Tag Archives: politics

June 15, 2013 · 16:22

Two sides of a political nature

The NOS (source: www.nos.nl ) is again inspiration to today’s blog. The Dutch television mentioned two articles that have bearing on this. The second one is about Syria, so you the reader will probably have your own views. The first one is an important one, yet, it might at present not be on your radar.

A scandal hit Dutch politics as the Chairman of the First room. A position that is comparable to speaker of the house in the US or the speaker of the House of Lords in the UK has resigned. His position must be one of pure neutrality. A position that came into question in an article by the newspaper called ‘the Volkskrant’ (translated: The People’s paper). In that article he was quoted to have stated that keeping a politician out of the procession during the Royal inauguration was in the back of his mind. That is regarded as a huge ‘no no’ and as such, to prevent escalation, he resigned his position as speaker of the house.

This is not about former speaker Fred de Graaf. It is about a certain approach to certain political parties. You see in the 90’s there was the CP (Centrum Party). This was an ultra-right movement with such an outspoken disdain for that what did not fit, that they made the Ku Klux Klan look like a social moderate organisation. Yes, they are that extreme. Whenever its speaker ‘JanMaat’ spoke out, politicians would walk away, not debate, just remain silent. I always regarded that as an utter mistake. Political scientists told me on how good the approach was, how the wind was taken away from his sails. Yet, as he was allowed to speak unchallenged a fearful thing happened, people accepted his words to some extent. He gained 3 seats in parliament (Dutch version of the House of Commons). Finally someone woke up and they started to debate issues and of course, that resulted in the Centrum Party losing all three seats in the following elections 4 years later. Silence is NOT golden!

Following that event a new party came, the name was ‘Leefbaar Nederland’ (translated as ‘Liveable Netherlands’). This was led by a person named Pim Fortuyn. This was nothing like the Centrum Party! Mr Fortuyn was a person of Charisma, he was a true politician and he was an excellent speaker. The issue was that there were similarities. The platform still had ‘full=full’ in a central position. You see, the Netherlands is not that large. In the US it is only slightly larger than Maryland (30%), and Tasmania Australia is 50% larger than the Netherlands, a nation with 17 million, making it one of the densest populated nations on the planet. He had a few radical (read politically incorrect idea’s) those messages do not matter. What was the issue, was the fact that his charisma gave him ten times the following the Centrum Party ever had. In the end Pim Fortuyn was assassinated by a person who was regarded as mentally unstable and an environmental activist. It became a source for years of conspiracy theories.

Now we have Mr Geert Wilders of the PVV (Party for freedom). Mr Wilders visited Australia, which in its own was quite the show as the Australians rebelled against such an extreme politician. The last one has been active in the Dutch House of Commons. An interesting event was that he was denied entrance in the UK. When he did travel via Heathrow with reporters he was detained, only to be shipped back on the next plane.

It seems to me that Geert Wilders is to some extent ignored in political circles. The danger here is that this man is no Mr Janmaat of the CP. This man is highly intelligent and a decent speaker. He is also a lot stronger political muscle then the previous two politicians. Not engaging him has strengthened him, and as such his party now has 10% of the seats in the Dutch House of Commons. It could be debated that as he is a strong speaker going up against him would have a risky factor for anyone debating him as he can be ruthless.

So the question becomes, why are politicians so easy to choose the ignore option to fight the values they and many others detest? Is that not a showing of cowardice? If we are truly vested in not allowing a growth of right wing extremities to grow into political houses, then ignoring is not a solution. If you think that we are all in a better place, think again. Look at the statistics of poverty and unemployment rates then consider that we are close to the levels that we had in the times leading up to WW2. That was the beginning of a group that held a great power to politically manipulate in the past. To see that part escalate, read on below where we look at Syria.

As history is to repeat itself, we see a growing fear of returning events of escalations. Syria has according to the evidence engaged the use of Chemical weapons on a small scale. The body count has surpassed 150 (dying of the effects of chemical warfare) and now several parties are under agreement that the straw that broke the camel’s back had been delivered. A coalition which currently contains France and UK, with the US now ready to join ranks has put their foot down. We have seen the consequences, we have seen the movies and medical evidence, yet the Russians are not convinced (in a state of denial). When we look at Chemical warfare, we see a weapon of Mass Destruction. So did the Press speak to people like Oznobistchev, Saveliev and Arbotov? Are they not supposed to be experts in the area of WMD? So did the press get to them, or was there a health statement of laryngitis by Director Bortnikov? #JustSaying. The issue is not just the Yay or Nay. It is that again we have two sides. The Russian side, delivering S-300 missiles to Syria and there is the other side. I have no issue with Russia delivering the hardware. It is legitimate hardware and no matter how we feel, the sovereign ruler of a nation bought a defensive weapon system for its country. In all honesty I must confess that at 3% commission, selling missiles at 250 million per system looks appealing. Charging that much for a weapon system that the Russians took off the market in 2012? I’d sell that! One must always be ready to pay the tailor, and Saville Row is slightly costly. Those systems are not used to deploy chemical weapons, but they will stop those who want to stop them. Where is this going?

