‘ on June 19^th 2014, where we see several options, take especially my quote ‘the Labour IT systems of the NHS have proven that ten billion pound invoice, and yet doing nothing is another non-option‘ to heart! So as we change an NHS model, how much more will it cost and how is IT not ready to deal with that part?

Yet, is Simon Stevens wrong? No! In the foundations of it all he is correct, the NHS needs a massive overhaul, but here we see that part of the politician, the economist and the analyst. It takes but a whiff of ‘miscommunication’ and the UK is down a few more billion, whilst it is dealing with 1000 billion pound overdraft. So, here we see the reason to change the NHS, but not in drastic ways, yet in ways where we see the successful dealings with basic errors which will cost the NHS hundreds of millions a year. the expression ‘he that cannot keep a penny shall never have many‘, comes to mind, we need to make massive changes, but we need to close holes too, If we can save first, we get change to implement iterated evolution, one that does not cost the taxpayer. The problem for Simon Stevens is that this is not sexy and that is not good for (his) image. This is why I have been in favour of a stronger evolution involving Indian generic medicines, it will not help GlaxoSmithKline and its 14 members of the board, but it will make a massive impact on the 12 billion pound bill the NHS is getting and the kickback that is called quality of life for tens of millions of patients. We can never get around loads of medications, but if we get a cheaper generic option for an increasing number of them, the NHS might end up with a much lower bill, yet that part is often not shown in clarity, I wonder why?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Alisdair McIntosh, BBC, Bulgaria, Business for New Europe, David Cameron, European Union, GlaxoSmithKline, Hugh Pym, Ipsos Mori, Jean-Claude Juncker, José Manuel Barroso, Netherlands, NHS, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Simon Stevens, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, the Guardian, theportugalnews.com, UK, UKIP, Westminster

September 21, 2014 · 09:25

From faith to fate

Yes, this is a story that comes after the fact. This is not about what has been proven or what has been established. I did not win because the Nay’s for now have it in Scotland and I was in the ‘stronger together’ park. I will only feel victorious if we make the referendum about the next stage. It is clear that the economy remains a Scottish issue, it is clear that the current deficit of 11% is not going anywhere, but the new dangers about less oil will be an issue, so it is up to all of us, not just Scotland, to find ways to make us all stronger as a whole. I truly believe that in light of current escalations, this is the one thing that ALL Commonwealth politicians need to take home. In response to the article in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/david-cameron-devolution-revolution-uk-scotland-vote), I say “Shame on you Prime Minister!“, yes, we do not deny the issues on “We have heard the voice of Scotland and now the millions of voices of England must be heard“, the final count has not even been completed (as far as I know). The next general Elections are 8 months away. Would it truly hurt THAT much to take a few moments and recognise the need to build a stronger Scotland? In light that Scotland is still part of the UK; that issue should matter a great deal.

To Alex Salmond, first minister of Scotland I say “you may not have won now, but change is a certainty! How can the other members of the Commonwealth help in making the Scottish economy stronger?” Where is there shortage and where is their surplus? I have more messages, especially after the statement from the Spanish Prime Minister stating: “Mariano Rajoy has said an independent Scotland would have to apply from scratch for EU membership and the application process could take eight years“. Perhaps it is time to recognise the fact that the European deficit as it is set at half a trillion for 2013 has shown what an abysmal failure their budget keeping has been (I will accept the fact that 25% of that deficit is the UK), yet overall, we have seen an abundance of non-UK issues, which is why UKIP has grown the way it has. David Cameron will need to consider a clear tactical approach, not only towards the current economy, but especially on how to reduce the debt, which is a heavy chain for the Britons to carry, if they had been sins, then Jacob Marley could not have fathomed the weight, size and the number of shackles they represent.

It is only now that I hear that Alex Salmond has resigned. I believe it to be a mistake, but it is his choice to make. He was not a bad person, he did not let Scotland down, and he did however put a clear need of many changes on the table, in that he has left a strong legacy. As stated, I remained in the ‘better together’ camp, but Alex had on several occasions drawn on my doubts, which means he did not just talk to the hearts of man and woman, he talked to the rational of the people too. I feel certain that Alex Salmond will be missed; he was a politician and a gentleman, which is a rare combination to find in any person.

David Cameron has a few other issues to consider and UKIP is only one of the factors. There is a clear sign that too many actions have been about the status quo, whilst we know that these changes will not get us anywhere at present. We must acknowledge that the economic course taken two years ago has resulted in a better positioning of the UK, but more needs to be done. I believe that it is time to take another look at the Commonwealth Business Council and include the function to set a task of ‘preferred job exchange’ where it will be easier to get a quick track of working VISA’s for commonwealth nations. If social expenditure is so high, would a solution for exchange be so far-fetched? When social services pays for one unemployed person in Canada and one in the UK, if there is an option to find work for both in the other nation, to allow for that? Work permits for 6-12 months that can easily be prolonged if the work is there is not a stretch. In the 90’s, several corporations started to implement the ‘think global, act local‘ approach to the situation, in several cases it became too much about travelling all over the world and meeting virtually everywhere. I do not think that this is what the term defines, yet overall this approach will work in a workforce under these economic conditions. We all need to be a lot more fluidic in our approach of work, especially where we work. When we see the shortages of IT in Scotland (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-19529703), one must wonder why there are so many people in Sydney and London without a technology position. Important to note that this BBC article was from 2012, but the overall need for certain skills have been proven again and again. It is time to take a different look at these options and more important, find additional ways to solve them.

How does that relate back to Scotland? It does not specifically point to Scotland, yet if we pool all the resources, Scotland would be added to this, which has long term repercussions for all the linked nations, not just Scotland. What if we take the words of Work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith, using his 6% and we could lower this by another percent? What if the shortage of medical personnel in Scotland could be filled by people from Australia and Canada? If we have forward momentum, it will always impact an economy in a positive way.

This approach shows two things, one, the fact that the status quo approach has not worked for a long time and the fact that ‘better together’ and ‘stronger together’ will actually work if we focus on the ‘together part’, I just think that ‘together’ is more than the UK and Scotland, I think it is linked to ALL Commonwealth nations.

It is now Sunday; I decided to let things simmer for a little as we have seen a few changes, it is important to see that this one article is not a static one, based upon the information of a moment. I have seen the disgrace under which some act (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/19/violence-glasgow-scotland-loyalists-attack-independence-supporters), that what describes themselves as loyalists, are nothing of the sort. Violence whilst singing ‘Rule Britannia’ does not make you a loyalist, it makes you a goon with the ability to retain sentences. But the positive part of this article is that as an Australian (with British and a wee bit of Scottish blood) had never heard of the song ‘flower of Scotland’ (the sing-along version is found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPaJhlIIYjM). The article showed another side, the quote “The city is divided by religion already and to be honest I think the union jacks and saltires are a bit of an excuse”, was from an engineer. Which is shown by the passage: “Sam Tonks, an engineer from Uddingston, said he had driven into the city with his wife and daughter because he wanted to celebrate the referendum victory with other no supporters, but had been greeted by something much uglier”. This is perhaps the part of the aftermath we all hope will go away soon, small issues are now huge chords of discord in a place that has been a proud heritage seeking an independent nationality. I feel that no one debates this, but at present, in this economy, that independence will be short lived, until we strengthen the bonds between all brethren of the Commonwealth.

