Tag Archives: Michael Gove

January 3, 2022 · 19:51

The virtual quarterback

We can consider me being the Monday morning quarterback, it would be fair to call me this. I have been for the longest time a champion of science, I believe that not unlike evidence in law, science is the cornerstone of all daily life decisions. So I tend to take sides with science for nearly all cases. Yet today, in opposition of a piece in the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/02/britain-got-it-wrong-on-covid-long-lockdown-did-more-harm-than-good-says-scientist) I take another side, the non-scientist setting. I oppose the views of Professor Mark Woolhouse. So feel free to oppose my views, which would be fair enough. But in all matters take a long hard look at some of the things we are handed here today. I believe that not unlike some wannabe journalists who wanted to cash in on Jamal Khashoggi with their fiction view of ‘Blood and Oil’ this professor might be trying to find the same rabbit in a different hat with ‘The Year the World Went Mad: A Scientific Memoir’.

So where do I oppose?
It starts with “I am afraid Gove’s statement was simply not true,” he says. “In fact, this is a very discriminatory virus. Some people are much more at risk from it than others. People over 75 are an astonishing 10,000 times more at risk than those who are under 15.” In March 2020 there was a lot we never knew. Do not forget that the disease was out for only 2-3 months, and it had not spread to the degree it has now. China had no answers, and the people who were responsible for calling this a pandemic did not do so. In addition, the media gave us “This might become a pandemic” all whilst the points of calling it a pandemic had already passed. I wrote about it on February 3rd 2020 in ‘Corona? I Never touch the stuff!’ (At https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/02/03/corona-i-never-touch-the-stuff/), a month before we see given here. I already saw the pandemic threshold passed, yet most media were in denial with “This might become a pandemic” as such, it seems to me that Professor Mark Woolhouse will have to explain a few things. Then we get to “We did serious harm to our children and young adults who were robbed of their education, jobs and normal existence, as well as suffering damage to their future prospects, while they were left to inherit a record-breaking mountain of public debt” in this is resort to the blunt ‘Are you fucking kidding me?’ In the first there was a lot we did not know, and for the longest time there are still questions, so the response I see with “We did serious harm to our children and young adults who were robbed of their education, jobs and normal existence” is something I would like to refer to as bullshit marketing. You see the first peak of daily deaths did not start until April 13th 2020, with 6916 dead people (aka the non-living).

I found a table from April 2020 from New York. In this table we see 6839 died, but the interesting part is that 5151 cases had an underlying condition and in that case the older you get the higher the chance of an underlying condition, and in that up to 44 years old 312 died. Most with an underlying condition, but there was a lot not known in that setting. More important, there was no vaccine, there was no protection. The Pfizer solution was still in clinical trials in November 2020. And when you start looking at the facts as they were known, I believe that Mark Woolhouse is trimming his own trumpet for the sake of book-sales (a speculative view, but it is my view).

Were mistakes made?
Yes, of course mistakes were made, they were made all over the world and with the US having an idiot as president in those days did not help much. There was a large void of knowledge and there was a large void of experience, so looking at the facts after the fact does not help much (apparently it might help a certain professor with a book to sell). And in all this the professor does not take into account the anti-lockdown idiots spreading the disease, the ignorant anti-vaxxers adding fuel to the fire and then the people who were ignorant of the way the disease spread going to relative, friends and so forth needing their social moment.

And in London that is a large powder-keg waiting to explode and now that it is doing just that we see the blame game in effect. So consider the anti-lockdown protest, it only 10 people had it at that point, at least 1000 could have it 3 days later. And everyone remains in denial, oh boo hoo hoo!

So when we get to “the country should have put far more effort into protecting the vulnerable. Well over 30,000 people died of Covid-19 in Britain’s care homes. On average, each home got an extra £250,000 from the government to protect against the virus, he calculates. “Much more should have been spent on providing protection for care homes,” says Woolhouse, who also castigates the government for offering nothing more than a letter telling those shielding elderly parents and other vulnerable individuals in their own homes to take precautions.” Where is the time line? When did we know what we know now and that is before we add the complications of Alpha, Delta and Omicron. And with the last quote “By contrast, we spent almost nothing on protecting the vulnerable in the community. We should and could have invested in both suppression and protection. We effectively chose just one.”

In the first, the government could not afford both paths (slight speculation), there were too many unknown factors and with Omicron raging now, anti-vaxxer idiots and anti-lockdown dumbo’s, how can you protect a community? You can claim you can but stupid people will do whatever they feel like, the vulnerable be damned. That is how people tend to be.

So this is my view on the matter and it is a rare event when I oppose a scientist, especially a professor, but here I feel it was needed. And I had a few more views concerning covid over that year and last year too. I kept it low, because I am not a medici (ha ha ha), yet the larger stage is also ignored in the story. The media was fear mongering all over the place and that too resulted in negative actions. There were several factors and I believe that too many factors were unknown, or untested for the longest of times.

So, if you decide I am the Monday morning quarterback it is fine, I gave my reasoning and my views that go back to February 2020 when it was in the earliest stage. So I am not exactly the Monday morning quarterback, but I am definitely a virtual one. Consider the facts and consider the blah blah from Professor Mark Woolhouse and draw your own conclusions.

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Science

Tagged as Alpha, China, Covid, COVID-19, Delta, London, Mark Woolhouse, Michael Gove, New York, Omicron, Professor Mark Woolhouse, the Guardian, US

December 11, 2019 · 16:15

The List

What happens when we demand certain action by the media, yet that same media might not think it is in their interest to pursue such actions, will the people win, or will the media win. It is a direct question as we are being told (via the media) that we have been kept in the dark for years now and we need the media to step up, will they do it?

I have been playing with this idea for a while now and I think it has become a largely visible issue now. I am taking the action as per ‘Greenland’s ice sheet melting seven times faster than in 1990s‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/10/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-seven-times-faster-than-in-1990s), and it is time to recognise the players.

The first fact is that this particular issue has been playing for well over 20 years, so we now have a timeline. Even as the media now alerts us through “Scale and speed of loss much higher than predicted, threatening inundation for hundreds of millions of people”, the issue has been playing for well over a decade, so we now can demand a list.

The list needs to show ANY scientist who have been hiding or trivialising facts. These scientists are NEVER EVER to be considered for government jobs or for environmental jobs, they are to be named and any of them attached to big business will find their presence to be a nullifying factor in assessing a company’s environmental value. When we are given the value “Glaciers calving icebergs in south-west Greenland, which has lost 3.8tn tonnes of ice since 1992, and the rate of ice loss has risen from 33bn tonnes a year in the 1990s to 254bn tonnes a year in the past decade“, we need to see the dangers that some scientists have presented us with. So any scientist who altered their views to please governments will alo be marked and in that stage we will see a fading view of intentional misrepresentation. Scientists have been protected by cushy jobs for the longest of times, by smearing the truth in different directions by marking these people governments will have to face the issues thrown at them, not set them to lay by.

Even now as we see: “That means sea level rises are likely to reach 67cm by 2100, about 7cm more than the IPCC’s main prediction. Such a rate of rise will put 400 million people at risk of flooding every year, instead of the 360 million predicted by the IPCC, by the end of the century” we see an issue that could have been a reason for illumination years ago, but in the age of 1996-2006 the world was swallowed by the need of greed. Even now, we see blatant misrepresentation ‘Fossil fuel firms ‘could be sued’ for climate change‘, is that so? So we want to shove that bill to the Middle East? How about shoving it off to the US, they wanted a car driven population. So as I see ‘Filipino human rights committee finds world’s biggest oil companies have legal and moral responsibilities to act‘, which sounds partly fine when we see the international actions by the Royal Dutch Shell, yet in the end it is an economy that pushed for $29 plane seats, as such that the economy suddenly had cash to burn (almost literally), yet no one sets the value of such drives to the test. So as we are treated to “The head of a Philippines Commission on Human Rights panel, which has been investigating climate change for three years, revealed its conclusions on Monday that major fossil fuel firms may be held legally responsible for the impacts of their carbon emissions” (at https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cop25-madrid-climate-change-greta-thunberg-fossil-fuel-lawsuit-a9239601.html) we see an absolute absence of the economies that pushed for those solutions, all to ignore a stage of economy no one wants to hear about in our times of debt and debt driven economies. Even now as we see the stories from half a dozen sources go on about how tree planting jobs could be yours, whilst NASA Engineer Mark Rober (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7nJBFjKqAY) showed a working solution that was modern and could be implemented months ago. he even gave visibility at https://teamtrees.org/, where we see that in 6 weeks he got to 17,756,768 of their required goal of 20,000,000 trees. A clear solution that is (obviously) being ignored by mainstream media. Even as the Independent (at https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/brexit-tree-planting-michael-gove-eu-conservatives-a9205371.html) gives us “‘It’s nonsense’: Michael Gove criticised after blaming EU for government missing tree-planting target” on November 16th 2019, way after the Mark Rober solution was presented, and whilst he presented it, it is clear that this working format was already in existence, so whilst Greenpiece and Michael Gove are butting heads, neither of them make mention of the solution that a NASA Engineer gave visibility to and tried (via viral ways) to entice people to help him get to the 20 million tree target. As I see it, the government, Greenpiece and several journo’s all missed the point that was out there to see for all. I wonder how many scientists have been overlooking certain solutions.

