Tag Archives: House of lords

July 2, 2016 · 16:10

Remembering Facts!

The Guardian brings us an article. Not a news article, but an opinion article, that difference is relevant! The article ‘A warning to Gove and Johnson – we won’t forget what you did‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/01/boris-johnson-and-michael-gove-betrayed-britain-over-brexit) is a view. In this case a view by Jonathan Freedland. To get the goods, it is nice to add the by-line of Jonathan. It reads: “Jonathan Freedland is a weekly columnist and writer for the Guardian. He is also a regular contributor to the New York Review of Books and presents BBC Radio 4’s contemporary history series, The Long View. In 2014 he was awarded the Orwell special prize for journalism. He has also published eight books including six bestselling thrillers, the latest being The 3rd Woman. He tweets @freedland“, so this is a person with knowledge and education. The fact that his bestsellers are thrillers could give rise to that notion that this is an artistic man, all fair enough!

So let’s take a look at his views here. I start with the quote “a distraction diverting us from the betrayal larger than any inflicted by one Tory bigwig on another. Now that the news cycle is measured in seconds, there’s a risk that 23 June might come to feel like history, that we might move on too soon. But there can be no moving on until we have reckoned with what exactly was done to the people of these islands – and by whom“. He has a point, yet only to a certain extent. Now we add “Gove, Nigel Farage and Gisela Stuart: they couldn’t have done it without the star power of Boris” and we have ourselves a game. You see, my view opposes this. Yes, Boris might be wealthy and have star power, but let’s be honest, how seriously should we take Boris? As Mayor of London, London grew and thrived and we should remember that Boris had an advantage, he was able to work of the momentum that Ken ‘Red’ Livingstone created. Yet none of that mattered, because Jonathan is going the same route that other members of the press are going. They are trivialising the events of Brexit, the events that drove most of the nation in a direction large corporation’s fear. None of them are addressing the paths of treason that EU politicians have been walking. A path of blind overspending, with no accounting for the acts that they empower. Jonathan, this is a massive part in all this. Did you actually forget about that? Have you seen the map of where Brexit people are? They are not in London, they are not in the large places, they are all over the UK, people who have been in hard places and have seen nothing from their political parties. I warned clearly for all that for 2 years and I was proven right! That is the first part of all this. People who lost their quality of life, whilst Greece gets bailout after bailout. Billions, whilst the political player’s responsible get a free pass, to enjoy the bonus that follows unmonitored spending by the hundreds of billions. That is a Europe no one wants and for the most, the people of the UK do not want to be a part of that any more. And a little surprise is that the people in France are feeling the same way.

Now, you can have a go at Boris for all you like, but making fun of the court jester tends to lose its feeling of humour soon after that.

Now let’s take a look at the quote that makes you lose the plot. When we see “He knew it was best for Britain to remain in the EU. But it served his ambition to argue otherwise. We just weren’t meant to fall for it. Once we had, he panicked, vanishing during a weekend of national crisis before hiding from parliament. He lit the spark then ran away – petrified at the blaze he started“, when exactly did he run away? The fact that you claim that he knew that it was best for Britain to remain in the EU is a first flaw, even if we do not consider his essay in the Independent, you seem to steer clear of overspending for the most of the article and in other articles you wrote earlier. Yet you add the one player to the entire issue that has been a true element of worry. When you state “The outlook for the economy is so bleak, the governor of the Bank of England talks of “economic post-traumatic stress disorder.” The Economist Intelligence Unit projects a 6% contraction by 2020, an 8% decline in investment, rising unemployment, falling tax revenues and public debt to reach 100% of our national output“, I wonder how this quote can trusted? You see, there are two parts in this, the first part is that Mark Carney is talking about a ‘economic post-traumatic stress disorder‘, which is fair enough, Brexit has a massive impact and people will be uncertain, doubtful and at times fearful about what comes next. Mark Carney himself spoke clearly at the House of Lords that there would be risks.

There I agreed wholeheartedly, Mark Carney could not predict the consequences, which I accept and respect, yet I leaned still the smallest part towards Brexit because I feared the blatant overspending of Mario Draghi a lot more than the downdraft that Brexit would cause within the UK.

After that first part Jonathan changes course and adds the speculations of the ‘The Economist Intelligence Unit‘ in the end I regard that to be a financial puppet, part of Schroeder plc, a British multinational asset management company. Schroeder needs Bremain (desperately), so it could maximise its profits. Did you, the reader consider that? Did you consider that we see speculations running into 2020, whilst there is absolutely no way to make any level of reliable predictions past 2017? In addition, if France does get its referendum, which is still realistic, it does not matter what President Hollande states today and last week. There are clear numbers showing that well over 60% of the French population is not in favour of the EU at present. I cannot tell how much of it is due to French National pride and how much of it is due to realisation that the EU is not bringing France any benefits and has not been doing so for some time now. There is a growing realisation that it was just to appease America and the need to counter with one currency (or at least a lot less than 7 major currencies).

All elements that can be read from many reliable news sources, all events that Jonathan Freedland seems to ignore (which is his right). I agree that there are issues with Brexit, there always would be and Boris Johnson was never the most serious party to listen to, but Michael Gove was a serious reason and even if we ignore Nigel Farage for the most, he started Brexit reasoning on sound issues, those issues were that the EU have become an administrative hindrance and not a gateway to opportunity for all, just for large corporations getting more and more loopholes, these parts he proved!

As stated, I remained on the fence for the longest of times and Mark Carney almost brought me back into the Bremain side, yet when we see the economic threats and fear mongering from elements like Peter Harrison (aka Big Cheese of Schroeder’s) we need to wonder who is serving who.

This is why I made sure that you realise that this was an opinion article in the Guardian. Jonathan writes up a good storm (6 bestsellers will give ample experience in this) and he is entitled to his vision and version of what he regards to be the facts. I need to get to the final part with the quote he offers “the appalling sight of Gove on Friday, proclaiming himself a proud believer in the UK even though it was obvious to anyone who cared to look that a leave vote would propel Scotland towards saying yes in a second independence referendum. The more honest leavers admit – as Melanie Phillips did when the two of us appeared on Newsnight this week – that they believe the break-up of the union is a price worth paying for the prize of sovereignty“, is a fair call, but I do not agree. You see, I have stated for around 2 years that we as a Commonwealth need to truly unite, especially in light of the utter idiotic acts by the US and its greed and need for whatever they do not have. First the US sets the stage of overspending and now that they are bankrupt they are trying to change the rules of the game by giving all rights to big business whilst drowning small innovators behind a high threshold. In that same light consider the ‘another Scottish independence referendum’. There is already ample evidence that Scotland cannot survive independence because they cannot set a proper budget. Making Scotland the next Greece to be. Is that fair? Well, it would be the result of short minded acts at present. It is even less clear why an independence would be pursued when you consider the quote “Its trade within the UK now makes up nearly two-thirds of its overall exports, worth £48.5bn, compared with only 15% with the EU” and until Scotland grows its opportunity to have a balanced budget without the oil, any option to survive will be a non-existing one. A united Commonwealth would better Scotland a lot more, especially if Scotland becomes India’s beachhead for growing its interest in Western-Europe and Scandinavia. I personally still believe that Scotland has options, but yes, it is speculative from my side. My question becomes, why is Scotland not growing its business options?

Now, there is a chance that Jonathan is right and the ‘Union’ will break up to some extent. I don’t believe it to be overly realistic, but I have learned to remain cautious when ‘national’ pride is in play and the Scots are proud beyond believe. I have been in favour of them growing independently but I was not in favour of the referendum. The reason was that Scotland cannot hold its budget and would grow only in debt from the moment it went it alone. Even if the oil would remain at the current price, that voice would not be good. The oil fields are producing a little less and only if Scotland could get a balanced budget without the oil would they stand a reasonable chance. That was not to be! Which is why my view is the way it is regarding Scotland.

So as we are remembering facts, we need to add another element, one that has been ignored by the press at large! That can be seen in an article (at https://www.cchdaily.co.uk/frc-look-pwc-audit-bhs). It is one side I have been on the hunt for, for some time now. You see, the issue with Tesco is one that makes me wonder why PwC is allowed to remain in business The quote “The regulator is already investigating PwC’s handling of another retailer’s accounts, after Tesco discovered a £263m ‘black hole’ related to the way supplier payments were booked. This FRC inquiry is looking at Tesco’s financial statements for the years ended 25 February 2012, 23 February 2013 and 22 February 2014 and the firm’s ‘conduct in relation to the matters reported in the company’s interim results for the 26 weeks ended 23 August 2014’” we should have a tidal wave of questions, not just towards the Guardian, but basically towards all newspapers who have been eagerly ignoring the issue past the initial events of 2014. We see part of this in a book called ‘Deep Integration: How Transatlantic Markets are Leading Globalization‘ (Daniel Sheldon Hamilton, Joseph P. Quinlan, 2005) we see on page 200 “the introduction of more stringent listing rules on national stock exchanges and the enforcement of the IFRA, enforcement of accounting rules in the EU is still national and there is no EU enforcement body“, in addition on that same page we get “even though the Committee of European Security Regulators (CESR) plays an important role, it does not have ‘EU enforcement leverages’ or the necessary authority to allow for accounting standards across both sides of the Atlantic offering equivalence“, now remember that this was published in 2005. The title ‘Aiming for Global Accounting Standards‘ by Kees Camfferman and Stephen A. Zeff released in 2015 show that this is still a hot potato not dealt with, so as we all know how important the issue is, my slightly less political correct question becomes “Why the fuck do we have an EU to begin with?” Does that question make sense?

You see, part of the facts are that any nation can grow when proper taxation is levied so that a nation can make sure that its citizens gets ample health care, education and support. Big business has been quite successful to avoid doing their bit and hiding behind globalisation and non-taxation. Wealth management, accounting firms and other players have been maximising their profits through the EU. They need their houses, cars, hookers and dope to remain ego-central (learnings from ‘Inside Job (2010)‘). I feel that the UK as a nation, no longer hindered by the EU can actually grow its nation and grow its national side, a side that most large corporations dread. Now, this latter part is speculative on my side. Yet, in light of what Jonathan Freedland writes, is it less valid, or is it incorrect?

I am asking you because you should do what is right, what is best for you and your family. So as you consider how ‘well’ you might be in an EU, consider how the large corporations are all about ‘what is best for business’, they are true, but their truth is about maximising profits for them, their board of directors and THEIR shareholders. Yet there are a few more parts to look at. In this regard and in light of what a few other European nations are doing, I would like to call for John Oliver (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh0ac5HUpDU). The UK most famous Ashton Villa fan known for ‘Last Week Tonight‘ seems to have mindset that is sharper than a scalpel. He gives good voice and brings comedy the way we can appreciate this.