Yet in all this, I also (as a conservative minded person) speak out against Gordon Brown (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/20/gordon-brown-scotland-labour-party-strategy). Let’s face it, he made a good presence and he had an excellent show, but let’s not forget the fact that he is a politician. The promises he makes do sound nice, but what happens when he is back in power? This is at the centre of the entire issue. The only massive reason why the ‘stronger together’ and the ‘better together’ got the majority that we all see the economic disaster heading our way and there would be no survival if Scotland faced it as an independent nation. You see, one part of the article is an issue: “It is, perhaps, of no surprise that the Scottish media now calls Brown the “fourth man” of British politics, alongside David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. In the past week, events and the force of his personality have made this the case.” The intent sounds nice, but the article makes Gordon Brown a running mate with Ed Miliband, whilst they would both be contending for the same group. There is more and more evidence that Ed Miliband has made its share of mistakes which will lead to Gordon Brown returning to his old post. The actual fourth person is Nigel Farage. The press made the mistake at least TWICE already in underestimating Nigel Farage, yet the abundance of mistakes and choices which led to the current economic weakness is at the heart of the strength of Nigel Farage. That what stopped Scottish independence is also fuelling the UKIP machine. The press making light of that is exactly why too many people are voting for Farage. We have given up hope on the Murdoch machine ever becoming a respectable paper, but I am strongly advising Alan Rusbridger to not make that same mistake. Having Nigel Farage written off at present is the biggest mistake you can make at present. I saw the same mistake in the Netherlands in the 90’s. The man Hans Janmaat was ignored. He was discriminatory in his conviction against all immigrant matters and was called racist on several occasions, which in the end gives us: “Meindert Fennema, Emeritus Professor of Political Theory of Ethnic Relations at the University of Amsterdam, argued in 2006 that Janmaat was convicted for statements that are now commonplace due to changes in the political climate”. The Dutch newspaper article (at http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4324/Nieuws/archief/article/detail/1784000/2003/05/21/Met-excuses-aan-Janmaat.dhtml) shows a shifting cultural issue, by ignoring these factors the British newspapers are making the same fatal (and as I consider it a ‘dumber then dumb’ approach) to an actual issue people are confronted with, the press and political silence towards Nigel Farage only contributes to his untimely success. Linked to this is the fact that Nigel Farage had been bringing forth actual issues, which had been ignored by both Labour and Tories alike and they need to be properly addressed within the next few months before the Nigel campaign truly takes off, after which, half-baked carefully phrased words of denial will only hurt whomever speaks them.

This reflects in several ways. If we are not careful in this environment, we are all in danger of segregation though polarisation. That what Scotland is currently dealing with is something they need to get past, true loyalists will need to accept that Scotland will remain Scotland, whilst realising that over time it will be their ‘new’ neighbour Scotland. How you aid them now will reflect on your future later. Shine light on the actual matters and we will all prosper through it all.

If we keep the faith in a stronger Commonwealth and if we actually act on doing so, then we will end up with the fate of the Commonwealth being a lot stronger then it currently is. We have several heavy seas ahead of us and if we are as strong as our weakest link, then we need to make all commonwealth nations a lot stronger then they currently are.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Alex Salmond, Commonwealth, Conservatives, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, flower of Scotland, Gordon Brown, Hans Janmaat, Jacob Marley, labour party, Mariano Rajoy, Meindert Fennema, Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage, Prime Minister David Cameron, Professor of Political Theory of Ethnic Relations, Sam Tonks, Scotland, the Guardian, Tories, Trouw, Uddingston, UKIP, University of Amsterdam

July 28, 2014 · 11:35

The old reasons

There are a lot of high running tensions in play at present. There is the Gaza, which has been going on since I was there in 1982 and there is the downing of MH17, which is now becoming an increasingly political hot potato involving the Russians.

Yesterday, Nick Clegg called for stripping Russia from the world cup 2018 (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/27/nick-clegg-russia-world-cup-2018-stripped-mh17-ukraine). I do not think I can presently agree with this. Yes, there are issues that need to be answered, yet, there is enough evidence to clearly state that Russian separatists, not the Russian army shot the plane down. The last group might not be innocent, yet for this we need actual evidence, which is currently (for now) not available.

David Cameron seems to be in agreement with me (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/27/david-cameron-russia-2018-world-cup-ukraine).

In my case there is another reason. If we are to resolve any issues, then we need to make sure that diplomats get as many options as they can to smooth things over. In three years the issues of MH17 will have been passed, yet what lies around the corner? There is not a person in the world who can give us any answer in that regard, nor should they have to. If we want options, than we need to look no further than the Olympics, especially the ‘original’ ones (you know, the ones you might have seen in 776 BC).

In those days, there was an important side to these groups of people, who were always bickering with each other using swords and spears. It was stated “During the Olympic Games, a truce, or ekecheiria was observed. Three runners, known as spondophoroi were sent from Elis to the participant cities at each set of games to announce the beginning of the truce. During this period, armies were forbidden from entering Olympia, wars were suspended, and legal disputes and the use of the death penalty were forbidden“.

It was a stroke of genius! This was a time when certain officials could off the books meet and possibly broker solutions in a way where the ego and reputation of a person was not on the line. It was a time when some people could meet and possibly longer lasting truces could be held. Even today, when the emotions run high, we need to make certain that such an option remains.

This brings me to the second part in this, which is only casually linked. It was my blog of March 19th 2014 called ‘Any sport implies corruption!‘ where I looked at some of the issues regarding the accusation of corruption by Qatar in getting the World cup 2022. There were a few views that caused me to question whether there was actual corruption, or was this a push by big business to replace Qatar for revenue reasons? What is ‘more likely than not’ is the question in this case!

Last week the Guardian gave us additional information (at http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jul/21/ethics-investigation-private-fifa-michael-garcia), in the article, where it states: “Former attorney expected to deliver evidence by end of July“. It is now the end of July and we see the quote “Garcia’s report will go directly to FIFA’s ethics judge Hans-Joachim Eckhart, who is not expected to make any rulings until August or September“, so there will; be another delay in finding out the truth.
Moreover, I feel at present that after that another delay will come as certain people could be offered high income positions in other places before the news comes out. Will that happen? I do not know, what I do know is that the allegations have gone on for way too long and the additional delays, whilst we see more and more press on this should anger us all beyond belief. Big Business made a try and as such they hopefully failed. Of course we will not know until the rulings are made, but I remain adamant in my view! I demand the disclosure of names and participants in these events. In addition, the quote “Shortly before the World Cup in Brazil, Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper reported that some of the ‘millions of documents’ it had seen linked payments by former FIFA executive committee member Mohamed Bin Hammam to officials to win backing for Qatar’s World Cup bid” (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/25/us-soccer-fifa-qatar-idUSKBN0FU1M720140725), I could not get the Sunday times link as people need to pay for it and it cannot be fully shown, yet the quote is seen at CNN (at http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/02/sport/football/football-qatar-world-cup-sunday-times/) which states: “We’ve seen millions of documents that prove without a shadow of doubt that corruption was involved. There is clear evidence linking payments to people who have influence over the decision of who hosted the World Cup“.
I think we should DEMAND the display of these documents. If there is corruption, we are entitled to see it, on the other hand, if we accept that it is more likely than not that an industry that misses out on millions of dollars are behind the accusations, then we are allowed to see that as well. In that regard, if the Royal commission would prefer not to be the laughing stock regarding the press, then in my view, it should have only one response to the quote from the Sunday Times, when it is proven wrong. The Sunday Times is to cease all operations for no less than 6 months, all staff to be paid during this time, no online activities and no revenue based activities. Subscribers get an automatic 6 months extension.

Is that too harsh?

The claims here, the claims in regards to MH-370 that were made by the Telegraph, none of it founded and no actual evidence ever presented.

Why is this such a big deal?