So whilst we get another clear view via “Successive Conservative governments have already ensured we will miss one tree-planting target in 2020, and we’re on track to miss the one in 2022. Now they’ve set themselves a new target for 2025 and people will be wondering whether this is raising the ambition or just moving the goalposts yet again“, we do not see the names of the people who have been pushing for these changes, I think that we are entitled to that, those people should not be allowed to hide behind the media, we are allowed to see the emphasis of all who agree of changed goalposts. And even as UK Labour will find some picture (like a baby in a hospital) to hide behind, lets face the truth that the sliding environmental values started in the 90’s, that measn that both sides of the isle is guilty of environmental rape.

So whilst we see “Parties across the political spectrum have been boasting about the tree-planting efforts they would undertake if they won the general election” we should add the need to invalidate their right to govern for no less than 3 administrations should they FAIL to keep their word, especially when a happily flaky NASA engineer was able to show the opposite in a clear video, all with examples on how to tackle merely some of the issues we face on how to quickly plant trees (in an affordable way).

This all loosely relates an article in the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/07/oceans-losing-oxygen-at-unprecedented-rate-experts-warn) ‘Oceans losing oxygen at unprecedented rate, experts warn‘, the fact that we see “Dead zones – where oxygen is effectively absent – have quadrupled in extent in the last half-century, and there are also at least 700 areas where oxygen is at dangerously low levels, up from 45 when research was undertaken in the 1960s“, so where were all the alert signs a decade ago? Two decades ago? Were we all asleep? Was it hidden in the news papers on page 35 below the fold? The numbers give us that 650 oxygen deprivation areas were added in half a century, I reckon it would have been news two decades ago, so who aided people to hide these truths? As I see it those people are equally dangerous as mass murderers and any scientist on that stack of choices gets to be put on a list. So any scientist that is considering the ‘befehl ist befehl‘ excuse that some Germans used in November 1945, they better realise that the people had no qualms about hanging those people as well. In light of some information we can optionally agree with “the most profound impact on the marine environment has come from fishing. Ending overfishing is a quick, deliverable action which will restore fish populations“, if that is true, then why is there no global agreement on the actions of overfishing? Why do we see the laughingly inactions by Australian law groups in the Great Barrier reef? Why are poachers not arrested, their boats set up for action in another state (to prevent reacquisition) to limit poaching? There are dozens of other options and actions not being seen and the inactions against criminals acting against the environment is an almost global problem, as such the inactions of governments is becoming more and more debatable.

As such I wonder when the media will look at an actual list and give the people a clear view on who is misrepresenting the factual parts, I wonder what we see those scientists say. And lets not forget the number one action that governments use when the data does not meet the question, at that point some will merely rephrase the question, have you considered how often this solution has been an option for governments in environmental questions?

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Airlines, environment, Fossil fuel, Great Barrier Reef, Greenland, Human rights, Indepedent, IPCC, Mark Rober, Michael Gove, NASA, Royal Dutch Shell, TeamTrees, the Guardian, UK, Youtube

July 26, 2017 · 13:58

Balloons a Pollo from Brussels

The guardian is giving us another issue a mere few hours ago. The article ‘Brussels attacks Liam Fox’s ‘ignorant’ remarks on chlorinated chicken‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/25/brussels-attacks-liam-foxs-ignorant-remarks-chlorinated-chicken-eu-trade-deal-us) is showing us that the UK Trade secretary has been stepping on toes, and off course, we get Brussels to scream fowl. In this the quote “lowering UK food standards to allow the import of chlorinated chicken from the US is an insignificant detail” we might argue that lowering food standards is never ever a good thing, yet in all as the EU is talking about optional UK food standards whilst even now dozens of people are getting arrested in regards to the production and sale of equine beef burgers. Now, they still have a case regarding the quality of food. I reckon that Liam Fox is making a few mistakes. Not merely regarding the Chickens. You see, getting chlorine chickens into the UK, creating an additional danger to the NHS and increasing obesity and Type 2 diabetes is not merely a mistake, it is more of a gastronomic blunder of poised proportions. So as we see a composed (or is that a decomposing) Liam Fox, trying to impress whomever he reports to with securing a quick trade deal, we see that the medication is a lot worse than the disease. When we take an academic gander to the cellulitis side of the equation, we see (at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5393257/), that the issue is not merely the swelling of egos, the issue as given in 2014 gives us “Recently, evidence has linked environmental chemicals with obesity, insulin resistance, and T2D. In January 2011, the US National Toxicology Program and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences held a workshop that evaluated the science assessing exposure to certain chemicals with the development of these disorders. A main conclusion was that persistent organic pollutants (POPs) have generated particularly strong evidence as a risk factor for T2D in humans.”

This now matters as POP’s, or stated Persistent organic pollutants are an actual hidden danger. We get part of this from the youthful youngling from Oxford named Paula Baillie-Hamilton. In 2002 she came up with the hypothesis linking exposure to chemicals with obesity, and this premise is now gaining credence, as stated in the article. So, 15 years ago she got some level of evidence (or a hunch) that seen in the paper ‘Chemical toxins: a hypothesis to explain the global obesity epidemic‘ was to some degree ignored in early studies. The paper goes is a lot deeper (see the links earlier), in all the upsetting phrases ‘appetite controls‘, ‘alter developmental programming of the endocrine controls of metabolism‘ as well as ‘differentiation of adipocytes, resulting in obesity in the future‘. These are not mere quick words, these are upsetting phrases. Now, a little sidestep for the non-academics (and to clear the palate); in the TV-Series ‘Supernatural‘ which is hilarious and of course none of it is true, we see in the season 7, in the episode named “How to Win Friends and Influence Monsters” the premise ‘the Leviathan were working on a food additive designed to render humans complacent and mindless‘, now we can laugh about that, but here we see academic proof that even though we are not becoming mindless, that the so called appetite control, metabolism control and predestination towards obesity and type 2 diabetes dangers that could be a given are the consequences of POP’s (Persistent Organic Pollutants) which are very real risks, and even worse it’s the fact that there is an indication that politicians expect us to remain complacent about it. In part IV.b of that paper we see the question ‘Are obesogens unequivocally harmful?‘, mind you, the text here reads a little strange (mainly because it is an academic work), so when we see “if there is continuous excess energy intake, it will lead to consequent increase of fatty acid spillover into plasma and provide substrate availability for triglyceride synthesis in other tissues such as liver, skeletal muscle, myocardium, or even pancreas, increasing ectopic fat deposition, insulin resistance, and T2D” (T2D = Type 2 Diabetes), which reads to me like, if you continue eating, we get more fatty tissue and insulin resistance which gets us the Diabetes we never wanted in the first place. The claims here are not set in stone and there is a clear directive towards future research. In the conclusion we see “a growing body of evidence links T2D to background exposure to environmental chemicals, in particular chlorinated POPs“, so in this day and age of the NHS, Liam Fox decided to give the playing field to cheap chlorinated chickens. It is however not the only danger, as I exposed the world to certain events a few years ago. The US got into health hazards as the FDA decided to play stupid and hormonal treatments had not been properly vetted for long term dangers, in the end some were removed, yet others are increasingly not or badly examined. Now, we know that Hormones are banned in poultry, yet antibiotics are not. There have been health warnings on this all over the place, also in the US for the longest of times. I am speculating that the two together are potentially working together like a long term cocktail (Chlorinated POP’s & Antibiotics). So not only do US chickens promote the dangers of the population getting exposed to more and more antibiotics resistant bugs, the Chlorinated POP’s might leave us with even less resistance to fight these superbugs.

So, there is one side of the issue. Even as we agree that these chickens are a health hazard, the people are confronted more and more with the fact that they cannot afford to feed themselves at times and a 20% cheaper chicken will suddenly taste a lot better when you have to choose between the option of eating 6 out of 7 days, or have chicken twice a week and eat 7 days a week. You tell me what you would do. In addition, the quote “Fox accused the media of being obsessed with concerns about chlorine-washed chicken being sold in Britain, adding that “Americans have been eating it perfectly safely for years”“, we see that Liam might not just be ignorant, he might actually be stupid (which is still a valid condition to be in politics, US presidents have had that condition for decades). When we consider that well over 1 in 3 in the US is obese, in addition close to 10% of that population has type 2 diabetes, with roughly 1.4 million new cases of diabetes are diagnosed in United States every year, we see that the danger now becomes that one in five (20%) could have this condition before 2035, we are skating dangerously close to a flawed lifecycle that we are allowing to hit the next 3 generations. It is one way to cull the population, yet in equal measure the cost of living will take a downturn on a global scale if the health premise is right. Another part we see and should give serious consideration to is seen when we take the source (http://stateofobesity.org/diabetes/), when I slice the data to the hit states on recession in the US, than my statement on ‘chicken twice a week‘ gets a lot more foothold. the rising in places like West Virginia and Missouri give rise to my view, yet in opposition, when we consider the life in Utah as they relish their quality prime beef and the fact that they are 50^th on the US-state diabetes scale, we see that not only are cheap chickens an optional reason for diabetes; its dietary absence in a state like Utah is a speculated reason that not consuming chickens is also decreasing the diabetes wave by a lot. It is a mere 14.5% (WV) versus 7% (UT), which is a 100% difference!

So my question to Liam Fox at this moment becomes ‘Have you heard of long term consequences and did you properly investigate these?‘ My question is a valid given as the data out in the open from health institutions, from academic sources and the data openly available give a very grey view on the impact of healthcare. The fact that some of the proven research is well over 10 years old give even more questions towards the actions taken on Chlorine bathed chickens. Is it not equally interesting that one product made the difference in the ‘race to the bottom‘ as environment secretary Michael Gove gives us?

In finality on the academic side, the paper ‘Chlorinated Persistent Organic Pollutants, Obesity, and Type 2 Diabetes‘ came from Duk-Hee Lee, Miquel Porta, David R. Jacobs, Jr., and Laura N. Vandenberg. This is the paper where we see the reference to the paper by Paula (in section IV.A), with on the right side of that paper, dozens of other articles linked or contain references to all this. Some of them with titles a lot scarier than the one we used and the ones I looked at were all on an academic level, so this is not some speculative tabloid event.

Even as we look at the balloons in Brussels and as the evidence has been out in several ways, the Guardian article also calls for the immediate dismissal of Gianni Pitella. Unless he can bring evidential proof in the quote: “Gianni Pittella, leader of the socialist group in the European parliament, said: “I’m sure British citizens will be enthusiastic to go from the EU high standard control over chicken and food to the chlorinated, full of hormones, US chicken“, in light of the fact that the US had banned the use of hormones in poultry for the longest of times. So as he quickly made that statement, and seemingly replaced ‘antibiotics‘ with ‘hormones‘, who is he playing for?

He might look like a balloon (read: larger than life and extremely colourful), yet he is not alone, we see in equal measure the dangers within the UK, in this the BBC (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40703369) give us “Lord Krebs, the former chair of the Food Standards Agency, told the BBC that no-one was saying that US beef or chicken was unsafe but that the UK could not “have it both ways” when it came to a future trade deal“, which is another issue, because with ‘no-one was saying that US chicken was unsafe‘ we get new questions, as that is exactly what the academic evidence is implying, in addition there are other statistics to give the growing dangers in the US. We can easily agree that this is not merely because of Chicken, yet they are clearly an unhealthy factor here. In this, Lord Krebs (apparently a Baron in nature) is linked to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which is clearly linked to ethics in biopharmaceutical engineering (read: antibiotics as one small part of this field), we all know that there is nothing unethical about antibiotics, so whose team is he on? Now, he is not misstating any question, he is also right that the UK cannot have it both ways, in that many agree. Yet the dangers of these chlorine cleaned chickens go a lot further than those speaking are telling you and that is equally a danger to all those who get confronted by grilled chlorine chicken on their plate. The biggest danger is that the threat is not immediate, yet for the reading parents, the dangers that there is a clear showing that POP’s are linked to an increasingly growing population over 20 years of age, now with Type 2 diabetes, is that the future you wanted for your children?

I am the first to admit that this is a complex situation, it is ‘sharded’ with sharp issues on every side of multiple issues and there is a lot more required to give it a true (read: closer to the needed) proper verdict, which in light of the quote “Fox has dismissed the row as a minor detail of trade negotiations that have not yet even formally begun” is a misstatement. It is not a minor detail, the repercussions will hit the UK population in several ways and both Liam Fox as well as the speakers on this issue in the European Union seems to be in it for other reasons. The mere ‘emotional voiced claims‘ should be seen as evidence as it. In all, I am not presenting ‘other’ facts, I am merely presenting details that have been known for well over a decade, the fact that none of them make mention of these factors are all kinds of wrong, it is not what any person signed up for. In all this, I am merely a conservative stating to the conservative Secretary of State for International Trade that he has made a significant blunder. Time will tell if he comes forward and corrects himself, because that is the reality that any person in the UK is entitled to.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as BBC, David R. Jacobs, David R. Jacobs Jr., Duk-Hee Lee, Food Standards Agency, Gianni Pittella, Laura N. Vandenberg, Liam Fox, Lord Krebs, Michael Gove, Miquel Porta, Missouri, Nuffield Council on Bioethics, obesogens, Oxford, Paula Baillie-Hamilton, Secretary of State for International Trade, Supernatural, the Guardian, Type 2 diabetes, US National Toxicology Program, Utah, West Virginia

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 30, 2016 · 21:00

Run Michael Run!

Our David met Goliath, ehh, I meant Brexit and took a dive. He did not slay the Brexit, but that in itself was no real reason to quit. Let’s face it, the people are losing more and more hope regarding the validity of a united Europe. The one issue that requires addressing is wholeheartedly ignored all over Europe. Now, we see all over Europe messages like “the spectre of a “Frexit” now hangs over France” (at http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/frexit-to-be-major-issue-in-french-2017-presidential-campaign-1.2703237). Which is not even the most important part. Nexit seems to have been avoided when we see “A narrow majority of 53 percent of Dutch voters are against holding a referendum on whether or not the Netherlands should stay in the European Union” (at http://www.nltimes.nl/2016/06/27/dutch-narrowly-nexit-70-low-educated-favor/), which is only marginally good for Europe. You see, the issue that drives these exits are not being dealt with. Frexit remains an issue as the majority in Fr4nace is now in Favour of a referendum, that majority is surpassing the 60% line. Nexit remains an issue as the far right party PVV is steering the same course as UKIP. Yet there is one difference here. The PVV is currently the largest party, it is actually larger than Dutch Labour (PvdA) and Dutch ‘conservatives’ (CDA) combined. The only part is that what might be regarded as ‘Dutch Liberal Democrats’ (VVD) is in second place and they can unite with either PvdA or CDA to stop the PVV party led by Geert Wilders. So when it comes to Nexit, there is a larger danger as PVV is all in favour and there is a lot of support within the constituency of the other parties too. Even as the media is ‘hiding’ it behind the fact that low educated people are in favour of leaving the EU, the truth is that most politicians are too cowardly to speak out against the gross overspending of Mario Draghi in addition to most of these governments remaining unable to get their budgets in order. I personally regard this as the number one fear that people have. The next generation is handed a debt of too many trillions of Euros. Grexit is in no way the main reason, the wrong actions that have ruled a non-Grexit is the other reason people want out of the EU, but they do not seem to blame the Greeks, only the non-acts by all parties that should have decided to push Greece out of the EU and find a way outside of it to support growth and stabilisation. Now, that path is no longer realistic and the masses are all upset of non-actions.

These elements will all affect the UK. Even now as we see “Deutsche Bank AG is the riskiest financial institution in the world as a potential source of external shocks to the financial system, according to the International Monetary Fund” (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/financial-services/deutsche-riskiest-bank-in-the-world-imf/news-story/4ed1043ffdf76cb26324b531dd0f3171), certain events that have not been properly dealt with will all hit the UK one way or another. Now that the German economy is getting a downgrade, which the IMF states is due to Brexit, but that is not entirely correct!

You see the quote “Britain is an important trade partner for Germany, and significant changes in the economic relationship between the two countries will have repercussions for Germany” is one we could have expected, yet the falsehood of it is also a given. You see Germany has every option to broker an immediate deal with the UK. But the banking powers are now all about ‘procedures‘ and ‘leaving the EU‘, which sounds correct, but let’s not forget that these parties have looked at an optional Grexit for 3 years, is it not weird that any EU exit is not properly addressed? When you consider that, then consider why we suddenly get these new Grexit fears, fears that are considering the voluntary need of an exit would be unfounded.

In this primordial mess we see Michael Gove moving towards the leadership!

This is where I am in favour of Michael Gove taking leadership. We can see in the first part that Boris Johnson has his own agenda, which could be fair enough, but it is important to unite all the conservatives for whatever comes next, it is my personal view that Boris Johnson will not be the man to get that done. In another light we could conclude that Theresa May would not be the right choice either. Her dealing in the Abu Qatada case is one. I raised a few issues in my article ‘Humanitarian Law v National security‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/03/10/humanitarian-law-v-national-security/), in addition I will be the first one to state that this is not all on Theresa May and that the office of Dame Stella Rimington (MI-5) needs to take a truckload of the errors involved, his entry on a forged passport happened on her watch. For me the strongest issues were shown in 2014 (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/02/theresa-may-political-correctness-rotherham-abuse), the Rotherham scandal left its mark, the entire matter as blamed on “institutionalised political correctness” leaves us with a nasty aftertaste, the fact that too many sides that are non-prosecuted will stain (illogically and wrongfully) the coat of Theresa May and as such, she would not have the gravitas she would need to be a successful leader of the Conservative party.

Michael Gove gave himself a boost with the letter that the Independent printed. His 1500 word essay (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-michael-goves-full-statement-on-why-he-is-backing-brexit-a6886221.html) gave the people something to think about. I reckon that the well thought actions of Michael Gove, with the added distinction of Mark Carney could be what the UK needs to move forward faster. I believe that the indecisiveness of the other players outside of the UK will only give more strength to these two power players. The UK must move forward and the Conservatives are still governing. This is unlikely to change as Jeremy Corbyn is now contested as leader as we see Angela Eagle picking up the momentum to remove Jeremy Corbyn. As a conservative I will not mind, you see, whomever ends up in charge of Labour, the Conservatives will end up being in a better position either way, the division that these two players bring to the Labour party will be equally a blessing for Tim Farron, the Lib Dems could profit of this infighting in no small way. Tim Farron has in my view a few other issues to deal with, but those would shrink if he can grow his party fast enough.

This gets us back to my Conservative party, likely under leadership of Michael Gove. Unity is for all parties a need and there is a mess with Brexit to deal with, which is exactly why I think that Tim Farron’s call to undo Brexit is a lot more dangerous, especially as 3 nations are now considering and aiming to secede from the EU at present. Michael Gove is in my view the strongest runner for the conservatives at present. Yet, we must accept that there are a few flaws in that case. Even if we ignore the popularised expression ‘50 shades of Gove‘, we should not ignore the Financial Times (at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ca079702-392d-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7.html#axzz4D3Y8IePA), where we see “a slogan without substance is a flimsy platform for future success“, which is true when it is just a slogan, a 1500 word essay is another matter. From that point of view, Michael Gove is pretty much the only contender left standing. The quote the FT has at the start “One thing has become clear over the course of the UK’s referendum campaign, and even clearer since the Brexit vote: no matter how you define leadership, this isn’t it” is equally matter for debate. It could apply to the callously shabby way Boris Johnson took it, yet in all that Michael Gove gave clear reasoning. The part that is equally interesting is the fact that the Financial Times did not dig into the real pain the UK people had, by not leading that part, we got to the place we are now. The FT also states “Plenty of companies are now scrambling to adjust their plans because of the unexpected outcome. They are guilty of a lack of foresight“, which is true, but it is equally the arrogant consequence of anticipated outcome through the bullying of some of the players. One example was Citibank and how they would ‘move’ operations if Brexit became a reality (at http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/09/citigroup-warns-staff-of-brexit-risk-to-uk-operations-report.html), in my view I state: ‘Well James Bardrick, you got you’re Brexit, so would you kindly fuck off towards Germany, France or the Netherlands!‘ and please do so by the end of next week!

You know, I reckon that they will remeasure their actions, because Frexit is still a possibility Nexit is not definitely averted and the Deutsche Bank as well as the German economy would impact whatever you shift towards Germany. In addition, the changes in India and certain shifts all over Asia Pacific requires a stability foundation, which means that Citibank definitely requires to remain strong in the UK. If not for what is, than certainly for what might be. If I am correct (4 out of 4 would be nice), than there is a strong chance that the M&M team (Michael Gove and Mark Carney) could propel the UK positive ahead of schedule, meaning that Citibank would cut itself in the fingers in more than one way. In addition, and pardon my French, Citibank could end up being the bitch of Natixis in France, a very French way of banking I might add. Giving rise in more than one way that Citibank could lose momentum when it leaves UK operations, letting other banks move in and making the Citibank lose additional market share, which seems like such an ego based error to make.

All in all we can go for the slogan ‘Run Michael Run‘, looking towards better times, not immediate mind you, but possibly faster than we thought possible, the IMF papers regarding France give weight to that, providing the UK, more specifically if the Rt Hon Hugo Swire can get a few trade irons ready for agreement with France, the Netherlands and Germany. If he pulls this of, the UK is on a first leg towards true economic restoration, with the absence of Mario Draghi’s overspending nature.

In the end these are elements that matter, but strongest of all is to address the people who feel that they have been left out in the cold by Europe. National pride is only a first step, momentum will be gained by achieving results, in that Mark Carney remains correct, these steps come with a large risk, whether it is too large is for all players actually remains an unknown for now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Abu Qatada, Angela Eagle, Boris Johnson, Brexit, CDA, Citibank, Dame Stella Rimington, David Cameron, Deutsche Bank AG, Eu, Financial Times, Frexit, Geert Wilders, Grexit, Hugo Swire, Humanitarian Law v National security, IMF, James Bardrick, Jeremy Corbyn, Lib Dems, Mario Draghi, Mark Carney, MI-5, Michael Gove, Natixis, Netherlands, Nexit, PVV, Rotherham scandal, Rt Hon Hugo Swire, Theresa May, Tim Farron, UK, UKIP, VVD

June 23, 2016 · 19:54

On the day of voting

It is the day of the referendum and as is to be expected, the final views are given towards either Brexit or Bremain. In this we need to look at ‘yesterday’s news’ as given (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/22/nato-chief-says-uk-staying-in-the-eu-is-key-to-fighting-terrorism), we see the title ‘Nato chief says UK staying in the EU is key to fighting terrorism‘, to that my initial response is: “Is that so?” It is the quote “What I can do is tell you what matters for Nato, and a strong UK in a strong Europe is good for the UK and it’s good for Nato, because we are faced with unprecedented security challenges, with terrorism, with instability and an unpredictable security environment, and a fragmented Europe will add to instability and unpredictability“, the quote reads nice, but how correct is it? Perhaps correct is not even the right word here, as the quote is a correct one. The issue that Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s secretary general is dancing around is seen in: ‘a strong UK in a strong Europe is good for the UK‘ as well as ‘a fragmented Europe will add to instability and unpredictability‘. You see that is already happening at present. The issue that has been on the table from the beginning is what I personally regard is the unacceptable amount of overspending and feigned credit limits, where the people have quite literally ended up with nothing to show for. In the second, there is the matter of Greece. Mind you, this is not about blaming Greece, this is about the fact that hard decisions should have been made 3 years ago, but Europe, and within that its own NATO were all about the status quo and the internal deception that if you ignore it, it goes away! That has not resolved in any resolution. Mario Draghi has set forth spending well over a trillion with what we can see, nothing to show for, only a weighted regression towards the unstable extreme. That can be shown in equal ease as we see that the trillions in overspending have not resulted in any positive light, only in slowly moving backwards, at the expense of…what exactly?

Well, we can argue that is equally at the expense of a more fragmented and weaker Europe. This is exactly the issue Mark Carney left me (in all honesty less towards Brexit and more towards Bremain), but the question, can we afford these unacceptable levels of spending and force European budgeting? That is something Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England cannot guarantee (which in all fairness he can’t and that does not reflect negatively on him), which is in my view the main reason why Brexit gained the momentum it needed.

The issue ‘add to instability and unpredictability‘ is equally an issue, not because of Brexit, but because of the EU, which in heart is trying to remain a negotiating party, even after we have seen too many examples where this is not leading to anything. As evidence I would like to call towards Turkey. The latest event (at http://www.dw.com/en/turkey-blocks-german-delegation-airbase-trip-over-armenian-genocide-row/a-19349172), where a historic event of 1915 is cause to block a German delegation. The amount of unacceptable acts by Turkey, whilst making all kinds of demands have left more than one party in a state of concern, but the EU wants to be seen as the ‘talking party’, not a decision maker in sight. Even if we ignore this event, the acts that Turkey has shown in regards towards refugee smuggling as well as the downing of the Russian Jet, based on clear evidence that makes the act in light of Islamic State issues utterly unacceptable, but the European Community is not speaking out. At best it is cautiously whispering. How is that contributing to ‘stability and predictability?‘ As I personally see it: it is not and it will not!

So the two elements in this NATO debacle are now already debunked and Bremain would not have made any difference. Now we get to Whopper dealer #2. Here we see France’s president, François Hollande making the statement that has been debunked long ago. The quote “There’s a very serious risk for the United Kingdom not to be able to access the common market and … the European economic area any more“. Do you actually think that ANY, I say again ANY party will be unwilling to commercially deal with the UK? Hah! I say. For example. If France holds true word and stops for example the commerce of French Wine, French Cheese and a few more items. It would lighten up the Cheese markets of the Netherlands and Belgium in addition there would be a massive growth opportunity for German and perhaps even Hungarian wines, whilst France’s commercial position shrinks from 6^th to 11^th on the world list of exports (based on 2015 estimates and my estimated French drop), falling below Belgium. So how is his statement folly? It is simple: it is a buyers’ market and the UK still wants to buy, providing it can sell too. Making them an interesting partner for all of Western Europe, especially as the UK imports more than it exports. It imported 629 million, whilst only exporting 465 million (source: Trade statistics for international business development), so a very welcome trading partner for every nation willing to strike a deal. Do you think for one moment that France could even chance to lose these levels of business? I personally think that this is not even a scaremongering quote, it is one made in infinite fear of the upcoming Frexit referendum which is a certain when Brexit happens. It is also one that will end the presidency of Francois Hollande, which is pretty much a given at present. Only now do we see more newscasts take the Frexit chance more seriously, almost two years after I predicted the danger and the chance of it. It is true that only Marine Le Penn is voicing this promise, but it is clear that too many French are demanding a French referendum, none of the French parties can avoid a French referendum at present, making the statement Francois Hollande makes even less valuable and more questionable.

The article has a few more ‘gems’ to throw against Bremain, but I think a clear point has been made. Those who are evangelising the EU, have been and remain to be unable and unwilling to address the flaws the EU has. An unaccountable part that refuses to stop wasting resources and funds, only to satisfy the status quo. They had 6 months to make strong changes here and nothing got done, so as it is now in the final hours we see iteration of events and iterations of claims that are being made on both sides of the isle, yet now it is more and more important that the Bremain side shows strength. One side that did that was the EU via Jens Stoltenberg and as I personally see it, it failed miserably!

It would be equally fair to have a go at Brexit now and I am all for fairness. Yet, I am a little biased, so bear with me (pun intended)! We see that David Cameron is having a go at his previous buddy Mickey Gove, or as non-intimi call him: the Right Honourable Michael Gove, Lord Chancellor Secretary of State for Justice (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/22/cameron-gove-has-lost-it-in-comparing-anti-brexit-economists-to-nazi-experts). Here we see the important quote “We have to be careful about historical comparisons, but Albert Einstein during the 1930s was denounced by the German authorities for being wrong and his theories were denounced and one of the reasons, of course, he was denounced was because he was Jewish,” Gove said. “They got 100 German scientists in the pay of the government to say that he was wrong and Einstein said, ‘Look, if I was wrong, one would have been enough.’”, which is slightly awkward. Not because he is either right or wrong, but because any reference to any Nazi event tends to get emotional backlash. What he is questioning is what I have questioned. The economic ‘experts’ making the wildest claims are partially those same experts that have been wrongly forecasting the economy again and again. A system of overoptimistic forecasting which follows spending (often too high), after which we see cycles of managed bad news. This has been happening all over Europe, which is why there are many trillions of debt. These experts will not be trusted in any way, shape or form as they require the continuation of the EU (if they want to continue their gravy train) and as such, their views would be skewed and weighted.

What is interesting that Europe’s irresponsible overspending does not make it on either table, which remains at the heart of the matter as I see it! I believe it to be a balancing seesaw attempt to keep the US Dollar afloat, because when the Euro goes, the US Dollar will find itself in a reweighted status, one that is unlikely to be anything but disastrous for the US and for those relying on its stability.

To those deciding to vote today. To you I state: ‘Do what you honestly believe is the best for you, your family and England! No matter how you feel at present, find the speech Mark Carney gave to the House of Lords and read that before you vote. It is a true and honest recital, he mentions the risks England faces and those risks are real. The question becomes, are those risks worse than the current irresponsible acts by the massively overspending EU politicians? If the answer to that is Yes, than Bremain is your likely voice, if you feel that it is ‘no’, the fact that the current irresponsible acts by the EU politicians spending too much again and again is indeed the biggest danger, then Brexit becomes your path!‘

I have no voice in this, I have tried to give you my honest view in this. To show insight whenever and where ever I could. Now it is up to the voters and the results will be seen and felt all over the world from tomorrow onwards.

Mark Carney Testimonial in the House of Lords

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Bremain, Brtexit, David Cameron, François Hollande, Germany, Greece, Jens Stoltenberg, Marine Le Penn, Mario Draghi, Michael Gove, NATO, Turkey

June 10, 2016 · 23:19

Issues of weights and responses

We are forever weighted into a situation, we are always adjusted and often enough we are never one, but anywhere between 0.3 and 25.9. That is the consequence of market research. So when I saw the title ‘You’re wrong Michael Gove – experts are trusted far more than you‘, my initial worry was who these ‘experts’ are. The article (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/09/michael-gove-experts-academics-vote) has a few quotes that are funny to some, hilarious to others and all kinds of BS to another group. I reckon that none of them regard this to be reliable or trustworthy.

Why is that?

when you consider the quote “rarely in British politics has independent, impartial analysis been so necessary“, people might agree that it is a requirement, but whomever is behind those analyses are for the most all working for someone else’s agenda, which makes those claims equally pointless. Let’s illustrate this: “A separate Survation poll for British Future even found that 63% thought economists could be trusted“, the link is there, so let’s take a look.

The laughter should start at slide 2, where we see the question “which of the following best sums up your current voting intention?” the question might seem relevant and the percentages might look good, but the graph is a joke.

– What was the population of that survey?
That is a question that was never given, on none of these pages. It makes the entire paper look like an unreliable joke! A place like Ipsos MORI should know better! And perhaps they do, because they were named regarded another survey, this is done by I know not who. Is that not an interesting fact? I know that Ipsos MORI knows better, because some of them have been my students in the past (if they still work there).

– Were the results weighted and how?
None of these facts made it into that paper, making the results unreliable to the largest of degrees and in addition to that, the fact that the article does not give any clear indication on what is what gives additional reasons for worry.

The people at large are being duped by a media machine that seems to be more profitable to remain connected to the EU, as such, most media options will not give you any decent part of the facts and the truth. So, does this mean that Michael Gove is right?

I feel decently certain that is equally not the case. Most people, especially those connected to politics tend to take an approach towards ‘their’ goals! In that Michael Gove would be no exception. The media is a lot worse in this. It is my personal view that have kept people in the dark of events when it suited either them or their advertisers. How can that be reliable?

As for the ‘economists’, when this system falls apart, most of them will be without a job. As such, what will they preach you think? The older economists all know that no job equals retirements and many of them will soon thereafter no longer be riding the juicy gravy train. Once you have been on that one, we all would do whatever we can to remain part of it. In addition to that, when we look at the so called 63% part. The fact that the answers are Alan Sugar, CEO of a big company, Boss of a small business, a farmer, a fisherman and an economist are part of this is another matter. Was this for ‘light entertainment’, was it serious? If so, was the designer not entirely in a decent state of mind? It could be that these were the most significant groups, but that is speculation because the graph has so much missing information that the entire interpretation of it becomes matter of non-perspective. Just consider that these were the most significant groups, why is there no clarification on the graph? There is so much wrong here that it also makes me question the entire article by Anand Menon and Jonathan Portes. This might be an opinion article, but it is in the Guardian, the Guardian should have followed this up by the Guardian themselves. The fact that Anand is ‘labelled’ as ‘Anand Menon is a director of UK in a Changing Europe’ and Jonathan is labelled as ‘director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and former chief economist at the Cabinet Office’, so are they would be or wannabe politicians? The fact that they ‘rely’ on items from ‘Survation for British Future’ makes this all an issue, it should be an issue for all of you!

There is another quote that needs to be dealt with. The quote “the idea that academics are biased in their research because they get “EU money”. In our careers, we have conducted research funded – usually through competitive tender processes – by the EU, the UK government, companies and trade unions, and never been shy of telling any of them things that they didn’t want to hear. Our professional reputations depend on it” sounds nice, but we can agree that ‘academics’ with their papers regarding the economic viability of Iceland were accepted without question. The evidence was seen in the Oscar awarded documentary Inside Job (2010). It is one of the most visible pieces of evidence, but in no way the strongest one. Another piece of evidence is seen (at https://www.ifw-members.ifw-kiel.de/publications/the-financial-crisis-and-the-systemic-failure-of-academic-economics/KWP_1489_ColanderetalFinancial%20Crisis.pdf), with a clear abstract. Which in part is “The economics profession has failed in communicating the limitations, weaknesses, and even dangers of its preferred models to the public. This state of affairs makes clear the need for a major reorientation of focus in the research economists undertake, as well as for the establishment of an ethical code that would ask economists to understand and communicate the limitations and potential misuses of their models“. You see, a statistician, a politician and a barrister have something in common. They answer a very specific question. Their reaction to that specific question becomes their paper, which we saw in the Iceland situation. In case of the politician we have another element. You see, when the answer doesn’t suit them, they will change the question. That is where we are, we see answers, but the clear questions that leads to them is not in that presentation (or the numbers and weights).

It follows by a reversed psychology quote “if we were self-serving and intent only on personal enrichment, our interest would be very much in a leave vote. If auditors are those who “arrive after the battle and bayonet the wounded” it is professional economists and political scientists (not to mention lawyers) who would rake in the consultancy cash in the uncertain atmosphere of a vote to leave“, it is reverse psychology because the statement is quite the opposite of factual and Brexit could destabilise the Euro, after the UK, France is most likely to leave, which will push Germany out too. That is what they all fear, because when the Euro goes, the Dollar (the US currency) will take a massive dive, well over 30% of economists will be out of a job. There will be no funds for any in any of the so called ‘vulture’ industries. You see, what currency would the consultancy cash be in? There is a realistic danger that the US will lose well over 20% of its value, those who get out and move into their local currency would take no less damage, but after that, the only damage they would take are local based issues. The US with minus 19 trillion would have little option other than default on their loans. It would (speculatively speaking) drive debt from 19 trillion to 23 trillion almost overnight. The timeframe that this impact on is harder to calculate. You see, politically speaking Obama would want to stretch any event to the last day of his administration, so that the mess ends with the next administration, which is also speculation from my side. This would also impact the total US debt, which is speculated to be well over $60 trillion, but a clear reliable number is one I do not have at present.

All these factors will be impacted and Brexit will have a definite impact on all of it. Should you doubt that, do you think that the US president would have made the trip for some remembrance speech involving WW2? Brexit is the real nightmare Wall Street faces. If Brexit was a singular issue, it would not be that big a problem. Yet, that is the one part that is partially a given. You see, this is not a thought that just popped up. I wrote about this in May 2013 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2013/05/15/a-noun-of-non-profit/), in the article ‘A noun of non-profit‘, I voiced it as “Consider a large (really large) barge, that barge was kept in place by 4 strong anchors. UK, France, Germany and Italy. Yes, we to do know that most are in shabby state, yet, overall these nations are large, stable and democratic (that matters). They keep the Barge EU afloat in a stable place on the whimsy stormy sea called economy. If the UK walks away, then we have a new situation. None of the other nations have the size and strength of the anchor required and the EU now becomes a less stable place where the barge shifts“, this is the danger Brexit poses. As governments and large corporations have been playing with safety margins, the three anchors will not be able to keep a clear stability. That will cause waves and the EU barge will start to shift all over the economic ocean, impacting all currencies linked to the Euro, the US dollar ending up being hit the hardest. It is a danger governments and economists fear, because their cushy lives will end. In that same frame academics are not equipped to deal with the aftermath. The abstract quote “the limitations and potential misuses of their models”, the question then becomes whether misuses of their models were intentionally allowed for. It is not an accusation, it is a question. I do not claim to have the answer, I am merely asking the clear questions a former chief economist at the Cabinet Office seems to be avoiding in his opinion piece and the Guardian is equally not asking questions on more than one level.

Are you starting to feel the breeze?

This is why I was initially on the Brexit side, I am still not convinced that Brexit is not the solution, but Mark Carney clearly pulled me away from the idea that Brexit is the only solution. It still might, but there will be consequences. You see I believe the UK debt to be manageable, to total debt that the EU is pushing the EU in is not a solution, other than that it takes pressure away from the American debt. Since when is Europe responsible for that? The US has not taken any responsibility for too many events from 2004 onwards. The EU is in another weak position, having one trading partner is one thing, when the US will have to deal separately with UK, Germany and France, these individual nations might get a much better national deal.

One part that remains a given is that there are no assurances. I believe the UK would stand up stronger after a few years and there will be hardship for that time, hardship for a lot of people, yet at present there is absolutely no evidence that the quality of life in the UK is improving, most models are speculative and after a year they end up showing to be inaccurate. That is also the side that requires additional addressing. Even though we should not act on our needs, it ends up what people do, economists and non-economists alike.

Which gives us the final quote “but if the public is better informed than it otherwise would be about one of the most important issues in this campaign, we’ll have done our job“, which is the one thing they did not do, basically they misinformed you, because the numbers without proper support of numbers are empty and pointless. You see, if the question was given to 2-3 thousand people it should not count towards the choice of 68 million people. Weighted, the chance of unbalanced clustering is too large to consider, meaning that these numbers should be regarded as highly unreliable. In my opinion, the article misinformed you, showing that everyone has an agenda. I can only personally state that I have no agenda and you would not be wrong to ignore that part. Believe me or choose to not believe me. I only hope that you will look at what is presented and question every part you see. Let’s take one more look to the initial evidence that the writers used. In the first (at https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ipsos-mori-business-and-brexit.pdf), the Ipsos MORI part. In the second (at http://www.britishfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-EU-referendum-and-public-trust_Survation-for-British-Future-2015.pdf). We can clearly see that the Ipsos MORI gives much better (being it incomplete) information. Slide 6 does show a nice part, Journalists and Politicians are at the bottom of trustworthiness. Yet without clear response numbers and weighting, this data is not reliable enough and the vote might take a different direction in the end. In my view, the power used here is to use the numbers to sway the undecided into the direction they want them to go, into the Bremain direction. Can I prove it? No!

But I am asking questions regarding this that those who should aren’t. I personally believe that makes my view more reliable, but I am biased here. Make sure you ask the right questions and it seems that there is nearly no one left to trust in this matter, isn’t that the saddest part of all in this?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as A noun of non-profit, Alan Sugar, Anand Menon, Bremain, Brexit, France, Germany, Inside Job, Ipsos Mori, Italy, Jonathan Portes, Mark Carney, Michael Gove, Survation, UK

April 3, 2016 · 14:10

The Medic and the Medici

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it fair?

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Boris Johnson, Carl Baker, Cleo Watson, COGPED, David Cameron, Department of Health, Dr Roshana Mehdian, Emma Watson, Jeremy Hunt, Michael Gove, NHS, UK

March 27, 2016 · 23:00

The excuse from a failed politician

The NHS has been in the news more than once as it is an important issue. It is today’s article in the Guardian that is a much bigger issue than most people will realise. Let’s take a look at the issue. The title ‘NHS would be put under threat by Brexit, says Jeremy Hunt‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/26/nhs-under-threat-from-brexit) is only the beginning.

To show you part of this we need to look at this part by part. The first part is shown at the very beginning “The National Health Service will face budget cuts, falling standards and an exodus of overseas doctors and nurses if the UK leaves the European Union, health secretary Jeremy Hunt has said“, which gets my initial response ‘Let me play the worlds tiniest violin for you Jeremy! Why don’t you consider an alternative job like in a taxi or perhaps become a barber, it’s just a suggestion!‘

Is my response to harsh? In this light, which should always be considered, we need to state the following:

The NHS will always face budget cuts, Brexit is not a factor in that reality. Remember that the NHS works off the UK national budget, which is under pressure to say the least, the EU donation not being the smallest expense in all this.
Failing standards if Brexit happens. This might be the most ludicrous reasoning. Ludicrous because standards are either being met or not and at present from several sources they are not being met, the EU seems to be setting unrealistic high requirements in some cases, requirements that many nations are failing, it should be about British standards, they should be the highest and they should be met, EU be damned (and all that).
An exodus of overseas doctors and nurses when Brexit happens. This could have been an issue, but it was clearly stated in my blog ‘The News shows its limit of English‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/06/22/the-news-shows-its-limit-of-english/), where I showed how both Sky News and the Guardian were basically fucking up and creating unneeded panic. That article called ‘New immigration rules will cost the NHS millions, warns nursing union‘ showed the lack of investigation by both news sources as the UK government had published clearly in section 79E ‘is expected to demonstrate that he is being paid either at or above the appropriate rate for the job, as stated in the Codes of Practice in Appendix J‘, the nurses are clearly mentioned and the expected income as set out in the charter.

As I see it, I had to explain that to the press in my article on June 22^nd 2015, so why would Jeremy Hunt state option C? In his defence, some people might be nervous if the UK leaves the EEC, yet a British passport is one of the most revered ones on the planet. So any non-EU medical employee would do a lot to gain that status and the UK government has done its share of keeping these highly qualified people interested in staying in the UK. So tell me, why is Jeremy giving us part C?

He actually gives us a decent answer through “Hunt argues that, with the NHS budget already under huge pressure, funding levels can only be maintained if the British economy remains strong“, it is only partially an acceptable answer as the NHS has been a mess for almost half a decade now, so these issues had been known, even if Brexit is an additional element, the danger of Brexit had been a fact for at least 6 months, that is, the chance of it becoming a reality, so the consequences of diminished economy has been an element for almost a decade. Even as the UK had been fortunate, the dangers of a receding economy have been a danger for the larger extent and when we realise that other EU nations have not been this fortunate, we should see that part in the light of ‘Jeremy hunt has had an economic advantage until now’. Not being ready for that risk is clearly a failing of health secretary Jeremy Hunt (as I personally see it).

After that he then kicks in his own windows when we read “He cites a series of economic surveys, including from the CBI as evidence of the adverse impact of an exit on the UK economy“, the CBI survey, which was an absolute joke, as shown in ‘Is the truth out there?‘ (At https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/03/21/is-the-truth-out-there/), it makes for a decent read and shows how the CBI survey could be seen as another chapter from one of the most famous books in statistics called ‘How to Lie with Statistics‘ by Darrell Huff, a 1954 publications that shows us never to ignore the classics.

The quote: “Hunt suggests that progress the government is making in employing 11,000 extra doctors and 12,000 more nurses will be threatened and warns of the “damage caused by losing some of the 100,000 skilled EU workers who work in our health and social care system”. Some could leave because of uncertainties over visas and residence permits, he suggests“, which again I consider to be a load of (the word starts with a ‘B’ and ends with ‘locks’). There shouldn’t be any uncertainties on visas or residency permits and offering that even as a suggestion makes (again, in my personal opinion), Jeremy Hunt unqualified for his present position. It is his job to create calm and take stress away, not to introduce additional stresses to an area where he already failed, in addition to these points I am raising, personally, as a conservative. I believe that there are questions on Brexit and to be against Brexit might be the party line, but there are too many questions regarding the European Community, there are conservatives who seem to support Brexit. For one there is Lord Chancellor Secretary of State for Justice Michael Gove, who gave his reasons at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-michael-goves-full-statement-on-why-he-is-backing-brexit-a6886221.html, that part is not up for discussion. The only quote in all this is “The EU is an institution rooted in the past and is proving incapable of reforming to meet the big technological, demographic and economic challenges of our time“, which applies to the NHS because it is facing both technological and economic challenges already. The Labour party bungled the option to get part of the technological solution implemented that could have helped the NHS (perhaps you remember the loss of roughly £11.2 billion in NHS IT restructuring).

My issue in all this is that (again, as I personally see it) Jeremy Hunt is not much of a visionary, which means that as expected, he will follow the party line as any governing body needs to adhere to. Yet in all this, scaremongering is the wrong approach. We need to be the enlightened party, the leaders that give rise to inspiration by properly informing the people. The growing problem for the Conservatives is that like Michael Gove, more will see that the EU has stopped being a solution. Many will not be as eloquent as Michael was in his essay, as printed by the Independent. This does not matter if we are united in finding a solution. My big worry is that scaremongering is a dangerous tactic. It is also the wrong one to make for the reason that enlightening the audience creates trust, needlessly scaring them will only drive part of our party towards UKIP (or Labour), a choice that is a lot more dangerous! To govern one must be elected and the view given at present is not that encouraging.

Stephen Dorrell, the former health secretary and ex-chairman of the Commons health select committee gave us this “EU research programmes and single market legislation have greatly strengthened European cooperation in this area with substantial benefits for both healthcare and employment in the UK. It is a simple fact that Brexit would put all this at risk“, which we might see (initially), as a fair enough statement. Yet in my view, the information could be regarded as incomplete (read: speculative view). You see, when we consider Stephen Dorrell, Healthcare and Public Sector Senior Adviser to KPMG in the UK (at https://home.kpmg.com/uk/en/home/contacts/d/stephen-dorrell.html), we need to consider what KPMG could lose, apart from the NHS £1 Billion revenue solution, as one might phrase it. When we re-consider the info the Guardian gave, which is correct in the view that NHS funds will find cutbacks, KPMG has a clear danger that it will reflect on their 10 figure deal, all in pounds and a lot less on medical staff. This gives an additional weight to the view that Stephen Dorrell did not give all the information, because there is a lot more, not on the hands of Stephen Dorrell or in the hands of him mind you, but in the hands of his friends (read: associates), possibly with KPMG who are realising that Brexit will impact their juicy pharmaceutical profits, with a growing chance that India could move more and more into the UK pouch of generic medication and the expenditure cutback solutions they bring. Now, reader be warned, there is a fair bit of speculation here (the part about India), that speculation is partially because I think there are long term solutions here for the Commonwealth at large, partially because it seems to me that I (and the public at large) have had enough of fat cats (especially pharmaceuticals) avoiding taxation to the degree they have whilst selling overpriced solutions, that are being re-patented again and again.

The list of misinformation appears to be growing and I am trying to offer resistance, because my party should be better than that! After all, we aren’t the Labour party!

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

Tagged as Brexit, CBI., Conservatives, Darrell Huff, EEC, Eu, How to lie with statistics, Immigration, Jeremy Hunt, KPMG, Lord Chancellor Secretary of State for Justice Michael Gove, medical staff, Michael Gove, NHS, Nurses, Public Sector Senior Adviser, Sky News, Stephen Dorrell, the Guardian, UK, United Kingdom

April 18, 2015 · 10:11

And so it begins!

The ink from my WordPad app has not even dried from the articles a few days ago. And in the UK 5 hours ago we see the following events unfurl in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/17/imf-urges-eu-to-slim-down-its-demands-on-greece). The title is already glooming bad vibes as it states: ‘IMF urges EU to slim down its demands on Greece‘, so here is the first part.

Now we look at the quotes “The International Monetary Fund has urged EU negotiators to slim down their list of demands in debt talks with Greece amid fears that time is running out to reach a deal” as well as the statement by Yanis Varoufakis “There has never been a key date. We have to see everything in combination and cumulatively. On the 24th [April] there will not be a solution, there will be progress“. This is at the centre of deception, this is why Europe is about to face the harsh reality of the people having enough!

The realisation was already there two days ago when I ‘accused’ Mario Draghi of being either Reckless or incompetent. That call was very valid in light of the dangers that Greece faces. Now it becomes a viable thought that there was never any danger for Greece to begin with and they can play the game the way they like, because someone else is willing to play footsie with their inaction.

Now we get to the statement by the Chancellor George Osborne, who stated that one misstep in the Greek debt negotiations could return Europe to the ‘perilous state’ of 2011 and 2012. The problem here is not the negotiations, but the fact that Greece is unwilling to do anything. The statement of Yanis Varoufakis makes that a given. In addition, progress or not, if acceptable plans are not delivered by April 24th, they should not be allowed to get the 7.2 billion. But here is the kicker, that makes Grexit a direct reality and if we reiterate the words from Mario Draghi, that was never a consideration.

So here comes my predicament: “If the UK (Prime Minister David Cameron and the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne) do not put the hammer down at this point, there is every indication that the British voters see this in the air of ‘more of the same’ and they would hand the dangers of a massive victory towards UKIP”. This is not just a simple party issue. The taxpayers of the United Kingdom at large will not accept the austerities they face, whilst the Greek politicians are playing with themselves in the shower not doing anything productive. People from all over Labour, Conservatives as well as the Liberal Democrats will then listen to the words of Nigel Farage when he can state with some pride: “I told you so!”, that movement will not be a small one and the orchestration we are likely to face between April 24th and May 5th will only push people towards UKIP faster. Should Mario Draghi, Christine Lagarde and Pierre Moscovici ignore this, then be certain that the cold turkey that is about to be served will not taste too good for them.

They are already making changes to the timeline, as the statement was made 9 hours ago: “European Commissioner Pierre Moscovici has thrown down a challenge to Greece; you must produce a concrete set of reforms by May 11“, why the delay again? To make sure it comes AFTER the UK elections? No, time is up dear players!

You see, the UK is only step one, the tidal wave towards UKIP is nothing compared to the wave National Front and Marine Le Penn will gain under these conditions. Although the matter will not be as strong for the Dutch as their elections are not until 2018, the Dutch PVV would benefit the conditional game that some are playing now.

We see part of the fear in a response we saw less than 24 hours ago. One response is: “GREECE’S MAIN CREDITORS SAID TO BE UNWILLING TO ALLOW EURO EXIT You surprised? Natch they’d like their money back and pref the EU to sub it“, which is what we expected all along and the voters can reduce that risk by well over 7 billion by tossing Greece out of the Euro now. In addition we see the mention: “Greek FinMin Varoufakis: Draghi meeting lasted an hour, he said he wants a resolution soon to help #Greece grow“. Is that so?

Growth in Greece is pretty much not an option, when you have nothing left, you can only whether the storm by nailing down the hatches and let part of your crew (read the Greek population) drown. The fact that Tsipras has not done anything substantial since he got elected should be a clear indication, the entire rockstar Varoufakis tour going past every nation (in really nice hotels) has gotten the Greek people nothing more than ‘On the 24th [April] there will not be a solution, there will be progress‘ is at the heart of the matter. Billions (from rich Greeks) are safely out of Greece (read Swiss bank accounts) and those questioning that were thrown into court, no actions on previous administrations have been made and no setting to reduce the costs that the Greek government cannot pay for have been addressed. So tell me, why would anyone desire to keep Greece in the fold, when the first route Tsipras took was a trip to the Kremlin (you know, the people behind the Eastern Ukraine debacle)?

So what is in store for the UK? This is at the centre, because the ‘manage bad news’ cycles that we see from team Lagarde-Draghi will be fuelling the Farage engine more than anything else. It is not just that people are expecting Greece to be ‘saved’ again, it is done whilst those making loads of money are not held to account. By the way Mr Draghi, I hit on hard times and whilst I am doing anything possible. I am making little progress, so can you please deposit £650.000, which I will repay at 0.1% interest annual over 30 year. Seems only fair that you give the amount to people more responsible (especially me) than the Greek elected officials, ‘n’est-ce pas?‘ and ‘sans rancune‘ (after the deposit).

This gives me the next part in all this. When you take a look at the Guardian election page, it seems to me that apart from one piece by Stuart Heritage, the visibility of UKIP is almost none existent. The fear that the other parties have in regards to what UKIP could do is in my view decently staggering. In my personal view, I do not think that UKIP is the right solution for the UK, yet this is decided by voters and as 97.3% of that electorate is nowhere near my intellect and insight, the fact that these people will see it the same way is not a given, more important, when we consider the article by Stuart Heritage (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/17/nigel-farage-was-the-only-winner-in-final-tv-election-debate), which we see in the quote “Calling out the assembled masses for being a bunch of hoity-toity pinkos, though? That’s madness. That’s suicide. That’s the political equivalent of a Blackmar-Diemer gambit. But Farage knew what he was doing. He knew he still had a MOAB in his back pocket. A showstopper. His very own Candle in the Wind. And so, just when it looked like events were spiralling out of his control, Farage pulled out his joker – the old “Foreigners with Aids are making British people die of cancer” line“, which did the trick, but now consider the following quote we are likely to read soon: “We, hardworking brits are paying for expensive Greek officials, we are paying the money they are spending in many irresponsible ways and we have no option but to accept their extravagant spending, even their own rich do not have to pay for anything there!” how long until the anger of these people demand change? Consider that according to the government 17% of all individuals are on an absolute low income (at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/325416/households-below-average-income-1994-1995-2012-2013.pdf), in addition, when we compare this in housing we see that 40% of those on relative low incomes are social rented sector tenants. This is a massive part of the UK that is struggling to get by and the banking wealth is very willing to let it all continue, so that those who made a really bad investment (read Greek bonds) will get their money’s worth. How do you think the British population will react in the coming week to the ‘be nice to the Greeks so that we can keep them in the Euro’ group? That is a massive electorate that UKIP can tap into and I feel certain that we will see this happen in the week leading to the election, so April 27^th to May 5^th as the Greeks will suddenly go into theatrical tragedy mode (read Tsipras and Varoufakis will stand in a ‘we are defeated‘ pose), who will buy it then? If UKIP does sweep the nation Christine Lagarde will have an entirely new danger to deal with, just because she was unable to muzzle the greed driven population trying to get more Greek money. The entire Greek comedy was mishandled from the very day they were allowed to go back to the market (by the way, I think I predicted that one correctly, so please deposit 2.1% of the 40 million in kickbacks the bond traders ended up with in commissions). This should take care of my bar bill for the period 2015-2019.

Yes, when we add it all up, the future looks grim and if team Cameron/Osborne (the team I support) do not bring out the big guns now, my initial prediction in 2013 (where I predicted that Labour and Conservatives ended up in opposition together) could come true. I need to find my application for running a popcorn and peanut stand in front of parliament, because the public bench will be so overcrowded that first year, giving me an interesting enterprising income (to pay back the loan from Mario Draghi), which is what Britain was all about in the first place, to be enterprising!

So, was I enterprising enough? Am I correct?

That part is at the heart of the matter. I do not know, but the dangers of this all happening is growing by the day, every day we see a new excuse on giving the Greeks more time is changing the game we face in both the UK and soon thereafter in France too. So the quote by Michael Gove ‘There will be no Conservative-UKIP deal after the general election, the Tory chief whip Michael Gove has said‘ could be very correct, because if the ECB and IMF do not change their tune, the winnings of UKIP could be large enough for UKIP not to need the Tories at all. But on the positive side, Nick Clegg will end up having a new political idol to follow, isn’t that nice?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Christine Lagarde, David Cameron, European Commissioner Pierre Moscovici, George Osborne, Greece, Grexit, IMF, Laour party, Liberal Democrats, Marine Le Penn, Mario Draghi, Michael Gove, National Front, Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage, Pierre Moscovici, Prime Minister, Stuart Heritage, the Guardian, Tory chief whip, Tripras, UKIP, Yanis Varoufakis

Tag Archives: Michael Gove

Recent Posts

Archives