At 0:21 we get the horse meat reference, which is nice as it is the EU rules that seems to have been central in getting cheap meat from places like Poland only to realise that some places regard Bovine and Equine as one and the same, which is interesting as only Scrabble should value Horsemeat and Equine above Bovine. At 1:08 he gives blame to David Cameron regarding the referendum, yet, he negates to mention that the public at large wanted one. At that point there was a threat that Brexit could happen, but there were no convincing numbers it would pass. Tactically David Cameron made a sound decision. The problem came from Italy in the shape of Mario Draghi as he decided to play Stimulus Claus spending trillions and 2 days before the elections he decided to voice his willingness to spend even more in the months to come. Spend it where? The UK? Not likely. So the EU, the ECB and financial Status Quo fans decided to spend money that they never had in the first place. The British population at large have had enough of that as do people all over Europe. Now we see scores of sore losers request a new referendum. Hoping that the initial bad news cycle, which would always happen, will scare the minimum 2% into the Bremain side. How is that democratic? So at 1:55 we get the Independence Day references, which is funny when you consider that the sequel launched on the same day as the referendum. Yet the truth is still in that part, many nations have been ‘hindered’ by EU rules on several fields, including immigrant rapists that cannot be evicted because they have a right to a family life. Which is an extreme example. What is more important is that the EU is unable and unwilling to hold overspending governments to account, the EU itself is overspending by trillions, so there is a common theme here. Money existing or not must flow, which is utterly unacceptable and it should be unacceptable to everyone. Still, John Oliver remains entertaining and he never lies to you. I agree that the quote on 350 million to the NHS is overstated, but not irrelevant, because the NHS surely needs it, yet the fact that all 100% went there is wishful thinking. Perhaps political wishful thinking, which tends to be not too realistic and Nigel Farage could never guarantee that. Fair call and an open opportunity for comedy, John Oliver took it. Yes, he is correct, the UK will be in for a rough EU, we all knew that this would happen and other questions remain. Yet the number one issue is not addressed, it is the overspending of a number of elements, one issue that too many people have. Just like PwC, issues not covered and all the media is now hiding behind comedians regarding ‘less educated voters‘. The truth is not given, the facts are not shown. Hiding behind the few that do not represent the populous. How are those facts looking?

Just remember that the Media at large seems to need large financial and large corporations, so how are we told the truth? I can only advice you to look around, learn the facts and question everything you read, including what I write here. I believe that I am honestly informing you, but you should not accept that premise as a given.

Only when you are critical of everything, will you possibly discover the truth of anything.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as Aiming for Global Accounting Standards, Ashton Villa, Boris Johnson, Brexit, CESR, Daniel Sheldon Hamilton, David Cameron, Deep Integration: How Transatlantic Markets are Leading Globalization, ECB, Eu, France, Frexit, Gisela Stuart, Greece, House of lords, IFRA, John Oliver, Jonathan Freedland, Joseph P. Quinlan, Kees Camfferman, Last Week Tonight, Mario Draghi, Mark Carney, Melanie Phillips, Michael Gove, NHS, Nigel Farage, Peter Harrison, President Hollande, PwC, Schroeder plc, Stephen A. Zeff, Tesco, the economist, The Economist Intelligence Unit, the Guardian

June 4, 2016 · 14:17

Your Affordable Front door Key

There was an interesting article in the Guardian yesterday (at http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/jun/03/london-foreign-investors-money-housing-property). The article has a missing side, but that is not in question. You see Dawn Foster is illuminating an essential side. The issue ‘housing without xenophobia‘ is well found and well-founded too, all rounded and informative. An excellent piece. My side is not of opposition, but on a part she did not pause on (which was never a requirement).

The quote “they drone about how “Britain is full”” is one you need to remember, you probably will because the average UKIP person will hammer it to an uninterested audience on a daily basis. The second quote is probably one of the most brilliant ones “Britain is not “full” and very little of the country is built upon. With an ageing demographic, we need our population to expand; and with birth rates declining, immigration will be key to propping up the economy, the NHS and the care industry“, I agree with Dawn, but in that light she does not acknowledge that London is actually ‘full’, that part is nearly a given. Nearly being the operative word as the bulk of the UK population can’t afford to live there. There are plenty of other places where people in the UK cannot live, because the prices have gone up by too much. You see, the silent part in this article is all around ‘affordable housing’.

Dawn does illustrate this in the quote “But the most pernicious and covert xenophobia in the housing debate concerns “foreign ownership”. The amount of overseas investment, particularly in the London housing market, is increasing. Empty towers owned by foreign money are also an issue, because they ramp up house prices and concentrate construction on luxury suites rather than family homes and flats for first-time buyers” and she emphasises the need for housing to be affordable. Yet, I ‘accuse’ her of remaining silent? How come?

Well, first of all, her article was not required to ponder on it, perhaps we the readers should be doing that. The UK must soon, if not as early as yesterday amend the investment rules regarding real estate and investments. You see Dawn is not the first person getting close to the issue. There was David Batty, who is not as batty as some say he is (at http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/jan/30/luxury-london-homes-86m-social-housing), where we see on January 30^th of this year “A Treasury spokesman said: “This government is already taking strong action to ensure fairness in the housing market and help people on to the housing ladder. In 2014 we introduced a higher rate of stamp duty for properties over £1.5m and from April 2016 additional properties will face additional rates of stamp duty. This will enable us to double the affordable housing budget”“, which makes me wonder how far those plans are coming along. In April of this year (at http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/20/london-housing-crisis-sub-prime-problem-super-prime), Anna Minton reminds us with “Down the road from Balfron, Peter and Alison Smithson’s Robin Hood Gardens, also internationally acclaimed, failed in its bid to gain listing, and is now one of dozens of estates, housing tens of thousands of people around London, facing imminent demolition“, we should not forget to carefully ponder the quote “While David Cameron has heavily promoted the sink estate narrative to justify “estate regeneration” – essentially a euphemism for demolition – Lord Adonis (PS not the same person Greece refers to), the former Labour minister appointed by George Osborne to chair the national infrastructure commission, is given to blunter statements, having made it clear that a central reason to knock down London’s estates is that they are sitting on “some of the most expensive land in the world”“, it is there that we see the problems and the issues for London and for the UK. The part ‘the most expensive land in the world‘ comes from a push we saw in the 80’s. I remember those times really well. Here is an actual decent quote from the Telegraph (who knew): “Mrs Thatcher and her Chancellor Geoffrey Howe confronted the recession in a very brutal way. Rather that cut taxes, they raised them, and rather than increase Government spending, they slashed it“, written by Angela Monaghan. It is not unlike the days the UK is facing right now, people have forgotten that from that era new wealth was created, in similar light, the politicians have forgotten that life in those days was at least to some extent affordable when we consider the UK rents, so there is the issue that is unspoken, we need to cap certain events, not in light of some assumptionary value of land, but to a value where we count the value on how many people are housed within that area. That is where we need to see the changes to investment taxation when it comes to real estate. So what if this balance is not a seesaw as we often approach it, what if it is more like a Balancing Bird Center of Gravity (at http://www.amazon.com/Balancing-Center-Gravity-Physics-Colors/dp/B0019LNESE)? So as the body and tail of the bird is the lucrative side of investment property as foreign investors see it, than the affordable housing part would be represented by the size of the wings. The fairness of not opposing ‘profit’ for those foreign and domestic investors, but to carry their profit they need to invest into the wings and quite a large amount too. Of course, that could mean that the wings are not in London, but that would not be the worst part would it? In the end those houses are also part of their fortune, whether it is rent to own, the foundation of those investors becoming housing corporations or even the start of a new British housing dynasty. They will grow into long term investors and growing the need the UK has for affordable housing, which is where we see the highly needed balance of profit and endurance.

That is the silent non addressed issue. That part should have been dealt with for the longest of amounts. One of the articles mentions Heygate Estate, we see the area of Walworth, Southwark, and South-London as a housing project, but what it became was even worse than a failure. The fact that it required to be demolished 40 years later, only 40 years later is the huge issue. The idea of modernisation was overshadowed by many issues, yet in this light is the clarity that the buildings failed to foster a sense of community. In my view it seems to image a prison estate. Modernisation without elegance fosters alienation plain and simple. Architect Tim Tinker stated: “farrago of half-truths and lies put together by people who should have known better” (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-23371735), yet who are those people? You see, when you place people in such a massive proximity, you negate the need for what I regard to be ‘spacious privacy‘. You might not comprehend this, or at least some of you will not, but when you are in an office, try to relate to people working in cubicles, those people tend to be different. Isolation in a work environment creates a different form of segregation. There is actually a decent blog article on the matter (at https://www.tradegecko.com/blog/open-office-beneficial-detrimental), I think that there is another layer at work. The writer states this on the open Facebook/Google culture “They are popular and effective no doubt, but only work because their office layouts align with their company culture and caters to diverse staff needs“, here I do not completely agree. Yes, he is stating a correct fact, but an incomplete one. You see, in an open environment we do not only work our way, work in open space and in cohesion, it works because these people work with the need to consider the work of others. That is where these housing projects are an issue. As there is a lack of community, consideration takes a downturn for the worse more and more. Yes, it can breed inconsideration, crime and anti-social behaviour, but is that actually happening or is that only happening in the mind of the other person, the fear of hardship due to isolation? Only the people who lived there would be able to tell for certain.

It is a mere question and the question matters because that is a psychological event that has been known LONG BEFORE that housing project became to be. I personally believe that if the project was more spacious, with a small Tesco mall in the middle with a lower population on such an area, I reckon (an assumption on my side) that a critical population point was surpassed here. I do not have the skills or the math to help you in that regard, it is only speculation from my side. However, to see housing to be demolished after merely 40 years shows a larger problem, problems with planning, with execution and perhaps even with the quality. Whatever it is, this needs to be done better and it needs to be done soon and adjusting foreign investments is the only clear way to do this (so far four administrations have been a failure in this). The issue as I see it is that Margaret Thatcher was the last one truly working on affordable housing. Some state that this started to happen in 1997, whilst there is enough evidence that the flat line was as early as 1991, making the starting point of this issue whilst the power was in the hands of Sir John Major, the fact that this continued during what we now laughingly refer to as New Labour. Even as we accept that a lot was done under the Thatcher government, we have to raise the issue that several of them after 40 years are now changing hands and getting pushed into other projects, making the costs 40 years ago high and might be regarded as a bad investment. This is here we are now, the need for affordable housing and no solution in sight, especially when the government is well over a trillion short. Foreign investors could be the solution, but it will require a different kind of investor. Now, we will hear on how those investors will consider it bad investment and walk away, because plenty of them are all about short term gains. I am stating that we do not deny them the gains, we just want them to be longer term, especially with the massive tax breaks they enjoy. They can feel free to move to the US and invest there, but when that 18 trillion debt collection falters their investments could collapse or be held against much higher tariffs making the United Kingdom the best option for a safe investment, even if it is not short term. And if they back off there will be other new millionaires jumping at the chance of a long term gain with a long term balance of value and increased exposure as welcomed new wealth.

The BBC is showing us the reality of the mess that affordable housing has given its tenants: “An entire community has been forcibly displaced for the sake of mere land value speculation“, which is the failing of three governments and a really inadequate planning department, not to mention that in all this the House of Lords equally failed its citizens by not adjusting the balance against such greed driven motives. In addition, after a long term of playing Ping Pong with the Hose of Commons, we see that projects are set to readjusting, which would make sense, but the fact that the tenants are ‘forcibly displaced for the sake of mere land value‘, whilst the tenants are partially the reason for the increase in value gives weight that these tenants should not have been allowed to be displaced, but should have been awarded an exchange to a similar sized apartment at no extra cost. The value was in part due to their tenancy. From my point of view both the House of Commons and the House of Lords failed these tenants, which makes us wonder: who gives a flying fig when greed comes to town?

There is in part the silence too, but that will be an article for another day.

