Tag Archives: Yvette Cooper

Upstairs, Basement

We have all seen the TV shows, and felt with both sides of the Victorian houses that had an upstairs and downstairs in London, places like Downton Abbey or were merely in Brideshead and we decided to revisit them. Hugh Bonneville, Michelle Dockery, Brendan Coyle, Jim Carter, Maggie Smith, Jeremy Irons, John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier, Ian Ogilvy and Anthony Andrews. Some of the biggest stars have been identified and idolised with this Victorian era view, some even in more than one of these series. We have felt for the high side and the low side, yet in all these times, there was always a feel of justice and acceptance for both sides. So why on earth the utter idiocy and non-acceptable acts of Lord Philipps, 4th Viscunt St Davids (pun with the additional missing ‘right’ and ‘honourable’ intended) Rhodri Colwyn Philipps decided to state “£5,000 for the first person to ‘accidentally’ run over this bloody troublesome first generation immigrant.” on social media is completely beyond me. I myself have been mostly outspoken in favour of Brexit, yet that does not take away the right of any Bremainer to voice their issues. Now I admit that plenty of those do not really voice it that clear, complete or correct. Yet it is still their right and of course those who fail to make the decent point will work in my Brexit favour and I was on the fence for the longest of time. It was the voice of Mark Carney in the House of Lords who got me from Brexit and moved me towards neutral on the fence. In the end the lack of insightfulness by Mario Draghi as he decided to print a trillion euro’s and wantonly spend it on no one knows what pushed me clearly back into the Brexit field. These issues all matter, because anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller had every right to campaign for her Bremain conviction. In all this, we might also ask a few questions regarding senior district judge Emma Arbuthnot at this point. That is based on the following in the article we see the quote “Mine includes, torturing Tony Blair, Hilary Clinton, Isis, Dave (PM) the forgettable, Murdoch … Oh and that hideous jumped up immigrant Gina Miller.“, which was the one that was found racially aggravating. Yet when we see the other responses, like “Please will someone smoke this ghastly insult to our country? Why should I pay tax to feed these monkeys? A return to Planet of the Apes is not acceptable” another vocal attack on Gina Miller. Now, the judge found that this was not menacing and acquitted Lord Phillips of the charge related to that post. So in this case let’s take a step back to the 14th of march when we see (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/14/face-off-mps-and-social-media-giants-online-hate-speech-facebook-twitter), where we see “Social Media companies including Twitter, Facebook and Google have come under pressure from MPs for failing to take tougher action to tackle hate speech online” so as we see people like Yvette Cooper taking cheap shots at technological complicated issues to get a few easy points before the election, it seems that in regards to Gina Miller, UK’s little Yvette seems to be either really really quiet, or the media decided just to not take notice of her. Is that not weird too? It is all a little too sanctimonious to me.

Another post from this Lord Thingamajig was “I will open the bidding. £2,000 in cash for the first person to carve Arnold Sube into pieces, piece of shit” which was seen by her honour to be ‘menacing’ but not ‘racially aggravated’. Let’s take you through the legality. In the assault side we see ‘the actus reus of assault is committed when one person causes another to apprehend or fear that force is about to be used to cause some degree of personal contact and possible injury. There must be some quality of reasonableness to the apprehension on the part of the victim‘. So this is supposedly a lord, a wealthy man and for all intent and purpose an intolerable buffoon (read: legally speaking a man who is not very nice). In support I offer R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534, “The defendant made a series of silent telephone calls over three months to three different women. He was convicted under s.47 Offences against the Person Act 1861. He appealed contending that silence cannot amount to an assault and that psychiatric injury is not bodily harm“, yet in social media, empty screens have no value and the specific part “Holroyd J. to a jury that “no words or singing are equivalent to an assault”: Meade’s and Belt’s case 1 (1823) 1 Lew. C.C. 184” could also give rise that poetry and prose within social media texts could carry the same weight, allowing for less defence by the defending abuser on social media, especially if that person would try to rely on some obscure dark comedy aspect. In addition to the earlier given, as the quote included ‘£2,000 in cash for the first person‘ making it a contest (read: race to the target) and here we see again in the case R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534 the issue given as ‘to fear an immediate application of force‘ now comes into play with £2,000 and with 20,000 dimes it would become anyone’s dime to relieve economic hardship, which is overwhelming to many people in the UK.

Although he has been found guilty, it seems to me that as he was acquitted from some parts. Yet these parts are part of a whole, this whole is not just his mere right of communication, it is the abusive approach he makes in all this and as such in the Mens Rea part we need to find that ‘in contact to the other and that contact was caused either intentionally or recklessly‘, well it seems to me that the published texts clearly shows the reckless part, which is evidently seen by thousands if not millions of others. Although the precise places were not given to me, a case could be made that it could have been intentional. You see, some were responses to categories. I am guessing that the ‘naughty ideas on orgasm‘ were in some ‘girly’ page or a given section on sex in for example the Guardian, as such it will be hard to prove that there was ‘intent’, yet reckless had already been established and that was enough.