As the Olympics evolved, the base need for honest and open competition is what allows for differences to be settled. The concept of the Olympics was also continued in other events, like the World Cup Soccer and the Commonwealth Games. These events go beyond the events on the field. It allows for trade discussions, diplomacy and other conversations that have larger impact, in some cases none of them an option in an official capacity. This is why I disagree with Nick Clegg on this.

Even now, I have been adamant about the need for President Vladimir Putin to speak out harshly against these separatists since the first day it happened. It is likely that he relied on the wrong advisers (as I see it), but to cut off options of diplomacy is NEVER EVER a good idea. Even now, we see news (at http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/27/vladimir-putin-facing-multi-million-dollar-lawsuit-for-aiding-separatists-who-shot-down-mh17-lawyers-say/) where the headline “Vladimir Putin facing multi-million dollar lawsuit for aiding separatists who shot down MH17, lawyers say“.

How is this even realistic?

Is there ACTUAL evidence that Putin did directly support in the act that resulted in the downing of MH17? Yes, I agree there are issues with the hardware the separatists have and I mentioned that the first day, whilst the press were all about the ’emotional stories’ (which is not journalistic out of place). The facts are there and they need to be answered, but that lawsuit is a joke. Consider the fact that Osama Bin Laden was a product of the CIA, trained to some extend and funded to a larger extent. Was President George W. Bush, Senator Charles Wilson or many others ever sued for 9/11? Both premises are equally ridiculous. I see them all as meagre attempts from certain individuals to claim income and/or visibility from where ever they can.

So, why this switch?

If any of these issues are to ever be resolved we need to keep one open path, one path no one messes with to remain. We need sports to remain to be about sports, so that those attending (not those who participate), to divert the conversation to non-sport matters. If we can keep peace through an innocent informal conversation, then by all means let us do that. Preferably without a group of bloody Murdoch’s miscreants making claims without producing the actual evidence trying to divert games towards a better ‘big business’ marketable environment. My reasoning here is twofold. First the quote as “We’ve seen millions of documents that prove without a shadow of doubt that corruption was involved”. Were these people really that stupid? The one true rule here is that if it isn’t written down, it does not exist, would people state ‘in writing’ such events (people who should be a lot more intelligent than I am), or is it just a bluff? You see, evidence (or not) did the press not have clear, distinct and utter responsibility to produce and print this evidence? The people who have been hiding behind every sleaze report with pictures stating ‘the people have a right to know’, now suddenly they hide behind innuendo and silence? That is part of the picture I have a problem with.

The old reasons are now clearly in focus.

Sport should be about sport and sport alone. The people in the field are all about that what they excel in and as such, it might be the only true entertaining excitement left to us. This atmosphere will always allow for officials who are admiring their team. What was more endearing, more powerful and more sportive then seeing the Royal Dutch family amongst the Dutch, all in Orange, cheering for their team! What a massive adrenaline jolt it must have been for those players to hear their own royal family cheer for them! Is anything more amazing in sports? Is there a chance that his royal highness, King Willem Alexander of the Netherlands shook hands with an official from another nation, perhaps starting a conversation? The fact that Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin were there for the match and had a conversation can only be a good thing for all kinds of reasons in the long run.
We seem to forget these old reasons. We get the sports, but foremost, we get the commercials and we get clobbered to death by sponsors with their trinkets, foods and drinks. That last part is the part too many are catering to. The bringers of news (especially in paper forms) are at least one third advertisements. Income is dwindling here and papers are more and more about keeping their (possible) advertisers happy. Even though these politicians can hold talks anywhere, allowing them to hold onto as many as informal places as possible is a given need. So, as such, for now, I feel that Moscow 2018 should continue.

If not, then Moscow should have never won the bid in the first place.

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Ancient Greece, Angela Merkel, CIA, CNN, Commonwealth Gaames, corruption, David Cameron, FIFA, Gaza, Greece, Hans-Joachim Eckhart, King Willem Alexander, MH17, Mohamed Bin Hammam, Netherlands, Nick Clegg, Olympics, Osama Bin Laden, President George W. Bush, President Vladimir Putin, Qatar, Qatar 2022, reuters, Rupert Murdoch, Senator Charles Wilson, separatists, the Guardian, The Telegraph, Vladimir Putin, World Cup, world cup 2018, World cup 2022, World Cup Soccer

July 1, 2014 · 11:44

Cleaning house!

This issue has been in the back of my head for some time. It was 2011 when this happened. The ruling hit the news (and the most colourful version was in the Daily Mail as per usual), where a rapist could not get deported because he was entitled to a family life. The article angered me and to some extent, I was then and I am still now on the side of the Daily Mail approach.

Why are criminals granted a lot more freedoms then their victims?

The more preposterous part is: “This is despite him not having a wife, long-term partner or children in the UK“, so what family life? He could try to get one in Nigeria for all I care.

The convention can be found here: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

The actual text: “ARTICLE 8 Right to respect for private and family life, 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

It sounds nice enough, but it is time for some tough love, so I recommend adding the following:

“3. In case of conviction of a serious crime, that nation can decide to ignore rule 1, providing a connection to a long term partner and the existence of biological off spring, born in that nation, not criminally conceived has been established.”

So, we got rid of the rapist, if the mother is a pro-life woman, that will not protect him and moreover, he cannot hide behind an adoption either. Whether this is altered for the UK or it is accepted within the EEC as a whole is of course the crux. It is also time to stop tailoring from a weak point of view. Yes, at this point, a Human Rights point of view is a weak view (I accept that many disagree here)!

Let’s be clear here. I am all for human rights, but these rights also come with responsibilities and accountability, without these two rights pretty much go out of the window. It should also be clear that if a nation independently decides to not enforce paragraph 3, then this is fine too as I added “that nation can decide“, I am all for the right to choose and Like some should not judge the UK, the UK should not judge France, Germany or the Netherlands.

We are not done yet. There is still Article 12 to consider. We can’t have criminals ‘suddenly’ fall in love and get hitched and therefor avoid deportation (where applicable), hence the following would change

“ARTICLE 12 Right to marry, Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right“.

Would change into:

“ARTICLE 12 Right to marry,
1. Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right
2. The right to marry is temporary postponed if one or both persons have been deprived of his/her liberty by arrest or detention, until 6 months after release and was not been deported because of these events
3. Paragraph 2 will not be valid, if a court has ordered the release of the involved parties due to non-lawful detention“.

We keep number three there, as there is always a chance a person was convicted innocently and as such; we must definitely protect their rights too, as I stated we will give all quarter to those who abided by law as we should.

So, it took me almost 45 minutes to get to these conclusions after going over certain papers. The question becomes why these steps had not been made before? Well, let’s take a look at the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec/22/britain-european-court-human-rights). Here we see another view when we consider the following paragraph:

“Grayling said last week the ECHR did not ‘make this country a better place’. David Cameron has said the court risks becoming a glorified ‘small claims court’ buried under a mountain of ‘trivial’ claims , and suggested Britain could withdraw from the convention to ‘keep our country safe’. The home secretary, Theresa May, has pledged the party’s next manifesto will promise to scrap the Human Rights Act, which makes the convention enforceable in Britain”

I am not sure I can agree with the Home Secretary there. I see her point, but it took me only 45 minutes to alter the convention into something a lot less hassle, without actually changing that much. Those who come to Europe, fighting for a better life, not resorting to crime can still do that. My issue is that the rape victim, who was 13 at the time seems to have fallen of the view of the world (which might be good for her), yet in the dozens upon dozens of documents trying to protect the rapist, how much concern was given to the victim of his crime?