The UK is currently in a place that whether Brexit happens or they are faced with Bremain, local issues will not be resolved until certain measures are taken to keep the people safe, not just from investors, but from local folly and rezoning needs at a price that might not be worth the effort, not in the long run.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Angela Monaghan, Anna Minton, BBC, Bremain, Brexit, Conservatives, David Batty, David Cameron, Dawn Foster, Geoffrey Howe, Heygate Estate, House of Commons, House of lords, Labour, Lord Adonis, Margaret Thatcher, New Labour, Robin Hood Gardens, Sir John Major, The Telegraph, Tim Tinker, UKIP, United Kingdom

May 28, 2016 · 17:48

The Repetitive Misrepresentation

This was the first though in my mind, when I was confronted with ‘Leaving EU ‘could cause catastrophic worker shortages’‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/27/leaving-eu-could-cause-catastrophic-worker-shortages). As I see it, the first issue I would like to address is ‘Which Think-tank?‘ That issue is seen not just there. We see this overwhelming reports of what I regard to be blatant misrepresentation in many places. I personally just tend to read the Online Guardian first because in many regards they are really good.

My issue is with Social Market Foundation think-tank. You see, how on earth did they get to that number? What constitutes their evidence for the quote “the 1.6 million EU workers in the UK“, perhaps it is the 1.5 million illegal immigrants and out of millions perhaps 100,000 actual issues? You see, we do not get the actual facts, because other data (incorrect data) is thrown in-between. It gets even worse when the Guardian starts quoting Pricewaterhouse Coopers with “According to analysis, by accountancy firm PwC, 950,000 jobs could be lost as a result of leaving the EU“.

It gets even worse when Seema Malhotra stops being quiet. Now, let’s be clear, I have no issue with politicians who talk, even if they are in the opposition. I would just prefer them to be distinct, correct and precise. The quote “Seema Malhotra, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, highlighted the 240,000 EU workers in the UK public sector and argued Brexit could be “catastrophic” for the NHS and other public services“, is an issue on many levels, most of them equally disastrous to say the least.

Almost lastly there is Sir Richard Leese, who treats us to: “pulling out of the EU would be a “hammer blow for the public sector” and cause “chronic staff shortages, damaging the services that British people depend on” Really? Which public sectors? Which services?

Now lastly we have Adam Hawkins, director at Adecco. He co-authored the Social Market Foundation report and gives us: “Under a scenario where free movement of labour no longer applies and EU workers were subjected to the same visa requirements that are currently in place for non-EEA workers, 88% of EU workers currently working in the UK would fail to qualify”. To Adam I would prefer to quote: “73.6% Of All Statistics Are Made Up“, which we get from (http://www.businessinsider.com.au/736-of-all-statistics-are-made-up-2010-2), an article by Mark Suster. I personally thought it was only 32.544%, but I know I could have been wrong in this instance. In the article we get “the quote most attributed to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Benjamin Disraeli, “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.” The quote is meant to highlight the deceiving but persuasive power of numbers“, which is at the core of the matter, which is of course beside the fact that 10+ years at SPSS showed me a thing or two regarding papers that have been broomed under the closest rug as soon as possible. The quote in the Business Insider gives you “I got the analyst who wrote one of the reports on the phone and asked how he got his projections. He must have been about 24. He said, literally, I sh*t you not, “well, my report was due and I didn’t have much time. My boss told me to look at the growth rate average over the past 3 years an increase it by 2% because mobile penetration is increasing.” There you go. As scientific as that“, this was at the core of the issue I had with PwC earlier. The final Gem the Business Insider offered was “They took the data from the analysts. So did the super bright consultants at McKinsey, Bain and BCG. We all took that data as the basis for our reports. Then the data got amplified. The bankers and consultants weren’t paid to do too much primary research. So they took 3 reports, read them, put them into their own spreadsheet, made fancier graphs, had professional PowerPoint departments make killer pages and then at the bottom of the graph they typed, “Research Company Data and Consulting Company Analysis” (fill in brand names) or some derivative. But you couldn’t just publish exactly what Gartner Group had said so these reports ended up slightly amplified in message. Even more so with journalists. I’m not picking on them. They were as hoodwinked as everybody was. They got the data feed either from the research company or from the investment bank“. This all from an article in The Business Insider from February 18^th 2010! (Yes, more than 6 years ago).

There we have the initial goods, now we need to take a step back.

You see, in my article ‘Is the truth out there?‘ (At https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/03/21/is-the-truth-out-there/), I respond to the initial CBI report, where I saw a decent amount of gaps. Gaps that require the raw data to confirm or deny. Yet, as we all know, that is a part we do not get access to. Still, there was enough ammunition to counter certain statements, which I did. So when we get the little blue snippet on the left by the Guardian in so called ‘support’ we see that one part is the juicy bone that is a figment of illusionary support, yes it was not a helpful snippet at all.

The next part is the article as a whole by Rowena Mason. As she surfs from emotional statement to emotional statement, we see an article that is pretty much devoid from quality data, as such the quotes become nothing more than hollow phrases, no matter how distinguished the people are (or in this case, the one person Sir Richard Leese is). In this case in view of his deeds he should be offered another view, yet in opposition as a former Math teacher he should know better. His statement might not be wrong (might being the operative word), without clear data and clear supporting evidence the statement is like most hollow. This part intersects with the voiced quote Seema Malhotra made (the one person who was better off remaining silent). So why am I stating this?

Where is my justification?

Let me show that part right now. You see, in her quote she linked 240,000 EU workers and the NHS. A blatant misrepresentation to say the least. When we look back to the article I wrote titled ‘The News shows its limit of English‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/06/22/the-news-shows-its-limit-of-english/), almost a year ago. I looked at a similar statement. In there, based on CLEAR immigration documentation as stated in Appendix I and J (both documents are in my article at the end). Documents on the GOV.UK site. We see that “Pay requirements which the Secretary of State intends to apply to applications for indefinite leave to remain from Tier 2 (General) and Tier 2 (Sportspersons) migrants made on or after 6 April 2016” has clear parameters and as such, no NHS worker (Nurse or Doctor) would be at risk. We acknowledge that the NHS is more than that and in that case we see that section 245HF of that document shows that the bulk of tier 2 workers are all covered in that case. So we see the intentional creation of chaos, whilst there is none at all. It is of course very possible that the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury might be non-competent, and as such the question becomes whether she should have accepted her present position or would have been better of working in a hair salon (OK, that’s me just being generically mean).

All this feeds back to the article of Rowena. The collection of emotional responses in perhaps ‘feigned support’ of the Bremain team has only shown that the stated support elements are non-issues, or too generic to have any actual value. In addition, as we consider the immigration documentation, especially in light of appendix J, which has over 125 pages of definitions of these jobs, with on page 4 an essential element: “In all cases, the pay must be compliant with National Minimum Wage regulations“, which should not be an element at all. So when we consider the massive list of options and people that have options to get work permits, can we agree that the statement by Adam Hawkins, director at Adecco, with his “88% of EU workers currently working in the UK would fail to qualify” has been blown out of the water with clarity and conviction?

All elements that have been clearly known from before June 2015, all that information easily available. This leaves us with an article that has lost most of its value by trying to appeal to mere emotion and give false paths to the people who are uninformed. Where is the value in that?

I have been in the Brexit field for a long time, my sway to the neutral field was not easy, it was not done by misinformation. It was done by clear information through Mark Carney, governor of the bank of England. I have not landed in the Bremain field however, he did achieve that I am not as convinced of Brexit as I was. The remaining elements are not within the UK, they are with the elements outside of the UK, mainly the irresponsible spending of the other treasurers as well as the action of ECB Chief Mario Draghi, actions that I personally (as a non-economist) regard to be short-sighted. That part is equally important, you see what I consider to be a bad idea might not be a bad idea in the eyes of an established economist. I do not believe that I have all the knowledge, all the values and insights, I always question mine. You should question yours if you will ever make an informed decision regarding Brexit.

This gets us to the last part in all this.

The article that involves Marky Mark of the British coin. The article ‘Mark Carney denies Brexit bias and Goldman Sachs influence in heated exchanges with MPs‘ (at http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/newswire/mark-carney-denies-brexit-bias-goldman-influence-heated-exchanges-mps/), his response was ‘Wow’ and so is mine. I went over the Lords statement and there was nothing out of place here. I might even commend him on remaining slightly conservative in the risk as he mentioned them. The quote in this article is ““Can I just give you the opportunity to refute any suggestion that Goldman Sachs may have put pressure on you?” Baker asked during the testimony, which lasted more than two hours and was dominated by Brexit“. Here we see Steve Baker, co-chairman of the Conservatives for Britain group. A man with a personal agenda, which is not the most reliable accusing voice in all this. From what I have seen and read over the last year, I have a lot more faith in the information that the Governor of the Bank of England brings us, than the opposing voice of Steve Baker. In this I stand with BT Group Plc Chairman Michael Rake who stated in a Bloomberg article (at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-26/-no-doubt-leaving-eu-would-hurt-u-k-economy-bt-chairman-says) “it was “deeply depressing” that a Conservative lawmaker, Steve Baker, asked Bank of England Governor Mark Carney this week in Parliament whether his former employer, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., had put pressure on him to warn of the risks of leaving the EU. “Trying to undermine reputable individuals, reputable institutions, that are simply trying to get the facts about the economy across to the British people in a critical referendum, a critical moment in time, is disappointing””. I personally believe to be worse, in this Steve Baker moved from being a possible political player on the conservative field into a place where he can be ridiculed and soon to be regarded as a mere memory in the political arena. I have opposed the view of Mark Carney more than once, but always as a question, always in regards to choices, never as any indication that the former Governor of the Bank of Canada and the current Governor of the Bank of England was in the pocket of Goldman Sachs. His statement and the cautiousness of the statement in the House of Lords is clear indication that he is not in the Goldman Sachs pocket.

Repetitive misrepresentation by too many players is muddying the water of those trying to make an informed decision and as such the voters are likely to get less and less information over the next three weeks. In this regard the press isn’t helping too much either.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as Adam Hawkins, Adecco, Bain, Bank of Canada, Bank of England, BCG, Brexit, BT Group, Business Insider, CBI., ECB, Gartner Group, Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs Group Inc, House of lords, Mario Draghi, Mark Carney, Mark Suster, McKinsey, Michael Rake, NHS, non-EEA workers, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, PwC, Rowena Mason, Seema Malhotra, Sir Richard Leese, Social Market Foundation report, SPSS, Steve Baker, the Guardian

May 1, 2016 · 20:04

Homerun by UKIP

UKIP scored a home-run and we missed it. Some were watching the game and did not realise the play. Some were watching as the opposing party and hoped that no one else noticed. I did notice, but there was time to let things unfold. I saw what he stated (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buCUlPOsuNg) when he starts around 5:27. Those who watched might have wondered, might have looked and no one reacted. Those who needed to react did not, mainly because they did not comprehend what they just heard. So let’s look at that genie out of the bottle again. Remember, that this was stated in December 2015, we have seen many escalations since then, not in the least, the refugee issues.

3 billion a year in aid to Turkey without guarantees.
Visa free access by Oct 2016.
Fast track Turkey into EU (97% of that nation is in Asia).
A nation that prefers bombing Kurds than fight ISIS.
A nation that ignores ISIS travelling within its borders.
8% of Turks support ISIS (source: Pew Institute)
Accuses Turkey of Buying ISIS oil.
It is bordering Syria, Iraq and Iran.

The clear path of blackmail is seen all over the place and the fact that the EU is giving in to blackmail gives us the question, who runs the EU? Is it merely big business holding onto politicians like a puppeteer to a puppet on a string? Is it America holding the collapse of the Dollar and the Euro over the heads of all, making the Bankers push the politicians the way that is most beneficial to greed? Whatever and whomever is holding the strings, we can see that the solution is actually decently easy, when you take America out of the equation.

It is at present 3 billion a year. Yet the one part everyone forgot is that the financial aid to Turkey would increase to 60 billion the moment they become part of the EU. That truth is actually easy to see when we look at point 8. When the EU becomes the border of Syria, Iraq and Iran, as stated. The moment any ISIS, via Turkey, makes one successful hit on Russia, you better believe that after the initial stupidity of Turkey (shooting down a Russian Jet for allegedly being over their airspace for 10 seconds), Russia will not play nice, Turkey would become a direct target, with the Russian fleet in the Black Sea, it is not just Adm. Aleksandr Vitko who is spoiling for a fight with the Turks. When the Turks become part of the EU, the massive lack of Turkish intelligence will soon there after force Europe into a war they have no way of winning.
When we see Canadian Global Research (at http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isis-oil-trade-with-turkey-documentary-reveals-secret-oil-deals-between-turkey-the-islamic-state/5522560), we see confirmation on statement 2 by Nigel Farage. More important, that is yesterday’s news (quite literally), meaning that certain power players have had this in their hands for MONTHS! The EU has decided to ignore those little titbits, giving additional power to my speculation on how the EU is becoming a mere puppet to greed and the Dollar. The initial source (Russian Today), gives us in addition the quote ““Crossing the Syrian-Turkish border was also very easy. It was like crossing the street,” ISIS member from Saudi Arabia, Muhammed Ahmed Muhammed told RT“. Now this could be Russian propaganda, but the timing fits, when we consider the Turkish actions. So this is a place, where you want to give 78 million threats to European security free passage? Yet when we see news in Al Arabiya that Turkey destroyed 900 ISIS members, we see that the numbers cannot be verified independently, so it is their word against verifiable facts. You should feel free to make that call. In addition we see the quote “Turkey has deported more than 3,300 foreigners suspected of links to militants groups, particularly ISIS militants“, so how were they deported? With weapons and ammunition? When we see the final quote “Turkey, long accused of turning a blind eye to the extremists crossing into Syria, has now taken a larger role in the fight against ISIS, opening a key air base in southern Turkey to the US-led coalition fighting the extremists and reinforcing its border to prevent infiltrations“, which is decently close to where the Russian Jet was shot down, so are the Americans there to keep the Russian of Turkish backs? Even when we consider the implications of ISIS and their threat to Turkey, we see another side (at http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/watch-new-isis-mass-execution-video-is-directed-at-turkey/) WARNING, THIS VIDEO SHOWS EXECUTIONS IN GRAPHICAL DETAIL! It is an ISIS video, even as we consider the fact that the Turkish subtitles, there is no emphases on the fact that the ‘Nazi like rap’ is in German, it mentions how ‘they’ are on route to Europe, there is a likelihood that the video is equally a message towards the sympathisers that might be in Germany, but that is pure speculation on my side. The article raises the following issue in the quote “It is also widely believed that beyond the Islamic State’s appeal to some in Turkey, the Turkish government is playing a “double game” with ISIS. Outwardly opposing the group, while possibly striking oil deals with its leaders“, Farage was raising the issue spot on. How can anyone in the EU consider any alliance with a government that is basically nothing more than a Benedict Arnold with a stronger dislike for Croissants!

Here we pause for a moment. You see, the issue has already been made, several power players must have been very aware of Turkey. There is no way that the intelligence community at large was in the dark on this. Journalists (especially Russian ones) tend not to be that good, which brings additional pressure why the people at large was kept in the dark. Not just those in the UK, but in equal measure the French German and Dutch populations at large have not been made clearly aware of these dangers and the pressures Turkey has been bringing to the table for some time now. I kept Italy out of that list because of additional religious indications.

You see, the one part that is harder to prove, but has a given on April 8^th we got “He told AFP that Turkey still has to fulfil 72 conditions on its side to gain visa-free travel to Europe’s passport-free Schengen zone“, this came from Marc Pierini, visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe. So how far are these 72 conditions? You see, Turkey has so far not shown anything real when it comes with verifiable actions against ISIS, so when I see “Turkey is slated to receive benefits including visa-free travel for its citizens to Europe, promised ‘at the latest’ by June 2016“, whilst a large amount of the 72 conditions are not met, how come that the papers at large are not keeping a keen eye on those 72 conditions and a list of the ones that are met and the ones that are not met, whilst Spain with its own legislation will not make issues any easier as it is within their penal code as it is illegal to forcibly deport and transfer people from EU territory. So will we see something according to the air of ‘Yes, we did not do all the tasks but fuck it! Make us a Eurozone member anyway!‘, because that is the straw that will break the EU’s back. The people at large in many nations will not continue to be in an open border situation under those conditions. So hello Brexit and Goodbye Schengen! I wonder how things will change when the borders fall shut. America had been playing a dangerous game with Greece, but Turkey is one game that will not be tolerated by the European Community at large.

In all this, we have now seen that Nigel Farage has shown in multiple ways why Brexit is the way to go. The brilliant statement by Mark Carney in the House of Lords will not stand as a shield strong enough to counter that, meaning that my conservatives will need to take a massive detour on several fields if they want to hold the centre of parliament regarding Brexit and even then it remains a challenge whether the next administration will remain Conservative. If the quality of life for Britons goes up it would be possible, but it cannot be stated as a given, because too many issues are currently surfacing, many of them directly linked to America and the IMF. In addition to all this, there has been a rising amount of warnings about ISIS hotspots in Turkey, targeting American tourists. This news and the fact on where the events are taking place, implies that either ISIS has a run of the land in Turkey, giving ample evidence to Nigel Farage claim 5, or there is a growing issue with sympathisers and even though there is no clear evidence on the percentage, we should emphasize that even 1% would give ISIS the run of the land in Turkey, at 8% they could be running Turkey soon enough, giving additional reasons to not let Turkey anywhere an EU membership for a long time to come.

Yet in all this, I have to add my side to this. The side that looked at other remaining factors. Factors like the news one week ago where we see in an IMF report “Turkey’s economic growth continues to show resilience despite several shocks. Growth remains based on domestic demand, in turn, supported by accommodative monetary and fiscal policies“, resilience? This place has the GDP of Costa Rica that is nothing to be proud of. In addition, the report (at http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2016/pr16182.htm) shows “To this end, the government has announced an ambitious program of reforms aiming to increase potential growth and reduce external imbalances in the medium term“, with what currency? There are billions pushed into Turkey each year because they could not get their space (read: their nation and their head space) in order. When we look at the stated forecasts by the IMF, we see that Net Exports are set at -0.9% this year, yet after that, Turkey makes a miraculous forecast of suddenly increasing their net export by 0.6% (in 2017), whilst there is no data of any kind that could explain such a massive increase. Now consider a realistic growth and the net exports go towards to -0.6%, which would be awesome for Turkey, it gives other nations the impression that their goods will be bought as Turkey imports more than it exports, but with the sliding exports there will be no cash left to pay for the imports, making this document a larger danger than many realise, it shows how Turkey could become the next Greece (read: not that big a chance, but not impossible). With unemployment going from 10.8 this year to a forecasted 10.5, we see a document that is forecasted at the margins, making things a little more positive than they actually are and we will see the sudden management of bad news in about 6 months. But that is already too late, the influx of Schengen Turks would have commenced, and under those conditions the United Kingdom at large would hope that Brexit becomes a reality, there will be a massive change and suddenly we have to give in, because America could not clean up its act during the last two administrations. It had to do something really stupid thing, like sending a lame duck president to do some scaremongering. In that regard, Ted Cruz is right, even if he is not elected president, the US needs the UK. It needs it for several reasons, economy being a larger one. I like the quote in USA Today last week: ““Instead of standing with our allies President Obama routinely hurls insults at them,” Cruz wrote. He said Obama’s comment was “nothing less than a slap in the face of British self-determination”“, which is at the heart of the matter. It is entirely likely that his analysts have already deserted him whilst trying to get the best after administration job in the commercial industry. In addition to that, we see a lacking side of the press when we try to learn which of the conditions have yet to be met by Turkey. Considering that, according to Turkish officials the Visa Free commitment towards Turkey is now only a month away. Is that not weird too?

Too many Britons are realising that they are being presented a joke, a message with no reality or national future behind it. The EU has taken too much and not reigned in those who should have been dealt with from 2008 onwards. That is at the core of the matter and it will boost the numbers of Nigel Farage, which should have been prevented by my party a long time ago. I wonder why they decided to leave it in the middle, unattended for this long.

5 Comments

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Al Arabiya, Aleksandr Vitko, America, Benedict Arnold, Brexit, Canadian Global Research, Costa Rica, Dutch, Eu, Germany, Greece, House of lords, IMF, Iran, Iraq, ISIS, Marc Pierini, Mark Carney, Muhammed Ahmed Muhammed, Nigel Farage, Republicans, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Schengen, Syria, Ted Cruz, Turkey, UK, UKIP, United Kingdom, USA, USA today

April 24, 2016 · 17:50

Ignoranus Totalicus

We can see the title as a pig Latin version of being a ‘complete dumbass’, which stands opposite of the Latin phrase to be all knowing as ‘sciens omnia’, yet who is this ignoranus? That is very much the debate. For this we need to take a look at a few sources. Let’s start the game at the Guardian. The first one (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks) is ‘Barack Obama: Brexit would put UK ‘back of the queue’ for trade talks‘. You see, after the quality voice Mark Carney gave at the House of Lords, one would initially expect that a president (even a lame duck one), would bring his ‘A’ game to the table. That part in question is indeed in doubt when we see the following parts: “And on that matter, for example, I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done”. You see, the statement might sound correct, but it is not. You see America is not (read: no longer) about ‘trade agreements’ it is about non-accountable agreements of exploitation. The fact that this same president nags about taxes and tax havens, is the same person that allows for massive tax havens on American soil, not addressing those and in that same light takes an 180 turn on taxation in the meeting in the Hague as I mentioned in my earlier blog is part of the issue. These actions are matters of great concern. I wonder why we even bother listening to a president who will be out of the office in a mere 6 months. If this was such a big deal both nominations for president would not merely make a statement. The next part gives more than one issue “Obama argued that it was much more efficient for the US to negotiate with the EU as a bloc, rather than attempt to take on “piecemeal trade agreements”, and suggested that Brexit would send a signal of division to the world“, it is indeed more efficient, but moreover, it makes for easier exploitation. Exploitation is at the heart of this matter and the bulk of the politicians tend to have the spinal cord of a paperback, not one hardcover amongst them. The final part is seen when we get “This is a decision for the people of the United Kingdom to make. I’m not coming here to fix any votes. I’m not casting a vote myself. I am offering my opinion, and in democracies, everybody should want more information, not less, and you shouldn’t be afraid to hear an argument being made”, which is fine in one part, but consider the cost of a president appearing in person when a TV message could do the same if it was merely to ‘offer an opinion’. America is afraid, it has never been this bankrupt before, this deep in debt and the toppling of the Euro will crash the Dollar, that could push no less than one third in a state of poverty. Wall Street and the financial connections are making their toll and the exiting president is doing whatever he can to keep the American nightmare alive, it does not matter who comes next for the mere reason that Brexit comes when he is still in charge. If Brexit comes into effect he will see the Dow Jones drop to a level not seen before, because Brexit is a guarantee that France will demand a Frexit referendum. This would guarantee the end of the Euro and as such the dollar cannot continue on the level it is. My voice is on par with justice minister, Dominic Raab. As he states ““You can’t say on the one hand that the US-UK special relationship is as strong as ever and always will be, and in the next breath say take my advice or you go to the back of the queue,” he said. “I don’t think the British people will be blackmailed by anyone, let alone a lame duck US president on his way out”“, he gives a truth that matters. This was not a simple visit where it is about an opinion. This is about the US being in such deep debt that Brexit could start the collapse of the US economy and its currency. This whilst still under this president. This president needs to get results before the end of his presidency, if that does not happen, than the 44^th President of the United States Barack Obama will be the president who ended the American dream and started the American nightmare.

The next article, also in the Guardian gives us the quotes from Hillary Clinton, and as such she illuminates the issues that Britons have had with their situation. The quote “transatlantic cooperation is essential, and that cooperation is strongest when Europe is united. She has always valued a strong United Kingdom in a strong EU. And she values a strong British voice in the EU“, we do not object to that view, we all object to the non-accountability that large corporations (not just American ones) have, most of them American. President Obama signed his own political ‘death warrant’ when he made the administration to do a 180 about face in 2013. The quote The quote “Senior officials in Washington have made it known they will not stand for rule changes that narrowly target the activities of some of the nation’s fastest growing multinationals“, which I reiterated in ‘Delusional‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/04/07/delusional/), can we agree that places, most of them valued at multiple billions, don’t really need tax breaks? That misjudgement of such Titanic proportions is now the millstone around this president’s neck. Yet this is not the only part, it is about timing, which started when the issues in Greece escalated. That started the path we are on now. As the people at large became more aware on the one-sidedness of the EEC and the way their savings are now dwindling down is how the people started to side with more right extreme parties. There are more relevant quotes from President Obama in this article too, but they do not require comment, if you do not grasp the casual way that America ignored issues that hurt the bulk of the entire planet, than you are either too young, or you are unable to grasp the danger you are in.

Yet this is not the end. The independent (at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/barack-obama-on-the-eu-referendum-i-wont-tell-you-how-to-vote-but-heres-how-i-want-you-to-vote-a6997436.html), we see another side. We see a likeminded article, the issues that I have been writing for some time. The quote on Boris Johnson matters. We get to read: “Johnson did indeed make the point that the US would never accept the kind of external authority that he thinks the British should continue to accept. But his clowning in his first paragraph obliterated that important debate and undermined his own authority“, which is a truth, yet the issue that matters is that on the other side Mark Carney as Governor of the Bank of England gave a response in the House of Lords that was so strong that it swayed me from Brexit to Bremain. I remain on the fence, as neutral as possible so that the people have at least one source that they can trust to be trying to remain neutral. I regard myself a conservative, yet this goes beyond mere politics. This vote, whether Brexit or Bremain will influence the life of the voters as well as their children. If you are 18 and still a virgin, worry not, this referendum will set the tone for the next 15 years at least, so any children you create in the next 10 years will likely see the consequence of this outcome.

In the final part of part 1 there is the Washington Post (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-plunges-into-heated-debate-over-britains-future-in-the-eu/2016/04/22/43657cba-0867-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html), for the most it was all said before, yet the Post had one gem that does matter: “Even though Obama has been outspoken in his support for Britain staying in the European Union, analysts urged him to tread lightly on his visit. “This is an emotionally charged discussion, and it really does not respond to calm, rational logic” said Heather Conley, a senior European analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington”, she is setting the correct tone here but is missing a key element. As I stated in the past and in this piece, where I am not going anywhere near ‘calm rational logic‘, I am going towards the exploitation drive that corporate America has shown as well as the flaccid response of the last two administrations in that regard. What Greece started, the American response to greed from the financial industry did not help any and this American president is too clear a reminder of that fact.

So now to answer the question ‘Who is the Ignoranus Totalicus?’ It is you and me (more you than me in all honesty). You see, many people are not getting properly informed about the consequences of either Bremain or Brexit. They flock together with the person they ‘trust’, with the politicians that gets them those 15 seconds in the limelight. This referendum is too important for that, which is why there is turmoil, not just in the Conservative party, but in nearly all parties except UKIP. If you want to be the ignoranus, than be happy in that. For those who are worried (and you all should be), you need to get the proper information, get the real points, not just the one the press gives and go to the voting booth clear of mind and sound of choice, so that the choice you made reflects the future you seek for you and your family if you have one (or going to have one).

This is the one part that everyone seems to agree on, either side, the impact will be long and lasting, if you at least got that far, then you are on the right track and in this case it is perfectly fine to be selfish and consider only what is best for you and your family, because that is the one that matters.

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, Boris Johnson, Bremain, Brexit, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Dominic Raab, EEC, European Union, Frexit, Governor of the Bank of England, Greece, Heather Conley, House of lords, lawlordtobe.com, Mark Carney, the Guardian, UKIP, United Kingdom, Wall Street, Washington Post

February 17, 2016 · 20:56

Behind the smiling numbers

An interesting story got to see the internet light by Nicholas Watt (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/16/income-tax-must-rise-3p-to-stop-nhs-staggering-from-year-to-year). The title ‘Income tax must rise 3p to stop NHS ‘staggering from year to year’‘, which implies initially that the NHS needs £1.95m, which might be OK. Yet the truth is far from that, the text gives us that Lord Kerslake stated “Income tax will have to increase by at least 3p in the pound…. “, which is another story entirely (and first evidence that members of the House of Lords are gifted with a decent sense of humour).

His lordship is quite correct when he states: “big questions needed to be asked to ensure that spending kept up with medical advances, an ageing population and the need to invest in hospitals“, yet these are mere facts that should have been asked almost a decade ago, there was a clear and near immediate danger to the health of the NHS. The logic we see after that becomes an issue (read: worry, concern, and both are debatable) “Health spending needs to rise at least in line with GDP. Arguably, we may need to go faster if we want to match European funding. You might argue there is a discount there because we have a more efficient system. But it’s got to be at least GDP-linked otherwise I don’t think we’ll get there“. So let’s take a look. First the Dutch version (at http://www.rijksbegroting.nl/2015/voorbereiding/begroting,kst199401_25.html) gives us two issues should we be willing to ignore language barrier. The BZK gets €71.3b, which is divided in €7.5b called budget financed expenditure and €63.8b from premium financed expenditures. So for argument sake, let’s take the total and divide that on a population of 17 million, this now implies that there is almost €4200 per person (remember that this is a terribly rough estimate).

Now for Belgium we get the VBO with €23.85b. Now we all know that Belgium is a much smaller nation (not that much smaller than the Netherlands in size) and with 11.5 million calling the Belgium nation their homestead we now see that they end up with €2075 per person (Rounded upwards). Perhaps his Lordship could give a slightly more detailed explanation for the remark “Health spending needs to rise at least in line with GDP. Arguably, we may need to go faster if we want to match European funding“. Considering that the Netherlands and Belgium are next to one another and their budgets per person are apart by a mere 49.404%.

This gets me to the core of the proclaimed matter, can anyone explain why we are linking healthcare to GDP? Perhaps, and this is merely a lose speculation, some people in the House of Lords had the time to read a paper by Santiago Lago Peñas (added at the end) called ‘On the relationship between GDP and Health Care expenditure; A new perspective‘, now that might be a good thing, there is nothing wrong with Spain taking the lead in matters (especially if it is a good idea). Santiago Lago Peñas as well as David Cantarero Prieto and Carla Blázquez Fernández have written an interesting paper.

First let’s take a look at part of the abstract, which states “Econometric results show that the long-run multiplier is close to unity, that health expenditure is more sensitive to per capita income cyclical movements than to trend movements, and that those countries with a higher share of private health expenditure fit faster and following a different pattern“. Now, I am not going to take a deep dive into this one (it is after all an abstract), but it gave me a few ideas on where to dig.

Next are a few quotes: “Attention is paid to several usually neglected dimensions of this link. With this aim, four different specifications are presented, with the logarithm of per capital total health care expenditure as the dependent variable in all cases” this doesn’t seem to be more than just a quote, but it will have impact down the track.

It is part 2 called previous evidence that is a first issue. When we accept the initial statement “the debate on this link has moved on whether the income elasticity of health expenditure is greater or less than 1 (Bac and Le Pen, 2002). An income elasticity less than 1 classified health expenditure and income inelastic, therefore, as a “necessary” good. On the other hand, if the elasticity is higher than 1, health will be classified as a “luxury” good“, which will do for now. You see, my issue is when we see the part that follows:

The seminal paper by Newhouse (1977)
An earlier study by Kleiman (1974) for a different set of countries
Leu (1986) using cross-sectional data for 19 OECD countries in 1974
Parkin et al. (1987) using similar methods and data from 1980
Brown (1987) using a sample of 20 OECD countries

Here we have the first issue. You see, this is not regarding the methodology, it is about the data, methods of data collection, usage of weights (if done), these numbers regarded in contrast towards those temporary populations in reflection to the whole. Health expenditure is one part, but based against which healthy part. Now consider the initial reflection I had on the Netherlands and Belgium. They have very different norms in respect to mental health care. Now consider the statements ‘19 OECD countries in 1974‘ and ‘20 OECD countries in 1987‘ I will again make a clear speculative declaration that the mental health norms are not equal, especially when considering economic differences, which gives my first thought, how useful is the paper on a whole (I am not attacking it) and how applicable this would be (read: could be) in reflection towards the whole.

You only need to scan for ‘psychology, psychiatry and mental health’ to see that the paper does not take this into consideration. As we know that the EEC nations have had their own approach to mental health in the past, is not a statement that they did anything wrong, but if this is the first element that does not align, what else will not align (there are a few). One that shines directly behind the ‘previous evidence‘. You see in my head the question comes to mind when I see “The econometric analysis relies on annual data for 31 OECD countries from 1970 to 2009 gathered from the OECD Health Data Set 2011“, so is this aggregated data or raw data. if it is aggregated data the foundation might not align giving an unbalanced and invalid view (in my personal opinion), if it is raw data, what ground line data (the full population) is added so that the individual record compares towards the national whole, if that is missing how can any calculation be truly reflective of what was, especially taking into account the data is reflective over different time zones with very different social pressures. In that case I wonder if I can get a similar result by calculating Z-scores and run a Crosstabs in IBM Statistics #JustSaying!

Now we get back to the article which comes with the image of a smiling Lord Kerslake. Does this paper validate or invalidate the idea? No it does not, but it leads to questions, serious ones.

The quote “John Appleby, the chief economist at the King’s Fund, has estimated that NHS spending is due to fall from 7.3% of GDP to 6.6% in 2020-21. If health spending were to keep pace with economic growth, Appleby estimates an extra £16bn would have to be found every year by 2020-21 to take the NHS budget to £158bn. This works out at 3p on all rates of income tax, according to the IFS” is next!

The term ‘NHS spending is due to fall‘ reads like an event Baron Munchausen could have come up with (the character from Raspe’s book in 1785, not the syndrome). Of course the prediction is 5 years away, which makes it speculative. Now we know that John Appleby is more than the Chief economist for The King’s fund. He is also a Visiting Professor at the Department of Economics at City University and he has a whole range of publications to his name, so why am I opposed?

Well, part of this starts with his own article ‘Social care: a future we don’t yet know‘ (at http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2015/11/social-care-future), the two quotes that get the foreground are “In our submission to the Spending Review we called for social care to be protected from further cuts and for the money previously agreed for the postponed Care Act funding reforms to be retained and invested in social care. But non-protected departments have been asked by HM Treasury to model cuts of 25 and 40 per cent – so further cuts seem inevitable“, as well as “What would happen if the spending cuts applied to social care over the past five years continue over the next five? Spending on social care for people of all ages as a share of GDP has already begun to fall. It was roughly 1.2 per cent in 2009 but if cuts continue at the same rate it will have halved by the end of this parliament to barely more than a half of one per cent of GDP“. Now there is nothing wrong with any of the texts, John Appleby is not where he is because he is silly, he is very (read: extremely) clued in. I am stating that the environment has changed, it has changed drastically from 2011 onwards and in addition; the changes the UK faces over the next three years will take some of these prediction to town in not so nice a manner.

You will now ask why, which is the question you should ask!

We get part of this from the London School of Economics and Political science (at http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/special/cepsp26.pdf), the initial answer is given on page 13. Where we see “To summarise, treatments for the “common mental disorders” of depression and anxiety can be self-financing within the NHS. By spending more, we save even more. This is different from much of NHS expenditure. At the same time we relieve one of the main sources of suffering in our community“, in addition page 15 gives us “According to the 2007 survey, which covered a random sample of households, only 24% of people with depression and anxiety disorders were in any form of treatment“. This now gives us the first part in all this. The overall costs are not in league of the budgets because there is a missing foundations of equality on what falls ‘within’ the NHS. There is no option for the NHS other than to evolve into something ‘more’ complete. The UK is about to get 20,000 refugees from war torn Syria (over several years), the initial approved £1b seems to be nothing more than a drop of water on a hot plate, the ‘why’ will be clear shortly.

The UK has seen a massive rise in mental health issues in the last year alone. Depression and anxiety mainly due to economic events (cost of living) is now a serious concern, especially as the pressures of the economy are likely to continue a few more years. Consider my article two days ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/02/15/is-there-a-doctor-on-this-budget/) called ‘Is there a doctor on this budget?‘ where we saw the link to ‘Health Care for Undocumented Migrants: European Approaches‘. The graph shown on page 3 is the charm. If we consider the cube, we see that on the X-axis we see subcategories of undocumented migrants, yet the same expenditure would apply to refugees (or the population for that matter). Now consider the Y-axis which is about the type of services and the Z-axis are the funding arrangements. Now this can be treated like a glass with liquid. If we increase the base (X or Y) the funding arrangements go down, it is the simplest of physics, a bigger glass requires more fluid to fill, so we have a population with more health care needs, mental health care in this case and the types of services is not just against depression or anxiety, it will require the coverage of war trauma and shell shock. This will impact refugees of all ages. So the glass gets bigger and bigger and more and more funding will be required to keep funding arrangements on an equal level, this is merely the application of logic.

This is why I opposed John Appleby’s approach, it shows little application of a changing population, merely a greying one (which is a form of change), but it does not hold water against the massive change the UK has faced since 2013 and will face until 2019. This is why I am not in agreement with the statements of John Appleby. Now we get back to Lord Kerslake. You see, the paper I mentioned is an example. It might not even be the foundation of Lord Kerslake’s approach. Yet a multitude of papers clearly show that there seems to be no real no equality in the setting of healthcare (read: cost of health care). It seems to be wearing a different hat in nearly every European nation, it would already be a great leap forward if they all had the same colour, which does not seem to be the case either.

Now we get the quote that wakes us all up “Appleby estimates that NHS spending would have to increase by 30% or £43bn a year to take NHS total spending to the EU-15 average by 2020-21. The IFS estimates that this would involve an 8p increase on all rates of income tax“, which is one side of the option. How about the other side? When we see that AstraZeneca has been able to avoid corporation tax on a massive scale, which dwarves when we compare it to the mergers Pfizer and Allergan have achieved. Is it perhaps possible that his lordship looks at another solution like closing that tax abyss? Might I suggest an idea where any corporation involved in tax avoidance gets its medication ‘grey’ listed? Which means that any drug that could be begotten in a generic form from a place like India will be selected as a first solution? It could even result in India starting businesses in the UK (with the economic benefits that those places will give). It would also send a clear signal that if corporations would like to avoid taxation, which in legal correct way is just fine, but at that point other distributors of pharmaceuticals will be found. I reckon that between that announcement and the offer of reduced medications (read: less costs for the NHS) from pharmaceutical firms would be forthcoming within 24 hours of making the announcement.

Yet, this was not about the costing, it was about the increase and setting against the GDP. The fact that health spending and economic spending are on par reads more like an option for deferred payments to big pharma and medical supplier than anything else. In case of doctors it would mean that their incomes would go through the roof (which might be a deserved reality), but it is one that the coffers under the care of George Osborne cannot afford.

There is wisdom in his lordship stating that “a royal commission should be established to build a national consensus on NHS funding“, which sounds a lot more ‘reliable’ (read: acceptable) than the Labour party giving way by letting a banker (Sir Derek Wanless) set the NHS spending levels. It is of course desirable to go with the people and keep the directly funded NHS free at the point of use, yet that comes with a price tag that is no longer realistic in this day and age of deficit, in addition harder times are coming for a while longer, making the price tag we already have a non-linear shifting one. Yet I feel adamant to speak that mental health must be fully accepted as part of the NHS (for all people, anywhere in the UK), which slides the scales of budget by a lot. A reality many papers (as I expect it to be) did not take into account. Raising income taxation as implied could equally be an issue as that could potentially drive depression and suicide statistics overnight (the latter would lower rents but that seems just too harsh a solution).

What is a given is that Lord Kerslake is the catalyst that is making us ask several serious questions.

I am however not entirely convinced that his lordship took the best path in getting these issues out into the open.

On the relationship between GDP and Health Care expenditure; A new perspective

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as Allergan, AstraZeneca, Baron Munchausen, Belgium, BZK, Care Act funding reforms, Carla Blázquez Fernández, City University, David Cantarero Prieto, George Osborne, House of lords, John Appleby, London School of Economics and Political science, Lord Kerslake, Netherlands, NHS, Nicholas Watt, OECD Health Data Set 2011, Pfizer, Rudolf Erich Raspe, Santiago Lago Peñas, Sir Derek Wanless, the Guardian, The King's fund, VBO

September 11, 2015 · 00:13

Wakey, Wakey

Finally someone in the Guardian tech section seemed to have gotten a clue, the title ‘Video games have a diversity problem that runs deeper than race or gender‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/10/video-games-diversity-problem-runs-deeper-than-race-gender)makes an attempt to scratch a surface that many gamers knew and until recently I was nearly the only one trying to break it to the audience. So happy hurray hurray to “a games industry insider with years of experience in a variety of studios. They wish to remain anonymous“, a singular person hiding in plurality! The quote “I don’t really care if you put a female avatar into Assassins Creed” is interesting, but also extremely wrong. Not for political correctness reasons, in that regard I can be even more politically incorrect than an ecstasy head shagging a crack prostitute in the main chambers of the House of Lords. No, this is all about innovative gaming, a female character could change the field and the quote is part of the problem as I will illustrate soon.

It is the quote “The problem of marginalisation in games development isn’t just about women, or people from different religious or ethnic backgrounds, it’s about entire genres. Marginalisation is happening in the very fabric of the design process, and this is just as damaging to the health of the industry and its ability to hold our attention” that gives a pause, because I have stated part of this for well over 2 years. You see, when Ubisoft started to claim the release of an Assassins Creed every year, which I still see as the beginning of the end for Ubisoft. They show a nice face, their books might seem nice, yet overall they have been lucky with over 50% now based on the digital channel. Yet, there is also cause for concern, first the Division is delayed again until 2016 (Q1), which if it is truly a good game will still rake in loads of capital, yet consider on how AC Unity was close to a flop, in my view the ‘sales numbers’ seem high because Unity came free with nearly every Xbox One shipped. It is one way to get the sales numbers up, but will it give contribution (you know revenue minus costs)? Now AC Syndicate and so far the game is another iteration with another location, with Prince of Persia styled chase scenes, repetitive missions and triggered events. This is part of the problem. Yet, Ubisoft must also be praised, you see, the game ‘For Honor’ is part of the stable that can revive gaming. Gamers wants something new, they want change and For Honor seems to be all that, new, smooth and challenging (as far as I could see).

My biggest issue with Ubisoft remains that success is not a formula, yes a formula does tend to diminish the chance of failure, in equal measure a true success becomes utterly unobtainable too. Add to that unrepaired glitches and a QA department that adheres to marketing regulations and a disaster is close to an assurance. I have stated it in the past on more than one occasion. The article states “Mainstream big-budget video games have been shifting towards a mechanical singularity for years, and it’s really time to ask if that’s something that might be keeping people away too“. It is not a wonder that independent developers are now starting to be the big thing in gaming. If we ignore a release date we get Hello Games, by Sean Murray with ‘No Man’s Sky’. What is interesting here is that even the gospel papers are using ‘hints at release dates’ to pull in the viewers to their site. This must be a first in gaming history too! The old games still have the pull of two generations of gamers, David Braben is proving that with Elite Dangerous. More people are flocking towards the games that offer more than a mere 10 hour trip, a game that offers more than just the chases, the views and a fake open world. Metal Gear Solid 5 is in that case unique, Fallout 4 is unique, and none of those game franchises come on an annual base. The weird part is that Ubisoft sat on a treasure, Black Flag could have been the pirate RPG Sid Meier could not make because technology stopped him and marketing relied on the AC brand to proper something that was close to utterly perfect. They got lucky because Black Flag become the only decent game on launch night of the PS4. I reckon that is pretty much the only reason why it became the success is should not have been destined to be.

Linked to all this is the quote “The thing is, the recent excitement around Capcom’s decision to release a remastered version of series favourite Resident Evil 2 suggests there’s still a large audience for the original recipe“, this is absolutely true. The second one was an amazing piece of work and gamers remember that, which means that the IP can be reapplied to the new consoles. Re-applicable IP is worth a fortune, because any established IP of quality is more than a mere lottery ticket, it is the grail to a 9 figure revenue ready to be a pool of sustenance. This is why I believe that games like Ultima 4,5,6,7, System Shock (1+2) are not dead, they only await the right team to fix it up for the system of today (or tomorrow) ready to feed 50 million hungry gamers. That’s just 2 out of a dozen of IP’s ready to service a community that has a hunger that will not go away. Even as we speak, new games are coming, yet the approach that Tomb Raider took, no matter how nice it looks, it shows perfect graphics at 10% of the gaming time the first game brought. It doesn’t matter whether this was a lack of budget or vision. Gamers are offered less and less, which means that the old IP shows 5 times the gaming the new games are doing.

This is all proven in addition with the quote “Nintendo’s recent Wii U multiplayer “shooter” Splatoon provides a pretty good example of how thinking outside of the box – mechanically as well aesthetically – can turn a “core” genre on its head and make it speak to people who enjoy a slightly different way of playing games“. I think it goes beyond that. This game is worth buying a WiiU for. An original game has always had that effect. PS One with Tekken (Tomb Raider can almost a year later and truly brought sales numbers to a high), PS2 with Ridge racer V, Dreamcast with Soul Calibur, GameCube with Star Wars Rogue Squadron II: Rogue Leader, the list goes on and in that regard PS4 and XB1 both disappointed. Yet overall the next gen consoles are now showing less exceptional games and the future is not super bright. Yes there are really good releases but the number of them are not great, in that regard we see a new wave, consider that many (including me) are currently more interested in the remake of the 3 Mass Effect games for NextGen systems than in Mass Effect Andromeda. That is brought through disappointing NextGen releases and sloppy QA. So far Phantom Pain is one of the few true NextGen releases that are turning public opinion about by being truly exceptional, another title in that regard is Witcher 3.

The appeal for the massive joy that playing these old masters brings cannot be ignored, yet that also brings the problem that the title gave, namely ‘Video games have a diversity problem‘, it does and until true NextGen originality comes knocking (more than 3 titles) this feeling remains. Yet, good games are coming, the E3 showed that, but gamers do not know when and the Ubisoft problem is not going away at present. The quote “A new generation of successful indie developers is currently moving into the mid-sized AA space that so many more experimental companies occupied throughout the 1990s – and they’re hiring” is the most uplifting one, because that brings more likely than not a new wave of originality (we hope) and that will get the gamers on board.

I believe that 2017 is what will make or break the current consoles, yes the PS4 is doing extremely well, yet both systems have a massive market share and as the great titles are brought that field will move in either direction (PS4 vs XB1). That struggle will keep gaming alive and as more gamers have both systems they will win no matter where the game ends up, but the winner will be decided by the best games, Microsoft learned that with the 360 and ignored that with the XB1 as the powers that be decided on some ‘family entertainment system’ a choice that nearly bankrupted the Microsoft console division. In all this one part must not be ignored. It is ‘diversity’ and the owner of that part will bring the winning ticket to a console, for a long time Sean Murray held it with his upcoming game, yet as the flawed choice of keeping people in the dark on release date grows, so will the interest in the game dwindle to anti-climactic proportions, which is a shame. What Sean forgot was that gamers do not mind waiting, as long as they get some insight as for how long. We will wait until Q1 2016, but we want to know about the delay (and for roughly how long) so that we can buy something else to play. Sean forgot about that part, the fallout will come and as fallout 4 is released people will no longer wait and just move towards another game that gives them long term pleasure. I truly hope that we get to play No Man’s Sky because I believe this to be the one new game that will give me long term pleasure, the one side AAA game marketeers just do not grasp. It was never about the price, it is about the fact that 10 hours of gaming is not gaming, it nothing more than a narrated short story we can do without.

One part the article did not illuminate.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming

Tagged as AC Syndicate, AC Unity, Assassins Creed, Black Flag, David Braben, Elite: Dangerous, For Honor, Hello Games, House of lords, Mass Effect, Metal Gear Solid 5, No man's sky, Prince of Persia, Sean Murray, Sid Meier, System Shock, Tekken, Tomb Raider, Ubisoft, Ultima 3, Ultima 4, Ultima 5, Ultima 6, Ultima 7, Xbox One

November 2, 2014 · 00:20

When we lose the plot

That is actually the first thought I had when I read the thoughts of Ed Miliband in today’s Guardian. The view ‘House of Lords not representative of much of the country’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/31/miliband-devolution-elected-second-chamber-regions), of course, as the statement is made on Halloween, or All Hallows’ Eve if we go by the old title is a moment when we see the brain dead zombies walk the street and Ed Miliband’s statement fits right alongside with it! OK, I apologise Ed that was not very nice of me. You are entitled to your view, I should not attack it, but I can disagree with it.

So why all the zombie references?

Well, you see, as we see nations being less and less about proper long term planning, we see short term stopgaps that lead nowhere and they all cost a bundle. If you are in the UK and you stare towards the setting sun, you might, if you live westwards enough you get to see the Atlantic river, on the other side is a former colony that is ALL about short term resolutions that go nowhere. They are allowed to do that of course, yet, overall it costs much for all, many will never be helped and few are around filling their pockets with cash whilst not solving anything. Let’s call that colony ‘little Britain’ (not Ireland mind you, which is another place all together). Now, if you go on towards the west as far as you can, past those hills called ‘the Rockies’ you see another river called the Pacific river, and yours truly (that would be me), is living on the other side of it on an island called Australia!

Now, we have the same issue the Americans of Little Britain have. More and more of this is getting to be about short term solutions that are not really solutions. We need a long term solution in government, like the UK has; it is called the House of Lords!

Many tried to do away with it and some just called it ‘change’, but so far the verdict is: “However, no consensus on the future of the upper chamber emerged“.

You see, the House of Lords seems to be up, up and removed, but the future of the UK is decently stable and safe because they look out for all Brits, those who pay tax and those who don’t. You see, as I see it, the basement of Parliament (also known as the House of Commons), want change, they want it quicker and quicker. But as they are planning their political agendas, as they are too eager in securing an extremely comfortable future by enabling commerce too easy, too much and too often, the House of Lords stops them when needed so that the other people, those who are in the eyes of commerce and retail revenue ‘not that valuable’, yet they too are British and deserve protection, the Lords looks after all of them.

I understand the frustration from Miliband at times too well, but many forget the expression “Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished“, life is improved in small steps, the Lords will look after all Britons.

This is at the foundation and Australia misses out, just as America does. However, for Australia there is hope and a solution, which I will address down later on.

I particularly liked the following quote: “In a speech on Saturday Miliband will highlight figures showing that the House of Lords is failing to represent large parts of Britain. “When people say that they are turned off from politics and that it doesn’t represent them, we have to do something about it”“.

Eddie, my dear fellow, please explain to me the words you had during the Scottish referendum and now, I read “The Tories want to go further on the handover of tax levying powers than Labour do“, so why are you not on board? The reasons might be very valid, but what are they? So here we see that in past referendum times, devolution seems to be not all that de-evolved, it must make them tartan fellows mighty happy that you are on the case, is it not?

You see, as I see it, Scotland remains a factor for Labour and so it should, but as certain issues move over to Scotland Miliband is set having to fight on two fronts and as such, he does not have the reserves, the energy and the battle plan, so now we see this (this is all purely conjecture on my side).

You see, all these parties are for the better part short term, one perhaps two rounds after that usually the other takes over. The House of Lords is all about long term. Anyone stating that long term is not for now is basically deceiving you, because short term is about the now, the commissions, the bonuses and so on. Like some half-baked sales person in software solutions selling now what they can as they need the revenue, the forecast and the bonus. It is never long term and whatever long term they claim to make is nothing more than the final push for the end of quarter sale, end of year sale and then the new quarter goals. It is a limiting vision that is in the end doomed to falter. It is particularly interesting how these people all need +15-20%, without ever expecting saturation, almost like the well that never dries. Go to a well increase the drain of water by +20% each year and see how long until there is no more water. Then what will you do? The house of Lords is there to see that when faced with these short sighted people, that someone will arrange for options of additional depth or extra irrigation towards the well.

And let me be frank, this is not just about Labour or Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives will have a similar short-sightedness in this regards, which is why we need a solution like the House of Lords. I rechecked the roll today, and yes, my name is not there between Lord Vallance of Tummel and Lord Verjee. My first thought was, ‘good grief’, once I am elected as an official Law lord, I will be placed between two Liberal Democrats. Well, there goes the neighbourhood! 🙂

Yes, we must keep a sense of humour about it all. Anyway, short sightedness, in the UK there is a solution, but here in Australia there is not. I do believe we need a long term option here, You see, Australians have a Senate, yet, unlike Canada who designed it to be like the House of Lords, someone here on this island thought it was a good idea to take the American model. I respectfully disagree, however the Australian model seems stronger than the American one (seems, is used as I never did an in depth study of both next to one another).

Yet, we were talking about long term plans. I believe that true long term plans might come from a Mayoral party, a group of Lord Mayors that decide on long term plans. A Mayor often needs to think long term and as such, a different course of actions might work for Australia. Now, I am not on the side of our Lord Mayor Clover-Moore, I think she overspends by a lot, there are other issues I disagree with and as such I did not vote for her, but I admit that her Sustainable Sydney 2030, is a balsy plan. Getting the roads more and more to be ready for bicycles is one way to get Sydney moving, now they are getting light-rail over George street and when the busses are a mere past tense on George street we will see true change. It is visionary, no doubt about it. It is long term and could change the life of people in Sydney for the better, I should know because as I grew up in Europe, the use of a bicycle is one I am very familiar with.

So is my idea out in never never land? Not sure, I am willing to admit that it is and perhaps the Senate does think long term, but I do not remember seeing too much of that happening, which made me think of a solution that is not at the top of a pinnacle, but at the very base of it and are our lord Mayors not at the foundation of any city and our lives?

So my advice to Ed Miliband: let it be dude! (Yes, I called him dude)

Let us all find solution together and let the future be long term, short term thinking might get us to the next crossing again and again, whilst we learn after 10 crossings that we could have saved a massive amount by turning left, right, right and left and avoid a dozen of them crossings. And in many occasions it is not about getting to the road at the end faster, but to get there without too many obstructions, the rest we will figure out in the course of the day.

Yet, I am not done yet with Mr Miliband. There are two more quotes to look at.

“And it cannot be right that those peers who do live outside London are less likely to be from great cities like Birmingham, Liverpool and Bristol than they are to be living in less-populated rural areas” and “We will make the second chamber of parliament truly a senate of the regions and nations of our whole country“. Really? How is that in any way a guarantee for a better quality of politics? When we see that not the best in this field, but the best one from Shropshire is chosen, then we will truly see how bad some choices are. As such, I cannot identify for one iota with the idea of Ed Miliband. Yet, in the end, perhaps I am the one who lost the plot. I will let the reader decide and I hope that they will vote for whatever solution is the best, not the cheapest or the most comfortable.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

Tagged as America, Australia, Australian Senate, Conservatives, Ed Miliband, House of lords, Ireland, Labour, Liberal Democrats, little Britain, Lord Mayor Clover-Moore, Lord Vallance of Tummel, Lord Verjee, Scotland Miliband, Shropshire, Sustainable Sydney 2030, UK, United Kingdom

October 25, 2014 · 19:08

Price Waterfall Blooper

I am sad to say, I am sorry to report
we have not seen any fraud of this sort
not a win or a gain, but just sadness and pain
are the man plainly vain, they do not travel by train
it will not go to court, yet the profits fall short

as my profits progress to the basement below
as executives go, with no exit fee show
we will wonder awhile, what results they proclaim
as we now still decide, should we name, should we shame
where is the pee double you sea and its dough

So, yes, is this the beginning of arts, the limericks and the consequences of non-accountability?

You see, there is no doubt in my mind that the initial investigation is only the beginning for both Tesco and PwC. Whatever we may think, we can be certain that if Dave Lewis had NOT rung the bell, the mess would be a lot larger then it is at present. I think we should also ring the bell of honour for the whistle blower, because without it Christmas would have been the grimmest of experiences in the UK.

Let’s take a look to the last two days, when Deloitte got its report out (to some extent) as reported (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/23/tesco-profits-black-hole-bigger), we see a few things that do not add up.

“He dismissed the idea that fraud may have been involved in the accounting blunder: “Nobody gained financially as a consequence of the overstatement of performance.”“, is that so? You see, there are a few issues that we have; I will step over one of them because I prefer to tackle that part a little further down.
Laurie McIlwee (former CFO) as well as Mike Iddon require closer scrutiny. Mike was a group finance director, planning, treasury and tax. When we see tax, we see a person who will dig, trying to find any cent that is deductible, as a good FD should be, and in 13 years at Tesco, he had not seen anything? Seems rather clumsy doesn’t it? The fact that the accounting hole is a little bigger (15 million is not much when you say it fast), also came with the knowledge from Deloitte that the hole was there for a longer while, so basically, the inflated 265 million, means an inflated payment of taxation, how is that ever a good idea?
So consider Tesco, the size and scope of it. They lose a CFO and a FD, and all along NO ONE at Tesco, I state again, NO ONE seemed to offer to pick up the baton for those months? Even if it was at no extra pay and only for 3-4 months, 99% of the financial industry would be chomping at the bit to pick up the baton, so that they can add this to their resume, it gets even better. It is a win won for whomever picks it up, because if that person does well, then the value of that person goes up by a lot and his/her future, whether within or not with Tesco would be a few steps on the large corporate ladder, even with nothing to gain it ends up being a win/win.

Let’s just face it, I am nowhere near next in line to take command of the 591 Signals Unit at Digby, but if I get the chance because the current commander was on the list to become Air vice-marshal, I would get there running, even if I was still in my pyjamas and was holding only a toothbrush. No matter how well my performance would be, if I made it I would be eligible for a nice challenge at GCHQ, a seriously cool way to skip half a dozen steps on that ladder, now consider that NO ONE had these levels of ambition at Tesco? I truly believe that beside the whistle blower a few more had a clear picture that taking that seat from within would turn out to be nothing less than poisoning their career.

“He dismissed the idea that fraud may have been involved in the accounting blunder: “Nobody gained financially as a consequence of the overstatement of performance.”“, now we get to the issue that I have had since day 1.
Consider that PwC had (a reported by the Guardian in an earlier blog) last year; PwC was paid £10.4m by Tesco for its auditing services and a further £3.6m for other consultancy work (a newer version at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/guardian-view-tesco-auditing-debacle-pwc-systemic-shambles). This article now shows the following quote: “At the very least, this is a very cosy and lucrative relationship“, which slightly debunks the statement of Dave Lewis via Deloitte regarding ‘Nobody gained financially’; it depends on ‘how’ we regard ‘gain’, when the alternative is losing revenue, remaining at status quo is clearly a gain.
So as we see these two numbers, let’s do a little math, let’s say an auditor makes £65,000 a year (a little less usually), so we now see that the annual fee gives us 153 auditors for a year and an additional 46 auditors for the consultancy for a year, that gives us 199 people going over the books, checking it all. No one saw anything? Now, the reality is not exactly like this, but considering that PwC is one of the big 4, we now have a clear case for some serious questions for 25% of all the large audited companies in the UK, how much taxation was not collected, how many large bonuses and incomes were honoured in such a symbiotic incestuous relationship? No wonder George Osborne has such a hard time, the deck seems to be seriously stacked against him.
There is one more thought that comes to mind, but this one is, as I will happily admit, based on shallow grounds. This was all found by Deloitte in a little over a month, mainly because they knew WHERE to look. But, it is entirely plausible that the whistle-blower just knew about that one thing, what else is there and what has not been found yet?

This is important for two reasons. The first is that it then debunks the statement from Lewis, likely via Deloitte who said ‘He dismissed the idea that fraud may have been involved’, I am not convinced! It took Deloitte to find the obvious over the period of a month. We can consider that the fact brought by a whistle-blower gives weight to intently hiding, if not than this person would have stepped forward internally and the old crowd would have solved it, that did not happen. It is not unlikely that those involved hoped for a quick brush under the carpet, this circus was unlikely anything they ever desired. What was signed off on, by the equivalent of 199 auditors remains a serious issue.

This part we can see in the Guardian quote “The making up of the profits figures was not in a report signed off by PwC. That happened in August – three months after PwC had given the supermarket chain’s figures a clean bill of health. Even then, it noted that there was something potentially funny with the numbers, and expressly warned about “the risk of manipulation” – but allowed them to pass anyway“, so something potentially funny does not warrant digging? Let’s not forget they had the equivalent of 199 people for the year, so plenty of digging resources. If we add the following “It is one of the primary ways in which investors, business partners and regulators can tell the true state of the company they are dealing with“, so not only is there a link to possible fraud, the implied length of this gives reason to suspect intentional misdirection towards investors, which makes the news releases all over the papers on class actions against Tesco a plausible worry for some time to come.

It becomes a much finer point of debate when we consider the following abstract ‘Misreporting in our model covers all actions, whether legal or illegal, that enable managers of firms with low value to make statements that mimic those made by firms with high value. We show that even managers who cannot sell their shares in the short-term might misreport in order to improve the terms under which their company would be able to raise capital for new projects or acquisitions‘ (at http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/bebchuk/pdfs/2003.Bebchuk-Bargill.Misreporting.pdf). It comes from a paper by Oren Bar-Gill and Lucian Bebchuk, published at Harvard in 2003.

Now we add what they wrote on page 21 “3.4 Creating Opportunities to Misreport, at T=1 managers decide how much to invest in creating opportunities to misreport earnings. The equilibrium level of this investment decision is characterized in the following proposition“. after that it becomes increasingly mathematical, but behold, the initial text ‘whether legal or illegal’, so if the old Tesco gang focussed on ‘legal’, was that the reason they needed to pay an additional 3 million in consultancy (a clear and admitted assumption on my side), yet is that really too weird a thought? Let’s face it PwC signed off on books containing an additional quarter of a billion, which took some time to create.

I know that incestuous is all about keeping it in the family, but the fact that this could possible all be legal is just a little too hard to swallow.

Could it be that both Corporate Law and Taxation Law within the Commonwealth are in dire need of an overhaul? Some might say that it could be an idea to do this before Christmas, to them I say “Bah! Humbug!“, Monday the 5^th of January 2015 will be soon enough. It will give Lord Blackwell, Lord Goodhart, Baroness Goudie and Lord Haskel something to look forward to as some might be enjoying a large roast with potatoes, Yorkshire pudding and thick gravy. The Rt Hon Lord Millett has done more than his share in his long career and his Lordship, as right honourably retired can enjoy a second helping of Christmas plum pudding with custard (unless his lordship prefers the challenge of making corporations a little more accountable then the currently seem to be). I would, as blogger Lawlordtobe be happy to lend a helping hand, but I never studied economy or taxation laws, so I would only get in the way, yet I remain available for assistance if need be. I do reckon that the members of the House of Lords who are members of the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills should consider their calendars, especially if the investigation turns out that the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) will be unable to press any criminal charges, to me and likely to all it should be clear that such levels of orchestration must be addressed!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as 591 Signals Unit, Baroness Goudie, Chancellor George Osborne, Corporate Law, Dave Lewis, Deloitte, Digby, Financial Reporting Council, Financial Reporting Council (FRC), FRC, GCHQ, George Osborne, Harvard, House of lords, Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills, Laurie McIlwee, lawlordtobe, Lord Blackwell, Lord Goodhart, Lord Haskel, Lord Millett, Lucian Bebchuk, Mike Iddon, Oren Bar-Gill, PwC, Rt Hon Lord Millett, Taxation Law, Tesco, the Guardian

December 26, 2013 · 21:55

What Syrian option is there?

It all started with the Tweet from Janet Royall, who is the current UK Labour leader in the House of Lords. The tweet was a link towards this article (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-room-at-the-inn-britain-says-no-to-syrias-refugees-9025265.html).

I do not agree!

We know that something must be done, but this is not the solution. Which of the 10,000 would the UK help when the numbers of refugees are up there in the 2 million at this point! A solution must be found. Yes, I do agree that it always looks good when politicians are seen with those few people (especially children), when those people are truly happy to get out of harm’s way. It looks at times like the impoverished approach in getting votes (sorry for the cynicism).

The issue is a lot larger and a lot more drastic then many realise. At UNHCR (at http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php) we see that the number is well over 2.2 million, so when we see that the Netherlands was not about accepting refugees, but to send aid in all forms, then they would be right and the UK should do the same thing.

The massive dangers at present are Jordan with 569K refugees and Lebanon with 851K refugees. You see, they are now danger places as resources are dwindling down over there. If something is to be done, then it will be imperative that as soon as possible an additional 20 containers measuring 40′ filled with food and medication goes tho these two places EACH DAY! (Not sure how much is send at this time) In addition, Jordan has always had a water shortage to some degree and another 569 thousand thirsty throats (which is an additional 10% of the population) are not helping any. This for the simple reason because if you think that things are bad now, wait until the local population notices the drop in fresh water. Then gooses will be cooked on several borders. So as the independent is happily voicing Shadow Home secretary Yvette Cooper, they did mention in a blasé one-liner “Ministers say the UK is helping more than one million of the estimated 2.4 million refugees in what the UN views as the biggest emergency in its history.” But it was all about the Labour side (as I read it).

The Conservative’s way is exactly the approach that is needed from several nations and the UK is seeing financial support from the Netherlands. More funds will be needed!

So this is not just about where refugees go, but where can support and aid be given the best? To move these people to Europe is not really a solution (perhaps just a short term one). We heard the US talking tough, but at present they seem to remain in the distance in regards to achieving anything to resolve the situation. It must however be said that they did send aid which seems to be well over $100 million at present, so they are doing their bit in this instance, but as the big power, a solution should have been found ending this bloody civil war a long time ago, which is not the case.

This is not the fault of the US, because Russia is part of this entire caper and as such, Russia has been less than forthcoming in any solution. I do not think any refugees made it to Russia to begin with (not the best climate to go to either).

Even the Israeli’s have been sending aid, support and medical assistance!

No matter how we turn the dice, a choice must be made, one that other nations can consider, or even accept. So what could we do? No matter what solution we choose, it should include moving people away from both Lebanon and Jordan before this all escalates further and we end up with not one, but three countries that will be in dire need of aid and support. My first choice would be Egypt, this because there is so much space beyond Cairo and Alexandria. If these refugees can start building something for themselves in the meantime, like farms and work them, they will have means and perhaps even options for a future. There are even optional possibilities when we see part of the Sinai desert, especially when we consider how Sharm-El-Sheik has grown into a tourist haven, perhaps it can grow into something more?

Perhaps that will not work, it might just be a real bad idea I am having, but in my mind, moving a population of this magnitude will not work, splitting them up over nations might seem like a short term solution, but in the end it will cost and cost and never be the solution it need to be, so finding a middle-eastern solution and making sure that essential resources make it there might work and it would help many more than just a few thousand getting placed in the UK.

What is the best option? Not sure, but the UNHCR currently seems to be at a loss as well and they are supposed to be the experts in this field.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Tagged as House of lords, Israel, Janet Royall, Jordan, Lebanon, Netherlands, Russia, sharm-el-sheik, Syria, UK, UNHCR, US, Yvette Cooper

Tag Archives: House of lords

Recent Posts

Archives