In all of this there is no given defence. The options offered by the accused on the matter like “It’s not for first generation immigrants to behave the way Gina Miller did” is one I can immediately counter. She is a resident of the UK, a legal one (which has no influence), as such she has a freedom of speech, a freedom of opinion and a right to be politically aligned in any direction. As I stated, I am in opposition of her Bremain view, but it remains a valid view, whether right or wrong is in the eyes of the beholder. In her eyes I am the one with the wrong view on ‘Brexit v Bremain’. In the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/11/man-jail-offering-money-run-over-gina-miller-rhodri-philipps-viscount-brexit) that started all this is also the quote “The judge added: “To some who don’t know you they would perceive the offers of bounty as menacing.”“, her honour seems to step over the issue that there were two money offering events as such there is a pattern, in the second there is the issue that in this economic day and age there is the risk that too many people would take a member of the aristocracy at their word, as such these were two oral contracts towards establishing a criminal act. The fact that I see no mention of this is actually a larger issue. In this we see a lot more at revolvy.com (not sure about the source at present regarding correctness of data). Here we see that he holds half a dozen titles, all inherited. In addition we see “Following a complaint made in November 2016, Philipps was arrested in January 2017 by Metropolitan Police officers investigating online abuse against a 51-year-old woman. In March 2017 he was charged with malicious communications with racially aggravated factors, over alleged threats against Gina Miller, the woman behind a successful legal challenge against the UK government’s intention to give notice to leave the European Union without an act of parliament“, this implies that Rhodri Philipps is an optional repeat offender, a fact that the Guardian did not make mention of.

So as I seem to have wrapped that up neat and decently tight, it seems that any upcoming article on Twitter social media and online hate speech should be thrown in the faces of any MP (literally throw that paper into their faces I mean), with the mention that unless they are a lot more consistent in their actions and silence regarding Gina Miller, they should shut the ‘eff’ up and start doing something useful for a living.

The other part that irritates me a little is the sterility of the event as the article shows. Now, from the Guardian points of view that makes sense, the reality is that this is an emotional situation and as such emotions will run high soon as such it makes sense. In addition, there is nothing wrong with the article that Julia Gregory wrote, yet the fact that I got a lot more issues, events and facts in front of me in about 5 minutes gives rise that the lack of illumination of acts that several papers show in the last 6 months regarding Rhodri Philipps, the 4th Viscount St Davids give rise to a loosely translated ‘structural problem’ with this person and the way how he communicates. Now as stated before we all have the freedom of speech and expression, which is not in question, yet this person bankrupt three times, another implied pending case as well as.

We will hear tomorrow what the man has coming, I wonder if it will be another suspended sentence like in Germany, if that is so that the House of Lords would need to take a sitting on the situation and discuss whether a Viscount should be allowed to hold his title when there is the larger consideration that it allows the person to evade jail sentences. We can all agree that any person, living upstairs or downstairs in the mansion has rights to speak and sometimes is might be grammatically correct, yet it is a lot less refined that that of a London Dockworker; these moments do occur (we all have these issues, especially during a sports match), yet as it is seen in repetition, should a person in such an elevated position of privilege not be held to higher standards? If so, should he be allowed to keep all those titles? In the end the House of Lords would rule against my request, yet it is important to hold that conversation. Merely because this is not some revamping of words and an edited view of some interview, these are the words that he submitted to social media, ready to be seen by thousands and more. In his case we get an actual first that in the consideration of upstairs, downstairs that he is the one who should reside in the basement and the staff members on the first flow, sleeping in a lovely bedroom with a nice view.

To be regarded in high esteem is one thing, to actually live up to it, quite another. In all that it seems to me that Rhodri Colwyn Philipps, 4th Viscount St Davids failed on every level possible, that might be seen as an accomplishment, yet is it the one we should allow for?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

See Other Side

I am just looking at an article of last Saturday, and I have to be fair, I really liked Pamela Duncan and Cath Levett’s article (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2017/may/20/general-election-2017-manifesto-word-count-in-data), now there will be a whole host of issues we could go into, yet the article is a nice read. Weirdly enough it is the part of the Lib Dems that stands out a little in a positive way. You see, in this age, they are the ones having a high usage of the word ‘support’. That does not mean that it is a good way (or a bad way), the fact that neither Labour or Conservatives have that word in their top 5 is an equal issue to make. Labour is all about ensure and we saw how that went over. the idea that they are using ‘ensure’ whilst they are about to push the UK well over a third of a trillion deeper in debt is a massive issue. The Tories are using it down the line as well, so in what way are the words used? You do not have to wonder or think of it too deep. Reading the manifesto is a first and I had loads of issues with the Labour one, the way it was made (secretive) the way they shouted when it leaked and the way they so easily want to make ‘promises’ whilst having no finds to do so. The UK will need at least another decade to get over their previous spending spree and the least said about bungling the NHS IT issues the better. It is interesting that UKIP was taken out of the consideration at all. That is because now in the age of Brexit, their next steps are actually interesting and required knowledge. It is the follow up of the party that advocated Brexit that is an essential. Do not think for one minute that the article does not matter, you see, the Facebook article (at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/21/revealed-facebook-internal-rulebook-sex-terrorism-violence), shows that in a lot more detail. Facebook is no longer a mere facilitator. With the ‘Revealed: Facebook’s internal rulebook on sex, terrorism and violence‘ article on moderation, we see that there is a shift from moderation to opportunity creation. The quote “Yet these blueprints may also alarm free speech advocates concerned about Facebook’s de facto role as the world’s largest censor. Both sides are likely to demand greater transparency” is in the limelight here. The article gives us generic terms to illustrate, yet in a setting where the secondary lines are all about swaying, how does text and text analytics have any consideration of validity to censor or impede? In this the article skates near it in a sentence of life ending regarding President Trump. The reality is “they are not regarded as credible threats” is the jewel that cannot be ascertained by algorithms, for the mere reason that content is created, it tends to be a shifting wave not set in stone, making algorithms pretty useless. It is also why Google is focussing on AI, as with that, the ability to dimensionally set content becomes a close reality. In this another realisation is coming to light. The article gives us “Some photos of non-sexual physical abuse and bullying of children do not have to be deleted or “actioned” unless there is a sadistic or celebratory element“, consider that this gives the setting that bullying is to be condoned. One source stated: “The statistics on bullying and suicide are alarming: Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people, resulting in about 4,400 deaths per year, according to the CDC. For every suicide among young people, there are at least 100 suicide attempts“, whilst Facebook is stating that it is not intervening in bullying. We can argue that there is the freedom of speech, yet the bulk of such bullying is done through fake accounts. Facebook is at present ‘reviewing more than 6.5m reports a week relating to potentially fake accounts – known as FNRP (fake, not real person)‘. That is a potential 350 million accounts a year, that is a little short of 17% of all Facebook accounts. We cannot fault Facebook here completely, as the quote “Facebook cannot keep control of its content,” said one source. “It has grown too big, too quickly.“, the ‘too quick‘ and ‘too big‘ have sunk large corporations before. It is the realisation of content that is at play. Another quote that matters, links to a May 1st article on dangerous content. The quote “the biggest and richest social media companies are shamefully far from taking sufficient action to tackle illegal or dangerous content, to implement proper community standards or to keep their users safe“. Which is pretty much the quote of Yvette Cooper, Labour MP. Yet in all this we ask how? Either the world becomes a censoring police state, or it allows as much freedom of speech and freedom of expression possible. Facebook and Google both have issues in this. By trying to facilitate they set up a situation that those not allowed to speak do so in almost extreme fashion. We know and were ‘sullied’ by political players regarding content. And in this ‘sullied’ is pretty much the way they set it. You see, the quote “Referring to Google’s failure to prevent paid advertising from reputable companies appearing next to YouTube videos posted by extremists“, which seems to be the correct description in a pig’s eye. the statement is true, yet the actual truth is that Google designed a online facilitation of advertisement allowing small businesses to gain proper and granulated visibility of what they offer to the interested audience at less than 10% of what printed media demands. Give me one example where that will not be exploited? And when it comes to explosive situations, lets remember Alfred Nobel who found a way to make working for tunnel diggers relatively safe. It was these crying governments who thought of using dynamite against people during acts of war was a good idea, so please Yvette Cooper, go cry me a river somewhere else, and please feel free to flush yourself like you are a cast member of Trainspotting; please please pretty please. In this Germany is not without fault either. The quote “In Germany, the report points out, the justice ministry has proposed imposing financial penalties of up to €50m on social media companies that are slow to remove illegal content“, Illegal where, and what is ‘slow to remove‘? All pointless statements in a proposition that is laughable. We can all agree that ‘illegal‘ content is to be removed, yet I think the Germans need to consider their high chair when we consider the issues regarding the CDU before Angela Merkel was in charge, the days of Christian Wulff has a few issues whilst he resigned and subsequently got acquitted in 2014. The press and government hid behind ‘since it was not clear who had paid for these holidays‘ should be an issue as there is a debatable consideration that they did not pay for it, you see for the bulk of all of us, when we go on holidays it tends to be a real dip in our daily cost of living. That might not be for everyone, yet when we see clarity of who did pay, there is a lot more going on. The entire Google matter gives rise to political games in favour of printed media who feels massively threatened, whilst Google has NEVER EVER been unclear of how their AdWords system worked and how you could maximise YOUR visibility. So when the part of ‘YOUR visibility‘ is a not so nice organisation, in a system that facilitates for millions, the damage could happen. It is a lot more complex than merely paying for a vacation using your bank card or credit card. Here, we now have content!

In this light, when we consider the elements and we go back to the first article “the parties will “ensure” that in “government” they will “work” to do “new” things that “support” you, the “people”.” it is a clear political message that can fit any of the three parties and that is what the writers set out to do. Yet what are the new things? Where are the funds coming from? How will it better your life? That is where the content is. Labour pushes you in even further debt, the Tories are trying to go one way, whilst you lose as little as possible, and that whilst trying to deal with large issues like the NHS and the debt. The Lib Dems want to be supportive of you as they have lost way too much to actually achieve anything. The manifestos are trying to sway you in the way they can and ways that are allowed. In this social media is the unspoken gun that will spray consequences on the choices of opponents and whilst they would like to guide you towards their base of choice, the censors are seeing a shift in methodology. In all this we see non political parties trying to play a similar game whilst ‘enticing’ you to ‘their’ places of ‘combat’, which in extremist views are actually ‘theatres of war’. In all this we see shifts as governments on a global scale (USA and Indonesia) are now on the verge of having to deal with people who return from Syria in a radicalised state. America in this has even more problems as Syrian and Iranian ties are getting stronger. This implies the dangers for America as this pool of radicalised people is an optional source for VEJA to see what damage they could to to America and more important, whether they could give pressure to Indonesia giving American Allies (read: Australia) more headaches that they are comfortable with at present. So where is that content? You see, as you might have seen in the past and in the media, content is created, it is created by setting a stage and let data be data, making the watcher nervous, or reactive, in social media is an absolute first to create large waves. The problem with censorship is that you create waves, whether you censor or not, by trying to create the waves in your favour you are also fuelling the opposition who could hurt you if intentional censorship is exposed. In this the attempt to ‘save’ the Trans Pacific Partnership is a clear monument of evidence how political players are there to ‘cater’ to big business whilst misrepresenting it as ‘labour rights and environmental protections‘ that whilst too many media outlets have already reported on how consumers will basically lose rights. So as we see that we keep an optional job, whilst having no say on where we spend our money and having no options to the amount we have to pay to get better, can you explain to me how that is a good thing for anyone else than big business? In this we now get back to Google. Yes of course they are in it for the money (to some extent), yet they have shifted the bar of technology 5 times in the last 7 years, whilst Microsoft has merely pushed the same bar forwards three times and making us pay for those new iterations. Does Google have issues? Of course it has, when you push out something as revolutionary as Google AdWords, things will happen and flaws will be found. You show me a windows version that got the bulk of basic parts correct after 29 iterations and you will be on the shortlist for receiving a Nobel price (they gave one to Barack Obama after all).

We all create content and whilst we saw on how the number of words might persuade us on how well any political manifesto was, we know that content was not given, mere curiosity (read: and it is still a nice article to read). We can agree that speech, whether elective or hate based is to address a group that will listen to them. in this there are points of technology (read: facilitation), yet in UK law there is an explicit defence for facilitation, as there is in almost every Common Law nation. In this we can clearly argue that there are issues to solve, nobody denies that, not even the technology firms. Yet do you want to live in a Microsoft world where it is merely iterative result of non fixed software that works, yet has issues and we get to pay for these flaws again or again, or are we willing to see Google solutions evolve where we have been introduced to new options, and amazing new boundaries as we moved from 3G, 4G and now towards 5G, with smartphone issues that Apple could not give in the last 4 versions of their iPhone. I got introduced to more invigorating options in 12 months of Google than I saw Microsoft show us in 15 years and that is whilst the Media remains very uninformative on non-consensual upload of data by Microsoft, that too is content!

In finality, consider the quote “Facebook also told MPs that it is is reviewing how it handles violent videos and other objectionable material after a video of a murder in the United States remained on its service for more than two hours“, whilst we need to consider the 2014 event of ‘Video of ISIS beheading U.S. journalist James Foley‘, the issue the CNN brought forward was: “The question is why taking it down is controversial at all. The answer, I think, shows how important services like Twitter have become, and how this has thrust unexpected responsibilities onto them“, it took years in court to deal with the Christian Wulff case as some would state it in a very unsatisfied way, whilst there is the raising of hell in light of certain videos? We can agree that some should not have gotten through, yet that is when we are in the emotional stage of not realising the size of technology involved. We should like the 2008 Facebook sex tape case conviction towards the poster of the video. Yet the political players know that this is a game that they cannot win, so it is easier to go after Facebook and Google, that whilst they rely on businesses to use these solutions to turn a few pennies, all knowing perfectly well that it is a cloud of facilitation. Is it merely because being linked to a large firm getting kicked is sexier that actually solving issues like age discrimination or giving suspended sentences on intentional fraud. When we are set in such an environment, can we trust anyone? We are all dealing with concepts of ‘facilitation’, ‘censoring’, and ‘technology’, at times on a daily basis. We all need to consider what is on the other side of that piece of paper, because when we consider that on page two of that news is an advertisement mentioning bogus scientific results? How criminal is the paper? and how will you take down printed advertisement? The elements here matter, because it introduces a term that has bearing, one that politicians have used for decades. In this they ‘hide’ behind the term “wilful blindness“, to remain ignorant intentionally of a situation is an issue, an issue that Yvette Cooper has been demonstrating in the response as given by the media. In equal measure can we accuse Microsoft of the same thing? The fact that some bugs that were seen in Office 95 and are still an issue in Office 2007, does that matter? That’s well over 12 years!

We ourselves also create content by not looking at the other side, which during the upcoming election is a bit of an issue, because, as I personally see it, Europe is in a new level of turmoil, one that it has not seen for several decades. It is also a larger issue as most nations have borrowed away the reserves they had. The safety netting is gone, which makes proper and complete information a lot more important than the previous 4 elections.

So lets not forget to see the other side, because when we are told: ‘look here’ the actual action that harms us is over there on the other side, in that it is my personal view, that in that regard all politicians are alike, and not one party has ever been ignorant of using that tactic.

In this business will go vastly beyond politics, because as the 5G waves start hitting us all, it will be about creating content, in this we will all look at the other side of the page and wonder about the validity, not because we want to, but because we have to. We will no longer have a choice in the matter.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics, Science

The moment UKIP was waiting for

There is no given what will happen next. For one, I feel that a solution can still be found for the Conservatives as they are looking at the pressures currently on the desk of George Osborne. The subtitle gives us the issue at hand. ‘Fresh pressure on George Osborne to halt controversial measure that will leave 3.2 million families worse off by average of £1,300 a year‘, there are two elements. As the leftish media is shouting how the rich are making the people worse of, we must consider that truth to be utterly bogus. Who in his right mind would think that the Conservatives would play fast and loose with seventy one seats for a mere £320 million a month is out of his/her head. Yes it hits 3.2 million people, but why? You see, the total bill of £3.8 billion is the issue.

You see the quote “The tax credits system is hopelessly complex and needs reform but we should be backing those who get up and go to work for low wages instead of living on welfare. The national living wage and changes to income tax thresholds will not offset enough of their loss and they will struggle to earn more money. They need our support and should be rewarded by a welfare system that is fair and helps them move forward in life“. The non-emotional part is that these are working families and they cannot make ends meet. This is the British version of Wal-Mart! Too many tax breaks have gone to corporations, where the savings of billions went straight into the pockets of less than a hundred board members. As the gravy train ends, they now move to fatter shores leaving the rest to fend for themselves. This was ALWAYS going to happen, and we must acknowledge that both sides of the isle have enabled this option. Both sides (mainly labour) have spent massive amounts in an irresponsible way and the UK credit card is now maxed, meaning that tax cuts are pretty much a thing of the past. You see, both the opposition as well as the current administration are trying to appease their congregation, but it is no longer allowed to cost anything. This is one of the reasons that George Osborne was not giving in to tax breaks last year, and he was right not to do so. This does not solve the problem and it is going to be a puzzle whether a solution can be found. The bad news is that if the Conservatives stand on principle, they will massively cut their own plan and in addition their chances on any re-election go straight out of the window. So what to do?

That part is not the focal point, what is the issue is the statement “71 Tory MPs in marginal seats could be vulnerable“, you see, if you go back to the bible of elections (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/may/07/live-uk-election-results-in-full), you can see that the marginal seats only for the smaller extent go towards Labour. The options for UKIP are not that great, but the issue are now a decent amount of seats that were for the Liberal Democrats, these seats will go somewhere and my money is that many of them could now move towards UKIP too, now we have ourselves an old fashioned horse race. Because this is the momentum Nigel Farage has been hoping for. Should we be worried? Well, that depends on any solutions the Conservatives can offer. The quote at the end “While some Tories are expected to voice serious concerns about the policy on Tuesday, few if any are expected to rebel on what is a Labour motion. Instead Osborne is likely to come under sustained pressure behind the scenes to act in his autumn statement next month” (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/17/tory-mps-at-risk-tax-credits), gives the reality. At present, whatever happens at whatever election follows at some point, the governing body better realise that stretching credit cards is no longer an option.

This is only one view, even within the party there is a growing concern of the loss of tax breaks, especially as it hits the lowest incomes. I myself understand this. I agree that something must be done and overall the lowest incomes should be protected to some extent, yet the tax breaks were never much of a solution. It was a stopgap at best. I came up with a solution, which was in three parts. I got the idea using a simple abacus (MS Excel). I designed the solution on March 16th this year in my article ‘In fear of the future‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/03/16/in-fear-of-the-future/), so far I have not found any credible opposition from the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats (whatever survived the last election), or even UKIP for that matter. I see all these claims left, right and centre, whilst they are all full of the ideology of their own voices. Even Mark Carney has seemingly been unable to oppose my logic in this matter. You see, the solution is so very simple. I raise the basic level with 1% and the higher rate with 2%. In all this the lowest group would not get hit and the basic group would pay annually a maximum extra of £318 (only if they earn the maximum basic income). The higher rate gets to deal with an additional 2%, so they get the full £318 and in addition 2% of the higher rate, which could end up being a maximum of £836 (if you are on an income between £42,386 and £150,000). These two groups represent 96.2% of all taxpayers and the added income to the coffers would be a nominal addition of £2.9 billion. I found a solution in a mere 5 minutes whilst politicians and marketeers still cannot figure out. And the wealthiest group? Well they also pay the 1% and 2% extra, this group of 300,000 is paying already all kinds of extras. In addition I would be willing to remove a tax break or two from them and in all this, the pensioners and lowest incomes were left alone, was that so hard?

The manoeuvring we see by McDonnell and Corbyn as we read “Does anybody dispute the arithmetic which demonstrates that a 2% GDP deficit will eventually result in a perfectly manageable public debt ratio of 40% GDP, just so long as nominal national income can be persuaded to grow at around 5% annually, as it generally did before Mr Osborne was in charge?” is part of the issue no one wants to address. You see, the debt is hanging around the neck of the UK. Even at 1%, the debt amounts to an £18 billion invoice. The coffers are getting annually drained and without a clear strategy there will be no social justice and there will be no NHS. Is it that hard for people to grasp that the life we all had before 2003 is gone and as far as I can tell, it is gone forever. EVERY presentation we have seen by every party has not amounted to any increase in the quality of life. Managing bad news is at the core, a game that the conservatives have not been playing. So as we read at http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/Fixing the roof while the sun is shining – Osborne’s new spending rule” you better that believe foul weather is coming to the Commonwealth. The Euro is in upheaval and that is not going to end soon. Most people are currently forgetting about the Greek situation. The harsh austerity adoptions are being made, but the streets of Greece are not in a good way. The dangers of the Greeks cutting their fingers by alienating the tourists (especially the German ones) is still a risk that cold set Greece back an additional 10-20 years. The fact that places like the Acropolis are hiking the entry prices by 400% is not a good sign either. We could debate whether the Greeks had an alternative. Yet scaring away tourists that are spending hundreds of euros by making museums no longer an affordable choice will in addition to diminished numbers scare away the American and the rich Asian tourists. In addition, the Financial Times is stating an economic recovery for Germany, but I am not convinced. http://www.dw.com/ stated that Germany has trimmed the full year growth outlook, which is a given, yet the part no one is thinking of at present is that the view for 2016 is not that strong, investors are worried and in all this Brexit and Frexit remain a reality. All this impacts the UK economy as well and as such ‘fixing’ the roof now is essential. In all this there is a second danger to the conservatives. You see, there is still a chunk of these 71 marginal seats that could have gone to Labour, yet, with the infighting, the non-clarity of views and the bad statements (as well as those lacking on common sense), even though it sounds good, most people can see through them. This is exactly what costed Ed Miliband his seat and those people will at all times select UKIP before the conservatives, which is not good for my party, but that does mean that people will be making plans for Nigel.

 

71 seats and any of them feeling a push towards Brexit, which will be a worry for David Cameron on more than one front. Am I right, am I wrong?

It is not about me being right or wrong, it is about the shifting political landscape, one that has been pushed by a massive debt that is not being dealt with. A massive debt that gives power to large corporations, which get the options of leaving wages low and pushing a non-liveable life towards the people currently in financial pain. In all this, the 30,000 refugees will have a minimal impact on a health system that is already beyond breaking. These little parts all add up to more and more hardship. The Conservatives are trying to find a working solution that will not break the bank, yet that path is less and less feasible, which all works for Nigel Farage. In that light, UKIP should also see the dangers that loom. Now we all know that when it comes to respectability, we tend to consider the crack dealer to have a better value than most journalists. Their approach has been questionable to say the least. Yet, when the Independent (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/44-of-ukip-voters-could-imagine-backing-a-military-coup-poll-shows-a6698056.html) starts getting its fingers on data that makes the following quote a reality: “As many as 44 per cent of Ukip voters could imagine supporting a military coup in Britain“, UKIP better starts realising that these extreme expressions that they are only digging their own holes. Or as Raphael Behr form the Guardian states: “Nigel Farage is the gift that keeps on giving“. I would never oppose honest outspoken opinions, yet when we see links to ‘coups’ in the land of Windsor, you better rethink your strategy. In all this his attempt to give rise to emotional stated people will only hurt him more (the Lord Brittan case). So, yes, he is the nonstop giving gift. Yet, he is not down and out, because the European situation is far from settled. He basically has an ally in Marine Le Pen, a situation that remains watching, and remains a growing power in France, especially is the less economically strong north of France. That part people forget. France has impact here because the French have had it and like Farage, Marine Le Pen is all for dumping the Euro, and if need be the EEC too. Which implies that if Frexit becomes a reality Brexit better be ready for implementation. David Cameron will not have the option to vie for time. At that point it all falls apart. No matter who comes first (Brexit or Frexit) that pain will be felt all over Europe and when one goes, the other one better follows.

