Europe is going round and round – til the end of civilisation

As soon as Rory thinks he can get a majority in parliament for the deal that Theresa May has negotiated, the Labour Party seems to want to go for a second referendum in any case.

This means it is a no brainer that the Europe question cannot be resolved in the short term because if Labour doesn’t support the deal and wants a second referendum, then there will not be a majority for the existing deal.

Interestingly on the Victoria Derbyshire program the idea was mentioned that if Europe refuses a further extension, this would lead to parliament approving the deal but not if Europe keeps on giving extensions.

What really is important is that these questions affect different people in different ways.

There are

the farmers who say they cannot sell their products to Europe without a deal

the Irish who do not want a hard border

The manufacturers who move out of Britain because of disturbed trading with Europe

the self-employed businesses who have a large European customer base

the politicians who favour a strong monarchy rather than being ruled by a largely republican democracy

the Scots and Welsh who want to remain in Europe

the problem of not finding a solution is that on both sides, e.g. the Remainers and the leavers people vote for different motives.

Also, within the UK political parties want to get the majority in government so come up with political tactics that gets them the majority in parliament.

It seems to be a bit of a lock down.

Obviously the most agreed on part of politics is the Unity of Britain. Unfortunately, not even the so sensible Rory Stewart has mentioned the problems his deal causes for Wales or Scotland. That wasn’t discussed at all in the debate yesterday either.

I don’t think that Britain will leave Europe anytime soon, never mind what they all promise.

The unity of England, Scotland, Wales is the most important consideration that politicians will have and is most likely to down the Conservatives because they do not put the sentiments of the Scottish and Welsh or Irish voters first.

Scotland has already lined up a new independence referendum and has started their own negotiations with Europe on membership.

What I do not quite understand is why Labour keeps Jeremy Corbyn as their leader when he obviously quite strongly upsets the Conservative thinkers on all levels the latest has to do with his pro-Iranian views.

Obviously, Jeremy Corbyn is the one person that stops Labour from getting the middle ground to vote for the party. This of course has helped the Liberals to gain more support again. Greens also gained a lot on environmental issues.

Forget about political parties, vote for policies instead. Political parties ultimately hinder any kind of progress because as well as wanting to keep the absolute power, they do tactics that keep them in power and not policies which are necessarily best.

History has shown time and time again that the majority of people doesn’t always realise and or isn’t powerful enough to change a political course.

For example people should be allowed to vote on policies for instance

Vote for or against renewable energy

Vote for or against using plastics

Vote for or against having political relations with countries who are human rights abusers

rather than vote for a party that can have policies, which are unsustainable.

There are quite a few articles online, whereby scientists predict that civilisation will end in 30 years.

Weather will deteriorate, harvests will be disturbed, travel will be interrupted, communications may be bad.

I don’t think that our basic infrastructure will change much within areas that won’t be flooded but our government does very little to prepare for flood area predictions and keeps on planning like nothing is going to happen.

How are they planning to cope with those future earth warming immigrants, those who have to vacate their current land because it is flooded and seek safer shelter? Where will those move within Britain who will get flooded?

Europe is our nearest neighbour and transport to our nearest neighbour is always easiest. We do not know how viable the Euro tunnel will be in worsening weather conditions, but we need to ensure that we have reasonable relations with our nearest neighbours.

We cannot rely on the rich to help the masses because the rich can always go wherever they want; it’s us poor people who cannot escape we need to make the best of what we’ve got.


The lost society

Margaret Thatcher once said there is no such thing as society. This little sentence was the beginning of the end of sensible politics for Britain. It also shows the desperate lack of understanding of how society works.

Yet as the Conservative Party despises society as non existent, they put one of their biggest hopes for us in Building Societies, which by their very name are societies.  Societies are part of every culture; in fact cultures build societies. The Conservatives want us all to have building society accounts and build society around home ownership. Yet the politics of Baroness Thatcher, who doesn’t belief in societies is the biggest building block of today’s failing politics in Britain.

Britain is getting weaker by the minute. Scotland wants to break away, the Irish want Northern Ireland and the Welsh are only just hanging in there by a threat.

Maybe Margaret Thatcher saw us all as  toys that are put onto shelves, then into baskets and sold. She loved to surround herself with men. It is a trait of the Conservative Party that they traditionally only accept very few women into their top ranks; Anne Widdecombe used to fulfil that role beautifully. Margaret Thatcher seems to have been the political equivalent of her Majesty the Queen, who herself tries to beat the Empress Queen Victoria by staying longer on the throne than Victoria.

Obviously government currently is trying to re-create Victorian style poverty in Britain to facilitate that endeavour. But we are all in it together and we have to try to save our local little lives from the ruin that society steers to. Since Margaret Thatcher didn’t belief in society, there was every reason to ruin society as it existed.

What has happened since Mrs Thatcher disliked our society, is that China, India and other countries have enormously prospered whilst Britain has slowly faltered. Our services where sold to India and our manufacturing was sold to China. There is no way of arguing that away. Well there is one way, how comes that we are told that the British economy is weak when in London there are now more building sites then ever before?  How comes we are told Britain is poor when we see new tower blocks rising up in London everywhere. There are now countless building sites in London. Our transport infrastructure gets better each day. We have Overground going all around London, We get Crossrail, high-speed rail links to Birmingham, plans for bigger airports. Yet our unemployment is rising, homelessness is rising. Our credit rating remains critical. There are now more ready food shops in London than ever before, who are all these people who can afford to buy those expensive take-away foods? Instead of better home ownership we have enormous amounts of secret dwellers in the West London back gardens, where sheds have been converted into illegal living spaces for illegal immigrants.

Is it all a scam? Are we told the truth by the media?

Us little people we are losing our family structure and that is what makes society, the culture that develops out of working families lives. Yet working families are on the decrease but working singles are on the increase, perhaps from that aspect Britain has lost its society and tradition.

I think that the funeral of Baroness Thatcher should be a personal affair.She was a Methodist and her local church community is missing that special funeral the local person that was part of their community.  I do agree with the Bishop of Grantham that the £10 million for Mrs Thatcher’s state funeral could have been spent better, especially as her funeral will spark large social tensions. As a person Baroness Thatcher deserves the respect of her local community for her funeral proceedings.

the unthinkable proposal

From my uneducated point of view and just having browsed through British history, it seems that the question of Scottish independence has always been a thorn in the eye of the British monarch and heads rolled over the issue.

Scotland certainly has some good points to proof and an excellent case for selling itself more. But I wonder whether this latest drive for Scottish independence will become a huge headache for the Scottish electorate or not.

In the long run I think government functions will go further north and that Scotland will become the new Capital of Britain in about 75 year’s time but then it would be better for the Scots to be part of Britain rather than not.

Why does Mr Salmon now exploit his new found popularity with an independence vote, is this what the Scottish voters voted him in for? I wonder whether the electorate should have to be told prior to election that this is what will be on the menu rather than spring it onto people once in office. That is in principle a very valid point for our democracy to consider what politicians have to declare as future plans before people vote them in.

At least this drive for Scottish independence will keep the papers busy for some time to come.

I just read that Lord Wallace says that a Scottish referendum without permission from the UK government would be against the law and it would be worrying if any elected government would break the law. There must be a lot of reading going on at the moment.

Democracy isn’t working

Renewable energy, made from wind and marine power has become a serious alternative to nuclear power. I am very pleased about that. The cost of transporting such natural energy from Scotland has sunk by 80% under new proposals. That now contradicts Mr Osborne’s warnings, that the proposed referendum on Scottish independence would put business stability at risk. I think the stability is more at risk for England in any case. Scotland is perfectly capable of running their own business affairs without England.

I suppose Mr Osborne just doesn’t want to admit that he needs Scotland more than they need us. Scotland has many irons in the fire, they plan Golf courses and have the option of becoming Britain’s biggest energy producer with natural energy that can be transported south for easy use.

That would free up 17 billion pounds,that were planned for nuclear investment to other possible projects. I never liked the sudden U-turn of David Cameron after the election towards nuclear energy.

It is the case, in my view, that this government doesn’t understand the connection between business dynamics and natural sourcing. In the case of publishing the government still has not understood that they want to give business the freedom to chose what they publish, not taking into consideration that a free publishing market is dynamic, needing constantly new material to attract readers in order to protect jobs.

Where do publishers get the news from if not from sources which are not strictly ethical. Business dynamics and ethics do not always mix well. It is therefore often more viable to steer and government fund many projects to obtain a solution that is safe to finance and maintain. We see it in the Tower Hamlets weekly news sheet East End Life. It does very well, yet is government (local) funded. It supplies households with safe news, which are directly sourced from official material and in line with the Data Protection Act. The papers are free to households and supported by commercial advertising.

Yet the government wants to get rid of such safe publications, which are very popular because they do not allow private publishers to make money to pay their taxes. Yet for a private publisher the local news would be completely different in result. A private publishers would find it much more difficult to get the same stories, as they would get them via third party sources and they would need to run stories, which guarantee purchasing by people, which is something they do not have to do with a council paper. In TV publishing this dilemma is resolved with a licensing fee. We have the BBC v. ITV and others. BBC funded by licenses and ITV needing to get advertising to finance programs.

The BBC is praised for setting the trend in program quality. The East End Life paper is of very high quality and ethically well balanced. It is paid for by local government monies. The paper is very popular and needed because it served a densely populated area full of people who mostly do not have computers and who are too poor to constantly purchase papers. Maybe it would be an idea to levy a type of license fee for the paper to run and people can opt into it.

I think to keep things environmentally friendly and high quality services and publications have to be either very cheap to run or supported by extra funding. I think it is worth keeping the local newspaper, even though I am never in it. East End Life is a success story, whether government likes it or not. The Conservative Councillors are just jealous because they are not in the majority and if they were I bet they would love the paper to go to each household each week, with their photos in, instead of those of their opponents.

This government always wants to put all responsibility on private companies, from health to publishing but does not understand that responsible services cannot be profit driven if the subscribers or customers pay flat rates or purchase unpredictable amounts each day. In the case of publishing they have to be stimulated to buy with stories they find attractive. In the case of energy, customers use predictable amounts but the energy itself must not destroy the environment. In the case of health customers or patients, pay a flat rate but can become ill constantly and use much more service as they pay. There it is unpredictable how many patients will need excessive amounts of services, for which they are not liable to pay.

This government wants to measure each business with the same ruler and that shows, they have not got a clue and should not waste our taxes on their wages. Get rid of bad politicians, re-define democracy. It is democracy itself that has caused the current recession because it is unable to come to a viable formula that keeps business progressive and positive. Democracy has proven to be an unworkable political model.

Even though I defend people’s right to be part of a decision making process and vote for representatives, those representatives should be directly elected as service provider representatives and not political representatives because politics is a mere extension of business ethics. Democracy isn’t working.

We get constantly thrown about like dust in the wind to blow with the tide of political storms without apparent direction other than for a political party to remain in the driving seat. Education was disrupted, the health service has been dismantled and everybody’s pensions and benefits cut without much notice. For people who claim to be in charge of our future, this was all very short notice, when they should have been in a position to predict this all coming because finance can always be calculated well in advance. Unless the players act illegally, which is easily happening in business. Yet the politicians have not yet been in a position to build in controls to make business more accountable and responsible, the opposite is the case business keeps on getting more responsibility for which they have no security in funding.

government v. private sector

Just as I recommended to some job seeking women the other day to join the Conservatives in their voluntary activities, like meals for the poor etc, I realise that within the Conservative Party no poor person ever stands any chance of achieving anything simply because of a lack of money. It is not possible to get any career moves out of volunteering for the Conservatives at all. The opposite is the case, they use you and abuse you instead.

The Conservatives especially and all voluntary organisations in particular, simply thrive on private donations, and unless you can put money into it, you cannot do anything within it, anything other than doing what you are told.

You cannot work your way up, simply because you have no saying power, which is only activated once you put money into it.

That is why the government is so popular and why people prefer the state to the private sector because the private sector does not allow people to work their way up from nothing. That is especially so in the Conservative Party who have public donation schemes and say the more you donate the more say you have in he policy making. Yet for government run services you do not need money, all you need is perseverance, trustworthiness and sheer will to succeed.

Money has one funny side-effect and that is corruption and because everything can be bought if the price is right, the leadership in political parties is money driven and therefore corrupt. I do not think that political theory does play any role in politics these days because as soon as any party comes into government they suddenly change their strategy, tactic and leadership style to accommodate economic strategies and international diplomatic requirements. All little party members are mere pawns on the game board. There is no spontaneity possible and that might be the reason why political parties and voting become increasingly unpopular.

The strive for power knows no borders and people who shake hands one day can find themselves in the media the next being branded as belzebubs.

I would not recommend that anybody who wants social equality and/or an ability to make politics join any political party in the UK but rather instead lobby politicians and use complain procedures and pressure groups to achieve goals.

The Conservative can never achieve great popularity because they rely on the minority for their power. Only about 7% of UK citizens own 90% of the wealth, so their sources of finance are so much restricted to those 7% of persons who hold absolute power over the party.  In Labour the problem is the leadership devices policies in conjunction with the money people and we can see now how recently they joined forces on several occasions to keep the power threats in the knot. My own libel trial saw Conservatives and Labour follow a common strategy and now the Lutfur Rahman situation shows that Labour and Conservatives join forces to get rid of the one that is not a member in either powerful party. Stephanie Eaton has shown true female and/or Liberal intuition by voting to keep East End Life against her Labour husband, the Labour and Conservative Party.  Zakhir Khan tried to break the political mould by standing for the Conservatives with not much success.

The demand for control drives both Labour and the Conservatives who want to hold the strings to control the UK, there is nothing in between. This is not unlike a time of war when we see that in the UK all work together to defeat common external enemies but now within the UK, the government and the Labour party help to create an enemy within the country to drive out individualism.

I think its a recipe for disaster and won’t work because there is no war on in the classical sense and this strategy just creates unnecessary paranoia and makes whole population groups feel uncomfortable. Of course for the Conservatives there are in first line single women and mothers who are the hate figures and then of course groups of immigrants, apparently they also hate churches now because churches support child-rich families.

Then of course the UK is falling apart at the seams. The Irish are getting upset again, the Scottish are about to become independent and so the UK is getting smaller and smaller with only the financial sector being the main source of income through banking and finance deals.

What of course many rebels have not realised is that one can fight finance with elected purchases or withholding of spending in certain areas but instead people usually follow all types of incentives to spend money and then rather rebel instead of being more cautious with whom they spend their monies in the first place.  Of course the poor are always brought to their knees by hiked up domestic costs and all they can do is work  and pay but then to ask for minimum wages and living wages does not make any difference to who holds the financial power strings at all, in fact wage demands are merely puppet string movements in the theatre of life.

In fact it does not make the slightest bid of difference who runs essential services, whether its the government, the state or private business, its irrelevant, the most important factor is that the services is required.  Seeing now that under this new government the UK borrows even more than under Brown just shows how empty the whole new strategy actually is. The fact is that whoever runs service cuts will have to contract in Labour and if its not the state but the private industry their strategies won’t be much different from the state. But because the state is less corrupt and has more stringent rules and already has all the intelligence at hand, I reckon the state will always prove the winner for public services.

Is Great Britain getting smaller

A referendum will most likely be called on Scotland’s independence from the UK. That question has been active since hundreds of years and now, since the latest election results, there is a real chance that it might happen.

Of course Scotland would do rather well in the long run on its own. With increasing earth warming, Southerners will want to move up north, to stay dry and on land and Scotland could make an unexpected landslide of economic improvement on that fact alone.

I think the Scots have found a good leader in Alex Salmond who is level headed and smart, pleasant and of clean character, something that seems to be amiss in a few leading politicians today.

Some business leaders cheeky announced that they would not miss Scotland and that England would be better off without Scotland, but of course the country’s prime minister as well as Labour and the Liberal Democrats all oppose Scottish independence. Scotland must be doing something right to be so popular these days.

but what does Britain really have to gain by keeping all those states amalgamated, those states that actually would love to break away from the forced marriage? I thought that Britain is a leading light in the fight against forced marriage of the human kind but loves the forced marriage of parcels of the United Kingdom onto the UK.

In the end its a game of give and take and financial calculation. I think the main burden Europe always placed upon itself is infighting, which causes the old German saying to sound true, which goes, “when 2 fight, the 3rd party gets happy”. “Wenn Zwei sich streiten freut sich der Dritte”. Of course in the case of divorce the third party is always the lawyer but in the case of land and countries its most likely the foreign competition that will gain the most.

1.900 are not representative of Britain

The latest laughable survey came from the Humanist Society, that asked 1.900 whether they are religious or not and 61% of those 1.900 people said no. That can hardly be taken as a representative opinion. See BBC report. Frankly I cannot understand why this ‘survey’ is even being taken seriously.

students go up north soon

Since Alex Salmond from the Scottish National Party promised free education for Scottish students, I reckon many already start to pack their bags to move the Scotland. Perhaps Scotland is going to be the next educational capital of the UK.

It had been a considerable part of Labour Party policies for the UK, whilst Labour was in power to make education a main source of business for the UK, that of course since we have little space for farming or industry left, that is because all available space has been taken up by immigrants for housing.  Yet even Labour’s plan centred around selling education and not giving it away for free.

I just wonder whether Gordon Brown had anything to do with this decision making process, when his constituency is in Fife, in the heart of Scotland.

It sounds like a good little deal, move to Scotland and get a free university education. I am just not sure what for Scottish students means because Scotland does not have passports, so I assume it has only to do with residency. I reckon Scotland is going to be busy when that goes through. I consider moving there myself, I love the cooler climate.

However how is that going to pay, how can Scotland reap any fruit from this scheme when education is for free and students cannot be contractually bound to stay in Scotland after their education has completed?  It is often already a problem for many companies that they train staff who then go off with the knowledge and get a better paid job elsewhere.

The only way to earn revenue out of this scheme is from the extra spending students do, like accommodation and living expenses. Maybe there is a little hope that with increasing earth warming people will eventually move further up north but that is a rather futuristic plot. Maybe Scottish landlords could make a few Scottish pounds by charging high rent to students.

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits