Tag Archives: Kent

April 28, 2019 · 14:07

When a dream is too delusional

We all have those dreams we know will never pass into reality, they are too delusional for comfort, but they are dreams, so we go with the flow. One example is winning the €135,000,000 lottery, the other could be one including Wallis Day (main character in the DC series Krypton) to spend a weekend to remember at her place (with all the extra options). Yes, all options that are delusional and never ever a setting that could ever be true. So in all this we get to yesterday’s article in the Guardian where we (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/27/very-disappointing-ashford-laments-loss-of-debenhams-branch) are treated to ‘‘Very disappointing’: Ashford laments loss of Debenhams branch‘, yes it might be very disappointing, yet consider a few items. First there is the building that they are in, then consider that Ashford has a population of 62,787, so we need to look at another side of it all, or in this case the 2016 Annual report (at http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/d/LSE_DEB_2016.pdf).

They had a staff count of around 28,000 supporting 182 stores in the UK and Europe as well as their domestic and international websites. Now consider their premise of Gross transaction value (52 weeks) of £2.9bn. In that regard, how does a shop in a village of 62K people add up to anything? When we look deeper and consider that Debenhams had a total of 165 stores in the UK alone and the amount of cities in the UK from 100,000 people up to 1 million added up to 96 locations, in the remaining places how did Ashford got to be one of those 69 positions? Now, we can see that in Kent, the average income is set to £29,095, which is above the UK average, still, when we do the numbers, the entire validation of having Debenhams in Ashford does not add up. Not in such a posh place, making me wonder why the building was placed there to begin with.

Now consider the additional information that the Kent Online gives us (at https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent-business/county-news/debenhams-to-close-four-kent-stores-203461/). So, Ashford, Canterbury, Chatham and Folkestone are all shutting down, in all this, I wonder why Ashford, Canterbury and Folkestone were placed in the first place. Kent with its 1.5 million people (in the entire county) has a case for one Debenhams but not 4. The numbers do not make sense. Now we need to remember that Debenhams has been around for two centuries and as such they do not all have new places, but when I see Debenhams Ashford, I see a story that seems to think it is in a multi-millionaire district with 20,000 shoppers, whilst 2,000 active buying shoppers at best would be an achievement in Ashford, the entire article by the Guardian left me with way too many questions. The shop is clearly set out to call in the higher spender; the Dior setting dominating the floor gives that impression. Now, it is not merely about the prices, because Debenhams has always shown to have value for money and their stuff is affordable, yet that also creates the need for a much higher volume of purchases and let’s face it, Ashford is not a place where people buy clothes at a non-stop speed, the cost of living is not supporting that, and the optional coffee machine at £282.00 is not one that most people would buy, the one off perhaps, but most will resort to the luxury Russel Hobbs at £35.00. Now we get the image clearing up, you see as margins are lower, the units need to be sold at much higher frequency and there we see that Ashford never had the stage, moreover it is at least two Kent stores that could be seen as a drain on the Debenhams fortune and that took less than 2 minutes to figure out, so how the continued expansion (read: building upgrade) was seen by those in charge is beyond me.

So when I see: “For other young people, the department store had little to offer. “I just go in there to use the spray on the beauty counters,” said Faith Figaro, 17. “I think it’s expensive, to be fair.”” we see a 17 year old making the case for me and I wonder what possessed the Debenhams top to go in this direction in the first place. It gets to be even worse when the Guardian prints the pragmatic “It’s all hairdressers and coffee shops and nail bars. People won’t come here to shop – they’ll go to a bigger town like Canterbury instead“, which in itself is a truth, making me wonder what is getting into some of these delusional big brands. The entire setting of the larger players has been under fire for the longest of time and the essential need to revisit locations is becoming an essential need for all of them, as such the statement: “Conservative MP Damian Green described the news as “very disappointing”. On Twitter, he wrote: “We need to redouble efforts to strengthen the town centre.”” becomes one of worry. Even as a conservative I wonder how Damian got elected, merely as I saw the writing on the wall within three minutes, so he should have been on the ball for a much longer time, as such the Debenhams situation should have been to be expected, not ‘disappointing‘. For me the entire issue that is started by “Ashford borough council said they would work with the owners of the shopping centre to try to find new occupiers” becomes an issue soon enough. It is the duty of the owner to seek shops and to seek occupancy. When you put an expensive Rolls Royce in an old meadow, you cannot expect your return on investment, you do that by slashing rental prices and by seeking long term solutions that can afford to be long term solutions. Staging ‘elite placement’ in a place where ‘elite placement’ is not realistic is the stage where we see the Australian Westfield issue explode on several stages, places that are intent to fall over within a year, it attracts the wrong facilitator and that is where things go from bad to worse.