This is at the heart of my reasoning. Some judges talk a good talk, but then they seem to refuse to walk the walk (if it pleases the court and with all due respect). Consider the paper ‘Women in an unsecure world‘ (at http://www.unicef.org/emerg/files/women_insecure_world.pdf). A paper edited by Marie Vlachova and Lea Biason. If we are TRULY going to do anything to make their future safe, then we must begin in our own country. By making the consequence of transgression so high, that considering it will no longer be an option, that is the point where we all move forward and we can slowly start to actually eradicate the violence against women. I will not and cannot state that I have a true solution there, or that my solution will work. The issues are not overly complex, but it is a problem that is massively larger than most realise (including me), I just believe that if we send a strong signal that those transgressors will never be opted any life in any land of opportunity, we might, just might start to turn the tide a little. Is that not at the heart of Humanitarian rights too? If not, then what is Article 14 doing in the ECHR in the first place.

The only part that is laughable in the earlier mentioned PDF is the following statement “The Russian Government estimates that 14,000 women were killed by their partners or relatives in 1999, yet the country still has no law specifically addressing domestic violence“, the ‘comical‘ side there is that the UK did not have a serious option until the ‘Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004’, I am not ignoring the ‘Family Law Act 1996’, yet the issue remains if we see the data (at http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic_violence_topic.asp?section=0001000100220041) that apparently the UK faces 1 call on domestic violence every minute. So, it is not just a Russian issue, the more data I see, the more that part should be stated as a global problem, with the Russian terminal numbers being a mere outlier in this entire debacle.

If we accept that not all women call for help, then there is a massive problem and governments all over the Commonwealth will need to make some clear, visible and drastic changes. When we start seeing newscasts on how immigrants have been evicted because of violence against women, how long until the local male population starts to realise that their number is up too?

This view is only amplified after seeing this article (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/08/police-fear-rise-domestic-violence-world-cup), is this for real? I wonder if a name and shame option would work. You know, we take his picture and place poster sized pictures close to ‘his’ watering holes. I wonder how happy such a person would feel in the local pub when they all knew what he was (apart from being an absolute wanker).

In several regards Theresa May was correct, the ECHR is a problem, but she was in my humble opinion incorrect to think that this issue was just in the UK, the Netherlands has numbers that indicate that violence against women is a lot higher there, or is it? Research seemed to indicate that Dutch women are more likely to report these crimes with the police, which makes the violence against women in the UK a lot higher than expected (at http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/binnenland/geweld-tegen-vrouwen-nederland-een-stuk-hoger-dan-eu). Is that last part true? Without better data I cannot tell, but the chance that 4 out of 10 women are under direct threat of violence sickens me to my stomach, which makes the ECHR a larger joke then we are willing to admit to.

I think altering (best), or rejecting it (not that great an option) could be the next step, however, not doing anything should no longer be any option, not in the UK and not anywhere in the EEC, or anywhere else for that matter. Should we go after immigrants first? That is of course a valid question too. I think it is, as stated before, when these transgressors realise that crime gets you deported, a clear signal is given and not just in the UK either. I believe that once these events start, the signal is given all over Europe that a person is welcome as long as they abide by the law. There is of course the question where to add the bite we need. If too much is added to the ECHR, the bigger the chance that we create loopholes because of it and that makes any act or law bill toothless. The strongest bite is found in simplicity (as I see it). In that regard I would like to add something to Article 3 of the ECHR, changing it into:

“ARTICLE 3, Prohibition of torture
1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
2. Domestic violence will be regarded as inhuman and degrading treatment of a person and is as such subject to local criminal law.“

So, now that Domestic Violence is set on the same scope as torture. How soon until the local population realises that the ‘game’ is up and this kind of violence will get them into jail, out of house and home, an automatic granted divorce to the victim with all rights given to the victim, hence the victim gets the house, the children and what else and those who regarded domestic violence as an option would get the short end of every stick. I am willing to bet that the face of domestic violence is changed within a year after the courts start handing out these verdicts.

It would be nice to see such a change in mentality and I will (again) humbly accept my knighthood and cottage (especially as I concocted a solution after breakfast and before lunch).

I do agree that the solution is not that simple, but giving these victims additional protection with real teeth is likely a much better approach then has been attempted this far. Knowing that the other approach has not worked, is it not time to start opting for a more direct approach?

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as Crime and Victims Act 2004, Daily Mail, David Cameron, domestic violence, ECHR, European Convention on Human Rights, Family Law Act 1996, Germany, Grayling, Home Secretary, Lea Biason, Marie Vlachova, Netherlands, Nigeria, rape, RTL nieuws, Russia, the Guardian, Theresa May, UK, unicef, violence against women, Women in an unsecure world, womensaid.org

June 30, 2014 · 13:43

Exit strategies anyone?

Today is an interesting day. The article in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/28/european-union-exit-will-harm-britain-says-cbi) is well worth reading and in addition, I must state that I am not sure whether I have made up my mind what would be the best course of action. I have been on both sides of this and I am currently on the fence. First of all, the UK must do what is best for the UK and beyond that the UK should do what is best for the Commonwealth. I personally think that this is the status as it should be at the moment. The question becomes whether Europe is the best for the UK. I am not talking about the Juncker issue (even though that seems to be part of any decision), but where should we be? The headline states “EU exit will harm UK, says leading British industry group“, yes THEY will talk in their own interest, they always do. The Eurostat numbers are unconvincing (at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-22012014-AP/EN/2-22012014-AP-EN.PDF), today’s reserved savings are tomorrows signal to abundantly overspend funds, that much has been seen again and again ever since 2009, when the taps should have been closed. This is also at the heart of the matter for what is best for the UK. And in all honesty, the UK has overspent their quota a fair bit too. Now we have a new issue. Up to 2013 we got to see a picture from some of the more decently reliable sources, yet, now later in 2014, there is almost nothing on the projected and actual numbers for 2013. There lies the hidden issue, it is not that there is little, there is too little information now, so who to believe. When governments are not boasting, they are definitely hiding some issues under the carpet and those issues will impact the UK too. I will not bore you with the numbers UKIP gives us (at http://www.ukipmeps.org/uploads/file/Cost_of_the_EU_25_5_11.pdf), they are talking their own brand of flavour, as would Prime Minister David Cameron, but where is the truth?

My benefit here is that I speak half a dozen languages, which gives me additional sources. The ‘Nederlands Dagblad‘ gives us (at http://www.nd.nl/artikelen/2014/februari/28/lagere-overheden-verwachten-te-hoog-tekort) the following: “Gemeenten, provincies en waterschappen verwachten dat hun begrotingstekort dit jaar uitkomt op 3,7 miljard euro. Dat is zeshonderd miljoen euro meer dan volgens de afgesproken norm mag” [translated] “Municipalities, counties and Water boards (a flood control and water resources management group) expect that their budget shortage will total at 3.7 billion, which is 600 million more than agreed upon“.

So the Dutch are already coming up short at present. This does not mean that this will be the end result! At http://www.bnr.nl/nieuws/beurs/487506-1302/liveblog-economie-krimpt-begrotingstekort-naar-33-procent-in-2013, we see the mention that the Dutch will have a budget shortage of 3.3% in 2013 and 3.4% in 2014. How much of this is correct, and when were some projections made?

We see the Dutch news on how the American economy is down 2.9% and that Bank managers are now getting a sizeable raises, yet the overall shortages of the Dutch is not really discussed on sites with above average reliability (like the NOS). The only one in a ‘happy happy joy joy’ position is Germany who now seems to have a budget surplus. Again, the harsh cuttings Germany did from 2010 onwards paid off, but they seem to be the only one. France deficit was set at 4.1% for 2014, so as we see the list grow, is it truly a good idea to stay in the Euro group? Industrials might think this, but they will not be confronted with the financial measures that will hit the UK and its taxpaying citizens. I was at first in the same boat where I thought that going out of the Euro was a bad idea, but as we see the growing concern of nearly all EEC countries going over the deficit limit, can the UK afford to stay in there? Moreover, will staying in until 2017 turn out to be a dangerous issue?

