Tuesday, 12 September 2017

Labour Commit Political Suicide.

Last night the vast majority of Labour MPs voted against the European Union (Withdrawl) Bill, in direct conflict with the wishes of the majority of the population (who voted to leave the EU), in direct conflict with the Majority of Northern normally Labour-supporting voters who also voted to leave the EU and in direct conflict with the actual process of leaving the EU.

Had they one iota of gumption about them they would have realised that the powers they were complaining about were actually conferred on the unelected EU, exactly the issue that prompted voters (myself included) to vote to leave the EU.

At least the bill confers powers onto elected officials we can vote out of office, rather than the unelected beaurocrats of Brussels.

Where were the majority of Labour MPs when Tony Blair promoted the European Constitution? Where were they when Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty? Lining up to applaud, exactly in polar opposition to their sentiments last night.

It seems the Labour will do away with the will of the people just for the sake of damaging their opponents.

It seems the Labour Party will vote against the will of the people in order to fight their internal squabbles.

It is clear the Labour party will vote against the will of their own supporters in order to further both of the above.

Above all it is clear that the leaders of the labour party would rather destroy the party itself than do what their voters demand of them.

Anyone who votes Labour any any further elections, with the current leadership in place should very seriously reconsider their vote. The Labour party does not support the will of the people, they do not suport democracy and only those MPs that voted to support movement towards Brexit should be supported by labour voters at the next election.

It's time the Chealsea socialists, the posh-Trots and the loony left of Liverpool get a bloody nose and some bloody sense knocked into the party that supposedly supports the workers of this country.

I would hope that the huge Labour vote against the Brexit Bill last night signals the death of the party of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Ed Milliband and Jeremy Corbyn. All of those Labour leaders who to a man have not put the faithful Labour voter first.

The Need for a New Political Party Grows...

....but not the party the Elite want us to have.

There is much noise about at the moment regarding a New Political party. Depending on your sources the new party could come from the left or the right, not that those labels mean anything anymore and haven't for years.

The main political parties serve global corporate masters. Even Jeremy Corbyn's pseudo-trot New/Old/Red Labour party. How many times has Jeremy been off-message from his own party, for the party to release a statement to "clarify" what he actual meant even if he didn't actually say it.

UKIP was severely castrated after the referendum win because it lost it reason for existence. Nigel Farage is a shrewd political player and saw the light and jumped ship.

But where does that leave the conservative with a small c, low-tax, pro-Brexit, anti-immigration, anti-corporate exploitation working class voter these days?

Certainly not the Liberal Democrats. Their policies are not for the working man. More the Metropolitan middle class, which is why their vote is so low.

Not with UKIP any more. UKIP are a busted flush. After the referendum they had the chance to take advantage of the win and the pro-Brexit voter base in the North and then use that to re-brand the party to move to become the working man's political advocate. Instead they imploded badly. Now there is a very high risk of them becoming a banner for the far right rather than the moderate middle.

Labour have done a slow-motion version of the UKIP thing. Sticking Jeremy Corbyn into the lead role, as some ancient Trot, amiable old duffer leader reminds me of the Michael Foot days, but Corbyn is less disastrous because there's a gullible young generation that haven't experienced a gullible fool backed by corporate masters. The Labour party is no longer the party to promote the working class, not since the polished sheen of the Tony Blair days. Their paymasters the Unions are no longer the working class advocates they once were.  Very much big corporations these days, parasitically leaching off the worker. More like insurance companies these days. A Labour party that looks down on the working class, who constantly does down the country's ideals is not for me.
High-tax, high-spend, high wastage and little political talent, the Labour cabinet would we run rings round by the more savvy players in the Elite.

Then we come to the Conservatives, which haven't really promoted the working class since the 80's. 'Nuff said.

So, back to the question; just where does a working class bloke that is struggling to pay his bills, is pretty pissed off with the excesses of major corporations at the worker's expense, who wants big corporations to pay the proper rate of tax so he can pay less tax himself, who wants a government that actually works, does things and doesn't go through the motions, who wants the government and other institutions to promote the UK rather than do it down, who wants restrictions on corporate lobbyists, who wants decent wages and the abolition of the obscenity that is in-work-benefits, who just wants a party that promotes his interest lay his hat?

Nowhere yet it seems. Hopefully there will be a realisation that a new party is necessary and one appears with the attributes I can vote for. Sadly I think there isn't a wealthy philanthropist out there willing to back a party to the tune it needs to succeed and neither can enough working people band together so supply the funds to make a successful party either.


Monday, 21 August 2017

What is Going on with US Warships?

Yet another US warship has been collided with, this time the USS John McCain.

In June it was the USS Fitzgerald.

It seems that watch keeping duties on both ships (and the others that have been collided with this year alone) were sadly lacking.

Considering that these are modern warships, with effective radar, a surplus of power to get out of tight situations and highly agile, it seems the weakest link is the human one.

However, look further and the question you have to ask is why are these ships getting so close to each other anyway? Modern shipping lanes have traffic separation schemes and there are pretty universal rules for the movements of ships at sea. If the ships do get close, again there are pretty clear rules that come into play. Everyone on watch on a ship's bridge should be well aware of their responsibilities as a watch, their responsibilities to their ship and their crew and finally to other mariners. Any movements that go against established rules are agreed in advance over VHF radio so that the commanders of both ships are aware.

With Radar and modern communications, even low visibility, even nighttime is not a factor. But with all that I mention above, the ships should not be in a position where a tanker ploughs into the side of a warship.

Someone, somewhere is sadly lacking. Possibly the lack of staff on the bridge of the tanker, almost certainly poor watchkeeping aboard the warship where the bridge crew should be fully staffed. Sadly a number of American sailors had to pay with their lives.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that these big ships are deliberately being driven at American warships to see how quickly they react and how they react.

Saturday, 19 August 2017

Terror Attacks and the Link to "Operation Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan

On the news in the past fortnight is a foiled Islamic terror attack in Australia and numbers of people killed in Islamic terror attacks in Spain.

Now you may think the two countries are unrelated, but if you look at the list of countries that have contributed men and materiel to Operation Enduring Freedom, they are right there on the list.

I've said before there is more to these attacks than meets the eye and the only way to solve them is to identify the source of the funding and the ideology that puts these people into the mindset that killing civillians is okay.

I very much doubt that some nutjob looks on Wikipedia and decides unilaterally to start operations against all the countries that contributed to operations in Afghanistan. It's got to be someone with a close personal link to that country and has suffered as a direct consequence of those actions. It's also someone rich enough to provide or with links to others that can provide funds to bankroll the terror networks in each country.

So by way proving a theory, I'm putting up the list of countries involved with operation enduring freedom and you can see which countries especially smaller ones have been victims of terror attacks in recent years.

Okay, some countries are unstable and terror attacks started before we got involved in Afghanistan, but it makes uncanny reading as you go through.For instance Sweden, normally quite neutral and passive in terms of warmongering, has suffered Islamic attacks recently.

It also outlines the idiocy of taking in so-called migrants from the areas where we are fighting the self-same people. How is it we're fighting insurgents in Afghanistan but at the self same time taking in Afghani "migrants" who could well be those self-same insurgents we're fighting in their home country.

None of the policy surrounding Islamic terror makes any modicum of sense whatsoever. One the one hand we are occupying a country in an attempt to prevent terror from being exported from that country, but we're allowing the very same people into our countries as migrants from a war we created and who could be the people laying IEDs for our troops over there....

And the liberals and far left actively denounce anyone that points out this stupidity....

Anyway, here's the list of countries involved in Afghanistan:
                                                                       
1 Afghanistan                                       
2 Australia                                           
5 Bangladesh                                        
7 Belgium                                             
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina                    
9 Canada                                              
10 People's Republic of China              
12 Cyprus                                              
13 Czech Republic                                  
15 Egypt                                               
17 France                                               
19 Germany                                           
20 Greece                                              
22 India                                                 
23 Iran                                                  
25 Italy                                                  
34 Netherlands                                       
36 Norway                                             
38 Pakistan                                           
59 Uzbekistan
60 Finland

Finland is out of sequence because it isn't on the list of countries participating in Op Enduring Freedom, but because of the stabbings this weekend I checked and yep... their military has operated in Afghanistan, so they've been tagged onto the end.

Thursday, 10 August 2017

The National Scandal of Child Sex Gangs.

Newcastle has become the latest city to convict a gang of men for the abuse and rape of young girls.

The right will scream that this is a wholly Islamic problem and the left will scream to say that is racist because a tiny minority of those convicted are not Muslims, or point to the large number of Eastern European girls that are trafficked by Eastern European men as a way to avoid the "M" word.

What both side will tend to forget in the vitriol they hurl at each other are the victims: the young girls abused and sexually exploited by these men. The lives that have been ruined by the mental scars that will last long into adulthood.

They will also ignore that these men are paedophiles, pure and simple. Whatever their religion, skin colour, they are abusing and sexually exploiting under age girls.

What is salient is what is happening, quite often it seems that allows these men to carry out this systematic abuse town after town, city after city and continue without severe disruption. In the Newcastle case, the case could not be proved without evidence provided by an informer (paid £10,000, causing some controversy).

The problem is the communities that these men live in, where they can continue their illegal activities without risk of disclosure. Communities where it appears acceptable to abuse young girls and in particular young white girls.

I've said before I've lived in areas alongside these communities. Men are classed above women and Muslim women are deemed second class. Those same women are held in higher esteem than young white girls with loose morals, so in effect those girls are lower than second class. At best they are deemed third class or in extreme cases no better than animals.

I've seen it. Jokingly termed, the "throw away" pretty white girlfriend that Muslim guys have on their arm, cast off once mummy and daddy decide he should settle down and marry a nice Muslim girl. Despite the girlfriend's commitment to the relationship she's not deemed worthy, classless and not on the same level as a good chaste Muslim girl.

It's that sort of attitude, taken to a deeper level that allows the gangs to carry out these abhorrent acts time and time again without detection.

Why bring the Police in to get involved in their community, why should these men get into trouble over trashy white girls? The girls deserve all they get for being immoral, for being gullible, for falling for the men's lies. For becoming trapped in the web of drugs and sexual abuse, for being animals. They are not worth the trouble.

The same attitude decades ago that girls with loose morals were "asking for it" when they were raped, pervades the muslim religion. Women of good morals cover themselves from head to toe and to stop them tempting the poor weak men into bad ways. Only girls of loose morals dress prevocatively and because they are immoral they deserve anything they get.

Just how you change attitudes in a community led by a Religion that denigrates women and restricts their freedoms so much they have to dress head to toe in black, that sets their status as at the best second class, is beyond my comprehension. But until those attitudes change within those communities this problem will not go away.

Such attitudes allow so-called "honour killings", where the phrase is used to ameliorate what is murder. Cold. blodded. murder. In some instances in the most cruel way imaginable.

This is the problem with so-called multiculturalism. There's no problem with bringing certain aspects of culture with you when you come to the UK, as long as you understand there are some things we deem unnacceptable. Just like Saudi Arabia has a hard line on drinking alcohol, we should have a hard line on female inequality in the Muslim community.

It is not acceptable and the feminist community is surprisingly silent on the issue. It's not racist to promote female equality in a community where it is supressed. It's not racist to stand up for the standards that feminists have fought for for the past 100 years. To do so allows the slide back to the standards of the past.

Finally the Police need to be more aware of what is happening in these closed communities. When the far right state there are "no-go areas" in our town and cities, in essence they are right. There are communities in our country where the rule of law as you and me believe it do be do not operate. Sharia law is primary and UK law is secondary. There needs to be a drive to encourage more Police recruits from these communities and for those recruits through their superiors to develop the notion that behaviours that go against UK law will not be tollerated and that anyone that knowingly allows this to continue without informing the Police will also be subject to the full force of the law.

Friday, 28 July 2017

2040: End Date for Internal Combustion Engined Cars.

Well..... yes and no.

Much has been said over the past couple of days about how the abolition of petrol and deisel cars will leave only electric cars in the frame. A deliberate ploy to make the Conservative policy contentious and therefore another stick to beat them with.

Forgetting the French have made exactly the same promise. Forgetting that hybrid engined vehicles, which incorporate internal combustion engined elements will still be on sale. After all, we're not talking zero emissions vehicles. Yet.

So although vehicles powered soley by internal combustion engines will be outlawed, petrol and diesel engines will still be in cars for some time to come.  Okay maybe not diesel, because it's a crap fuel.

They have to be, because there is as yet no other power source that can deliver the range and flexibility of chemical reaction engines.

Right now the hybrid engine in Formula 1 are delivering close to 50% thermal efficiency, which in engineering terms is pretty bloody good. Soley electricaly-powered vehicles don't come anywhere close.

For instance, if we did go soley electric where does that electricity come from? Mainly fossil-fuelled power stations which are nowhere near close to being efficient. Not just the process from burning stuff, converting water to steam, turning the turbines. Yes that's inefficient, but also converting the electricity into a form that can be transported hundreds of miles. Every time that electricity goes through a transfopmer to step it up for transmission, or down to domestic voltages, some heat is lost in the process. That's why the transformers in your local substation are bathed in oil: to cool them down.

So, vast amounts of energy are wasted by converting fossil fuel to electricity. We'll just use renewables instead? Ah, but here the fickle nature of renewables rears it's head. We'll charge electric cars at night while we sleep, so they are ready to run in the morning. But the sun doesn't shine at night which discounts solar energy as a clean power source. Wind doesn't blow all the time, so what happens if the wind doesn't blow overnight and we can't supply the demand of all those electric cars suckling away at the national grid? Will drivers have to phone in work and take a day off?

No, we'll take a pragmatic view and have some sort of transitional arrangement rather than fall off a cliff in 2040. We'll allow hybrids and I'm sure will introduce legislation that drives manufacturers to ever more efficient combined power units a-la F1 until thermal efficiency is maximised to the limits of our technology.

Of course there could be an opening for hydrogen technology in all of this. Especially as after 2040 it will be ever more complicated and difficult to produce hybrids with the right qualities. Just ask Hondas F1 engine makers...

Hydrogen technology can be used to power fuel cell cars with zero emissions. Current internal combustion engines can also be modified to burn hydrogen if we wanted, although the cost and efficiency of producing hydrogen, packaging it in a way it can be transported and stored ready for transfer to vehicles is the big questionmark.

In any event, the sky is not falling. If car manufacturers can get F1 hybrid technology to work in road cars, it bodes well for the future.

Although the questionmark is still the electric part of the equation: batteries don't last forever. They wear out and the cost of replacing them in second-hand vehicles is still an unanswered question.

I have the feeling that the car market will eventually move to a lease-hire model, where you don't actually own the car, you just leae it for however long and then return it to the manufacturer. The car then get recycled. As batteries tend to last no longer than a decade, that would be the maximum amount of time before any new car gets crushed and recycled.

How green that model is compared to a petrol car that just needs regular maintenance for up to 200,000 miles and a couple of decades or more is another question that really needs asking. For instance my last car lasted for 180,000 miles and 18 years before I scrapped it, although had I the money it could have been repaired and still be on the road. It's just the cost was the same if not more than the market value of the car. The same goes for hybrids, it's just theat point comes rather quicker with cars that contain huge battery banks.

Is the push to electric actually an environmental one or a financial one? Are we being duped into paying more for something we don't need to pay more for?

Sunday, 23 July 2017

BBC Vow to close imaginary gender pay gap.

Now that the BBC have eventually released how much taxpayer's money they are overpaying so-called celebrities, a new row has emerged because the women are not being paid the same as their male counterparts.

The to-earning male, Chris Evans during the period his wages were calculated was doing a 5-day-a-week early morning radio show on Radio 2. 5 days a week, almost every week. He was also working on Top Gear, BBC's top earning programme. Of course what you see on the screen is a snapshot of the months of prior programme making out on location. So the Top Gear episodes could have taken several weeks to produce the 12 or so programmes aired.

Claudia Winkleman on the other hand was fronting Strictly Come dancing, which aired for a similar run of episodes, but being a reality TV programme more than likely only needed some rehersal in the week prior to Airing and no international travel.

She also fronted the Film programme, which again only needed local recording in the days prior to the actual airing.

No job that required her to present a programme on a daily basis.

So again, as with most claims of female pay inequality we're comparing Apples and Oranges. Hardly a smart move for the feminists hollering and shouting foul.

I'm all for equal pay for an equal job with equal circumstances, but like many claims before, it's spurious.

What are the BBC saying when they say they will "close the gap" between male and female pay? Will they start paying females for doing less work?

I've worked in jobs where males are paid different salaries for doing exactly the same job. Does that mean that EVERYONE'S salaries will be equalised? So will the BBC throw money at employees that have not asked for extra money? Will they force huge pay rises upon celebrities whose agents have not had the guile to negotiate the best deals?

Of course we know who will pay for this largesse of course: the taxpayer.


Sunday, 16 July 2017

Tony Blair Back Stirring Things Up.

It seems that Tony Blair appears to have acquired a new Superpower. Along with Making truth from lies and walking on water, he's able to see invisible things now and hear voices (although that last one may not be an entirely new power).

Apparently he can see and hear that the EU is now willing to do a deal on the movement of people in order to keep us in the EU. That's despite them not offering a deal when David Cameron asked for one, that's despite Michel Barnier explicitly stating the free movement of people is non-negotiable.

Now I know he has a track record of manipulating the truth, but when did an unequivocal "NO!" become a "YES!"?

It's a sure sign of desperation that the remainers will wheel out a known manipulator of the truth (he's too slippery to be called a liar) to state a position that is currently at odds with what Europe is saying. No-one with a modicum of sense believes him, he is despised by the right and the left of politics, hopefully no-one outside of his small corporate cabal of sycophants will take any notice of him.

Of course the remainiac BBC report on his ramblings and try to engender them with some sort of authority, but we all know the real truth.

Not the Tony Blair "truth".

Sunday, 9 July 2017

Death Knell for EU sounded.

Today's papers are full of the news that German industry has said it will put the single market before any deal with the UK regarding Brexit.

So what they are saying is they will put a political project before the livelihoods of their workers. They will jeopardise jobs for the sake of a political project.

Hopefully workers in France and Germany will wake up and realise that they are not as immune from the idiocy of the EU and that it does not work in their interest. Just as in Greece, Italy and Spain that the political project is primary: jobs, lives and the future of millions will be sacrificed all for the political project that is the European Union.

That my friends is why EU commissioners are not elected, why they create laws where they are immune from prosecution. They see themselves as Gods, above everyone and willing to sacrifice the lives of millions.They are not politicians in the true sense of the word. Their life is politics, but only for the furtherance of the EU. They do not work in the interests of their citizens which is why they are not elected. Otherwise they would be booted out in short order. To continue the juggernaut that is the EU, they have to be above that: unelected, untouchable, uncaring and (currently) unstoppable.

The warning signs were there long ago, but recently have been very much to the fore. Forcing countries to accept mass immigration, the financial shackles put on the Southern European countries and the imposition of technocrats... bringing Europe to the brink of war with Russia over the Ukraine, and now willing to risk the jobs of thousands of German and French car workers. Of course not those at the top, because if the EU imposes barriers to trading easily with the UK, then all we do is buy the same goods produced outside the EU. Cars are made all over the world. If we can get the same cars from plants manufactured in North or South America cheaper than EU-made cars, then that's what we will do. The car companies will still be paid, it's just the workers in the shrinking plants across the EU that will suffer.

And when the people in the North of Europe become to understand they are just as at risk as those in the South, that they are pawns to be sacrificed for the greater good, they will reject the EU just as we have.

Wednesday, 5 July 2017

Grenfell Tower Resident Car Crash Interview on Radio 4 This morning.

There was a resident from Grenfell tower on this morning's today program bemoaning the lack of response from the council in finding him alternative accommodation.

It really wound me up. The guy had been offered alternative accommodation, but refused it because it was only 2 bedroom instead of 3 bedroom and... get this... it was 15 minutes further away from Grenfell Tower and the local school etc.

Fuck Me! Only 15 minutes! I've had to take jobs in different fucking counties in order to make ends meet! My kid's school was 11 miles away from home because I lived in a small market town, with no help towards bus fare because all the kids went there. When I was out of work I had to sign on 15 miles away and wasn't paid bus fare to the job centre so was always £10 down on my benefits.

By the way, he's being accommodated in a hotel at the moment, he has a roof over his head. And I know even the shadiest hotel in London will not be cheap, because I've tried to book rooms before.

I just fucking pisses me off that people think they are entitled to an immediate response and put up in some ideal fucking home, all at the expense of the taxpayer.

Benefits are a safety net, they are not designed to give you the same level of lifestyle as someone who is working.

Social housing is there as a safety net to stop you being homeless. It will be basic, it may not fufil all your needs, but it is a roof over your head. It will not be something straight out of "Grand Designs".

If you have come to the UK from some foreign shithole, then I'd think you'd be grateful to receive anything where there are no bombs dropping, no armed militia killing your family members.

But no, it's up to the rest of us just managing low paid workers to pay fucking taxes and pay private rents so that you whinging fuckwits can DEMAND a fucking luxury pad in Kensington.

Good luck to you if you can wangle it, but allow me, who has lived a life and when needed been turned down for benefits and support and housing to have a fucking rant about how unfair your demands seem right now.

Tuesday, 13 June 2017

Shit...... Fan....... Popcorn.

Hidden amongst the current political chaos was the news that inflation has just hit 2.9 percent.

The fall of the pound increasing the cost of imports has been a major factor in the rise.

It all feels like being in a Seventies movie, with inept political figures galore and a looming financial crisis.

Saturday, 10 June 2017

Mrs May Mortally Wonded

After the election Theresa May could possibly hang on for a few months, but I believe she is mortally wounded. Too much to carry on as PM.

She went to the polls to secure a larger majority, in an effort to secure her Brexit position and silence the chancers with their court cases and the Lords with their overtly remain agenda. An increased majority would have enabled her to stick two finger up at the meddlers and do things her way.

I can understand her frustration, but she failed to understand the mood of the people: fed up of austerity, fed up of the increasing gap between rich an poor, fed up of the shrinking opportunities available to those at the lower end of the social ladder.

When Jeremy Corbyn offered them the moon on a stick, they jumped for it. No matter what the price, they wanted it NEEDED it and they wanted it now. They wanted an easier life, the life they saw their parents and Grandparents have. Free further education, no more debts, all it needed to happen was to turn the screws on the rich a bit more. they couldn't wouldn't pay for it themselves. Syphon a little more cash from the job providers and all will be well.

Where the direction of UK politics lies after this is anyone's guess. Now the youth of the country have woken up to the power of the vote, it looks like the leaning of UK politics will be more leftwards. We are all a bit lefty when we're young: we want everything, want it now and the easier we can get it, the better. Hang the consequences and as long as someone else picks up the tab who cares?

Of course as we grow older, we understand the importance of work, of paying one's own way. We understand there is no free lunch and that the things the older people have, they have earned. We fear for our children and ant to protect them in the future. Make sure they have a better life and opportunities that we had.

The 2017 Spring election will be remembered as a turning point, the time that people embraced short-term

Friday, 9 June 2017

How the Problem of Polarised Politics caused Election Chaos

Well, the election results are in and it's quite clear Theresa May threw away a substantial majority and ended up with a hung Parliament.

When she called the election, it was hers to lose and lose she did, in spectacular fashion.

There are several aeras where she went wrong. First calling the election in the first place, u-turning after saying that she wouldn't call an election. Had the Conservatives laid the groundwork and said beforehand that having an election around the time the Brexit negotiations came to a head would cause problems, and then called it, there would be less of an issue. Issuing a surprise election in an effort to catch Labour on the hop didn't work. All Labour had to do was promise the Earth in return and substantial numbers of voters would sway their way.

The Tories failed to take the Labour policies to task and ask just where the money was coming from. Another mistake from the May team. They had a chance to demolish the Labour manifesto, but instead chose to keep spouting "strong and stable government" with no substance. Chancellor Phillip Hammond was significantly absent from the election, it was his team's job to go through the Labour manifesto and tear it to shreads. Instead Labour got away scott free and were able to promise the Earth with impunity. I just wonder if the mass exodus SpAds from number 10 and number 11 Downing street mortally wounded the Tories in this area. Or manybe it's a good thing for the future that these useless advisors get replaced for people able to plan a bit more.

The third mistake of team May was to alienate the pensioners. Failing to guarantee the triple lock on pensions, or to explain in detail what would replace it. Failing to be clear on tax rises

Being vague and leaving the electorate to trust the Tories is not a viable plan. People do not trust politicians.

If the Tories knew in advance they were calling an election, then they should have had the time to plan and present a fully costed and detailed manifesto. Instead we got wooly words and the famous "clarification" on the dementia tax. With a fully costed and planned manifesto and campaign, there wouldn't have had to be such a clarification, the details would be in black and white.

In the end the Tory manifesto tended to be all stick and no carrot, which lost them the voters that really wanted to vote for "better the devil you know" Theresa as opposed to "Silly Man" Corbyn. Arrogantly pushing voters away like that is not the way to win elections.

So, too many holes, too vague, no planning, no chancellor, u-turns, clarifications all added to the Tory demise. There was a sense that Theresa waas weak and washy, not strong and stable. It's almost as if they had arrogantly convinced themselves they could win the election without putting the effort in. It lost them a 20 point lead in the polls as the people punished them for yet another trip to the polls they thought was not necessary. 

Ironically there was also no counter to the Labour chant that the Tories benefitted the well-off and did nothing for the ordinary person. Back in the days of Cameron and the Eton elite, the Tories had no defence, but they could have countered it easily this time round but failed to. They could have quite easily pointed to the private education of the Labour front benches, but didn't.

As for ploarisation, it seems this election was an election of polar opposites. Young against old, rich against poor, haves against have-nots, Brexiteers against Remainers. I don't think in my lifetime I've ever seen an election so divided not on party lines, but on other lines.

The younth vote surged for Labour, thanks to social media and kids not remembering the catastrophy Blair and Brown's Labour party left us when they promised us everything we ever wanted.

The Pension vote, normally staunch Conservative, crumbled thanks to the badly thought out Tory policies on triple lock and social care funding.

Labour promised the Moon on a stick to everyone without the Tories pointing out that it will be those self-same people paying for said sticky Moon.

The Tories instead of having a backbone and a sense of convition, went into the election sleepwalking, without a clue. It doesn't bode well for the Brexit negotiations.

This is the worst of all results, with the Tories significantly weaked and a Marxist leadership in the Labour party emboldened by their gains.

Tuesday, 6 June 2017

Diane Abbott, Home Secreatary

Is a phrase we all need to be fearful of.

Not only can she not do numbers, or find her own way off a stage, but it seems she can't read.

I mean, as Shadow Home Sectratary, then you'd think someone would explain what the job of shadow home secretary entains and maybe, just maybe what reports she needs to read. If she's only up to the Peter and Jane books reading-wise,  then someone would brief her on the salient points of the Harris report.

But no, we have yet another car crash interview.

It's clear she's not fit for the post. Cabinet posts, even shadow ones are not for bluffers and piss-takers. They are serious positions and the person in-post should be on top of their bloody game.

It speaks volumes about the calibre of Jeremy Corbyn that he would employ such an incompetent into a senior post.

Maybe she's suddenly been afflicted with Altzheimers? Maybe that explains why she's suddenly been caught too ill to debate with Amber Rudd on Home Office Affairs. Despite looking as hale and healthy as someone her size can be.

I suppose it could be worse, she could be in charge of the nations health...

Friday, 26 May 2017

Thursday, 18 May 2017

Rock, Meet Hard Place......

Well, all the party manifestos are out into the public domain, so time will be taken to read them and eventually come up with the party I would most likely vote for.

The first thing that strikes me is that the tax take is due to rise, whichever party you vote for.

Labour: 1p on income tax to piss more money onto the raging money-bonfire that is the NHS.

Tory: When you get old we'll claw back your hard-earned assets bar the last £100,000.

As for fiscal prudence (remember Gordon Brown... anyone?) that's all gone out of the window.

Labour want to nationalise everything so their union chums can hold the country to ransom again, but won't say how they fonud the multi-billillion pound buy-up. Except we all know they will have to borrow sqillions to do it all. Money our Grandchildren will be paying back. The borrowing rates will be interesting given the foundations of sand created by quantative easing (or increasing the money supply as it was called in the 70's). Cue rampant inflation.

The Tories want to be a bit more circumspect. They make noises that they won't piss money away, but in the end over the past 5 years the national debt has gone up despite cuts in spending. The problem being the institutional overspending and inefficiency in government spending. Without correcting the holes, the money bucket will never be full, no matter how much you pour into it.

On education, Labour want to scrap tuition fees. High on my priority list with a daughter in university...

The Tories want to bring back Grammar Schools. Despite failing my 11-plus I do see a place for Grammar Schools and streaming the most able. I've only ever seen Comprehensive schools supporting the least able. I see nothing wrong with skimming off the top 20 or 30% into Grammars, supplying special schools for those less able and having schools catering for the vast majority. We need high flyers and we need schools able to cater for those that can't learn.

So despite being an over-50 adult with a natural proclivity to vote Tory, do I vote Labour? I mean, at least they'll push the debt downstream...

I haven't mentioned the other parties. Liberals, UKIP and Greens. Despite all the airtime they get, they are pretty irrelevant in this election. Sorry UKIP!

Monday, 15 May 2017

The Thatcherite legacy is not only the Tories Fault.

It really annoys me that Labour push themselves as the saviour of the NHS amongst other untruths.
That everything is Maggie's fault. Poor saps, they've never got over that woman and now there's another Tory female PM with a huge popularity rating.

Yes the Tories (but under John Major) introduced targets and with it an overburden of administrators to monitor adherence or not to the targets, but Labour did far more damage.

LABOUR'S Tony Blair was one of the most damaging Prime Ministers when it comes to the NHS. Saddling health trusts with expensive PFI deals that they are paying through the nose for, "reforming" GP contracts that just put up GP's salaries without any increase in cover and also allowing GPs to introduce expensive and impersonal out-of-hours services.

He also introduced no-win-no-fee legal access. In itself a great idea, ordinary people have access to legal redress and not worry about the expense. But the actual legacy is one of Ambulance chasers or Agressive lawyers suing everyone for the slightest thing.

Anna Racoon has started a crusade to enlighten people about the huge burgen that litigation has emburdened the NHS with. Out of a budget of £95Bn, £56Bn will be set aside for litigation. A wholly unsustainable situation where more is spend defending the NHS and settling lawsuits than is actually spent on medicine.

One of the big issues is the payments on these lawsuits is based on the victims of NHS procedures is based on the victim receiving further treatment privately, when the actual truth is they continue to receive treatment from the NHS that caused the issue in the first place.

In effect they bank the money and carry on getting free treatment. There is no mechanism to force people to use the money to get private treatment: the NHS doesn't have a mechanism for excluding people from treatment after suing them. There is also no mechanism to charge the person for treatment by the NHS, thereby getting that money back as the NHS treats them. there's no mechanism to get that money back if the victim dies: it becomes part of their estate. When in truth if they die, treatment ends and the reason for the money being provided ends. There is no clause to repatriate the money back to the NHS on their demise. The money is treated like a windfall for the family.

This dovetails into my previous blogs about the NHS spending millions on expensive cancer drugs, just to extend life expectancy by months, where that money can transform the lives of other patients for decades.

Tere needs to be more oversight of WHERE NHS money is being spent and most certainly SHOVELLING MORE MONEY AT THE NHS IS NOT THE SOLUTION.

Targets are not the solution. More targets means employing more staff to measure them: staff that are not employed in the business of care.

There needs to be an intelligent debate about the NHS budget, whether where it is going is delivering the best care for the country.

The media will dumb it down into a Labour/Tory public/private debate, when it really needs to be a more adult and detailed affair. As the people paying the bills, at the end of the day the media owe us a more accourate account of what is going on.

Friday, 5 May 2017

Human Interfaces

The Brexit thing between May and juncker takes me back to my I.T. days. Back when I worked in Interactive Voice Systems, I did a lot of research into human-machine interaction. I could write reams on how or why unsuccessful IVR systems are unsuccessful.

But the Brexit issues boil down to the same problems. Lack of undertstanding or empathy.

When writing the software for IVR systems, you need to understand the needs of the other party, the customer dialling into the system.

You also need to communicate your needs clearly, so they understand what is required of them to make the negotiation between them and the machine work properly.

You need to also undertsand the nuances of language both whilst communicating your needs and also during their interaction with you. It's so frustrating to talk to someone and for them to not acknowledge with some sort of response. We instantly become unsure as to whether our message has been heard.

In an IVR system, the simple addition of a "Thank you" prompt after each input signals that the machine has heard something. If that input doesn't match the system's requirements then should prompt there has been an error and ask for input again. In essence, the negotiation between the two becomes as natural as normal conversation, because the machine is programmed to respond with an approximation of human interaction.

The Brexit debacle between the UK and the EU is similar. Two poeple talking at each other without an particular empathy towards to other's position.

Theresa may is a leader, she doesn't need to enter into details, she will talk of the big picture, making big descisions and it's for junior ministers in government to action those ideas and take care of the details.

Junker despite his position, is no leader. He appropriates the concensus of others and aproximates leadership, but he doesn't have the ability to make big unilateral decisions. He's a beareaucrat, he loves the detail.

So, the two of them are talking at odds because they are talking about different aspects of the same issue, not because they disagree. Either they have failed to understand each other's different perspective, or the language and interpretation was a bit dodgy, or they just want to set out each other's position. They are talking at each other and not talking to each other. It is not a conversation, it is rhetoric, and for the medai to protray it as anything else is wrong. May is not in a different galaxy, nor is Juncker bombastic.

Either way, the media have now jumped on the bandwagon and portrayed it as a massive rift between the two sides, when actually there isn''t one.

It's going to be like this for the most part through the Brexit negotiations. Until two underlings of equal status and at the same level sit on each side of the negotiating table and start to work on the minutiae of the deals, only then will we get any sense of what actually the Brexit deal entails.

So, ignore anything coming out of the media for the next 18 months. They will play up the minutest difference in position, make mountains out of minute molehills, just to make headlines.

It ain't over until it's over.

Public Service.

I've touched on this before, the waste and the sense of entitlement in public services. One of the best examples of this was the case of  Katrina Percy. She was the boss of Southern Health, under fire for various reasons, but mainly a number of deaths during her tenure.

Under fire from the media and others she resigned from her £250,000 a year job and moved to a new consultancy job.....paying £250,000 a year. The consultancy job apparently didn't exist before she moved into it, the assumption being she was moved to get away from the media spotlight, but got to keep her salary. So it appears the Southern Health Trust decided to magic £250,000 a year from the wages pot to stop bad publicity. But not employ extra front-line staff. Quite a skewed sense of priorities there.

In the end after media scrutiny of her second job, she left Southern Health, but not without getting a £190,000 payoff.

I've previously mentioned my dislike of public servants being paid such high wages. But it also shows that the public service managers see the money not as taxpayer's money to be spent wisely and with care, but an entitlement than can be spent and used as they see fit, whether that gives the best benefit for the public or as with six figure salaries, not.

I dislike public bodies being run wholly on the private business model. Sure, running a public service in the most efficient way, making the money go further like you would in a company is a good model to follow. Even making a profit is a good thing as long as it is ploughed back into service itself.

However, management structure and six figure salaries, these are not in the public interest.

The board structure in most public services doesn't have the checks and balances a private company does. A private company has shareholders, who can overrule pay awards if they see fit. They can veto the appointment of board members too. Where is the same brake on excess in public services? Who has the power to sack board members if they underperform or curb pay excesses?

The case of  Sharon Shoosmith (salary a slightly less obscene £130,000 a year) who successfully sued Haringay council after they sacked her when Ed Balls, the then Children's secretary got involved, shows that even when these high paid higher-ups in public service lose the confidence of their board and/or the government, they can't be removed painlessly.

But these are not isolated examples. If you can get the information, look at the salaries at the top of council departments, Police, charities, health trusts and the like. There will be a lot of six figure salaries.

Unlike the private sector they get all the reward for nothing like the risk in the same position in the private sector.

In some cases such as the Rotherham sexual abuse case exposes the lack of real leadership and the ability to actually earn the salaries they get at the top of all of the different agencies all at once.. And at the top of all of these public bodies are people claiming six figure salaries. With very little by way of consequence when they bugger things up.

The abject waste of public funds supplying senior managers in public service with these massive salaries is wrong. All future governments should be working to reduce this excess and introduce checks and balances to ensure those at the top are actually earning the money the public pay them.  And have mechanisms to remove them if they are grossly negligent, incompetent or inefficient.


Wednesday, 3 May 2017

Brexit: delusion on both sides.

As more comes out regarding the meeting between Theresa May and Jean Claude Junker last week, the more it seems that both sides are poles apart regarding Brexit.

May being dismissive of detail and wanting a more pragmatic approach to the negotiations, with Juncker taking the typical bureaucrat line and emphasising the detail and procedure. Exactly what you'd expect him to.

After all his type love to bind up negotiations in the minutiae of transactions. It's what they do, what keeps them in a lifetime of employment. Why would you complete negotiations in two years when you can continue to haggle and work on the finest of fine details for a decade instead? After all, it reduces the chances of you losing your employment if you drag things out like that. You only need to complete less than half a dozen negotiations at most to cover your working life.

It's not like they do a good job either. The migrant crisis showed that. They get bound up in the minutiae that much that they miss some really important things. Like what the procedure is when a million refugees turn up on your border. Do you (a) reinforce the border and supply funds to enable the countries on the border to hold and process the refugees (and immediately deport the non-genuine cases) or do you (b) refuse to plan for such an emergency, go wibble and ignore the fact that the border countries, unable to cope don't hold the refugees at the border and allow them unfettered access through Europe's open borders to travel across Europe without any checks. Yep, it's b.

It's also interesting that the talk from the EU side even before negotiations begin is of money. We are a huge contributor to the EU's coffers and without us the gap in EU finances would be huge. Not only that, Germany are staring at supplying the lion's share of money to fill the gap. No wonder Mrs Merkel took on board Junker's briefing and decided to chip in.

It looks like the EU are setting out their stall. They are happy for the UK to leave, but they are not happy for the UK's money to leave as well. It's all about the money. They are also ready to bind the negotiations up for years discussing minute details.

Of course they threw in the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK in an effort to look PC and protecting human rights, just like Merkel's statement on refugees. Then chucked in the spanner of the status of Northern Ireland to the debate.

So the EU want us to carry on paying for projects we have no control over, they want us to give full rights to EU citizens including benefits, with no way of claiming the money back off their respective home countries and they also want to muddy the water on the Irish situation. Do they want yet another land grab and subsume Northern Ireland into the EU, almost like Russia's annexation of Crimea? Do they want to grab Gibraltar as a payment for keeping the Irish border open?

The UK might find it's not as simple as they think to make agreements with the EU. It's looking more likely we'll leave the EU without a deal, which is what I already knew and voted for in the referendum.

What's sure is that we ain't seen nothing yet and for sure we don't need weak government on our side of the table.

The thing that gets me is if the EU is such a wonderful club to be in, why punish someone for leaving? Wouldn't leaving itself be punishment enough if it's so bad outside?


Sunday, 30 April 2017

Labour Party: the one-message party.

Now we have an election looming, I see that the same old mantras are being pushed by them.

1. The NHS is doomed under the Tories. Vote Labour, get a better NHS.

Not that it ever was better under the previous Labour government, the government that saddled the NHS with expensive Private Partnership deals. Words are not the same as deeds.

2. Labour is the party of the people.

Well, not for a long time. You see in the Labour heartlands, seats are so safe that MPs stay in power for a long time and let's say, get used to the trappings of Parliamentary privilege. The long-term Labour MPs are no better than Tories. Dining at expensive restaurants, being taxied here and there, getting houses funded by the taxpayer... Nice when you can get it, especially when the wages of us poor saps out in the real world are tanking.

The same goes for the bosses at the top of the Unions: free penthouse apartments, funded by the Union members, the same posh restaurants as the Tory and Labour MPs. It makes you sick that they would abuse their privilege this way.

Don't forget that Labour, despite being "The Party of the People" has been in bed with big business for a long time. Just look at how under the previous Labour mob the supply of income for workers transferred from companies to the taxpayer. Yes, I'm talking about in-work benefits, especially tax credits.

It's a great idea when you put it as a way of topping up already poor wages. Not bad, people on low wages with kids get their wages topped up by the government. This would be fine, if corporation tax was raised to pay for it, so that the companies that pay sub-standard wages in effect get fined for doing it. Instead it's paid for by you and me, the ordinary taxpayer. In effect robbing Peter to pay Paul. Those that qualify for tax credits are better off, but the rest of the taxpaying community who don't qualify are effectively worse off because our taxes are higher to pay for it.

The same goes for zero hours contracts and the minimum wage. First off, I can't understand why people on the minimum/living wage should pay tax. And I especially can't understand why someone on the minimum wage should then have their wages topped back up by tax credits. In effect they pay tax, only to have the government give it back to them.

The downside is that the administration of that process needs paying for. So instead of taking them directly out of taxation, a system which is already administered, they pay tax, administered by one team and then apply for a rebate with another team of people and then given that money back. Crazy.

The other downside is the gap between benefits and wages is huge. Getting a tax-free salary equates more closely to benefits, reduces the gap and makes working a better option.

To me it smacks of a Tony Blair job creation scheme, paying people to shuffle paper around. Usually farmed out to somewhere like Wales or the North-East.

The inequality of zero hours contracts needs to be abolished as well. People should not be subject to informal hours arrangements. Again the government i.e. the taxpayer is paying to allow companies to get away with not having regular contracts. If companies want irregular employees on tap but exclusive to them and not able to work anywhere else, then they should pay a retainer to that employee when not employed, effectively paying the benefit the employee would get directly to them instead of the government.

So, what do I want Labour to start doing?

Well, stop banging on about the NHS. It's as boring as the "Safe, Stable Government" mantra chanted by the Tories.

Labour need to stop criticising and start inspiring.

Lift the poor (those on minimum wage) out of taxation, outlaw zero hours contracts, raise corporation tax on large businesses to pay for that and in-work benefits (and actually say that's what it's for, rather than just clobbering business), look to professionalise the social care sector, with a long-term plan to bring it into the NHS.

Legislation could be introduced to link the biggest rise in corporation tax to those companies that use zero hours contracts, or large numbers of minimum wage earners.

Legislation to curb the abuse of union funds needs to be introduced. Again, the marketing of the plan is key: It's helping the members to stop abuse, not bashing union bosses for the sake of it. Union bosses should pay for their accommodation out of their six-figure salaries, just like every other union member.  Highlighting the issue will put a spotlight on the abuse and should get the support of every union member.

Free local councils to start building houses. Forcing them to just build social housing will not generate new houses as it's just a cost to them. Allow them to build a small percentage for private sale so that they can make a profit, but with the caveat that any money raised has to be ringfenced and ploughed back into the housing fund.

Put a cap on public sector wages. Create legislation to cap the top wage to a certain number of times the lowest wage. It's obscene that the taxpayer should be paying large six-figure salaries to council members no matter how high up they are. Public service is a vocation. If you're so good at your job then go and find your way in the private sector. I find that many in the top jobs in public service are not of the standard to justify the huge salaries, they've just appointed themselves the salaries and justified it on the basis of that's what is needed to attract people from the private sector, when no-one from the private sector is actually employed.

I would apply the same cap on salaries for charities, especially those that receive government funding. There should be no members of charities earning over £200,000 salaries. Even £100,000 seems excessive when it can supply a very good standard of living. Charity donations should not be paying for a lavish upper-class lifestyle.

By these measures, Labour can say it is cleaning up the inequalities in employment and making the working environment more equitable for the lower paid. Lowering the wage gap for organisations that take from the public purse will give the feeling to the lower paid that they are not being exploited

Taking the lowest paid out of taxation will provide a boost in living standards and will equalise the gap between benefits and work.

Making companies pay for in-work benefits will shift payment for work away from the taxpayer and back onto business.

Friday, 28 April 2017

Should Exotic Cancer Treatments be Provided by the NHS?

An interesting report came out today, regarding the National Cancer Fund.


It seems the initial aim was a laudible one, to provide expensive cancer treatments for patients with terminal cancer in an effeort to prolong their life. But in some cases the drugs actually shortened  their life, the exact opposite of the desired outcome.


But, it seems the outcomes didn't justify the cost. It's now been branded a waste of money. Like most knee-jerk reactions to public opinion.


This is what I've banged on about before: there needs to be a grown up debate on what the NHS is for and especially where the limits lie with respect to treatment. The NHS was initially designed to be a safety net, treating those that couldn't afford private doctor's bills.


As medical advancements have arrived, it's been assumed that the NHS will offer those as well, to the point it offers very expensive, world-class treatments courtesy of the tax payer. Can the NHS afford such expensive treatments, or should there be limits. Should people that want world-class medical care take out medical insurance instead of demanding the NHS provide it?


Take the case of the cancer drugs above. If the people are being used as Guinea Pigs for new cancer treatments, shouldn't the drug companies be funding the supply of the drugs out of their own pocket? Sure the NHS can supply the doctors and share the information gleaned from treatment, but why should the NHS actually be paying quite heavy costs for the supply of the drugs.


The fact that the outcomes in some cases were negative shows that these are not sure-fire treatments, that the drugs involved were administered without any clear benefit. In that case it's not treatment, it's a trial and the drug companies should be paying or supplying the drugs for free.


There also needs to be a debate about treatment for terminal patients. Should we be spending tens of thousands of pounds on exotic drugs to prolong the life of someone that is never going to recover? If it was a cure, then the cost may be justified, due to the reduced cost of ongoing treatment. But the money shouldn't be going into vastly expensive trials. Shouldn't that money be going into treatments with a more definate outcome and a long-term benefit, for instance hip and knee operations?


It seems to me a bit selfish for someone that already knows they are are terminally ill to demand from the NHS hideously expensive drugs on the off chance that they may (or more likely will not) extend their life by a few months at most, at the expense of providing a long-term (deceades-long) benefit to people that have other, cheaper treatments like hip and knee operations.


If you want that sort of top-class service, then buy medical insurance.


Of course I'm going to be whinged at by those that see this as a two-tier health service: the people able to afford health insurance will get better treatment, those that can't get bargain basement treatment on the NHS. But expecting the NHS to supply top-class service for the whole population is wrong too. Where does it stop? At what percentage of government expenditure do we say enough is enough?

Wednesday, 19 April 2017

Election Fever.

Well, 24 Hours ago Theresa May called a snap general election.

I can see why. There are many factions that see the PM as illegitimate. Because she wasn't voted into office, there's always that sneer that "she can't do that, she's not been elected to do it", despite her not changing the Tory direction by much and of course running with Brexit, something the people commanded Parliament to do through the referendum.

If the majority vote for the Tories again, it's a mandate to carry on with their style of Brexit. Not that there's any other flavour, other than giving in to every demand from the EU.

A mandate for the Tories will shut up the Lords. Those unelected bastards in the upper house that want to scupper the will of the people. Virtually every one of them a bag of vested corporate interests. If I had my way it would be illegal to be a director of any company and/or be paid by any company as an "advisor".

Finally of course, it'll shut up the stunted Scottish windbag Sturgeon (well here's hoping, she does like the sound of her own voice a bit too much unfortunately). Fingers crossed the Scottish coastal towns and cities will tell The Jimmy Krankie lookalike exactly what they think of getting their fishing rights back, only to give them away to Brussels again. (All I can say is thank feck Corbyn isn't the Labour leader in Scotland). Basically Sturgeon is a one-trick pony. Independence, independence, that's all she wants. Not that she has bugger all clue what she'd do with it if she got it anyway. She certainly has no idea of the cost to Scotland, that's for sure. But hey, I'm sure once the Barnett formula is abolished (the only thing keeping the miserable windbag in office and able to shout the odds) she'll love having to actually make her way in the world on her own. She's like the petulant daughter that you're about to kick out, just to make her realise the cost of living.

Of course this is a terrible blow for the Labour party. they are so disorganised and dysfunctional that they don't have a cat in hell's chance of winning. Hard core lefty support may surprise some people, but I think unfortunately that the majority of the Labour vote will go to the Liberals.

Despite what the Tories may think, I don't see Labour heartlands voting Tory. people there would rather slit their wrists than tick a Tory box on a voting form. Despite heavy pro-Brexit voting during the referendum, I believe that people won't think about that in the general election and will vote Liberal as a protest against wishy-washy London-centric Labour leadership.

If the election had been called just after the referendum, then the Liberals and Labour would have been in real trouble as the majority of the voting would have gone to UKIP. Months of division, skullduggery and loss of focus within UKIP means they won't pick up a fraction of the votes they got at the last election.

But UKIP's reason for existing (getting out of the EU) is an almost done deal. The only way I can see UKIP keeping votes is to stir up uncertainty about the outcome of the Brexit negotiations.  If UKIP can convince voters to vote for them and get them in a position so they can keep the Tories honest and keep Brexit on track, then they may succeed.

But despite the Liberals being anti-Brexit and against the majority of the people, I see them making gains unfortunately. I'm not sure how that will play out in the cut and thrust of Brexit. I mean, a re-invigorated pro-EU anti-democratic Liberal party might just grab enough headlines to fuck things up. Who knows?

That may be the downside of this election for Theresa May.

Saturday, 8 April 2017

What Has Sweden Done to Deserve This?

What has Sweden ever done to deserve a terror attack of their very own, a number of people being killed yesterday in a truck attack?

Well, despite allowing in thousands of Islamic migrants that is.

Unless it's because of the 900 or so troops deployed to Afghanistan as part of task force 47 and the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Mazar I Sharif.

But maybe allowing thousands of migrants into your country that may feel some affiliation to those people they see as oppressed by you may not have been the smartest move.

That's despite you "only" being part of a rebuilding force.

That's despite whatever you think that Islam is a "just" religion and not also a political ideology.

In fact if you start to look at the less publicised countries involved in Afghanistan as part of ISAF, then a pattern emerges. Canada, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy, Norway, Finland, and to a lesser extent Luxembourg, Romania, the list goes on.

Look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force and look at the list of participating nations.

Now tell me there isn't a very strong link. Maybe someone in Afghanistan holds a grudge. Someone with the ability and money to organise and finance a large number of people. As the only major source of revenue in Afghanistan at that time was Opium, then I'd hazard a guess that's where the source of the grievance lies.

Whatever.

It's all down to lone wolves and religion.

Maybe looking at the countries that haven't had their own Islamic terror attack may shed some light on the issue. Where were't they and what weren't they involved in?


Saturday, 25 March 2017

Westminster Terror Attack.

The thing about the Westminster so-called terror attack isn't that one guy off the radar actually actioned a simple plan (hire a car, buy some knives and run amok in Westminster.

It's the fact that there have been a large number of other plots that have been disrupted. We're never told how many individual plots have been stopped so we can't gauge the level of threat. I have the suspicion that if the public had better knowledge of the true number of plots being investigated and stopped, they would be calling for better protection and more positive action against those under suspicion.

As bad as the attack in Westminster is, in the great scheme of things a man with a car and a knife isn't the worst that can happen.

There are worse things in the Islamic Terrorist's arsenal that can cause more damage: a Mumbai-style co-ordinated attack by several well-armed assailants travelling up the Thames by boat into the heart of London dropping off at multiple points would be devastating, especially if the drop-off points coincided with areas of high concentrations of the public. Attacks at the O2, Excel, the Barbican, train/tube stations and tourist attractions like the London Eye and Westminster would cause untold carnage.


Tuesday, 21 March 2017

Just Sat Here Waiting....

For some crisis or other to yet again delay the triggering of article 50.

The 29th seems quite close to the end of the Month, it looks very easy for it to be pushed past the end of the month.


Tuesday, 7 March 2017

The Definition of the Word Negotiation...

A lot of political sheninnigans is going on in Westminster at the moment in order to finally get article 50 presented to the EU and Brexit under way.

It seems to me that the Lords and all the other supposedly clever people including the woman that had the Government wasting thousands of taxpayer's pounds defending their right to invoke article 50 just don't understand the definition of the word "Negotiation".

The definition is "discussion or consultation aimed at reaching an agreement". That is a discussion between two parties aimed at reaching an agreement.

The outcome of the negotiations cannot be known beforehand because that's the whole point of the negotiation: to reach an amicable agreement AT THE END OF the negotiation.

Positions cannot be agreed beforehand because items on the agenda of the negotiations are parlayed (good Piratical term) and used in the negotiations as bargaining tools.

One never allows the other side to know your strategy or at what point you would settle, otherwise there is no point negotiating. If the other side knew your strategy beforehand, it severely weakens your ability to get the best outcome from the negotiations. If you both walked to the table and both agreed terms without negotiation, how would you know you got the best deal?

You always go into negotiations with the outlook of using your strategy to get the best outcome. There are points where you may get a better deal than you would have settled for, there are other where the terms are worse than your ideal. The point is to barter and exchange until you come to an agreement that is fair to both parties under the prevailing circumstances. You plan for the worst, and use all your cunning and guile to get the best outcome.

It's like buying and selling a car. The seller asks for a sum, say £5000. You, the buyer offers £2000. Bit of a low blow, but you always start low with the aim of keeping the eventual price at the end of the negotiations as low as possible. The seller then replies with a revised request of £4000, you offer £3000 and eventually you'll most likely end up at £3500, all thing being fair. But what if you offered three grand instead of two? Would the seller counter with £4500 instead of three grand? Would you end up at £4000 instead of £2500? How would you know if £3500 or £4000 was the best offer you could have got, because you never offered a cheeky two grand bid? What if the seller knew you had £4000 in your pocket, or you knew he was desperate for cash and would sell at a lower price just to get the money? See, negotiations can be very negatively affected by knowing strategy beforehand, but also boosted if you do things right and don't give away any advantage you may have.

So for the House of Lords to force the Government to guarantee certain things before the negotiations weakens our negotiating strategy.

For some posh bird to try and force the Government to put the outcome of the negotiations before Parliament for a vote is ludicrous: by definition the outcome of the negotiations are the best available. It's take it or leave it, as the Government has quite rightly said. There is no going back to the table and re-negotiating as those blind to the definition of the word would like. We will have used all our bargaining power, all our bargaining chips, all our best efforts in getting the best deal.

By definition the EU will have also have got the best deal for themselves, they won't want to re-negotiate either. At the end the goal posts cannot be changed.

To go back would weaken our position and end up with a worse situation than the one previously put before Parliament. There is no telling the EU it is unacceptable; they won't care. Stamp your feet as much as you want THEY. DON'T. CARE.

Now can all you supposedly clever bastards just fuck off, stop trying to fuck this country up and lets just get the negotiations started without interference, eh?

I just wonder if they've ever paid the full asking price for a car without trying to get a bit knocked off the price. I severely doubt it because I know rich bastards don't get rich and stay rich by paying full price for stuff.

Which means they're trying to nobble the Brexit negotiations with the intent of denying this country the best outcome and they are beyond contempt.

UPDATE:

Yup, the Lords have proved yet again that they are a bunch of drivelling duffers with not an ounce of common sense amongst them and added an amendment that they want a "substantive" debate and meaningful vote on the Brexit negotiations. Whatever that means. When there can be none. It's take it or leave it guys... Accept the outcome of the negotiations or reject it and head for WTO rules.
Now most people would consider what they are doing as sabotaging the exit negotiations and forcing us down the worst of paths. I can't comment.



Friday, 3 March 2017

The very Ancient and Outmoded Labour Party (Part 2).

I was thinking and I think I've hit what it is about Labour that upsets me. It has failed to be aspirational. Sure, it aspires to be in power, but what after that? Nothing. Maybe it moves the deckchairs around a bit, but nothing truly inspirational. It's fiddling at the margins.

When I say aspirational, I mean for the working class it purports to respresent. What plans does it have to make the lot of the working class better?

A popular policy would be to outlaw zero hours contracts. The heinous things trap people by demanding exclusivity, but not rociprocating by providing a decent working week, every week.

In my mind, exclusivity means the company should pay the worker even though they are not working, because the company they are contracted to is preventing them from working for someone else.

If the company states you cannot work for anyone else, then they should be forced to pay a retainer to the employee. Of course minimum wage legislation means that the employee should be paid minimum wage even if they are not being used.

This is a very similar concept to the IR35 legislation that affected IT contractors.

Ok, a zero hours contract is a step up from employing people as self-emplyed contractors (e.g the so-called "Gig Economy") so the employer pays national insurance etc. but the exclusivity clause means that the employee should be paid for the time they are unable to work for anyone elase.

There should also be legislation aginst penalising people that cannot work at a certain time because they are working for someone else.

The legislation should make the agreement fair and equitable to both parties. At the moment the advantage is all towards the employer.

Another area Labour can help working people is social care. Wages in the social care sector are generally the lowest possible. A vast number of people are working for minimum wage despite having the qualifications and responsibility of administering medication and attending to the social welfare of their clients.

A move to professionalise the social care sector, maybe with union representation is sorely needed, it needs to be brought up to the same status as nursing. Having someone having access to and able to give medication including controlled drugs after a basic one day training course, or worse filling in a questionaire in my mind is just wrong. The discrepancy between social care and the medical profession is massive..

Workers in the care sector need to demonstrate a knowledge of social care and safety legislation. The basic care certificate introduced by CQC goes some way towards this, but more is needed.
More professionalism should improve wages for a sector with some of the poorest. That's what I mean by Labour being aspirational: introducing policies and legislation to improve the conditions of the poorest workers, the ones that are really being exploited.

Of course improved wages in the care sector then increases costs, but as I've previously mentioned, improved professional status will make it easier for the NHS then to take on social care and integrate it with the rest of the NHS, allowing patients in hospitals to be moved out of hospital wards.

A penny or two on income tax or national insurance to pay for the integration of social care budgets into the NHS budget wouldn't be baulked at by the majority of people. It would be a winning policy for Labour.

Friday, 24 February 2017

The very Ancient and Outmoded Labour Party.

It's a pity UKIP didn't win the Stoke by-election, with a defeat 2-0 the Labour party might have taken the hint and sacked their leader, Leicester FC-style.

Instead, with a score draw, the Tories can claim a historic result and Labour can carry on deluding themselves that things are fine and dandy, although the claim that Corbyn hasn't lost a by-election will have to be quietyly shelved. Not that it was much of a claim, the incumbent party almost never wins seats when in power.

The fact that the Labour party is really only relevant to students who have never lived a life, champagne socialists in London and militant socialists in Liverpool who have never grown up really, really upsets me. More than it should I know, but I still understand what the Labour party stood for way back when.

It stood up for the working man, it persuaded and didn't need thuggery to press it's point, because it was RELEVANT to the working man.

The working man could see the point of paying a small payment into a scheme so that we could have free health cover.

The working man could see that paying a small sub to a Union to protect him from overbearing employers.

But where is the relevance of the Labour party these days? Union leaders are seen hob-nobbing in posh restaurants with fat-cats, their leader really wants to do away with the Monarchy and wants a republic, he wants to do away with nuclear weapons, the very things that have kept the Russians from swallowing up the greater part of Europe. His policies are those of the trendy ultra-left, the sort of people who are miles away from the labourers, miners, steel workers, engineers and other blue-collar workers that made it.

They bicker and whinge about nit-picky irrelevances, like rights for every minority group going, including those that would deny them those very rights if they ever got in power.

Where is the working man or woman in all if this leftist irrelevance??

Nowhere. The left refuses to discuss substantive issues and place themselves in an electable position. For instance on the NHS they brook no discussion on how the NHS works, they would rather just shovel more and more cash into the black hole and naively hope more service comes out the other end.

The same mantra is pushed by the left regarding local services provided by councils.

Forget the fat cat bosses at the top earning six-figure salaries, forget the waste and the corruption, forget the lack of vocational nursing places, stopping working class girls getting a decent earning job.

Labour is now a party run largely by ultra-left socialist nutjobs that have absolutely no connection or empathy with the working man and would probably call working people fascists for daring even to earn money.

It just makes me sad that Labour is where it is, irrelevant to most of the people it originally set out to champion.

It makes me even sadder that the people Labour have cast aside still vote for them.

Friday, 17 February 2017

Zombie Blair Ressurected

The Unlawful-War-Fighting Monster Tony Blair might delude himself into thinking his resurrection is more Jesus-like, but in my mind ever time the stinking, lying weasel pops his nose into politics, he will be forever a zombie. Decrepit, deiscredited and universally disliked.

This time he's once again proving his dislike of democracy by becoming a figurehead for the anti-democratic push to ignore the Brexit referendum result and stay in the EU.

I've already blogged on why I voted to leave and my reasons for doing so.

But I'll reiterate: I like many of my peers voted to leave completely  That's end free movement, leave the EU, the ECC, EMCA, the ECJ and virtually every other political edifice with the name "European" in front of it.

That's the baseline. We are out and we make our own way in the world.

Now from that baseline, IF Teresa May can negotiate better terms at no extra cost to us, then fine, crack on. And yes, I'm aware that we have obligations post-Brexit, but they will reduce over time and then thankfully the EU gets none of our money. Ever again.

Of course Tony Blair is pulling out the old line that us leave voters didn't know what we were voting for. I'd counter that voters were very clear about what they wanted: THEY WANTED TO BE FREE FROM EUROPEAN INTERFERENCE and whatever consequences arised out of that were a price worth paying and they were happy to pay.

Of course Blair I'm sure will spout his "better off in, better to have influence in Europe" line. But, already we're seeing by voting to leave we are showing leadership and influence in Europe. The thing is, if the system is broke, then you are better off out of it. And we will show that (as long as politicians don't sabotage the leaving process).

It's a pity that Blair didn't lose an election as PM, instead he let Gordon Brown take the fall. Had he been defeated in the polls he might be a bit more humble. He should really wind his neck in and shut the fuck up.

Sorry Tony, the chance for you to be European president went a long time ago.