It is not the end, it is the Kent Online that also gives us the words from Executive chairman Terry Duddy: “Debenhams has a clear strategy and a bright future, but in order for the business to prosper, we need to restructure the group’s store portfolio and its balance sheet, which are not appropriate for today’s much changed retail environment“. The words sound nice in theory, yet from my point of view; the stage we see in the 2016 annual report contradicts the actions of having most Debenhams in Kent. And when we look at the annual report making the: Profit before tax* (52 weeks) £114.1m claim. I get to the stage thinking that their clear strategy was anything but clear.

In that version of a report we see the strategy: “To be a leading international, multi-channel brand by delivering a compelling customer proposition and increasing availability and choice through our flagship digital platform and well-invested, well-located stores around the world.” I honestly think that they got that wrong by a fair bit. You see, from my personal point of view the setting of ‘well-invested, well-located stores‘ we see the stage where it should have been ‘well-invested, and viable well-located stores‘ it is that part where viable needs to matter and in 50 of the 166 cases it was not to be and that is not something from the last year, the action should have started no later than 2015 as I see it.

It gets to be slightly entertaining when I look at their risk management in light of their e strategic and operational goals, but let’s not make too much fun of the situation, shall we? Even as there is a lot to be said on their KPI’s, the clear message of net debt reduction is important and a good thing, if that £40 million net debt reduction had not been met, the entire matter would have been critically fatal for Debenhams no later than 2018, so good steps had been made, yet larger were essential two years ago, that is as I personally see it and without the raw data my findings are open to critical debate (as my view might be wrong). Yet at page 29 we see the largest flaw. When we see: “New UK stores 12%” we see the largest mistake, in a place where there were 166 stores whilst the population did not support further growth that should have been staged for modernisation for now. I get it, some stores are too old and new stores replace the old ones, yet the 5 year option to rely on upgrades until the economy is much stronger was an essential step to make, even if some of the lucrative old shops would shut down, the long term growth in this economy is just not there. This is why I got the 2016 annual report (the 2017 would have been better, yet I could not find that puppy). Aspects of 2016 and 2017 are seen now, its impact is now direct, like a good ship you adjust course and wait for the numbers to be clear so any adjustment in 2018 would not be a valid impact until 2020 (unless it is immediate navigation) and there is where we see some of the flaws of Debenhams. Even now I noticed that internationally they are not in Germany, it might be because Hennes & Mauritz AB is too great a threat, it might be for another reason, but the one nations where the economy is still in a much better place, is the one place they do not show up. Can they honestly claim that Debenhams Bonn, Berlin and/or Munich would not make it? In the Netherlands they would have a cat fight with C&A and a few others, in Sweden there is Hennes & Mauritz AB, Åhléns and a few others, so that makes sense, France is a dimension all on itself, so no way to tell, yet Germany? If I had to bank on Debenhams Munich or Debenhams Ashford, Ashford would never have been a consideration, yet with no timeline on Ashford I have to make the blind choice and it would not be Ashford, due to no fault of anything Kent related.

It is on page 138 we get the final part. Here we see the minimum lease payments under non-cancellable operating leases. Now some have been there for a long time, it was a choice made and that is fair, yet in the entire matter we see that for up to 5 years we see £96.7 million in play and I have some serious questions on those marks, in light of certain facts seen now, I wonder which of those should never have been made, but that is merely my view on the matter and with up to 50 stores up for closure I personally reckon I might have a case on that.

LSE_DEB_2016

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Media

Tagged as Ashford, Åhléns, Berlin, Bonn, Canterbury, Chatham, Debenhams, Folkestone, Hennes & Mauritz AB, Kent, Kent Online, Munich, Russel Hobbs, Terry Duddy, Wallis Day

May 17, 2017 · 15:10

As an election looms

Finally, we get some words on the Labour manifesto, the Guardian has been on top of it and whilst they are presenting a good part, I have a few issues as they went a little light on labour as I personally see it. Again, it is a personal side and as a conservative you should take into consideration that the flaw is on my side, and I would accept it, but let me give you the goods.

The entire review is at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/16/labour-manifesto-analysis-key-points-pledges, so you have the option to completely disagree and seek your own version of their vision. The first part “a short note on a new £250bn “national transformation fund” implies that these costs will be funded through capital borrowing” shows their intent on rail, which is a quarter of a trillion through borrowing. So off the bat we are considering electing someone who wants to add a quarter of a trillion to a debt that went off the handles due to the Labour party in two previous administrations. How is that ever a good idea? a chunk of all the other parts is supposedly coming by adding a new tax group of 50% for those earning above £123K. A marginal addition for the ‘fat cat’ group. So those making more than that will be charged for the amount above and I have a hard time accepting and believing that this will get them the ‘speculated‘ £6.4 billion. It reads more like wishful thinking in an age where rationalism will not ever get you that amount. Consider, as mentioned before, something that any excel user can check with the numbers the UK tax office (HMRC) offers, the super wealthy, those making well over a million is limited to less than 5000 people. So how is this billion pound extra achieved? Let’s not forget they only get the 5% extra over the amount over £123K, as such the income will not get close, yet after the election they will come with excuses, whilst we already knew that this was never realistic. In addition, how many are close to the threshold? In this those making £123K – £199K, they might feel safer setting apart certain investment reserves into retirement, if they get that done, the £6.4B will drop fast by a lot. In addition, the Guardian gives us: “But recent evidence from the imposition of a 50p rate in 2010 shows that the measure could spark mass avoidance by the individuals affected and raise no extra funds for the exchequer“, so there is that part too! Remember Jeremy Corbyn and his nurses? The 10,000 nurses pledge? When we consider the already announced part “Health and social care reform at a cost of £7.7bn, as part of a package that includes a guarantee of A&E treatment within four hours and the end of the NHS pay cap“, and the “Free lunches for pupils as part of £6.3bn school package“, that’s another 14 billion, where is that coming from? Remember the tax increase part? When we tally, we see that the NHS part is already leaving the tax increase at minus a billion, all the other multi billion pound parts are not even close to being addressed. This is simple tally stuff that many in their final year in primary school can achieve from their calculus lessons and Jeremy Corbyn and his ‘raunchettes’ cannot deliver, a mere exercise in lewd offensive spending. Choices without proper merit and ignoring the consequences of the deep debt they got the UK in in the first place. I am all for some level of social levy, yet any social act requires to consider the impact, something that UK Labour is clearly not doing. It is even more upsetting that simple calculus gets us to a place where this would never have been a reality to begin with. Are you seriously considering voting for such a failed attempt?

When we consider the added Cyber security, and the promise to the security agencies, we see items that are promised without any claim to the cost. Now we might accept that part, yet their own £11.2 NHS IT fiasco should clearly show that they haven’t got a clue on how to tackle it because the limitations they imposed through failed IT is part of the reason that NHS IT is not up to date in the most meagre of ways which is also exactly part of the reason that the NHS hacks were successful in the first place. In addition the entire pension part is flawed, that is a given not because of what it states, but when you compare it against the Australian need to already up the retirement point to 67, with a population of 20 million, that is a retirement change already needed now, the fact that the age wave will hit with almost 4 times the intensity in the UK and the retirement age will not significantly up for another 6 years is delusional and as I see it set so that the current Labour electorate can ignore the issue until the next election, at that point it will be way too late and they will offer some diluted solutions using capital borrowing adding another . I see it as we now need an estimated £75bn a year, it is anticipated a near doubling before 2025. You see, some of the statistics have been placing comparison of life expectancy and percentage of retirement, yet as I see it, the quality of life for those born in the 30’s and those born in the 60’s is vastly different. the difference of those two groups is that maximum life is more likely to be in excess of 20 years, so those born in the 60’s and onward have a much higher chance of requiring a pension for close to 20 years longer, on a population of millions, that would equate to an additional pile of billions that would be required. In this the setbacks that the financial meltdowns gave all the people and government institutions, it shows that the shortage will increase and the pension deficit will increase annually by a lot over the next 5 years alone, so not seeing any repair actions is just weird. So as labour proclaims to be ‘social‘ their social unawareness and unpreparedness is just a little too upsetting. Now, the Tories are not innocent either. There is a given shortage and getting rid of the debt is a first step in solving it, so as we see that Labour is now willing to add close to half a trillion to the total shortage and that is just the added shortage of what they want to do to look cool. The added deficit will go straight through the roof adding overall a lot more debt than anyone is willing to consider.

And it is Labour of all others who have no welfare support. they promise a future policy paper, but the overall issue is not that paper (it will be though), it is “There are no spare funds in Labour’s calculations for extra welfare spending. To counteract the effects of planned cuts, under Labour’s current plans it would need to increase borrowing“, so that implies even more borrowing, whilst they amount needed is already through the roof. I did voice a change, I offered a view where there might be some additional ‘fat cat’ costs, even though that is not what I call it, it was a need to increase the second tax tier by 2% and the third one by 1%, whilst increasing the 0% tax group. so basically the lowest people get £100 a month more and the highest (45% tier) loses about £150 a month (as they also have the higher 0% part, they lose a little in the end), around £100 for tier 2 and £50 on the tier 3 part which I saw as a very social thing to do. And all that without burdening towards extra debt. I am not stating that the lowest group did not deserve more, I was working from a 0 balance difference for taxation, so that the coffer would not be denied more coins to address the massive debts it has now. It was a simple exercise in Excel and perhaps my method is flawed, my intention was pure, that is a lot more than I can state for the McDonnell-Corbyn group who will happily max out the UK credit card and leave others to solve the matter after they leave office, just like the two previous labour governments did.

Yet in all this it is not just the Labour party that needs a look, the Lib Dems are also due a little concern. In that I actually like the entire ‘rent to buy‘ pledge. I cannot say if it would work because the ground materials are not a given at present. What homes would be offered? Consider what the foundation is. New houses, would b great, but when we see where, there will be an optional issue. It is of course a way to get the younger generation out of London and perhaps towards other places where a younger population would be a good thing. However, would they embrace life in Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Lincolnshire or Kent? What happens when that is not an option, what if the social houses in London does not get resolved? Those elements make the Lib Dems an issue that might not come to pass, yet for every person accepting a place outside of the greater London area, the pressure will go down a little, enough little’s will make for a moment of relief, yet will it work, time will tell. In all this I personally found the second ‘referendum’ offensive. So, because people did not like the outcome, because some didn’t bother voting, the people in the UK get to vote again? I wonder how the Lib Dems will be seen when the EU gets the bill of what Wall Street does, when the UK gets the pounding because the US could not get their house in order, I wonder how those second referendum people will be seen. Even as the US is ‘suddenly’ doing great again, whilst their debt is increasing by trillions of dollars a year, as well as their inability of dealing with their deficit, how will that push others? The US now with almost 20 trillion in national debt, they stated the 1^st half of 2016 a collected taxation of 1.48 trillion. now, if we do something not entirely valid, but what if we double it? (the second half is never as much as the first half, yet for argument sake), this now implies that the US would collect a maximum of $3 trillion for 2016, that whilst at present, federal spending is at almost $4 trillion and the deficit is now approaching $600 billion for this year. The deficit, no matter what they report is not getting properly addressed and has not been or over a decade. What do you think will happen when that well ends? Do you think that export to the US will continue? At that point, who would be the trade partner that remains? I do not proclaim to have then answer, yet when we see that at present US total Interest paid is set at $2.5 trillion, where do you think that goes? Who is paid interest on debts that seem to be mainly virtual? Do not think it is a simple picture, because this part is as complex as anything could ever get. Machiavelli could not design something this complex. Yet at the end of the day, the taxpayer is left with the invoice. As such lowering debt is the only safety net that would allow the people in general to have any life. I have always stated and truly believed that once it collapses, it will hit whomever is in debt. I still believe that Japan is the first domino to fall, yet that also means that the US dollar gets a hit that will be a terminal one and Wall Street will falter almost immediately after that, after which the Euro will go straight out of the window, its value less than the German Deutschmark in 1923. Japan has a debt that is close to 240% of GDP, a group of nations that includes the US, Japan, the UK and several other European nations have a budget deficit that is surpassing $9 trillion, how is that allowed to continue? This is not me, this comes from Martin Weiss, PhD. Although his PhD is in cultural anthropology from Columbia University, not in economics. Yet we can agree that at least he has a few degrees which includes degrees from Columbia and NYU, so he is not the most uneducated tool we know, unlike some in politics nowadays. The problem is not the total deficit or the total debt. It is the fact that some players like the Rothschild’s, Wall Street and even the IMF are wanting this game to continue. A push it forward game that benefits the political and financial engine operators and 0.1% of the population. Would it be fair to call this a legalised form of slavery? Is the one option allowed to have the same as a freedom of choice? That is what is more and more at stake. When the people in the UK were allowed this freedom, they chose Brexit, now we see all these players trying to undo that one part, because it is the fear of the players with too much to lose. We get more and more weighted information from the press and that engine is less and less reliable. So what remains? Well, the people in the UK are about to make their selection, whilst we see certain manifesto’s that are debatable to say the least. Some parts are just not realistic at all, yet the people must elect someone. I will not tell you who to vote for, I am merely wondering if the people will ever be properly informed.

