Must I do everything?

Honestly, what a shambles.  Do I really have to go down to Westminster and tell them what to do?  How would they feel about a sub celebrity in a sparkling burkha and sunglasses yelling at them?


Cameron – Activate article 50 and then step down, preferably taking your boy with you, you are stalling progress for everybody else.


Gove – give it up. Nobody likes you.


May – we got rid of Thatcher, we do not want another one. I am sure the submissives will vote for you, but referring to people as a bargaining chip is not what we want to hear after the deaths caused by the inept girning twins you sat behind in parliament.


Leadsom – for goodness sake, get some public speaking training, and stop apologising for taking the party in the direction it needs to go in.  You are no longer working in a stuffy bank job. Try practising in the mirror.  You want the country going in a POSITIVE direction, feeding the ROOTS of the economy to benefit everyone by stimulating DOMESTIC growth.  Stop messing about.


Boris – go and draw up an open trading agreement that we can sign people up to.  One that does not insist on stupid border arrangements and regulations to bar countries from entry.  We want to see some variety, and some hope for underperforming nations. Let Britain be the good guy, for once.


You can give Gove a nice grey job working on the brexit agreements in the EU. There must be someone capable of planning a safe zone for displaced people to rebuild their lives without fear.  In ten years, we will have to evacuate the equatorial regions, so you need to take action on refugees now to avoid being entirely swamped.


Corbyn – do not step down.  If you have to discipline the Blair/Brownites get on with it. Leadership is not about waiting until a stupid person catches up.


Don’t sign TTIP or CETA, get the trading agreement drawn up in advance and reject all the current offerings, as they will not benefit the general population in any way whatsoever.  America is a mess, and it is spreading.


GET ON WITH IT. Must I do everything?

Continue Reading

Underemployment and the new reality

Underemployment and the new reality

I have talked about sticking out from the crowd, the indignity of constant temporary work, and the failings in the treatment of carers by family and state in previous posts, which you are welcome to go through from the news tab.


Today, I am going to talk about the years following graduation.


When I graduated, I already had a successful career under my belt, and had run a business.  This made me unemployable for several reasons:

Desperation for a new career
Being a threat to middle managers responsible for recruiting trainees
The perceived likelihood of my staying only until I found a better job
My location, even in a major city in Scotland

I can say this with confidence for several reasons:

I was obsessed with work to the point of working three jobs at a time for the sheer hell of it
I had enjoyed an almost 100 percent success rate at interview in my first career
Since I had got to the top of that rather limited career ladder it was clear that work was a priority

Several reasons were given for my lack of attractiveness as an employee:

Why would I want to work alongside graduates ten years younger than me?
Why didn’t I have a family on the go in my thirties? (they would also have rejected me if I had)
Too much experience

One employer became irate, because I quickly applied for jobs which did not require a degree, and which I would have got easily without it.  I applied for a job typing this guy’s letters twice, and eventually he chased me away on the grounds that I was more qualified than he was.


I did apply all over the UK for the first year or two, and as my father became more unwell, and my mother showed no signs of really understanding the responsibility she was attempting to bear, I eventually shrunk the geographical region to the one I was in.  Even with these restrictions, I managed to keep myself in temporary and part-time work until 2014.  Fortunately this coincided with my mother requiring more in the way of attention.


Obviously, in the course of all this mobility, I met a lot of people and worked my way through a number of industries, which made my CV rather messy.  Basically, my view was that earning money and doing something was better than focusing on one industry and being unemployed.  I am not what you would call a lazy person.  When you are fielding 30 rejection letters a day, at times, and working in jobs which will only last a week or two you have little time to do anything apart from secure more work.  It is amazing how many companies and agencies expect you to participate in not one but two interview processes for a two week job.


As you can see from this, an economy which is strictly aimed at benefit to business does not allow individuals to get a mortgage, commit themselves to loans of any kind, or to spend any money, since you have to ensure that you have enough in the bank to see you through to the next job.  On one notable occasion when this did not work, I tried to extend my credit card, which I had restricted the limit on myself, in order to get to work to pay the next month’s bills, and was told that I could not do this as I had placed a limit on my credit rating. This astonished me.  Being careful with money rules you out for money to get to work to pay the bills.


Employment agencies are yet another way of putting you another layer of administration away from gaining employment.  I was told by one agency that agreeing to temporary work meant that they would not consider you for permanent work as the bonuses for the staff would come in more frequently if you filled the small jobs.  If you are in this position, it is wise to identify the agencies in your local area which provide the most temporary work, and register for permanent work only on all the others.


Broadly speaking, however, you would be well advised to develop a second career online, using the means at your disposal.  Zoella and Pewdiepie are two examples of people who provide inane yet extremely popular videos for a living, which not only provide for them using youtube hits, but the goods and fees they can command from companies wishing to promote their product.  Bear in mind if you choose this route, that your face is your fortune.  Ina, if she had a face, would probably have another twelve thousand or so followers on youtube, but since she has no face, the hits on audio work are minimal.


Instagram is very important now, if you want to go down this route.  Mobile apps generally are winning over aging social media such as facebook and twitter, although I see that facebook has finally caught on and is vaguely threatening to let us see our friends’ and family posts again.  Personally, I do not exist under my real name online, as far as I am aware, so Ina is my primary identity these days.


From a governance perspective, having a vast number of underemployed and demotivated people is not wise, since they will inevitably spend their time looking at what is going on in the rest of the world. Telling them that it is their fault, no matter what set of circumstances affects their opportunities and future, does not actually help them get anywhere at all, in the same way that benefiting only those with savings and investments does not stimulate local economies.  Scotland is not the only part of the UK which has seen local economies decline due to a lack of interest from central government in doing anything at all for anywhere outside their personal interest area.  David Cameron’s famous letter of complaint to his local council is a case in point.  Sitting in Westminster, it simply did not occur to him that his country pile would be affected by his own cuts to local government spending.


Living in a country where your government consists of fallible people, rather than advisory teams working from accurate statistics (much of the statistics they are fond of quoting are now provided by private companies, who are unable to attain accurate samples since they are pressuring their staff to be inventive to keep the paperwork looking good) is not fun if you can see how and why the decline in your quality of life and future is happening.  It means that you seek change, and when change happens, it has the potential to improve your hopeless case.  I caught the Panorama programme on leave voters this evening, and a guy who could barely string a sentence together was complaining that 14 pounds an hour was not enough for him.  Oh how I laughed.


As I was saying in my previous few posts, the previous two decades or so have separated politics from the people they claim to represent, and the views that they hold, to the point that they have no idea how people are affected by their decisions, and they either do not care, or do not know, how people feel about those decisions.


It is my view that we should make the Brexit and Chilcott events the end of this dubious period in British history.  Understand that you are just as capable as the politicians you complain about, so that there is nothing to stop you replacing them.  Understand that the media is feeding you a line, and that it is up to you to pursue the truth.  Prepare yourselves for a more serious, and yet more progressive way of looking at the world, because ignoring what little power you have means that you only have yourself to blame when it all goes wrong.  Filling yourself full of consumer information rather than the information you need to reach your own potential will lead to the ideocracy that we should all fear.  Unless you are choosing to be the next Zoella, it is not useful to be more concerned about bath bombs than bombs in Istanbul or Bangladesh.



Continue Reading

Broad Brush Thinking

Broad Brush Thinking

I have cleared 15 ton bags of garden rubbish from my garden in the last month.  Not that the garden was a jungle, it is just a large garden, consisting of three lawns, around 35 trees, 4 shrubberies, a large scale rockery and what seems like a mile of mixed hedging.


Occasionally over the years, my friends, whom as I have mentioned are all male, have stopped by to help, which invariably causes great merriment as their ideas about gardening are somewhat different scale to a person trying to manage a large house and garden without spending money on contractors.


The flatulent pedant, as he is known in my memory, recounted a tale of a two week war with his mother about a weed on his 4 square metre patio before he saw my garden.  Another ex took a full afternoon to present me with a square metre of perfectly weeded rosebed, and another likes to tell me that I should pave the lot.  It always makes me laugh, this variety of approaches to life and thought.


Obviously, dealing with something on this scale when you have limited time, you have to organise your time effectively.  At one point I was working 6 days a week at the bank, researching for the government, and conducting corporate interviews by phone whilst decorating and taking care of this garden, all with no assistance and a great deal of criticism from the rest of the family.  Any spare time was spent making lists of things to do, their level of urgency, and the likely time of paint or varnish drying so that I could then schedule hoovering, mowing or chopping whilst waiting for other things to be ready to progress.  In fact, the Sheep in Wolf’s clothing collection was started whilst I was conducting research from home, since the interviews were by telephone, nobody could see that I was sewing whilst working, hence my time was used productively.


You learn a lot about strategy from all this.  Many people have the luxury of never having to learn about strategy, time management or having to accept a margin of error they would never consider if they did not have this level of workload.


So, to get to the point, debating detail is not effective for a broad brush thinker, who is likely to be more interested in the overall structure of the problem.  A broad brush thinker is likely to become a large scale strategist, whereas a ‘devil in the detail’ expert is what you require when you have already determined the shape of the problem at hand.


It hugely surprised me, when I was working on a (personal) three dimensional economic project in 2009 or so, that the economists I wanted to involve in the problem did not understand what I was talking about.  After much messing around, I finally found a physicist in France who understood exactly what I was saying, who told me that basically I was a car designer, trying to explain myself to a crew of mechanics who wanted to know the specifics of the problem.  I desisted with the project at that point, since I felt it unlikely that I would find a crew willing to spend months experimenting to achieve something on my say-so.  Such is the problem of the broad brush thinker.  We have great ideas, but without the means to carry them out via a team of detail mechanics, we may not be much use. When it comes to tackling improbably large projects however, we are exactly what is required for the job.


It struck me last week or so, when despite the screamingly awful Leave Campaign in the UK, I felt very concerned for poor Boris, that I now recognise and resonate with other broad brushers without even realising it.  (Wolfe was a broad brusher too.) I wonder how many more I can find, if I look around?  And will my own capacity for grand strategy ever achieve anything useful or be given an opportunity for useful endeavour? So far it seems to have done little for me apart from ensuring that I become extremely bored with small problems and making sure my parents’ family is taken care of.


I cannot help the way I think, any more than someone who imagines that their love of following rules or sticking to tradition despite the disadvantages can help the way they think.  I get a lot more done, and require less in the way of help, especially in situations where the way forward is not always clear.  This does not mean that you end up with a precise result, but you do get a result.


It all comes down to approach, your ability to prioritise, your willingness to get the job done.  A detail oriented person is fabulous when you approach the end of a task, but they are as useful as a chocolate fireguard when you are creating something new.  You cannot add the bells and whistles before you have something to hang them on.


So, before you create your masterwork, always draw the sketch.  Before you add the embellishments, create the scheme.  Before you list the tasks, determine the problem. All of this takes careful thought and a willingness to stretch and bend your reality.  Once you have done all that, then you will have a good idea how to present the tasklist in order to solve the problem.



Continue Reading

Intelligence and Flexibility

Intelligence and Flexibility

I used to think intelligence was linked to knowledge.  I think most people make this mistake. The two things have some connection, in the form of memory and capacity to learn new topics, but I can honestly say I never heard people say ‘I don’t know’ as often as I did at university, amongst very learned colleagues and academics.


There is nothing wrong with saying ‘I don’t know.’  It certainly beats pretending you know, or assuming that you know.  As the human quest for knowledge has developed, we have attempted to remove cultural and time related barriers to learning by opening everything up for debate.  It does not matter what field you are in, or how advanced you are, debate is welcomed by those with knowledge, in an effort to actually further the field.


What we are seeing now in UK politics seems to me to be an attempt to feign knowledge and discourage interest by maintaining tradition that does not exist. Labour and Conservatives are concentrating hard on killing off their most popular candidates, in favour of forcing us to vote for an increasingly vague ideology, led by rather authoritarian and not-particularly-appealing figures whom we are encouraged to dismiss and dislike.


If you have a look around, politics now is rather bland compared with the days before we joined the Common Market.  Scenes of people being removed from debates and hustings style appearances were once commonplace.  People were highly engaged, and political representatives actually allowed some influence from the people they purported to represent.  When did we decide that accurate representation and the interests of the public were subordinate to a bland version of the original ideology?  When did people like my Conservative neighbour decide that it was OK and not terribly important that thousands of people die after being sanctioned or starved by Conservative policy? When did people stop feeling?


Perhaps this is the secret of of figures like Jeremy Corbyn or Boris Johnson.  Both have a liberal mass appeal, from the opposing sides of an age-old argument that more philosophical thinkers recognise.  Stronger meat, and yet street-friendly interpretations of a system that has become stale, self serving and that fails to engage people, even as thousands of disabled people fall victim to strokes of a policy pen.


Perhaps this is the reason that such figures must be removed.  If people are too engaged in what our governments are doing, then we will actually notice that it is not OK for people to starve to death, or be blamed for poor social management and inhumane policy. Perhaps we will notice that government is serving masters other than the voters they claim to represent.


In both cases, the parties are killing a golden opportunity for positive change, and we are supposed to eat our cereal and watch it happen, knowing full well that they will be replaced by less interesting, less engaged and more Machiavellian forces in the form of rather tedious career politicians, who care a lot more about the number of gnomes in their garden than they do about actual events or progress.  If we are not interested, they are more likely to get away with policies that we do not find desirable or necessary. Whoever is pulling the strings on the crucifixions, they know full well that an engaged, optimistic population is the last thing they want or need.


The civic sense of community has, of course, been eroded by the massive changes in our behaviour in the last two or three decades by the internet.  Now, instead of street by street hivemind disagreement and/or collective action, we have old versus young, fat versus thin, right versus left on a far wider basis.  We dispose of people quite readily on the grounds of a photograph, or a sentence that may not suit us.  We are encouraged to be childlike and yet inflexible. Instead of admiring the capacity for change, we accuse people of flip-flopping or being inconsistent.


It has been amusing, watching the heartfelt anti-democratic protest and accusations of the last week.  Amusing because these same people see no merit in liberalism with walls, amusing because the government did not get the result they wanted or expected, amusing because the public, whether they did it wittingly or not, voted for what they believed was best for them and their future opportunities.


As I said in my previous post, it may be a good accident, and if we are patient, we may reap great benefits.  It does not matter how things happen, it matters how flexible we can be in our approach to solving problems.  That is what intelligence really is.  It is not fear of the unknown, complacency about past achievements, or a reliance on conforming to a status quo that does not work.  It is picking up the pieces and creating something new.  It is making order out of chaos.  It is seeing the diamonds in the dust.


As someone who stands outside traditional political boundaries, I am forced to assimilate information on an individual basis.  It is rare that I commit myself to one ideology, because some arguments continue for centuries, and much politics is just theatre.  It became apparent during my political and religious studies, that many arguments are designed purely to appeal to the ego.  You should not regard anything as being ‘true’ or false, because our reality is shaped by the frictional warzone between extremes.  All you can do is make your best guess, and then make sure you do the work to produce a desirable outcome. Unwillingness to do this is unwillingness for positive change, and the moronic desire to remain in your comfortable shell.



Continue Reading

Brexit and Scotland

Brexit and Scotland

Once upon a time, there was a nightclub.  It was called Club Europa.  In order to be a member of the nightclub, you had to agree to host the members of the club at your house if they needed somewhere to stay.  In return for this, you could enjoy staying at other member’s houses, exchange information and buy and sell to the other members of the club.


Unfortunately Club Europa’s management was distant and difficult to talk to, meaning that none of the members that wanted to do things other than having visitors or buying and selling to each other were particularly happy.  Club Europa also had an extensive list of terms and conditions, and if you got things wrong, you were subject to penalties and additional fees.


On the plus side, Club Europa was fun, and if you were a member you would get to know all the other members, meaning that you were viewed as being more significant than a non member.  In addition, you were sort of insured against running out of money completely, since lots of lovely banks and giant companies provided favourable terms and conditions on the basis that Club Europa would cover your debts.


Several members overspent because of this, and the richer members of the club objected, even though they admitted that the overspenders had spent on their goods.


One couple, Scotia and Albion, were members for forty odd years.  They had benefitted in some ways, but over time Albion got fed up providing beds for all the visitors, objected to the giant list of terms and conditions, and wanted to see what life was like without the club.  Unfortunately, Albion could not afford the rent without Scotia, and Scotia was not only tired of him, but extremely enthusiastic about Club Europa.


Albion’s answer to this was very simple.  If he kept telling the lovely Scotia that she was ugly, poor and could not cope without him, she would simply do as she was told and he could leave the Club.  With Scotia all to himself, he reasoned, she would settle down and they could live a more impoverished, and yet freeer life without the interference of the club.


Scotia did not agree with this.  Aware that Albion could not pay the rent, she felt sorry for him, but she loved all the visiting members of the club, loved going to parties and loved the recognition of being a member of Club Europa.


Albion was very cross.  He gathered his closest friends and told them all to tell Scotia how utterly awful she was.  Surely she would become depressed enough to keep paying his rent?  He hesitated over cancelling his membership, in the meantime, as he simply did not know what to do?




Have we got this straight yet?  Scottish Independence is nothing to do with Brexit.  Two separate issues.  Scottish Independence is also nothing to do with hating England.  Scotland would be better off independent.  If England had oil, we would hear all about it, ad infinitum.  Every day would bring more insults and accusations than we already tolerate.


Independence is also nothing to do with oil.  Scotland would be doing OK without oil.  The oil is a bonus.  It is a question of wanting the government you actually vote for to carry out your business, instead of constantly having to tolerate the policies of a government which not only pumps out a lot of misinformation about you, but takes advantage of your resources in order to do it.


Independence, for me at least, is not a class war.  I, for one, fully appreciate private money paying for wilderness in Scotland and would not seek to build new towns all over it, unlike some other SNP members.  The fact that many objectors seem to miss, is that independence would create an entirely new political landscape which we would be free to shape ourselves.


Brexit is not about racism.  In some cases it is certainly about English nationalism, and the most aggressive Brexiteers seem to think that England owns the other three nations.  How inconvenient that people live in those nations, and have a vastly different culture and outlook.


I have written previous posts on Brexit showing an alternative view of why people would vote.  To put it in very simple terms:

The existing UK is better off outside Europe.  Europe is likely to split over the next twenty to thirty years, over issues such as bee death due to chemicals and GMO (Germany)  Debt (Portugal, Spain, Greece) Immigration (Poland, Hungary, Eastern bloc, France) Paying in too much (Germany, Belgium, France)
Regulation is for the benefit of very large companies.  eg. Codex Alimentarius prevents poorer nations participating in the trade of certain goods.  It does not benefit small enterprises or individuals at all and suppresses innovation and growth. This, in turn, suppresses the UK, wherever you are.
Scotland would prefer to be in the EU for the purposes of safety and recognition.  Ideally this should be achieved before England exits, to make the process of retrieving our resources with the aid of the European courts easier and safer.
TTIP will create the largest single market in the world.  It is a bad idea, but the Brexit question is a question of how much control you want to have over who signs it.  Do you trust the EU or Westminster? Scotland’s past experience with England indicates that the EU is the better bet.  England gets the government they vote for, so naturally they prefer Westminster.
The deal made with Europe, killing our coastal economy, madness for a giant island, is not likely to change without significant renegotiation. Whether we stay or go, Brexit was a good result for discussing this with the EU.
Scotland does not belong to England, and the Union was not supposed to create English dominion. It is not OK that we fought alongside England for centuries, and Tony Blair stole our sea and disbanded our regiments.  Fatal error.
In terms of the future, endless merging with other political economies is shaping up to be an extremely bad idea.  To refer back to the example of GMO, chemical accidents and patenting of seeds – either Germany or the USA are going to be in control of food production if people are stupid enough to sign up to an agricultural plan which involves killing 80 percent of bees, paying for patented seeds which you can be sued for if you adjoin a user, buying chemicals which are destined to increase in complexity as time goes on.  GMO will ultimately produce the same result as antibiotics.  Superweeds and Superbugs already exist.

Got that?  Scottish nationalists are not racists.  Brexiteers are not all racists.  There are plenty of alternative reasons for either or both decisions.  To recap:
Scotland better off without England
UK better off without Europe but can’t afford it without Scotland.

Continue Reading

That Referendum Swordplay in full

The Telegraph have published a fascinating account of how the Conservative gladiator games played out in relation to Boris, but I suspect, from the passing glimpses I saw, it is not entirely true.


What is clear is that there has been a lot of manipulation, a complete disregard for the public, and a lot of lying.  David Cameron became paranoid, as all long term leaders do, and started playing games, so what follows is what I suspect really happened:




David Cameron:  I don’t like the look of UKIP, they have four million voters. What can we do about it, Giddypants?


George Osborne:  I don’t think you have much to worry about, Piggy, they don’t have many MPs.


David Cameron:  I think we should have a referendum.  The Scots seemed to like it, and it certainly shut them up for a while, didn’t it?


George Osborne:  Is that a good idea, piggy?


David Cameron:  Yes, of course it is, it will keep us in the news for weeks.  Nobody will bother finding out what we are doing as long as they are concentrating on a massive spectacle like a referendum.


George Osborne:  What if we don’t win, Piggy?


David Cameron:  Of course we’ll win.  Who shall we pick to run against? Who can we bury with those annoying kippers?


George Osborne:  What about Boris?


David Cameron:  Boris!  What a good idea, but he likes Europe, how can we get him to do it, Giddypants?


George Osborne:  Govey is a friend of his, I shall see if I can get him to swing it for us, Piggy




George Osborne:  Govey, I have a job for you, I’ll swing by your place on Thursday and run it by you.


Michael Gove:  Super Mr George Sir, I will make poussin au citron, just the way you like it. Should I wear heels?




George Osborne:  So, Govey, how would you like a great job in the cabinet?


Michael Gove:  Oh not me, sir, I am not equipped.  Would you care for some more Claret with your plum pudding?


George Osborne:  All you have to do is persuade Boris to lead this pesky Leave campaign.  You need to make sure he loses it. I’m sure the fuck-up can manage that all by himself, but you know, help him along a bit. We can get rid of this UKIP rubbish and Boris at the same time.  Piggy would be ever so grateful.


Michael Gove:  How would I go about that, sir?


George Osborne:  You know Boris, all you have to do is persuade him that he is the best man for the job.  Flatter him a bit.  Give him a nice glass of the good stuff.


Michael Gove:  Yes, sir, of course sir.  I will report back to you next Thursday.




Michael Gove:  Piggy needs a favour.  He needs you to head up the Leave campaign in the referendum.


Boris Johnson:  What? I can’t do that.  Everybody knows I think we should be in Europe.


Michael Gove:  He’s picked you to lose it for him.  You’re so honoured, I am a tad jealous.  He trusts you.  I will hang around and give you all the information you need, so all you have to do is make all the speeches sound like a joke.


Boris Johnson:  Oh right, so that nobody takes it seriously. That might be fun.  I could impersonate Trump, hahahahahahaha.  Pass the Port, Govey.




Boris Johnson:  Where did they get that 350 million figure on the bus?


Michael Gove: Oh, I think some assistant put it there.  Farage mentioned it I think.


Boris Johnson:  That figure isn’t right.  It’s only 160 million.  I can’t say that.


Michael Gove:  Does it matter?  You’re supposed to lose the referendum anyway.


Boris Johnson:  No, I don’t suppose it does. Will everybody hate me for doing this?


Michael Gove:  I’m sure you will be fine, Boris, just keep on messing up those speeches.




David Cameron:  (by telephone) You utter fucktard, Boris, you were supposed to lose.  Get out of bed at once!


Boris Johnson:  Piggy?  We didn’t win, did we?  Dear God, I’m sorry, Piggy.


David Cameron:  Now I’ll have to resign.  I’ll get you back for this, you mark my words. You never get it right, you utter cockwomble.


Boris Johnson:  Shit, maybe I should go away for a few days.






Michael Gove:  Well done, Boris.  Now you should run for PM.


Boris Johnson:  What?  I don’t really want to be PM. I can’t afford the pay cut, and the hours are terrible.


Michael Gove:  Of course you should run for PM.  The people love you.  There’s no way they actually had an opinion regardless of what you did or said, they are way too stupid.


Boris Johnson:  I don’t want anything more to do with this, Govey.


Michael Gove:  I’ll be your campaign manager and make all the calls.  Don’t worry about a thing.


Boris Johnson: Oh God, what have I done?




Michael Gove:  Everyone says they want me to run, I am so lovely and grey and the public hate me.


Mrs Gove:  How about I do a nice leak to the press for you?


Michael Gove:  You are the most adorable woman I have ever met, strumpetlips.


Mrs Gove:  I know. Fetch the riding crop and my boots.




George Osborne: You are a sharp operator Govey. I like it.


Michael Gove:  Thank you sir.  May I lick your boots?


George Osborne:  You may, and kindly fetch the cane. You deserve a treat.






Remember kids, politics IS a popularity contest.  Labour and Conservative have both forgotten. The two most popular politicians of the last four decades are being crucified right in front of us.



Continue Reading

Goodbye Britain

Goodbye Britain

How ironic, the Union is finally going to be ended by an Aberdonian Tory in the form of Michael Gove.


Never underestimate the power of a good graphic.  Boris was a good graphic, with good egalitarian rhetoric and an unusually optimistic vibe for a Conservative.  As I suspected, the Nasty Party preferred a Nasty Grey candidate.


Theresa May is a dull schoolteacher, Michael Gove is a backstabber, hated even by dull schoolteachers, Crabb is a psychotic Christian who believes in the gay cure, and who on earth cares about the other candidates?


In the meantime, Labour is eating itself because the Blair/Brownites cannot manage to read any Labour Party history and want to stand behind a corporate breezemerchant rather than the very serious man the members and electorate prefer.  The LibDems are irrelevant, and UKIP have managed to get their referendum, but lost the war in terms of appeal to anyone but racist little Englanders.


It is all very sad, but we are going to have to make more strenuous efforts to cut ties with the other country.  It is even sadder, because if the rUK proceeds with Brexit, I predict that the UK will be far richer within two decades.


What a shame.  People with a little money fear losing it, the public are trained to make snap kneejerk judgements, and apparently nobody listens to or interprets information anymore.  More people will starve to death, and there will be less reason than ever to bother to vote for many.


It is a very sad and predictable day in British politics. Goodbye rUK, I guess we will have to leave, just as the most interesting and potentially lucrative opportunity we have ever rolled the dice on came our way.

Continue Reading

Why we must ensure Brexit

In case you are in any doubt about your vote, whatever your reason for voting either brexit or remain, here are the countries who will now be asking for their own referendum.  These are not poor countries, and 40-60 percent of Europeans cannot readily be dismissed as racists who do not know anything about politics.


We in Scotland have our own agenda, and so I have no problem with your vote either way, but if you are suffering from any regret, please read through the following, non-tabloid links and see how many people agree that the question should be asked and answered by national populations. (Why does a country with a strong engineering history and an unreasonable amount of coast hate fishermen and shipbuilders?)


For our Tory remainers, do bear in mind that countries who leave will be looking for guidance and a trading partner, so try not to weaken in the short term because you are worried about your house and share prices.  Try not to be selfish for once. Everything is going to be fine.




8th EU nation threatens referendum


Six More Countries Want Referendums to Exit EU


Nearly half of voters in 8 EU countries want EU referendum


Brexit EU referendum Domino

Continue Reading

A positive response to Brexit

A positive response to Brexit

There is a severe lack of positivity surrounding the vote to exit the EU, so today I will be making a post about exiting the EU, from the perspective of somebody who apparently looks on events such as this from an unusually long perspective.


It is, of course, easy to do this when you do not have to worry about business, mortgage, or standing in a slightly different queue at the airport.  I have perused the media, parliamentary coverage and a variety of ridiculously underqualified commentators spreading their muck across the airwaves and probably getting very well paid for it.  I will also be making a few choice comments for the benefit of some exceptionally stupid Scots I have come across online.


Here goes nothing:


Clearly the remain option was the safest over the short term, however it is likely that we will be the first of many nations seeking to leave the EU, and so it is likely that we will not be short of trading partners as the process of undoing the globalisation process continues.  You, as a miniscule actor in globalisation, are unlikely to benefit from it.  The popular hatred of the one percent/bankers/anyone with more money than you is very much entwined with arguments for globalisation, and so you need to understand some basic facts:


The EU, the USA, the trade deals going on such as TTIP, CETA, TPP etc are all fundamental to the process of globalisation.  Globalisation benefits large companies in the following ways –

regulation, which they tell you as the consumer is for your benefit, is actually a way of preventing smaller businesses and poorer countries from competing with big business and protectionist states.  Regulation is an extremely effective barrier to entry for smaller businesses, and so lots and lots of regulation is highly desirable if you happen to own a stupendously large company.  It is not for your benefit at all. eg.  Would you rather work at the ASDA checkout, for an American company, or start your own bespoke greengrocers, because the eventual consequence of globalisation is that Walmart, owners of ASDA, will regulate you out of the market altogether. If you allow companies to legally challenge governments, nothing can prevent them from doing this.
The USA, like the EU, refers to free trade. There is no such thing as free trade. If there was you would not set up trade agreements or indeed the single market. The illusion of free trade is a bullying mechanism by which nation states seek to dominate markets and other countries.  If you have any doubts about this, go and research how the USA began trading with Japan. In much the same way the single market is a mechanism by which the entire EU is much easier to manipulate for larger players, whether these are countries or businesses.  The USA is a particular menace as their constitution and political habits effectively rate companies above the nation state.  In order to avoid the knock on effects of their problems, it is wise to seek as much autonomy as possible if you wish to retain any effective freedom of action and opportunity for your own population.
Mobility of populations is also for the benefit of business, not consumers or employees.  Several EU states have unprecedented levels of unemployment and debt since joining, for two reasons.  The first is too many people wishing to locate in the one place, the second being that the EU provides a safety net for countries taking on too much debt when they are unable to pay.  Further, unemployment is now seen as desirable for many countries, since it means that business gets to choose from a wide range of employees.  This does not help you in the course of your life, but it does aid large businesses because they can choose people who are willing to agree to their mistakes and prevents progressive thought within their businesses. It also suppresses wages.
Since being part of the EU, Britain has seen the decline of manufacturing in the UK.  Many people are confused about this, and in the last few days I have heard many blaming Thatcher for it.  Thatcher was actually a lot fairer than our current Conservative government, since she believed in home ownership, share ownership and entrepreneurship for all social classes.  George Osborne has spectacularly failed to encourage the roots of the economic garden in the form of promoting small business start ups, therefore we have no stimulus to remove the need for perpetual austerity. On the contrary, perpetual austerity and the suppression of optimism generally has caused more recession than we actually needed to experience.
Nobody has revived the domestic economy, in the form of encouraging British people to buy British goods.  The effect of this is that you need far more capital to start even a small business, since you have to pay attention to regulation and prepare for marketing overseas before you have adequately tested your product. British people are inventive, and without a prototype, you cannot produce a finished product.  We need to stimulate the market within the UK, in order to serve the wider global community.
the nation state generally is becoming less relevant as businesses get bigger.  Giving large businesses more power is unwise, since we already have a situation in which countries such as the Uk are so desperate for even a small amount of tax, that they are prepared to give overseas companies massive tax concessions.  If companies do not get these concessions, they will simply locate their offices elsewhere, benefiting countries willing to accept small amounts of corporation tax such as Switzerland.  BT is a case in point.  Without tax havens, Britain would also be considerably worse off.  There is unlikely to be a reversal of this process, and so if we continue to discourage small business, we will eventually be in a state where only the consumer funds the nation state by paying any tax at all.  Do you really want your future to consist of being employed by a multinational, spending your entire wages on the meagre supplies you can afford, provided by the same companies?  The EU is set up to hasten this process, and so the short to medium term benefits of being part of a superstate, are likely to become long term hazards to your life as an individual, whether you are a money grubbing ass kisser or not.  I am sure that this is an unintended outcome, but it is not a desirable one.
Markets are always unstable, and the media is never independent.  If you pay close attention to what you are watching or reading, you will find that it is rare that a genuine expert on anything is presented to you.  Now it turns out that our elected representatives are just as incompetent as we are, so you cannot afford to be lazy when it comes to seeking information on which to make decisions.  It is neither surprising, nor particularly horrifying, that companies are making threats, kneejerk judgements and that the media is keen to terrify you by spreading them.  Do not accept even ‘expert’ opinions, as the gun is always loaded.
Whilst there will be short term uncertainty, which the Conservative party will be keen to capitalise on, especially whilst the Blair and Brownites are trying to destroy what is left of the Labour Party rather than leave and start their own, the return to the nation state gives you, the individual far more control over your future and opportunities.  Similar to my previous post on feudalism, it is, quite simply, far easier to stop the economic and political machine if you want to.  Being part of a superstate prevents you from having any control at all over your own destiny.  This is a statement of fact, not an opinion.  People have more protection and more of their interests served by local representation, not distant discussion. The sky is not falling, and none of this is unexpected, with the apparent exception of the Bullingdon Boys who missed that history lesson.
The fishing industry, with the associated shipping industry and engineering skills thereof, was crucial to the British economy before the EU effectively removed it. Why do none of the whinging remainers care about coastal populations?  It was central to British success over centuries.

Finally, for the benefit of the aforementioned stupid Scots.  No, neither Nicola or Alex think about much apart from Scotland.  They do not envisage becoming President of a Scottish superstate.  The political strategy you are witnessing is exceptionally clever, even if it is a mystery to you.  You would serve your own interests better if you watched and learned.  The SNP is likely to branch into separate interest groups once we have a country to rule, so do not assume that every SNP member sits on a party line in the same way that the Labour Party has traditionally functioned.  Since the other parties are still too stupid to respond with any interest, I will refrain from outlining this at this point in time.


I hope this is sufficient to engage your interest in learning more before you shoot your mouths off hating people for trying to give you a decent future.  Short term pain, long term gain.  Enough with the panic already.

Continue Reading

Boris Johnson – Elvis on Mars

I know this is probably going to be unpopular, but I rather like Boris.  Boris shares many characteristics with my former muse, David Wolfe.  (you knew I would sneak you in somehow)


I have mentioned before that I managed to have an argument with his sister Rachel some years ago, as she is so far removed from everyone else’s functionality that she lacks the ability to converse or accept advice from anyone.  I was attempting to assist her in finding a new identity for The Lady magazine, a publication which I used to carry in the belief that I would be identified as someone who rated integrity above the usual concerns of self-aggrandisement and remuneration.  Little did I know that these negative attributes also apply to people who should really be above them due to their significant advantages in life.


I imagine that this gives me some insight into Boris.  His career to date would make anyone without an inflated sense of self and importance blush, but not Boris.  Boris cruises through life, is extremely well paid for being himself, and still we continue to forgive and encourage him.


I was considering a comparison with Dick Whittington, but I think Boris has now exceeded poor Mr Whittington’s achievements, and is likely, despite some unpopularity with certain Conservatives, to continue to exceed them.  Apparently the sky is the limit for this flawed but charming chap.


And now, it seems that our own dear Boris will be running for PM and leadership of the Conservative Party.  I have my doubts as to whether he is capable of dragging the party back to a position of popularity with anyone but the slightly more fortunate, but given his position, slightly outside the prefecture we have not enjoyed in the slightest, I am sure he would make a popular and entertaining PM, were the party to consider it.


Alas, the Conservative party like their candidates a little grey, and so I wonder if they will select him.  He seems to be a tad abrupt with those who actually work with him, despite the pleasing dishevelment and quick wit.


So, in order to endorse Boris, despite his repellent and extremely rude sister, I would like to suggest to the Conservative party that in order to be considered for any further terms, they should appoint the adorably grey Gove as Chancellor, ditch the appalling trio of Cameron, Osborne and Duncan-Smith to whichever Tory hellhole that most closely resembles a jobcentre, complete with terrified and hostile staff.  There they can enjoy the fruits of their own labours.


I am of the opinion that Boris planned to lose the referendum, and this is another in a long list of charming accidents.  I said in my previous post, and I will say it again IT IS NOT NECESSARILY A BAD ACCIDENT.  Like Boris, Britain is dishevelled, inventive, and fast on its feet.  Like Boris, Britain is well capable of making the best of a difficult situation, and like Boris, Britain is not always nice to those assisting as the country blunders its way through history.  He represents the country perfectly, and short of Scotland rescuing England from the risks involved in Brexit, he is the ideal solution to a problem voters created by opting for a risky but optimistic future.


In a future where the population is likely to become considerably more engaged and educated about politics, it will take a strong, charming person who admits and learns from mistakes, not a blustering, arrogant pair of giggling twits like Osborne and Cameron.  Whether you like it or not, we are well rid of the pair of them.  I move we go for the entertaining option, with a side order of sensible economic policy which benefits the people who have suffered most under a system which has bled small and medium sized business and domestic spending in favour of fat savings, fat business, and skinny prospects for most of the people in the UK.  We now have an opportunity for optimism, and I would like to see this optimism, this vigour and stimulation for growth which touches real people as soon as possible, so I say, let us encourage the wise fool. Boris is the best option England has got.

Continue Reading