Tag Archives: Miliband

In further news

Yes, I used a title that applies to the next two stories, more apt, I am reflecting on a few matters, after a week of intense sickness (I survived for the weirdest of reasons) it is time to reflect on a few matters. The first is in gaming. You see Forbes is not known as an insider in games, but they do get it right most of the time, this time however they decided to wield a sledgehammer when they gave verdict on Ubisoft’s Breakpoint. With “I have seen Breakpoint, a just-released fall game, listed at anywhere from $30-35 in many Black Friday sales, but what these deals do not tell you is that this is one of the worst major releases of the year and is probably not worth picking up even at a 50% discount. Breakpoint has a 57 on Metacritic, when most big games these days score between a 75 and 85, and it’s been such a disaster for Ubisoft that the company pretty much delayed its entire slate of new releases for a while in order to make sure they didn’t have another repeat disaster like this one. If your video game release knowledge is limited, just know that despite the box art, this is not a replacement for Call of Duty, and should be avoided at all costs“, so not only is it a disaster as a release, the fact that the game scored 57 whilst anything up to 80 tends to reflect as passable, it ended up lower than that, a lot lower. News keeps on hitting the wires ‘Ghost Recon Breakpoint makes Paid content free‘, ‘Ghost Recon Breakpoint players want AI teammates put in ASAP, want tiered loot and The Division 2-esque gear score stripped out soon‘, more and more news showing massive let downs and let downs that were programmed into the system, all whilst the system itself was flawed. I still like the issue that within a bunker the outside light is better than when you were outside the bunker. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YmB1tJ-MhM) at 8:30 gives you an example and it is not the only one. Issues that could have been prevented to some degree by having it tested, an option that Ubisoft seems to feel an aversion to. Yet the larger issue remain in play, the fact that a game of this size and with the positivity they had created is now under fire, all whilst a player like Forbes, even in a moment where the commerce gives great discounts we see the advice not to buy, that is more than a coffin nail, that is the stage where a game ends for a game, it also needs to fit the bill that Breakpoint is the first game that is no longer considered to be a AAA game, the latter part will obviousle not find support (within Ubisoft) for te mere reason that as a story and backfeed to investors it would be optional suicide for Ubisoft to make such a move, but there it is, in light of what ailes Breakpoint and what needs to be done to breakpoint, as well as a score of only 57, this can not now or ever be regarded as an AAA title. Such is life.

From make believe war, to an actual aftermath

Yes, when we are sick and tired of setting the stage towards virtual war, we should take a moment to watch the real deal. The Guardian yesterday (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/01/failure-to-end-civil-war-in-yemen-now-could-cost-29bn) gave us the small inkling in the shape of ‘Failure to end civil war in Yemen now could cost $29bn‘, I particularly like the application of ‘now could cost‘, yes after months of ‘the worst humanitarian crisis‘, ‘the humanitarian disaster in war-torn Yemen was getting worse‘, and these are november quotes, the same quotes have been dropping into the newspapers on a global scale for well over 6 months, some go back a year and at no point did we get additional news that it was getting worse. The accusatin go back even more but the guardian does something stupid (this time around). They add to this with “The warnings are partly directed at Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates” the act is stupid because politicians all over the world have been instrumental in continuing this war. Instead of choosing sides they set a stage where hindrance to Saudi Arabia was given at every turn, prolonging the Houthi terrorist offensive. At some point the Guardian decides to quote David Miliband, president of the IRC and former foreign secretary. Yet the truth of the matter is that undecided actions and prolongation was the coffin nail to the event. And the article does something even worse, it takes events and does somthing stupid, it ignores the support that houthi forces have had from Iran, the most devastating issue prolonging this war is ignored by the writers of this article and by people like David Miliband, Iran had the bigger part to play and is left on the table, like they were an influence that was dabatable or in dispute, all whilst for well over 18 months there was no doubt of their involvement, as well as the involvement of Hezbolah, yes two elements that prolonged the entire war by well over 150% and they end up not being mentioned. So as we (again) see the same materials that we saw 6-12 months ago “Houthi rebels appear to be ignoring key elements of the ceasefire agreement in the Red Sea port of Hodeidah and the WFP is battling to maintain control over the distribution of food from the rebels“, my message to David Miliband, president of the IRC and former foreign secretary would be “Stop being a wanking twat and give the people the lowdown on the failures here, which includes Iran and Hezbolah“, the issues in Yemen are not stopped, until the Houthi forces are dealt with this will continue, by hindring the Saudi and UAE forces, whilst at the same time remaining silent on Hezbollah and Iran is the largest fuck up we have ever seen in politics.