This is mainly because there is an election looming and those not governing will make whatever promise they can just to get into office. So what will happen after that? Remember Emmanuel Macron? Making all those statements on how Europe must reform, or else there would be a referendum? Well, merely an hour ago we see: “Both pro-Europe leaders were keen to show solidarity concerning the Eurozone and have broken with previous statements by discussing potential changes to EU treaties. The move is seen by both nations as a way of healing ongoing EU upheaval, combating the rise of the far right and showing a united front in the wake of Brexit negotiations” healing whom? the ECB spending spree recipients? When we see “Visiting Berlin on Monday, Macron ‘did not push for major, ambitious reforms (of the EU) because he knows the chancellor cannot deliver until the elections in September’“, I merely see the fact that the French people have been lied to again, and those people voting have elected a new Wall Street tool (as I personally see it), and the fact that he was a former investment banker was pretty much a clear giveaway. I expect to see some kind of ‘compromise’ that gets no one anywhere any time soon around the end of August or early September, implying that the European gravy train will move along with full speed ahead for another 4-5 years. When you realise this, do you still think my Brexit support was weird? If someone had effectively muzzled Mario Draghi, that might have been a first piece of evidence that reform of the Eurozone would have been a far fetched optional reality, yet so far, that has not and is unlikely to happen.

The reality for poor London

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

So what is actually the case?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Classifying defection

This is at the centre of my dilemma today. Part of me knows that some of my exam results have been posted. I have two more exams, which makes me too scared to check them. If I fail, my life will feel it is over and I feel like admiring the great view a person has when he leaps down the Empire State Building, some say that this view is the best and it is apparently a one-time option. Anyway, if I fail, I will get more depressed then I already am, If I pass I might relax a little too much whilst I have two exams between now and coming Tuesday morning, hence the fear to check.

On my 2 hour point of rest, I got my hands on this article ‘Rochester by-election: “two more Tories ready to defect”‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/20/rochester-strood-byelection-voters-polls-ukip), for most of my life I have seen defection for the most as an act of treason, we take a team and we stick by that team (or company), I have watched scores of ‘managers’ ‘defect’ to the status or situation that benefited them the most, which I considered betraying the company that hired THEM to do a job. The then hid behind words like ‘miscommunication’ and ‘what was the best option’ the added part ‘for themselves’ was a bit of an issue to me. Corporations take this as the cost of doing business, but is that the acceptable truth of the matter? I actually do not know.

So these thoughts were in my mind as I read the article. You see, the question becomes who does an MP owes allegiance to? The party he is in or the people who elected him? That part is now unclear. Are these two MP’s Tories who serve Rochester and Strood, or are they Rochester and Strood MP’s who serve the conservatives? That is the question that phrases my mind. Yet when we look into the article another option is started to form. When we see the following parts: “My view is that Ukip membership should come back and join the Conservatives and be part of a centre-right majority in this country” and “Tolhurst said she was still hopeful of winning, but was reduced to begging for votes from supporters of other parties in an attempt to keep Ukip out of the constituency“, so what are we dealing with? Is this a situation where two MP’s are actually trying to sway both sides to stay in a seat, no matter whom they serve, are they playing both sides against the middle or are we looking at another play, one of voter management into getting the waters slowly managed by surfing the questions of the voters and through surfing these waves, to guide themselves into the opportunity to make the waves alter slightly, little by little into a new direction.

It is consistently illogical to expect the waves to react to the surfer, but is that entirely true? As the surfer becomes part of a wave, does that surfer not influence that what he is part of, or does the surfer just glide the wave, enjoying the motion but never to interact the wave so that the surfer will not get crushed by the wave as it engulfs him? What is true, by which definition and to what extent?

So why is this small part of Kent so distinct? I do not think it is distinct, I think that there is a play in motion, but to what extent is not clear. Consider the entire change as UKIP is growing beyond what most parties considered possible. Tories are scattered, Prime Minister David Cameron is all over the place to get a hold of the change, but the issue is not conservative based or Cameron based, it is in my mind constituency based. What is planned for the 75,000 voters and how should they be regarded as? In that area Mark Reckless does have a massive advantage, so why is there an issue with UKIP? The question becomes, what will happen, will the 23,000 people support conservatives and all move towards Kelly Tolhurst, or are we witnessing the sentiment within a constituency as they align and identify with the values that UKIP is advocating? If that is happening, are the conservatives on the right path, or are they ignoring the drastic need to educate the people towards why UKIP is the bad choice. Let us not forget that the conservatives got the economy started to the smallest extent whilst the EU is bleeding recession all over. The cautious approach by George Osborne is what is moving England towards better economic waters, which is also why the influx of immigrants is taking massive shapes, all towards better times. It seems to me that UKIP talks nice, but they have at present no way to continue the positive waves, in addition, the needs of change they will force upon the system could undo the forward strides the conservatives achieved within the first 6 months Nigel Farage starts implementing change, which he will believe to be ‘for the better’. The greatest danger here is that the results are only known after the fact, then it will be too late, so there is the link to my own fear, knowing will have repercussions. Ignorance is bliss to some extent; it lets me focus on what needs to be done. I can do it to my issues, Mark Reckless can do it towards the change he believes will make the difference and Kelly Tolhurst will just focus on becoming the new conservative for Kent. Yet Parliament will not get to ignore anything, it needs to dynamically alter its strategies on changes as they happen. David Cameron needs to remain dynamically active, but what of Nigel Farage? Is he dynamically active as we see ‘Farage rejects deportation claims amid UKIP migrant row‘ (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30111694), is he tactically changing points of view in regards to the battles he can win versus those that halt him (a dynamical act), or is he stating dynamical changes whilst not actually being dynamically active? As we see the quote in the BBC article “But Conservative MP Damian Green said Mr Reckless had come ‘dangerously close’ to advocating a repatriation policy while Labour’s Yvette Cooper said Mr Reckless had ‘let the mask slip’“. Is he truly slipping the mask, is he opportunistically inclined as the bulk of middle managers all over the place, or are we watching a different tactic, one that requires the voters top change course, just like the waves for a surfer, yet if waves cannot change direction, was the direction of the voters an actual direction which was never seen correctly?

This is part of my thinking, part that all parties seemed to have ignored, or at least it is a change that many did not consider. These matters are centre in the upcoming by-elections. The people have made mental changes to the parties and what they stand for. Instead of waiting election, Nigel Farage seems to be changing the landscape by these tactical changes, as areas move towards by-elections, we see a shift for the worst (if you are a conservative), so as the deck is stacked in favour of Farage Ukiporated, we see the approach where the 2015 elections are already being drawn vastly against the conservatives. Yes, 75,000 people in one part of Kent is not a big thing, but as this is only one constituency, which others are under attack? Let’s not forget that it is not just the conservatives that are under attack, the Liberal Democrats and Labour both have areas where the voters have been making changes, waves that are all taking other turns and directions, what will happen there? The UK, 650 surfers (read constituencies), and its politicians all trying to ride the waves, will they change boards or get crushed in the waves as they are not respecting the power of the wave. In my mind we will see plenty of surfers adapting to the waves, so will they therefor be the betrayers of the party that gave them the surfboard, are they respecting those who voted for them as they change the waves in a mindset of the price of doing business or are they doing nothing more than serve themselves as they surf for as long as they can. Who do they surf?