This is part of the issues, which I have stated before. When, not if the American economy goes over the edge, those in deep debt will get a new approach to humility. That part is still a dangerous situation for the UK as well (with a balance of almost minus 1.5 trillion). So, the dangers of additional debts from Europe would cripple the UK as well. This is as I see it part of the reason why the UKIP got such a huge success. The bulk of the politicians and all the other parties have been dancing around the economic situation. Most people have noticed it and 26 months of ‘feigned’ economic recovery is nice for the industrials, yet the people have not seen ANY improvements in their lives, which is the centrepiece of all the stress out there. This is part of the situation all are avoiding.

If we consider the Independent (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-nigel-farage-and-ukip-are-deceiving-british-public-and-holding-back-the-unemployed-with-immigration-rhetoric-9472289.html) we see another side. I would be willing to agree with this, yet the voice of Ed Miliband is not giving decent clarity and David Cameron is voicing the need of big business (to a larger extent), they all are talking in their own fast lane and the people end up being not in any good place.

Even now, less than an hour ago, Ed Miliband is quoted by Reuters as ‘looking to shed the anti-business label‘, which gives a lot less security to the people. In this confusion Nigel Farage is cleaning house as he is stating what people seem to want to hear. The correct critique remains how truthful are his statements?

This is what is driving the people in regards to an exit strategy. As the news is playing a game of what I personally regard as ‘managing bad news’ in several nations, the people are catching up and losing faith in governments in general. This is partially driving the demand for a European exit. The people are losing faith in the ‘facts’ as presented, because good news gets overinflated, bad news is managed and the press seems to help out governments and big business in not giving proper tallies, as too many are depending on advertisement funds (often from Big Business). We all seem to watch a weighted scale. Under those conditions, many prefer to go it alone and see that part return. Let’s not forget that before the Euro, the UK was in a pretty good position. The entire mass flocking to UKIP are remembering those days and they are hoping that they will return to these days and UKIP is talking right into that alley of expectations.

In regards to the article with the quote involving Tony Blair “The answer to the white, working-class unemployed youth in alienated communities in Britain is not to tell them their problems would be solved if there were fewer Polish people working in the UK, he said“. I tend to agree, but the truth is that these Polish workers seem to be getting some jobs and this is causing more stress with those desperately seeking work. I am not voicing any anti-Polish thoughts, the question becomes how did they get those jobs and more important, if this is how some businesses are getting cheap labour, why is this not dealt with in regards to unfair working conditions. The Telegraph (never a great source for quality info) is publishing articles on how 10% of a company is Polish. This is getting to the people, who do not look at the whole picture. The Independent is bringing us a much better story quality wise (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/migrants-in-britain-a-decade-on-the-poles-who-brought-prosperity-9278710.html). The article by Emily Dugan shows the story of a Polish entrepreneur, who because a success through hard work, employing dozens of people. This Radomir Szwed shows another side, one that does not get illuminated that often. It is a story all should read, only to show that immigration is not a source of job losses, but one that brings jobs too, yet the Telegraph is not that likely to bring such a story.

All this brings us to a less appealing story in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/18/nigel-farage-far-right-european-parliament). As the power of Nigel Farage grows in regards to his European side whilst joining with former members of French ‘Front Nationale’ and a more extreme viewed Swedish party, the issues will continue. Even though there is debate on Nigel Farage, he sees himself as the person to voice the needs of Britain, a voice Prime Minister Cameron lost when his opposition to Juncker was defeated 26-2. If Nigel Farage delivers any victory for the British people in any way, the powers in the UK will change leaving the Tories very little options in regards to the EEC. Will David Cameron be forced to call an early vote to exit Europe? Perhaps Nigel Farage will have that option as he currently has the strongest options in Europe. However, not all is well in that regards either, now the votes are done, we see a splintering in what was a solid danger. Some are re-establishing themselves and some are defecting to the new Le Pen group. So, not all is quiet on the eastern front with the EEC.

These matters will bring question to any exit strategy we see on the European front. No matter what happens, until the people get some clear information on how the debts are, where they are and how deficits are going as well as their own options, there will be no relief. The party that brings the best story and adds true relief on the hardship the people in the UK currently have will get a massive spike in votes.

I am not sure any exit strategy will bring that, yet, when we consider the response by Richard Branson (at http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/why-an-exit-from-eu-would-be-bad-for-british-business), my response is that this is not a given either. If we see what some Commonwealth partners are agreeing to within the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership), then we are seeing how politicians seem to be lining American Big Business pockets, whilst not overly protecting the their own local interests. This will in the end hit back to the UK as well. Consider that these Trade Agreements are not at all discussed out in the open (which makes sense until some point is reached). It seems to me that the UK needs to talk to Australia, Canada and New Zealand at that point. Because not only will the TPP impact the UK, whomever signs the TPP could be in for a long rough spell whilst US and Japan will hunt down a new currency, which is no longer the dollar, but a currency named IPR (Intellectual Property rights). IPR will be the new gold over the next 10 years. Those who have enough of them survive.

This is the unspoken side of the exit strategy. As the EU is chained to the US in several ways, the UK must secure its future in any way it can, yes we must all get rid of our debts, but in equal measure the UK will rely on its entrepreneurs, which includes people like Radomir Szwed, that is the side UKIP is not really talking about and their immigration changes would have negatively impacted the UK.

I remain on the fence on whether the UK should or should not leave, but complete clarity is a must which is a side the press, in all their whining after the Leveson trials have remained awfully unclear about.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as big business, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Emily Dugan, FN, Front Nationale, Germany, IPR, Juncker, labour party, Nigel Farage, Prime Minister David Cameron, Radomir Szwed, reuters, Richard Branson, The Independent, The Telegraph, Tony Blair, TPP, Trans Pacific Partnership, UK, UKIP

June 29, 2014 · 11:05

What’s in a health system?

Another day, another view on the failings of an NHS system in the UK is presented through the newspapers. The interesting part is not that we read it or that we know about it, for the most it seems to be about a level of blind acceptance that the NHS system might soon be no more. We see more discussions (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/28/cameron-warned-nhs-in-danger-of-collapse). One quote is “the NHS needed an extra £15bn from the Treasury over the next five years ‘if you don’t want the system to collapse during the course of the next parliament’“. Now, that comes down to an additional 220 pounds for every person in the UK. The additional quote “The grim analysis is backed by some of the country’s top health experts“, Really? Is that the actual solution? Perhaps the UK has the ‘wrong’ experts in the field. First we see a 10 billion pound IT system that never works, then we get another failed infusion of 3 billion pounds. Could the issue perhaps be that throwing money at it is no longer a solution? In addition, in a greying economy, healthcare will be the most important thing over the next 10-15 years, so perhaps sitting down and designing a completely new NHS, then seeing how the old system could be migrated might be a much better idea (especially as the other ideas are not working).

“The quality of patient care will be compromised by not having enough doctors and nurses on the wards and in surgeries and clinics. The well-publicised failures of care at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation were caused by precisely this kind of cost cutting, with tragic consequences for the families concerned.” Is a quote that is in the article and I have a few issues with it. First of all, let’s take a look at the issue (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/28/mid-staffordshire-nhs-trust-fined-gillian-astbury), it is without any doubt a terrible event for the family. The quote “Mistakes were made as her ward underwent as many as eight shift changes and 11 drugs rounds per day. The system for handovers, when nurses arriving for the next shift should be informed of the needs of the patients, was ’inconsistent and sometimes non-existent’, the trust admitted.” So we can agree that there was a shortage, the point is, was it avoidable? This is where the issue starts. Throwing more money at it is NOT a solution, having 1 nurse per 5 patients is also a non-workable solution. The more people go into all this, the more time we see spend on handovers, with two sets of nurses getting/giving updates, not to mention the absolute fortune this setup will cost. I found the following (at http://straightstatistics.org/article/alcohol-related-hospital-admissions-set-tumble), it is about ‘Alcohol-related hospital admissions‘, the quote “If we limit the numbers to admissions wholly attributable to alcohol, the numbers have risen from 45,000 to 68,500, an increase of 52.2 per cent“. Really? Is that what doctors and nurses spend their time on? How about we change the approach to alcohol (and drugs for that matter) and take a page from the quotes of Ebenezer Scrooge “‘If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.’”

It seems harsh doesn’t it? Does it? Now consider the possibility that Gillian Astbury aged 66, might be alive if something is actually dome about the alcohol cases. We see a little more clarity (at http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/Resources/Documents/s/ss/SSPCTAlcoholneedsassessmentforStaffscountyJan08.pdf), where we find the quote “Trend data published by the West Midlands Public Health Observatory for selected alcohol admissions show that between 1999/00 and 2004/05 there was an increase in hospital admission rates by 40% for men and 30% for women across Staffordshire County“.

How about actually change people? So let’s do the following, a drunk in need is no longer given medical aid. If some youngling wants to be heroic and binge drink himself into a coma, then let his body fight it off in some cage (of course if they have money for private care, then that will be OK). If the body is unsuccessful, it will die. Plain and simple! We will call their mother telling them they should have raised them better and the case is closed. Consider the benefit of lower costs to the NHS, unemployment numbers will go down and we might even see an increase in rental options.

I know this is not a pretty picture, but these so called health experts need to see that the current course is no longer an option. We could do the same for the drug addicted population and get an even healthier commonwealth. The issue is not just the approach of certain people; it is the entire look that non-action gives all. Consider the PDF I added the linked to, in Table 9 (on page 26), we see a changed trend of 272%. So, almost three times as many go for the bottle in a group? The fact that this is not dealt with is a plain joke, especially as the NHS gets to clean up that mess in addition to dealing with the ‘actual‘ sick. There are alternatives! One is that all alcoholic beverages are raised by 23% taxation, which all goes to the NHS, which seems unfair to the population that can actually temper their alcohol use. The UK could instigate a Swedish approach to alcohol (also expensive), but you can only get hard liquor on an identity card, which gets registered and you cannot buy more than 2 bottles a month. Or we let the alcohol abusers die. You see, we can go in all directions, but most people, weak as they are, are unable to make the hard decisions and will force a situation where more money is given. This is fair enough, but then we add taxation, including to the lowest income bracket, to get more money for the NHS. Now, these same experts will tell you that this is not a solution either.

There is no choice; hard options will have to be selected in one way or another. It seems that steering clear of some zero tolerance options have been ignored for too long and those who are actually trying to get healthy so that they can contribute to family and society are dying, like Gillian Astbury. This part is however not shown to such a degree by the journalists at large. There is one more table to consider in that PDF. In table 19 we see that the total of the alcohol misusers cause a massive £1,701,900,000 to the UK health economy. So if we need cut backs, then here is one point seven billion in savings. Mr Prime minister! (I think I just earned my knighthood and a small cottage in saffron Walden) I think that the total savings in damages that these drinkers are causing is considerable larger than just to the health economy.

I am all for a better NHS, I am all for giving doctors and nurses a better tomorrow and if just throwing money at it would make that difference, then I would be all in favour of it, but there is almost 10 years of data disproving that, we see an NHS system that is rattled by big business (pharmacy and IT for example) and politicians and the approach as it is at present can no longer be maintained. Perhaps we need to make additional changes to the patients as well. The healthcare is all about keeping track of data and details, what if the patient becomes the data carrier? What if the nurse has a tablet with details and patient numbers, which is transferred to the new nurse and as they go over it, they can verify with the patient chip? When I go into ANY hospital, I see a multitude of papers, folders and more papers and people entering reports in computers and then printing it all. What if we take the next generation in solutions and take away 30% of that workload?

When people ask which company will do this, the answer should be ‘None!’. The UK is filled with universities, some of them regarded as the most prestigious and brightest on the planet. Consider that most IT people, might claim experience, yet their drama skills are the only ones that improved for the most, is it not up to the Universities, those who are introduced to the newest ideas, design a solution that would make the work of the doctors and nurses at the NHS better, slightly more efficient and a truckload of less hassle! Is that such a tall order?

We will get to the solutions if we are willing to navigate other options. We have seen that the current path is not a success; new methods might not be a failure. It is a road that politicians should be willing to go, if only to make sure that a possible solution was not overlooked.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Politics, Science

Tagged as David Cameron, doctors and nurses, Gillian Astbury, health, Mid Staffordshire, NHS, Saffron Walden, straightstatistics.org, Sweden, the Guardian, UK

June 15, 2014 · 10:50

Rising rates from just economy?

It is not always that one wakes up badly to ‘good’ news, but there you have it! When looking at http://news.sky.com/story/1281763/interest-rate-rise-signals-end-of-crisis, we see the changes that are now at odds when we consider the end of a crisis.

The question becomes, why am I not all in glorious ‘hurray!’ on this one? The economy is getting better, the time line which I proclaimed since early 2013 has indeed been correct. All these people following some economic analyst on half-baked data have been proven wrong, so why am I not happy?

That is because this has all to do with what we call in Australia ‘Fair Dinkum‘. I have always believed in this and matters are not in any dinkum stage and they are a lot less fair.

The quote “With the economy recovering faster than anticipated, analysts predict the interest rate hike could even come as early as this year” is at the heart of this. You see, the economy has become strangely unbalanced. As powers had been given to big business, leaving many nations with certain levels of legalised slavery, we see that their businesses are indeed getting better, there is more commerce and as such, things should be getting on par for all. There is the crux, ‘on par for all’. That is the part that is no longer in the stated cost of business. For those working people, who has not heard the following “this is for <insert name of large company>, we have to finish this off today“, “if we lose this client, we have to let go more staff members” or “we can’t afford to keep slackers around“. On average well over 80% of the workers will have heard these phrases in their work environment. The BBC published this in 2005 (at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4149835.stm). The quote “Britons work so much unpaid overtime they are, on average, providing their employers with free work for the equivalent of nearly eight weeks of the year“. That was in 2005. I feel certain that this number is a lot higher now. So, it comes to companies getting almost 20% of free workforce and they are not in any hurry to change these numbers, which makes for two dangerous issues. One is that as this had not been dealt with the effect of legalised slavery grows and grows, which in term stops these people from adding people to the workforce, which means that the unemployment rate is not dealt with, so the end of a crises is not yet in sight and rate rises give a signal that almost 10% of the UK population are about to get worse off. When we look at two quotes from the same BBC article “People don’t tend to feel resentful because the whole bonus and compensation system is geared up to rewarding people for their performance” and “The whole thing’s just money driven. If people don’t feel their bonus is reward enough they’ll just leave and go somewhere else“, these two quotes ignore several markers. One is that bonuses are often for management only and the people working overtime are not paid for it. The second marker is that the term ‘go somewhere else’ is often not even an option, which makes for these two observations to be inaccurate and also guiding marks to how office slavery tends to get legalised. These parts are only emphasised by the small fact the BBC mentioned “Londoners do the most – putting in 7hrs 54mins extra per week“, that adds up to one day a week of unpaid work ‘free labour for the manager‘, do you have any idea how many billions this adds up to?

So when we see the end of the crises motion, we should regard this as an additional signal that exploitation is quite possibly reaching an almost uncanny height!

Let me be blunt to ‘some’ extent, I am not against working an extra hour every now and then. This just shows dedication to your work, but an average of 8 hours a week is not dedication, but clear exploitation. It is interesting that no one is currently actively researching those bosses is it not?

So how did I get to this when we consider the quote in the Sky News article “the British economy is growing, that jobs are being created, and homes are being built, and that’s part of our economic plan“?

First we have the following BBC article (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27791749) stating the following “The number of people out of work fell by 161,000 to 2.16 million, bringing the unemployment rate down to 6.6%“, which is great news. The second quote to consider is “But the quarterly rate of earnings growth, including bonuses, slowed to 0.7% from 1.9% the previous month“. So, are these connected? Consider the following “The number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance in May fell by 27,400 to 1.09 million, the ONS said“. So the jobs created are not on par. Yes, there are less seeking a job seekers allowance, but that is not the only source. It seems that jobs are shifting, but how many people ended up with multiple jobs just to get the bills paid?

In my view the last quote gives us the angle “Weak pay growth and the ‘cost of living crisis’ remains the Achilles heel of the economic recovery, said Chris Williamson, chief economist at Markit.” This is where the elements meet. Yes, the UK is getting stronger, but what side is getting stronger? If we consider those happy to even have a job and working one day a week for no pay, then the bosses are mighty happy, yet when we consider the payments required getting by, we see a dangerous side that is now rearing its ugly head. I think it is important EVERYWHERE in the Commonwealth that we do not end up with some kind of Wal-Mart example, where the working people ending up on food stamps and government support because their income still keeps them below the poverty line. Whatever the republic on the other side of the Pacific river (for people in the UK it is that nation on the other side of the Atlantic river) wants to do, but we as children of the British Empire (I like the old titles at times) have a sworn duty to ourselves and to our sovereign Queen to make lives better for all of us as well as for our country. We do not deny our bosses their profits, but they are required to give us the fair share of our labour, unpaid overtime to the extent it is pushed onto many of us is massively unacceptable.

It is perhaps the one blemish that is still undealt with if we consider the following (at https://www.gov.uk/overtime-your-rights/overview), where it states “Employers don’t have to pay workers for overtime. However, employees’ average pay for the total hours worked mustn’t fall below the National Minimum Wage” I think it is up to the Prime Minister (David Cameron) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (George Osborne) to change that part into “Employers don’t have to pay workers for overtime. However, employees’ total overtime hours worked must never exceed 10% of the paid hours worked a week”. I just saved the people in London half a day of non-paid working hours, which might get more people into jobs as well.

I will of course as per today humbly accept my knighthood (should it be offered).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

Tagged as BBC, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chris Williamson, David Cameron, George Osborne, Markit, ONS, Sky News, unemployment rate, unpaid overtime, Wal-Mart, www.gov.uk

January 15, 2014 · 02:44

My £13,000,000 invoice!

I got a ‘nice’ wakeup call just now, as I was reading an article in the guardian. It is at www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/14/ministry-of-defence-failed-computer-system. The title “Ministry of Defence ‘wasted millions on failed computer system’” got my attention. The UK is riddled with IT people trying to get a decent job. This article implied with quotes like “The recruitment partnering project, a £1.3bn scheme intended to enable the army to recruit online, is almost two years behind schedule and will not be fully operational until April 2015 at the earliest, the Times said.”

Now, I understand that the MoD does things a little different and that this online approach takes a little time and money, but the fact that the cost of this system is more than the personnel costs of an entire regiment for 50 years (take into account that most IT solutions are usually set for a lifetime span of no more than 10 years) gives weight to the issue that it is time to go public. The additional quote “the problems are so serious that defence secretary Philip Hammond is considering spending nearly £50m on a new solution.” gives weight to my response “You pay me 10% of that and I will assist in getting the issue sorted”

You see, any IT project is basically simple.

What must be done and by what date?
What must it cover?
What are you willing to spend?
Document the agreement and sign it by all parties!

The rest is usually political manoeuvring. (I apologise for oversimplifying the problem)

The fact that the article implied that the costs were a billion plus, gives the impression that the entire military network system got overhauled. This leaves us with the thought that there is a decent chance that Sir Iain Lobban of GCHQ is laughing himself to death reading about these events, so perhaps the loud honing laughter will move Defence to take a harsh look at themselves in the cold light of these events.

Do not get me wrong. I know that IT solutions tend to cost, and things get delayed, but this is about recruiting people, the price is implied to be set at thirteen hundred million pounds and it is already 2 years late. So, why was any amount paid in regards to a failed system? It is of course likely that those who delivered had a quality ironclad contract in place, yet the mentioned amount is extremely out of proportion compared to the non-working delivery.

The next quote is also one that opens debate “If the ICT hosting solution is not put in place then the MoD risks not gaining the appropriate number of recruits needed. Given recent criticism of army recruitment … and the use of reserves, this would lead to further negative media reporting and reputational damage for MoD.” So, the 2 year delay was not a clear indication of issues? I reckon that the spending of well over a billion on a non-working system is more than enough for laughter, ridicule and reputation damage for the MoD for a long time to come.

To put this all in perspective take a look at this quote from the Guardian made in August 2013 (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/aug/01/gchq-spy-agency-nsa-edward-snowden). The quote is “GCHQ now has liaison officers working inside MI5, MI6 and the Soca, the serious and organised crime agency. It takes the lion’s share of the £1.9bn budget for Britain’s intelligence services” so basically, the MoD blew on a non-working recruitment option, the amount that GCHQ needs to keep it completely operational (for a year).

Seems a little out of whack, does it not?

Now for some other fun facts! Recruitment is all about creating interest. Now consider that the cost to make a multiplatform next-gen video game is £15-£25 million pound. So, the youthful player could get introduced to all kinds of positions, challenges, military functions and so on. The development is when compared to what is wasted less than 2% of those costs. More interesting, it could be sold at the newsagent for £5. The MoD could break even, or even make some money too (which would definitely be a nice change). It is a game and it might not have all of the information, but together with an information website loaded with PDF’s, application information and a registration bank should never have exceeded £80 million, from what I envision at present (including the game development). Why was this solution not hosted via GCHQ? The people at the MoD might know of the place, it is in Cheltenham and it looks like a massive donut (Yummy!). It has better security and more options for facilitation than most secure banks can dream of (GCHQ is not to be confused with the NSA, where you can copy all data to a USB stick at your own convenience).

So, do I have a case here? Actually, it was not me, but The Times, who started it, and the Guardian for giving it the visibility that goes far beyond the UK borders.

I must try to be neutral in these matters and very likely the article is missing key elements considering the amount involved, but seeing how 1 in 7 in the UK lives below poverty on one side, whilst on the other side a billion plus is wasted to this degree is extremely upsetting. I have proudly worked in IT since 1981 and seeing events like these, just do not cut it with me and it should not cut it with you, the reader either.

There is however a little more. “This leaked report points to the latest series of catastrophic failures at the Ministry of Defence on David Cameron’s watch.” is a quote I have an issue with. The fact that it is 2 years late means that this was supposed to be finished late 2011. When was the project started? Who were the people starting this, who was involved? It is of course possible that this was all on the conservative watch, yet, that must still be verified. The mention in the article of “after failing in 2011 to challenge a MoD policy” on the article gives rise to the thought that this has for a large part been an internal MoD failing. In addition “The project management team was inexperienced and under-resourced and the army failed to take charge when delays started and put in a suitable contingency plan.” gives way to my four step issue. The first two steps, as I mentioned it, also cover resources, the fact that this was not met means that the failing was on more than one level. Who at the MoD was involved? Was this person aware of the required skillset?

All questions that should have risen with any senior decision maker before the project was accepted and the checklists should have tripped several ‘alarms’ as the project was going forward. The fact that the large amount had been ‘lost’ indicates that none of these issues were factually dealt with.

The article raises a few more questions, but the horror should be clear. It will keep on costing more for now and before Labour starts ‘calling’ for botched jobs, they should take a look at the issues we saw in 2010 (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labours-computer-blunders-cost-16326bn-1871967.html). From that part we get the clear idea that infrastructure and policies alone are not getting IT choices done. Knowledge is likely to fix that; you just need to make sure the right person is on the job.

With the amount that has been spent, I feel comfortable sending them with my 13 million pound invoice.
(Payment within 30 days for this consult would be appreciated, as I have to pay my bar bill).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Military, Politics

Tagged as Cheltenham, David Cameron, GCHQ, Ministry of Defence, MoD, NSA, Philip Hammond, Sir Iain Lobban, the Guardian, The Independent, The Times

January 14, 2014 · 15:40

Frack off?

Fracking, it has been a large issue in the Netherlands, now it is starting to get grounds on several levels in the UK. Some of the shown issues can be found at http://news.sky.com/story/1194087/fracking-cameron-offers-councils-drill-money. The first paragraph gives us two of several issues connected to this, as is stated “David Cameron has announced £1.7m for councils which agree to drill for shale gas sparking angry protests from campaigners who say it amounts to little more than bribery.”

The issue is whether the environmental issues are dealt with. The incentive is a powerful one, and the complication is that this is now business against the future, not the consequences set against the present.

Why am I stating this?

One part of that evidence is coming from the Netherlands. The NOS stated “De gaswinning in Groningen leidde dit jaar tot een recordaantal aardbevingen.Gemiddeld twee keer per week: in totaal 127 keer. ” [Translated: the gathering of shale gas through fracking has led to a record amount of earthquakes. At present they are hit with two earthquakes a week, a total of 127 quakes]. The fracking as it is happening under direction of the Dutch NAM is having serious consequences. The quakes have been as high as a 3.7 on the Richter scale. The political field is still all open on finding some way to make this all continue in the Netherlands, which amounts to a strong devaluation of a unique architectural form in the Netherlands. In addition, on November 1st 2013 the following was also quoted by the NOS. “de Nederlandse aardoliemaatschappij NAM zo’n 900 miljoen euro voor compensatie moeten uittrekken.” [Translated: the NAM would have to pay 900 million euro in compensations, dealing with these damages].

[Addition] One reader had issues with the translation as mentioned earlier. In the literal sense, the commenter was correct, yet the information the commenter had not been aware of was (at http://www.nam.nl/nl/technology-and-innovation/optimization-natural-gas/fracking.html). There is however another issue I add to this (25th January 2014). The quote “De techniek wordt al sinds de jaren ’50 regelmatig en succesvol toegepast in Nederland.” [Translated: The technique has been used regularly and succesfully since the 50’s.] The latter part is important for two reasons. First is that fracking had been used a lot longer and in addition, when I grew up there were no earthquakes in the Netherlands (at least none that I was aware of). So what other factors are part of the escalations in the Netherlands? Just more drilling?

Has David Cameron (and his advisers) taken these costs into account? Let’s not forget that Groningen is one of the lesser populated counties in the Netherlands. We are talking about a county with just over 510,000 people, compared to the national population of almost 17 million. Consider these numbers when fracking will commence all over Britain, especially in the southern parts the UK.

Now, the UK does not have the soft ground that is found in the Netherlands, yet the dangers will not be any less. When we look at the quote that Sky News gave us in the earlier mentioned article “The Government estimates the industry could attract £3.7bn a year in investment and support 74,000 jobs.” ‘Could’ is not a given, neither is the damage that the Netherlands are currently facing. I do however wonder about the short sighted look on 3.7 billion, when the UK is dealing with a 1 trillion debt. Now, as I mention this, you will think that this is all a good thing to have something that lowers the total debt and I would agree. However, consider the next quote, also from Sky News “A Local Government Association spokesman said: ‘Given the significant tax breaks being proposed to drive forward the development of shale gas and the impact drilling will have on local communities, these areas should not be short-changed by fracking schemes.’”

So, these companies get even more tax breaks? Remember the old days? A company was visionary and had a good idea. There was no tax break and the tax paying people did not have to pay for their short-sightedness, once it reared its ugly head. Now, the topic of ‘tax break’ seems to be the introduction to any investment conversation. It is better than gambling as it is legally permitted. If it goes wrong they have no worry as no taxes are due, if they win they avoid massive taxation, a slightly rigged game, so to speak.

There are additional issues. Some of the environmentalists talk about the contamination of ground water as well as depletion of fresh water. It is hard to comment on those two claims as I am no expert on it. In one part, groundwater contamination could be avoided if it is properly investigated, yet the 1.7 million pound handout as mentioned in the very beginning could be cause to less vigorous investigation. If so, when the cost of living goes up for those drinking bottled water from 70 pence to lets say 125 pence per 1,5 liter, the issue will then become a colossal one, at which time it will be too late to do anything about it.

In the end, we must acknowledge that these risks have not been proven and as such the calamities the Netherlands are currently facing in Groningen should be investigated in regards to the risks that could exist for the UK. The latest statement by David Cameron “David Cameron said the Government was ‘going all out for shale’” does not qualify as evidence in either direction, but the economic state as it is faced by both Cameron and Osborne implies that they do not seem to be moving in a cautious direction.

The next quote to look at is “Mr Cameron’s announcement comes as the French energy giant Total has announced it will invest millions with a 40% interest in two shale gas exploration licences in the UK.” It is interesting how much France would like to get into this field in the UK, yet they suspended three gas exploration permits in France (exploration is just looking, not active drilling on a production level). There is something to be said for the expression not soiling one’s own bed. Other reports states that fracking would be at the centre of all kinds of water pollution issues. I reckon that being on an island, hazarding once water supply is just not advisable.

If we look at the BBC news (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25705550) we see the final quote. “Councils that back fracking will get to keep more money in tax revenue“. Sky News mentioned the same thing, yet when we look at the tax breaks offered and the possible damages that someone has to pay for, in the end, how much of all that diminished cash will end up in the coffers of the British Empire?

There are loads of considerations and I have strong feelings that only the spread sheet boys have looked at this picture. I wonder how much positivity remains once the fixers, engineers and water boys have taken a deep look at the consequences of this entire endeavour.

Fracking is bad and sees to have dangerous very long term consequences. There is no doubt that there are a few places in the UK where this could be done without harmful consequence. Yet, the French view (pre French super debt date) has been cautious as they have a lot to lose. That cautious approach should have been taken for the Netherlands and the UK should follow along that same path. The realist in me also knows that under these heavy economic pressured the environment will most likely lose, it remains doubtful whether the population will ever get to see a clear and complete picture in regards to the cost of doing business in this regard and fracking could become the most expensive form of business we ever knew.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as BBC, David Cameron, earthquakes, Fracking, George Osborne, Groningen, NAM, Netherlands, Shale gas, Sky News

Tag Archives: David Cameron

Recent Posts

Archives