So here is the word of the day, in part it was virtual, but we added some real life famine just for jollies, there is a balance in the universe. Because the world is a seesaw and we all get to play, it merely matters on what is seen as the seesaw and which problem is the larger one, in that game perception is everything.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, Media, Military, Politics

The day after the election before

It is nice to see the fallout reign over papers and TV shows alike. How some Tories see the demise of Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage entertaining, I myself have mixed feelings on such an act! The right party won as I see it, yet that is no grounds to see the others kicked when they are down. It also seems a little silly to replace one leader for the next wannabe because the previous one lost. That is a loser’s mentality! You see, in my view there is no better Labour consideration, who will fill his seat? Liz Kendall? I took her apart in that tech article she added her name to in the Guardian, if she takes control, great! That means the next two administrations are extremely likely to be Tory too, works for me! Andy Burnham? Seems like a decent labour man. I do not know too much about him other that he seems to be devoted to his wife, his children and the labour party (in that order). He does not seem to be a strong leader, but his last true test was when he turned 40, so he might have risen to the occasion, if he wins time will tell!

If Miliband is not an option, it seems to me that Angela Eagle, Rachel Reeves and Chris Leslie are worthy options here. I consider the two ladies because no matter what rises to leader in any party, it is best that this person comes with a few awesome economic degrees. Chris Leslie is not that but still has a decent view on matters, in addition to whatever he brings, he was able to overturn Keighley from Tory to Labour and did so with a decent margin. That makes him a tough opponent and a possible political price fighter. The fact that he was a former private secretary to Lord Falconer would work in his favour too (footnote: not the same Falconer as in R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30).

I have a limited view on who should lead Labour. Even though Ed Miliband made his share of errors, especially as he went into the final lap, there is no guarantee that the replacement politician will not make the same mistakes (or worse).

When we look at the Liberal Democrats, there seems to be only confusion. That is to be expected, the Liberal Democrat fighter goes into the ring, got his fists ready and gets clobbered with a spiked bat. That is what losing 49 seats is likely to feel like. I always thought of Nick Clegg as a decent fellow, yet how wrong was his message to lose THAT many seats? Of course Scotland costed him a bundle (except for Shetland, them pony’s be faithful). The only way to restore the party is by finding a true visionary. It seems that Lord Ashdown has one massive fight on his hand finding that person. To be honest, I reckon that as we see the current choice is Norman Lamb and Tim Farron, Tim Farron would be the favourite here as I see it. The main reason is that Tim is a little left leaning. He can rally the ‘deserters’ on the right and sway several labour players on the left. This would give him the tactical move to restore the party to power, but that is not done overnight, it will likely take more than one election, so if He can sway enough people before the next general election, the Liberal Democrats would regain party fame as well as visibility.

Now we get to UKIP. I will not bore you with too many details, the issue here is who would be good. Here I take the current achievements in consideration. Steven Woolfe falls off the map then. He is bright, but consider that he has Stockport and he trailed both Conservative and Labour by a lot, being 50% below conservatives and almost 75% below Labour is not a good place, if you have your constituency at 13% you are not doing too well and the same can be said for Patrick O’ Flynn, who is trailing the four bigger ones by an uncomfortable margin, which is the only reason why I do not see them as UKIP party leader successors. Even though, according to the BBC article Douglass Carswell took himself out of the race, I am not convinced that this would be in the interest of UKIP. He won his place from the conservatives with a comfortable margin and squatted Labour ‘choice’ Tim Young like nothing you saw (likely with support from Giles Watling). My only concern here is that I personally feel that any party leader needs to have a decent degree in economics, because the next 5 administrations will all be about the economy and finding new ways to boost it to better heights, no matter who gets to be in charge. Although, the reasoning Carswell is the right one, Nigel Farage might have lost his constituency, the rise in votes is almost astronomical. If we go by the numbers of the last election we can see that there are at least 5 constituencies where winning is a realistic option for the next time around. They can give serious worry to at least 6 additional constituencies. That makes for 11 constituencies that obtainable if the right paths are walked, before Farage that was never even an option. If UKIP keeps its heads together and do not waste energy on futile public exclamations that only confuse the voters they could win a lot more, they basically got 5% of the votes. If they can rise to 11%-13% several locations will fall in favour of UKIP, which is not an outlandish goal or even an unrealistic one.

Now to the Conservatives, my own side!

There is a comfortable margin for the Tories, but as stated above, UKIP has the power to grow. Tactically speaking the best thing conservatives can hope for is that UKIP takes over a few more LD constituencies and try to have a go at the labour won areas. That tactic will work fine form UKIP for now, yet, to some extent it will work favourably for the conservatives too. Yet, there are areas, especially around Manchester where UKIP is a close third to the Tories with Labour on top, getting those people active in a decent and thought out way could pave for a strong third administration in 2020. As UKIP needs to focus on the attack and swaying, the Tories can for now rely on building a strong foundations within their constituencies, that strength could be the path for administration 3 and 4. It is not a given, but it is a realistic view.

(Source: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/may/07/live-uk-election-results-in-full)

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

A Label for Labour

If we can use the information (to some extent) that the Guardian gave us this morning, then the first reference would be ‘Whinging’ 1. To complain, whine 2. A message from the labour party! So, the second one actually explains part of the newscast. The story was how according to Miliband, Cameron was losing control over the energy policy. (At http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/24/edmiliband-davidcameron) How does he figure that?

The facts are not that unclear. There once was a non-fairy tale involving 6 commercial enterprises, who to some degree had to make a profit. In addition, the following headline should be interesting “Every UK home to face 15pc energy price rise” (Jan 2008)

Not to mention that parliament had an interesting document (at www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04153.pdf ). There are two issues, one, several sources mention an average 16% annual increase during 3 terms of labour. I mention it, but some numbers are sketchy, so I have some reservations how correct those numbers were, even though the parliament briefing papers do show a spike in that time frame.

It does not matter what the direct cause was, however, in three labour terms, nothing was done to limit that price increase, so labour’s nagging whilst the honourable Ed Miliband is on the non-winner side of the isle is rather fishy to say the least. Yes, we should acknowledge that The Electricity Act 1989 was enacted under the conservatives by Baroness Thatcher, then Prime Minister Thatcher. I reckon that there should always be a certain amount of questions when we privatise any form of utility. Commerce is the quickest attack on any wallet (a life lesson that is universally accepted).

So, even though there are questions, the one involving 3 terms of labour and energy prices should remain high on that list.

The article has a few other points of attention, Miliband’s quote “But this prime minister is too weak to stand up for the consumer and he always takes the side of the big six companies.” Really Edward? You do remember the greed issues involving a commercial enterprise? Or perhaps the London School of Economics classes (the ones on Economy) had a different focus? ;-), you party animal you! 🙂

Anyway, we can nag on the last three terms (but then we might sound like labour), in this term there needs to be an actual focus not on stopping (which is slightly non-realistic), but to some extent limiting price increases. Although allowing the French and the Chinese into the UK energy game might put a limit on price hikes to some extent, but it remains to be left in the hands of non-government, hence at that point, it remains a commercial play. What are the options?

There is actually an idea that might work. The idea was not mine; I picked it up in Sweden around 2001. The idea was that sound stable firms started to buy and install wind farms (in this case 1-3 turbines per firm). There are plenty of places to do that. The UK and Scotland could offer such areas too. Yes, in many places people might complain on the view, and they could select to pay £100-£200 a year more, or just accept the ‘lesser’ view. Consider that these people will get some tax benefits, but more importantly, they could lessen the power grid pressure and at times contribute to the net inviting refunds. There is an additional benefit. As the net gets a power feed, all over the place, losing power points would not have the blackout results other solutions have. So consider that through whatever non-governmental funding these windmills are added, the UK grid could end up getting a solid power addition by 1500-3000 turbines.

In the past I have ALWAYS spoken out against the irresponsible investment of retirement funds. If we accept that these turbines would prove to be a stable return on investment, keep price hikes down and allow for alternative ways to stabilise power needs, then why not look into such an adoption?

I never heard anything mentioned in that regard in the House of Commons (I do admit, I dozed off at some point, but it was 02:00 when that happened). So perhaps we can all look for a solution together? Because no matter where you live, we all need water and power, having alternatives when greed driven elements strike is NEVER a bad idea.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Science