This re-reads like the beginning of another Vietnam. One goes one corner, one goes the other (music by: Frankie Goes to Hollywood – Two Tribes). This is the level of high stakes poker we currently cannot afford to play. This is likely to have repercussions on all levels. From the previous part one could come to the conclusion that politicians prefer to evade. That might actually be less of an option. This is because larger players now have their ego at stake. The issue is not them, as whatever escalates will be far from their bedrooms. The issue is now quickly becoming Jordan AND Israel, as they both will get caught in the middle. Jordan already has rising issues as the Syrian population is running for their lives, straight into the arms of Jordan’s dwindling resources. It will also raise risks for Israel as HAMAS and their allies will see this as an option to really light the tinderbox.

So what can we do to solve this? Well, what if we can get info from another party? Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan was/is a member of the WMDC (weapons of mass destruction commission). This all affects his country one way or another. What are his views? Has he seen any evidence? I think that this is more about settling the Syrian war. Settling that war can never succeed if we do not bolster stability in the region overall.

I believe that when, not if that stability fails, America will not need to worry about finding Lone-Wolf terrorists. There will be every chance that people from Morocco to Egypt will rush to enlist with Al-Qaeda, a scenario no one wants.

I fear that some have lost sight of that. There is too much smoke and the wrong people are calling to push buttons, whilst they are not at risk at all.

The Data Intelligence bill

The events that occurred in Woolwich have sparked more than just one debate. The new debate is involving the additional powers that Home Secretary May wants to hand to the intelligence branch. It involves a data bill that was vetoed by the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. He stated that it was too much of an invasion of privacy.

Is he correct?

Initially I would side with that part. Yet, you cannot have it both ways. There is a plain and simple need to keep England’s citizens safe from radicalised attacks. The issue of Home grown terrorism had been an issue going back to Sir Jonathan Evans reign of MI-5. He was more than just a little concerned with outside influences on the British way of life. This now falls firmly on the shoulders of both Andrew Parker, who is well aware of the issues as well as the needed response and Sir Iain Robert Lobban of GCHQ. As this is Signal intelligence and as such it falls in his lap as the data would be needed for MI-5, MI-6 and some parts of local law enforcements.

I would think that part of this bill will start with Lord Carlile. His involvement in this goes back to the Terrorism Act of 2000. Current issues are ‘tainted’ by two reports and as such they both are important. First there is the National council of Civil Liberties that drafted a response to the definition of terrorism, which seems to have been the work of Gareth Crossman and Jago Russel. You should take a look at it (source: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy06/response-to-carlile-review-of-terrorism-definition.pdf). It is an interesting work, and important to read is how they see this all. Part of the weakness is the approach on page 3 where they state: “It is vital that the definition of ‘terrorism’ is drawn as tightly as possible“. It is a decent stance to have, yet in the light of fear against home grown/lone wolf terrorism it is actually counterproductive. Terrorism is a shifty acre of quicksand and the strict approach is not only going to fail, it will get the people involved stopping this drowned. Not a good thing me thinks!

I feel uncertain to the point 6 they make on page 5. Yes, they do state that it is outside of the scope of the document, and as such they only raise the comments made that Terrorism should be dealt with under Criminal law. Here is where I might be the dissenting voice. The law should cover all, I do believe in that, however, what part of law? We are dealing with a group that does not seem to be categorised as such. These people are not transgressing in a way where we approach a normal person, or even the average person. Whilst we approach these transgressors in one way or another, even when if possible their defence starts going into the Mental Health act we will see a case where the court is drawn into years of litigation and dealing with a case that as such should be seen as a non-combatant involved in hostile military actions against civilians with no allegiance to any nation and as such it becomes a mess where each case locks down the justice system more and more. Consider the American situation (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act). This comes from a special report by their Justice department stated in June 2005.

“This allowed the use of FISA information in a criminal case provided that the ‘primary purpose’ of the FISA surveillance or search was to collect foreign intelligence information rather than to conduct a criminal investigation or prosecution. The seminal court decision applying this standard to information collected in intelligence cases was issued in 1980. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). In this case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the government did not have to obtain a criminal warrant when ‘the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators,’ and ‘the surveillance is conducted primarily for foreign intelligence purposes.’ Id. at 915. However, the court ruled that the government’s primary purpose in conducting an intelligence investigation could be called into question when prosecutors had begun to assemble a prosecution and had led or taken on a central role in the investigation.”

This shows that the narrowness of the scope would be the obstacle we should be trying to prevent. The issue is NOT our privacy at that point; it is all about them having access to go after the right people. This requires them to blanket us with collection of data. Even though the data is all collected, it will turn out that 99.9% might never be accessed. Having it is however essential for their success of stopping terrorist attacks. So when the Sky News UK reporter Stephen Douglas mentioned “are they playing politics with fear” then he is in my humble opinion incorrect. This data bill has been needed for a long time. It can even be safely speculated that MI-5 could have intervened with the Kenyan involved in the Woolwich murder at an earlier stage as more flags would have been raised. Their interview with him would have led to other questions, confirmations of danger. That seems to not have happened at this stage.

So from the civil liberty document we move to document cm7058 from June 2007 which holds “The Government Reply to the Report by Lord Carlile of Berriew Q.C. Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation The Definition of Terrorism“. (Source: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7058/7058.pdf). My issue is with point 5 on page 5. Idiosyncratic terrorism imitators should generally be dealt with under non-terrorism criminal law. This is the point that shows the need of the data bill. Especially when we consider Lone wolf or Home grown terrorists there will be the issue whether the person was a mental health wannabe, or a more intelligent individual being allowed a second go at harming groups of people, after civil rights protected him the first time.

So even if we want to give strength to both Nick Clegg and the National council of Civil Liberties. They are there speaking out to protect your rights. Yet, in that process, they are giving strength and freedom to terrorist attacks like the one in Woolwich (not intentionally). This issue is like a seesaw. These two viewpoints are utterly opposing and as we give power to one, we remove it from the other. The interesting part is that the information we surrender will not harm us unless we support terrorism. Should that not convince you then please remember that you have already given away your privacy to most market research and financial institution data centres. They only want your money, or in a product driven way bank you. The intelligence community wants to keep you safe. In my mind, there is no debate. The data bill is likely to come and should be there, if only to prevent a second Woolwich.

Shalom Syria!

There have been several issues in the last two years that give reasoning to ponder our collective futures as we see issues flame over the Middle East. It has been clear in several ways that Israel is constantly under attack, it has been under attack pretty much after the state of Israel was founded.

So in a highly pressurised area, the Civil War in Syria was not the additional pressure anyone was waiting for. This civil war has now passed the two year mark. So, we can honestly say that this is a ‘grievance’ that goes high with the entire population of Syria (no matter which side they are on).

Yet, there are still other sides. At present President Bashar al-Assad has seen an expected short term issue into a long term consequence. Even if (however unlikely), he would be victorious against the opposition, there will be a massive amount of repairs to be done all over Syria. In addition, with the currently shown evidence, which gives us enough evidence that Syria employed methods of chemical warfare against its own citizens, there is every chance that nations of the League of Arab states will not invite him to the negotiation table as an equal any day soon. This means that whatever support he hopes to have needs to come from other ways and means.

So, what about Hezbollah?

They proclaimed their support for the Syrian state and President Bashar al-Assad. Here is where the plot became confusing for many. Hezbollah currently seen and should remain to be regarded as a terrorist organisation. Yet, their open support for a sovereign state is a valid question mark for many.

This is where the issue of yesterday and the issue last January exploded quite literally. Israel finds it utterly unacceptable that advanced missile systems are delivered to Hezbollah via Beirut. This is the reason Syrian got to watch a bright orange sky as a ‘research-building’ (as the Syrian government calls it) was turned into the main component of a snow globe.

Israel is quite right to be concerned with advanced weaponry seemingly given to Hezbollah. The note here is the ‘advanced’ part as Israel seems to remain eager to stay out of the internal struggle of Syria as much as possible. There is the side that the press at present seems to lack ‘illuminating’ to all.

No matter what the Syrian statement is, as they complained validly that they lost a building, yet no one upgraded it to a hotel as the rules of the Monopoly game states. The issue I have is that a convoy of weapons, not once, but twice would make its way to Beirut. Take into consideration the following report by Reuters last year. ( at http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/19/us-lebanon-explosion-idUSBRE89I0N620121019)

So, slowly the question could become, is Israel not already in a war with ‘Syrian’ elements as such, considering that the new name of Lebanon might be “West Syria”, or what in the US might in future be known as West Side Syria. There had been issues all over the news in the last year that Syrian intelligence had the run of Lebanon. As such Israel’s strike makes even more sense. It also is given additional strength if we consider Reuters article at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/05/us-israel-lebanon-hezbollah-un-idUSBRE93311920130405

All this gives reason for worry. Should this escalate even further, an option that is at present unlikely but not impossible will change to “likely” if the Syrian government keeps on updating Hezbollah the way it currently seems. The consequence will seem far-fetched at present, yet uncomfortably logical.

Should the issues with Hezbollah/Syria escalate, then that would give Israel two new frontiers to worry about. First the people of Lebanon might enter their own moment of Civil war for the simple reason that one air-strike lit up the sky more brightly then the combined effort of an entire year of Syrian explosions. That and the fact that it’s citizens might even end up having to look at a levelled Beirut because Hezbollah violated UN Security council resolution 1701 for some time, as well as the issue that at present elements from Syrian Intelligence seems to be a ruling voice in Lebanon, might make the population angry enough to clean up their government.

These escalating issues will be a clear sign to Hamas to start their fireworks barrage (read S.C.U.D/Qassam/Fajr-5) on Israel. This will push Israel into a state of utter defence, which means that their attacks can no longer be proportionate. They would have little other option then to change both the West-Bank and Beirut into an ash pile. There are plenty of people claiming that Israel will not do this and how this should be resolved diplomatically. To them I say “Talk is cheap!” Syria crossed a red line according to the NATO Intelligence, yet at present nothing is done. Any talk is only a factor of delay. I do understand that the US is not happy, willing or able to just enter a new war zone. I am also not stating that they should consider it, yet if they do not, when (‘should’ is a better word) things escalate they will remain outside the zone discussing and not being able to direct the theatre of war, something they prefer as it will always be better to direct the game then just run with the other players.

For all who claim that THIS time (the Sarin evidence discussions) it is not a delaying tactic, I state “By whose standard?” Let me guess; only at some point AFTER missiles hit Tel Aviv, THEN they will agree to talk? Then there would be a suddenly (temporary) agreed seize fire? There is at present enough evidence for Israel to seize proportional responses and do whatever they can to secure the state of Israel.

For anyone thinking that this is an option Israel would never consider, and then consider that Lebanon is giving Hezbollah and Syrian Intelligence pretty much Carte Blanche in Beirut. Even though Lebanon does not currently have a dangerous striking force, and in addition, the Lebanese government has at present no intent of open hostile acts against Israel (as far as I know), then consider that when (not if) the Syrian establishment falls, a massive amount of military and intelligence personnel will move into Lebanon and Iran trying to escape prosecution from the people they prosecuted. As the victor of this encounter will be prosecuting (read hunting and lynching those who did the atrocities). I am not saying it did not happen on both sides, I am stating that the victorious side will end up giving blanket immunities to their people. Both Iran and Syria will be getting an added group of people happy to start open hostilities with Israel.

So a solution must be found. I personally believe it is not just about the Syrian Civil War. No matter what people shout, that ‘party’ is not going anywhere for many months after the civil war have been resolved. The issue on how Lebanon seems to have been compromised into a puppet state that is run by Terrorist and hostile Intelligence organisations seems to miss the news regularly, and that is a matter that has a much higher priority then people think, as that part has the ability to remain a destabilising factor long after the Civil War is done with. The reason should be obvious. Two groups that should reasonably be isolated, now end up having access to Banks, Media and a sizeable harbour. Two groups with too much access to all kinds of resources, both living with the premise that their values is based upon their ability to wage terrorist assaults on Israel.

UKIP or U.K.I.P? (Ur Kiddin’ I Presume?)

First let me start by stating my ‘allegiance’. I for the most am a conservative in mind. I used to be Labour/Liberal Democrat in past, but like all people, over time my thoughts and ideas changed like they change with most people. And as most, we want to support the team that looks out for us, and is closest to our ideals. We often keep it in that order of importance.

The issues are not with the parties, they, for the most did nothing wrong to make me change my mind. They had priorities as any good party would have, and as they change I felt less with one and more with the other party.

So why, from Australia is this part on UKIP coming? Well, I grew up in Europe and I spend most of my life there. Perhaps at times I still miss being in London, but that would apply to anyone who has been to London. Only the dead do not miss London and even that might be debatable. So as I saw the news this morning on how UKIP made some staggering victories from the conservatives I started to ponder it all. So this is where I am at present.

What do most know about UKIP? We saw some people lash out against them as they lash out against most opponents they are worried about. Then there was (too) little from UKIP and of course the votes and those who flocked towards them in droves.

When you look online, there are heaps of reviews. The Australian wrote ‘Send in the UKIP Clowns’, ‘the anti-immigration UK independence party’ and a few other less than flattering headers.

So taking a look at their site at http://www.UKIP.org had several papers that could be read, downloaded and or printed. It seems that they have information that is ready for all. One of the quotes that was on page 2 of their manifesto was “On January 1st 2014, The UK will open its door to unlimited numbers of people from Romania and Bulgaria”.

In the current economic and financial climate that makes entire Europe suffer, this message would scare plenty of people in the UK. There is even a quote from Ed Miliband MP, leader of the labour party in there. Yes, there is a simple message. So, why am I interested?

From my view many Commonwealth nations are connected. Even if Australia has a strong mining community (a force our own PM seems to be happy to break into suffering little parts), we are connected with the UK. If your mother was in danger, would you NOT come to her rescue? I think that we will always come to the aid of England, even when they lack Cricket skills ;-).

The message from UKIP remains simple, yet life is not that simple, but it ought to be. This is why Mr Cameron is now in a situation where he has to pick up the pieces. I will go one step further, even if the press was not willing (or able) to make it. If the current standing is not rectified fast, the conservatives might find themselves in less than a minority position, they will end in a position that will take multiple government terms to rectify.

So let us take a look at these issues that gave strength to the UKIP.

Open immigration from Romania and Bulgaria. Open immigration is always an issue for any nation that is in a much better place than the nations where immigrants come from. Yet, these two are not in any good state, so if those people have a chance of a much better life they will come. Yet, in support, the Netherlands has been dealing with massive scaled rental allowance fraud from Bulgarian gangs. The Dutch information program ‘Brandpunt’ (= flashpoint) even showed how organised bus trips from Bulgaria exist, just to start this method of fraud. One website even mentioned “Bulgaarse televise zendt cursussen ‘Hoe misbruik te maken van het Nederlandse systeem'” (=Bulgarian television transmits courses on ‘how to abuse the Dutch system’).

In the current climate this is what the UK might have to look forward to in one way or another. So, when we see UKIP announcing that they want to get out of the EU in the current climate, many people listen.

Is UKIP correct? This is where my shoes become a little tight for comfort. Life and politics are not that simple. No matter how much we would like it to be, the UK is currently in a 1 trillion deficit issue. It needs an increased economy and it needs export to keep it all real, yet the prospect of losing a 0.3% economical increase (achieved by the conservatives) is not likely to survive after the open border policy starts next January. There is another reality that does not bode well for Mr Cameron either. Many Nations in Europe have no real grip on their budgets at present. Germany seems to be the only one on par for now. Even the UK has a problem, but that is an UK issue. As they remain in the EU, they also inherit the issues of Italy, Greece, Spain and Cyprus. Each of these 4 are now loudly protesting in a state of anti-Austerity and as such, should their governments be overturned, then the chance of them cleaning up their own mess is not likely to happen any day soon. UKIP wants to be away from the EU when that happens. The reality is that the brunt of those blows would push the Netherlands, Belgium and France on their financial knees as well. Then what?

So even though Mr Cameron is right that life is complex, the appeal that Nigel Farage wants to do an Alexander the Great and cut the Gordian knot is not that far-fetched and is starting to appeal to a much wider audience. There is even additional support as the Netherlands did not get their budget in order and now gets a one year extension. In addition, their own labour party is entering a state of possible disarray as its members oppose a plan earlier approved in a coalition deal with the VVD (Dutch Liberal party). In this situation to get certain deals, the Dutch Labour party had to accept the standing that the Dutch Liberals want a harsher expulsion policy for illegal and criminal immigrants. To make this coalition work Labour had to go along with this to get some of their own agenda points to work. Now the party members want to move away from the Liberal stance on immigration (as the Labour mindset was never on par with that) and MP Samson was unwilling to do this. He had a standing agreement and he wants to keep his word. He also warned that pushing this would come at a cost for labour. Labour would have to hand over something else and even in the short run this would be likely an expensive change for the Labour agenda. So even though this is currently being talked about, it is clear that a crises point could come. In addition, there is no indication that the Dutch economy is changing for the better. There was mention of 0.6% of shrinking of the Dutch economy. In case you were wondering why this issue matters, it does! (Read on to learn why)
You see, if the Dutch economy gets any worse it will soon go towards a situation France and Italy are in (with a lot less deficit). Consider these nations nearly all with an overall average unemployment rate of 12.1%. These people will seek solutions and are very willing to cross borders for a better option. So, the fear that UKIP propagates is a real one.

In addition, the Gordian knot will have several benefits in these regards, but what is the downfall? There is the reality that the response from the Eurozone might lean towards a preference choice in business partners and removing the UK from the top of that list as/if they move out of the EU. It comes with the ‘we take care of our own and ours first’ taking the UK out of that equation. That is a reality to face too.

Does one outweigh the other? I feel certain that UKIP made no real investigation into that part at present. The question becomes what is done after they get the votes, and when they grow large(r), will they be able to provide not just ‘answers’ but also come up with solutions? The latter might be an issue as Nigel Farage stated on Sky News on May 3rd that a reshuffle was needed as they grew more than anticipated. That statement is fair enough when we see that thus far they gained 139 seats. It is a massive victory indeed.

Yet if there is another side then it can be found in their manifesto on page 4.

Protecting the greenbelt – opposing wind farms and HS2.

If the UK is to move forward then a proper energy policy is needed. They could consider more nuclear power, yet in the end, alternative fuel will be the future. Considering that the UK gets more wind daily then an average flying jet turbine, wind farms need to remain an option. In addition, if the UK will opt out of the EU, things will get more expensive in the short run, perhaps in the long run too. A strong energy policy would be paramount to keep the cost for the average citizen down and moving away from wind farms as an option seems less like a good idea.

Next on the list are 4 of the points mentioned.

Tax should be as low as possible.
Cracking down on crime and anti-social behaviour.
More police on the streets.
Cutting council executives and managers, not front-line services.

These issues are nice to hear, just like the quote we see in a fortune cookie. The tax statement is nice, but will it change? As ‘low as possible’ is just like ‘as soon as possible’, if the second one could mean ‘never’ then the first one could remain ‘too high’. There is actually more to this. Cracking down on crime is something the police have always done. Could more be done? Sure! There is however the issue that a budget needs to be kept and the UK has its own Austerity measures to consider as the 1 trillion deficits is not going away any day soon. This is where the third statement comes. Sure more police on the street sounds nice, but there is an infrastructure. Adding to the police force is nice, but with what money? The police forces have been bled dry and cut to ‘too little’ and not only in the UK. So if they tamper with the infrastructure to keep the promise of more police in the street the result is likely to be counter-productive down the line, then what will UKIP do?

So you see, they talk to the public, and tell them what to hear, but will it solve anything? This part is the debatable one. Yet, down the line, we must admit to govern one must be in office, and they did get into the office and now they must prove it.

I will not join the queue where they are labelled as fruit cakes and such. Mr Cameron is right that they will become a party to be reckoned with. The interesting part is how this will play out. The old duo Clegg-Miliband is now a lot less likely to survive, that part Mr Nigel Farage did achieve. What will Labour do next is the question. They are still the biggest for now. If they are to survive then they must align. It is unlikely they will find themselves with the Tories, yet it is either that, or their new option UKIP.

And here is where we see exactly the issue that Dutch Labour and Liberals are having (PVDA/VVD). What items are given and what are taken and what happens when the MP’s strike deals their constituents will not agree with? A British political sciences student in the late 90’s once told me “Coalition cabinets are the most entertaining, volatile and corrupt forms of governments”. I thought that his point of view made a lot of sense. The UK is about to join those ranks as they need to form coalitions at both sides of the isles. Will it be about the people or the MP’s and their futures? Time will tell but there is clarity in no uncertain terms. Those who did not give clear explanations of the why (as it was too complex) are now in a state where they must redraw lines and re-educate the masses as they figure out what to do next to get their seats back.

So the title ‘You’re Kidding I presume?’ Is very correct, yet who is stating that line, and whom are they stating it to is left in the open as both sides could claim that title and both side should be able to answer it.

1 Comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as Conservatives, current-events, David Cameron, Diederik Samson, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage, politics, PVDA, UKIP, VVD