So is this the moment UKIP was waiting for? I reckon it is to some degree (if Nigel is able to not drop the ball), but the field is wide open and several options remain. If the Conservatives want to continue, they will have to find a way to deal with the £3.8 billion question that is the centre of the field. In similar light a look needs to be taken regarding the budget. George Osborne is quite right to set into law the responsibility of a government to keep the books balanced. The minus trillion plus will take decades to manage and there is no given that it will be gone any day soon, with deficits growing another path is needed. One that I have been in favour of (for all governments) for a long time. So soon we will see the truth. Is Jeremy truly about a new kind of politics, or is he just another Labour speaker with a clever slogan?

We will get insight into that truth soon enough.

You see, as I stated, the field remains open, but as we see al he bickering and speeches, which of them is actually worried about the diminishing situation for merry old England? Who spoke out? That part is the issue, as the Liberal Democrats have Farron, who seems to be stuck next to the Blackburn Rovers. You could say that one is a founding member of soccer, the other cries about the ‘theft’ of school meals. Perhaps Mr Farron could consider where the money needs to come from, we all know that the treasury coffers are empty and Farron has yet to show a responsible bone in his body regarding the need of proper budgeting. Tim Farron seems to be all about “The flagship Lib Dem policy is supposed to save families more than £400 a year per child and provide a healthy lunch to every five-, six- and seven-year-old“, which is a good cause, I truly agree that it is, but who pays the baker and the butcher? Not one party has a clear answer here, not even the Conservatives, which it is exactly why it could end up getting scrapped. In that same light Jeremy Corbyn is all about getting elected, which means he has to spend money and promise all kinds of deals down the track. Basically it will be about spending money he does not have, not now, and after the elections it will not be in the treasury coffers. His view regarding ‘ending austerity’ is principally Mr Corbyn’s objective. This sounds nice as a slogan, but where will he get the money to govern, in that regard they have always made the same basic mistake. Spend now and let the next one clean up that mess. An option the UK can no longer afford. The three of them have set a dangerous precedent. In all this UKIP could get a massive slice of the cake, if they do not drop the ball or screw with the gains they got. Any momentum lost will be a massive drain towards the elections. This could end up being the moment UKIP was waiting for, the question remains, who will they trust? Only the right team will make it and infighting will drop their political victory chances to 0% overnight, a danger that remains realistic, which is what the conservatives and Labour are both hoping for, because them 71 marginal Tory seats are indeed the currency desired, yet the marginal Labour seats are not mentioned here, which to the best of my calculations are an additional 12 that UKIP could grab there, it will include the more tropical sights of Caerphilly after Charges against the three Caerphilly council bosses were ‘dropped’. The population there could find themselves at odds and if they turn from labour, UKIP becomes the new option. In that case brilliant work by senior labour people might not be enough to save Caerphilly for Labour, yet they could stem the tide for a few additional places. You see, Delyn might get hit too. Not because of David Hanson, he did a good job, but his choice for Yvette Cooper could now raise the question: ‘what else will he get wrong?’ Not a fair situation, but a consequence of choice. Unless Jeremy Corbyn makes a massive blunder, that choice could cost him and with every labour goof that comes from now until election time will affect his chances. Here Nigel Williams will remain a contender. His correct view “We didn’t quite get there but the vote for UKIP in Delyn increased by over 800%” is the issue. If Williams remains the level headed than Williams remains just that a dangerous contender. David Hanson will face an actual fight next election, which means that Nigel Farage needs to get his A-Game out. Labour and my Conservatives will push for infighting as much as possible (all things are fair in politics and desire), but that view could backfire too (not the desire view though). The numbers have shifted and the UK has moved in the direction Nigel Farage desired it to be. He just didn’t plan for this shift to happen, which gives us a small window of opportunity against UKIP.

I wonder who’ll take it.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Pointing where?

An interesting article is hitting the Guardian, the title ‘Child poverty rise across Britain ‘halts progress made since 1990s’‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/20/child-poverty-rise-uk-halts-progress-charities-claim) is hitting out at choices made, and let us be frank here, we have to point at certain actions and certain choices, but are we pointing at the right one?

In this both Labour and Conservatives are at fault. My own party of choice has made choices (bad ones) in the past, yet is the bedroom tax and are the benefit cuts truly the reason? They might (they do) have an impact, but are they the factors that are central in all this?

The quote “Child poverty is on course for the biggest rise in a generation, reversing years of progress that began in the late 1990s, leading charities and independent experts claimed on Saturday” is important. you see, at minus one and a half trillion cuts need to be made, in all this we need to see that unless the Commonwealth take responsibility in getting a budget, we are all doomed, the children aren’t even the first one to feel this. Both sides of the political isle have squandered their duties to a larger extent. Now, even though the conservatives are working on fixing this, we cannot ignore that certain damage was done under leadership of The Right Honourable Sir John Major. You see, the budget is set on two parts. What is spend and what is received.

It is the ‘what is received’ that is now a global issue. As individual governments were so eager to see industries grow, they decided to give tax breaks as an incentive. It did work, but guess what, it lowered the maximum received coins, which at that point was not a biggie. Now, we have created a different behemoth, as globalisation started stronger in 2002 onwards, no one (me blaming BOTH sides here) was looking at the cookie jar and wondering how continuation of feeding the future would be ensured (or is that insured?). No, many politician went by ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it‘, which gave us a different scenario after 2004. When the banking crises hit, it hit every shore on a global scale. So large corporations decided to maximise their ‘interests’, which I see was divided between shareholders and personal commissions, many combined, merged and used every tax break possible to avoid taxation. Now consider in an age of industry that the largest player (the industry) does not get to be held accountable for the needs of governing. They want their politicians in their pockets, their bonus in the other pocket and protection without invoice. They pulled it off because the parties on both sides did not correctly adjust legislation the way it had to be. Now, 11 years later, much of this legislation is still missing. The corporations see the sustenance of government not their responsibility, it is for the people, let them pay! They might not say it, but they will think it loudly!

So we have created a sea of chaos, and as the larger players avoid taxation, the people will end up with less. Now we get the quote “Ministers were remaining tight-lipped about the release on Thursday of the Ministers were remaining tight-lipped about the release on Thursday of the Households below Average Income statistics. Any increase in the number of children in poverty since 2013 would be an embarrassment. Child poverty fell from 3.4 million in 1998-99 to 2.3 million in 2010-11 – a reduction unparalleled in other wealthy nations over the same period – after the last Labour government promised to eradicate it by 2020. Any increase in the number of children in poverty since 2013 would be an embarrassment. Child poverty fell from 3.4 million in 1998-99 to 2.3 million in 2010-11 – a reduction unparalleled in other wealthy nations over the same period – after the last Labour government promised to eradicate it by 2020“, here is the second reason why Ed Miliband had no chance of winning, moreover, it shows a little more than that. The entire promise of child poverty eradication was never realistic to begin with. You see, by 2007 that given goal was no longer possible under both the economic meltdown as well as the tax evasion numbers, so did either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown inform the people that child poverty was there to stay? I have a hunch that this was not done. You see, ‘Households below Average Income statistics‘ is depending on income and cost of living. Income is still down due to past events, yet cost of living is going up and is going up slightly faster than wage corrections can provide for at present. So as we see these dwindling statistics, there should not be the wondering of how it is happening, we need to look at the way to deal with it. Lowering taxation is not a solution, it must be replaced by other means of taxation, which means that corporations need to pay their fair share, a part still not addressed. By the way, that part is also not addressed in Australia, as we see in the Australian Financial Review, the quote “The Business Council of Australia, comprised of the chief executives of big companies, cautioned the government that “global tax issues require global solutions”“, that the Business council of Australia is working for Global Companies, not for the Australian government. You only need to look at their board to see that they have the Managing Director of Rio Tinto Australia, the Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director of Qantas, the Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director of the Westpac Group, the Managing Director of Origin Energy Limited and a few more, all people very intent on paying as little taxation as possible, for the need of their shareholders and their personal bonuses. Guess, what, the Australian Financial Review does not really state that part, does it? No, they state “The Law Council of Australia has told the government not to enact the laws as they are currently drafted“, which might be a valid part, but valid to what extent? You see, last year I already stated part of the solution, make all purchases taxable at the location of the consumer buying it, or better the point of delivery. You see, the person buying the iTunes track, that video game, those bracelets or that suitcase is buying an item online, instead of in the shop. There might be valid reasons for why it was done, but it affects that nations GDP, so, as such, GST and other taxable parts should be paid there, not in Ireland or another low taxing nation. So, we do not begrudge the sale to be online, but on the same foot, just as a storekeeper pays its fair share of local taxation (read GST and such) the online store should do the same, it is just fair trade).

In all these years, those super clever members of the Law Council of Australia did not come up with this solution? If they did, why did the government not enact it? This directly reflects back to the UK. As taxation is now so unbalanced, the government is forced to scrap things.

No one is happy, everyone complains, but are they complaining in the right direction?

So as we see this article on child poverty, we also see the new Labour run “Yvette Cooper, who has put the fight against child poverty at the heart of her Labour leadership campaign, said the government’s record was a “damning indictment” of its approach and meant many children were being denied the start in life they deserved. “Their policies have delivered the biggest increase in child poverty in a generation and they have abandoned any pretence of even moving towards the target they promised to meet [to all but eradicate it by 2020].”“, no Yvette, this is not about ‘their’ policies, it is about your lack of realism, you should unite with the Tories to find the taxation that halts corporate greed and hold them to account for the protection they receive, the responsibilities that they should face, when that is correctly done, and as the coffers fill up again (move towards less or no debt), that you will see as a result that child poverty goes down again, yet as you ‘advocate’ your ego, realise that eradicating child poverty by 2020 was never realistic, getting it down by a lot is. By the way, whatever promise Yvette Cooper, or any other runner for the Labour Boss chair makes, make sure you realise that the pounding hammer of ‘interest payments’ is stopping many restorations in social projects, cutting and diminishing the debt is a first need, so as you contemplate that the next government should be labour, then also realise that they will spend it all again, they will do a ‘Gordon Brown’ on the treasury coffers! Now you, the reader, consider what is happening in Greece, when that hits the UK shores, it will be a massively larger and poverty will not be the nightmare. It will be that 23:00 news where they found a baby that starved to death, only because certain politicians had to feed their ego instead of realistic common sense. So where are we pointing? I want to point at a solution, which means properly fixing legislation, properly adjusting sentencing and fines. When you consider that some at the banks are still laughing at the 1.5 billion fine for Libor, than wonder how much they made. When the fine is 15 billion, they will wake up and stop feeding greed!

Oh, and before you think I have it simple, these cutbacks are hurting me a lot too, yet I realise that our future will depend on us not being in debt to the levels we are in now.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

The politics of dancing

Yes, as the best party is continuing to govern the nation through a path of cautious progress, we see articles on how the parties can get back on their feet, what they need to do and what went wrong. It seems to me that those people were not out in flock ‘protecting’ their party so to speak. For a few players there is some good news. It seems to me that there is massive infighting in both Labour and UKIP, so as such, as they waste time, effort and resources on who is the Alpha, the top dog. The additional issue is how those players are going about influencing the base of their own party. It is time to see the works of Machiavelli to be executed in its most basic form. You see, we look at what others write (including me), we look at what others predict. Sometimes it helps us to clear our mind, but we must all realise that whatever we read is often coloured. That includes what you read regarding what I write, just so you know.

So as we read the Guardian, take a look at the following paragraph: “A quickie contest was assumed to favour Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, and Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, because they start with the widest name recognition. A longer contest is thought to be of greater help to the younger, less established contenders. The more important point about a long contest is that it gives a greater opportunity to assess the candidates. Chuka Umunna came out of the stalls as the bookie’s favourite only to pull out of the race before the first hurdle“, there are two parts here. It is a little surprising that the former minister of health is short listed to be the new boss of Labour. Like in soccer, is it not the midfielder that is at the helm of it all? It seems to me that the same ruling applies to politics. From that point of view, it seems to me that the true favourite for labour is Yvette Cooper, yet in all this it was Chuka Umunna who got painted ‘favourite’. The Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, was regarded as ‘the one failing at the first hurdle’, one part that we should not forget any day soon! Not the fact that he allegedly ‘failed’ but who was behind that hurdle pushing the button. Yes, I do mean the press! But back to the Labour race!

There is a second article in the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2015/may/17/labour-must-come-up-with-a-better-offer-for-voters), which is connected to all this. The title gives the point, but not all the elements ‘how Labour must work out why Britain stopped listening‘ is perhaps not entirely true, from my conservative view it is more ‘when will labour give us something worth listening to?’ The promises Labour gave before the election were never realistic. I pointed them out in earlier blogs, no reason to repeat them here. People know that 1 trillion debt is a problem, it needs to be dealt with and the NHS had a 12 billion pound bad ticket. All due to labour! All issues the conservatives are working on fixing. This is not about blaming Labour (not here), these are all issues that need fixing and the public at large do not see a solution under labour. Ed Miliband talked a nice talk, but none of it was going to come true, it was not feasible. So here we have the issue, the issue of Britain not listening. Labour needs to be real and to get real. There is no extra spending and reduce deficit, not in this economy. The issues linked to this is about to get worse when we take the Eurozone in consideration. When we see the headline ‘Eurozone recovery accelerates as France and Italy return to growth‘, which was in the Guardian last Wednesday, we are being told a story which is repeated by the press. How the large Euro nations are doing a 0.3% growth. Who are they kidding? You see, growth in economy only works if you do not spend it, so when we are confronted with ‘The public deficit, will remain at around 4.4 percent of gross domestic product, up from 4.2 percent last year‘, which came from the French finance minister Michel Sapin. So they grew 0.3% whilst spending an additional 0.2%, this is not progress. By the way, this is 1.4 percent more than the Euro rules allowed for, so that beast is still to be tamed. The Italian deficit might only be at 2.6%, meaning that they are spending more than they are receiving, but with the Italian debt being at 2.25 trillion euro’s the only thing they are feeding are the bankers. So, the UK is in a spin to get back up and the two parts to get back up is to get out of debt and either leave the EEC, which is the Nigel Farage solution, or to change the rules so that the deficit rules are changed to make all governments budget neutral or better. The conservatives are hoping to ‘educate’ the European Community. The latter one would be good, but it remains doubtful whether that would ever work. Which is why the Farage solution is getting stronger and that is how Nigel got his 4 million votes.

I pressed on this more than once in the past. If the Labour party want to get itself out of the ropes it needs to realise that the massive debts are only serving a community of less than 5,000 people. Now, those people will go into the rhetoric on how it is only a small fee, but 1% on bonds and 1.02% on 12 trillion is still 144 billion, gives those ‘bankers’ 28 million each for not doing anything (just a very lose calculation mind you). In addition, the last batch of Greek bonds gave the traders 50 million to divide amongst them. So, as you see, the debt is a millstone making a few people rich, just be leaving the status quo, this is why the debt needs to go down. The politicians giving that ‘let’s make your life easy now’ are selling you a stale crumpet, one that you will pay for year after year. Not having the crumpet now is the only safe move.

Everyone knows it and most people accept that the debt is a really bad thing. The part Labour is just not getting (and their fumbling 12 billion of NHS IT did not help any either).

So, will Labour change? Well that is up to them, but in my view, they need to show a united front, the quicker they do this, the quicker they can restore faith to the party. The longer the infighting and power seeking last, the less faith the voters will have. There is no 5 year time! Whatever they want to start, they will have to start doing this within the next 8 weeks. I reckon that personally the best idea they can have it to get the new leader and Miliband together, as public as possible. The reasoning? Simple, Ed Miliband has 5 years of experience, ignoring that is just really really silly. The fact that Ed Miliband did not win is beside the point. This is about getting the new person ready!

So, the politics of dancing is as simple as the Re-Flex made it out to be in 1983

We’re under pressure – yes the Labour party is!
Yes we’re counting on you – only if you make sense!
Like what you say – and it better be real!
Is what you do – and do what you say you do!
It’s in the papers – yup, clobbered by the press any way you go.
It’s on your TV news – filtered by the news and the ’emotional’ presenter
Oh, the application!
Is just a point of view – and it is that view of the voter you need to get voted!
Getting on the ballot is as easy as eating pancakes, to get elected you need to be real.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Classifying defection

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

What Syrian option is there?

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

I do not agree!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics