politics - Ina Disguise

Finest British Bullshit

July 11, 2016 2 Comments

OK, so according to the media, we are supposed to believe that Andrea Leadsom was so hurt by the Times that she immediately gave up to go home and wear an apron, that Theresa May is now an angel, that Boris has been thwarted in his attempt to take a massive pay cut and be PM, that George Osborne is strutting around a remarkably fake looking New York street waiting to be puffball interviewed about some vague double dealing on Wall Street, and David Cameron is doing an impersonation of Dick Van Dyke on his way out of Downing Street, having been released from his weighty responsibility for the entire country. (Still no mention of the several thousand dead disabled people we are not supposed to notice)

According to the media, we are supposed to be doubting Jeremy Corbyn as a leader, we are all basically Conservative anyway, and the country is supposedly past the need for collective representation because we all worship money and if we don’t, we deserve to be repeatedly stabbed in the face until we do.

Angela Eagle is a false flag, designed to thoroughly put anyone off voting labour until the UK is safely out of the Brexit zone. I have rocks in my garden with more charisma and leadership ability. As is usual with the former New labour, someone we cannot see has told them what to do, and they are all repeating the same line because if they keep repeating it, we will eventually believe it.

So what has actually happened? Here is my view:

As per my previous posts of the last week or so, Boris was not interested in being Prime Minister at all. He was somehow volunteered for/pressured into the Leave campaign, and could not really be bothered with it, so stupidly trusted Gove to do all the actual work, hence the rather out of character and lame campaign. They all imagined that people would vote to ensure that everything stayed the same because they don’t actually see people, they see statistics, and according to the statistics, everything in the garden is just lovely for everyone, including the 3.9 million shoeless children and dead disabled people nobody cares to remember.

These statistics are now produced by private companies who do not take a huge interest in responsibility or accuracy, as in order to land the research contracts the line managers pressure the staff into getting high returns. I know because I have extensive experience in social research data gathering. Even when you are conducting a survey to determine people’s views, the questions are ordered in a way to determine the result. In a way, all research is futile because in the absence of a previously formed opinion, you basically force one on people. Hence, our governments are deluded into getting the response they wanted in the first place. Months of work used to go into making sure you got a result approaching accuracy, but the level of response was not enough when the companies were honest, so now they are not. This is important, because labour are making decisions on the same faked statistics as the conservatives.

So, this morning, in a very predictable turnaround, Leadsom steps down, meaning that no plan has to be published for our Brexit from the EU. Had the leadership campaign been allowed to continue, we would be told how they plan to go about actually doing it. The ‘sophisticated opposition’ mentioned by one of her supporters was basically just the Conservative elite deciding that more interesting deals can be struck without the watchful eye of the public. Whilst some are arguing that Murdoch is responsible, in the form of the Times article, I do not think that this is the case at all. Leadsom gives the appearance of extreme malleability, so were I a billionaire powermonger, I would push her for PM. She was clumsy and inexperienced.

Now we are being told that May is the best thing to happen to the UK since the much-lauded Blair. We already know that this is not the case, and in any case we are a bit more savvy than we were back then. The line they are taking, that fat cat executives are now to be scapegoated to appease the angry public, is not helpful at all. It is a commercial irritant, and it will not change the structure of business, the nature of business, or the threats that we absolutely must avoid of business legally challenging government and avoiding taxation on the promise of job creation. The latter is literally killing the country.

So, the usual Conservative rhetoric, that they are going to beat up on the boardrooms, and give you more control over your level of misery, is just that. Leadsom said she was concerned about mothers getting no stimulation, and her solution was to cut maternity pay – this is the Conservative way of solving problems. And yet people vote for this self-inflicted punishment, over and over again. Will the English ever learn?

I have already suggested an alternative solution, and this solution involves taking a larger scale approach altogether. You do not prune a garden by taking off single twigs in the form of fat cat executives and pointing at them. That is extremely wasteful of your time. There are far more effective ways of decrowning trees in order to let your newly propagated seeds grow. (HINT HINT)

Anyway, I digress. Labour, on the other hand, appear to be being directed by the invisible hand of Blair’s PR machine. I am now wondering if this guy is a narcissistic sociopath. He appears to feel no genuine remorse for his errors, and is enjoying a very nice life thanks to his devotion to his own wallet. I do not believe for one second that Labour consists of New Labourite robots, tainted with with the poison of the genuine socialists in the party and devoid of any memory at all of what Labour are supposed to stand for.

Jeremy Corbyn, their most popular leader in the last four decades, by far outshines Blair with the public, which ought to be telling our political parties that people are suffering. You have to starve people into being politically motivated, whether this is starvation of opportunity, starvation of hope, or literal starvation makes little difference. The population is clearly hungry, and Jeremy Corbyn is shaping up to be a contender.

We are supposed to believe that the PLP consists of extremely stupid people, obsessed with the memory of Blair and Brown, reading incorrect statistics, believing that they would really rather be in the Tory party, but lacking the expensive education. We are supposed to believe that these people are all suffering from a collective delusion in which they burn the Corbyn witch and return to bland, centrist politics which does not genuinely change anything apart from making life more expensive for the squeezed middle.

It is my view that the people trying to bring Corbyn down are career victims, on a party line set by a retired politician so obsessed with his own image that he is prepared to destroy Labour in order to preserve his creation, New Labour. They are deluded by a politics which is out of date. Corbyn represents the core values of the real labour party that we remember pre-Blair. As such, if these people are so far gone that they fail to recognise it when they are reminded of their own values, they really need to leave the party and form a new one.

As I have said in my previous post Capitalism, Socialism and Corporatism, Conservative and labour are supposed to mutually regulate, and allow us the illusion of choice in how we treat each other. They are not supposed to determine our culture, our values and predetermine that the poor are to be left behind whilst we create elites that care for nobody. Money is not supposed to accumulate in vast piles. It is supposed to circulate, to benefit everyone.

In case nobody in our political class understands this, I repeat once again:

DEAD PEOPLE CANNOT SPEND MONEY

STARVATION PRODUCES ACTIVISM

DEMOTIVATION PRODUCES REVOLT

I am sure you can all manage to do better than this. Should you require further input on core social values, I am sure you can either read a book, or ask questions.

economics, politics

The Fear Defence

July 8, 2016 1 Comment

The Fear Defence

Watching the horrific video of the licensed-to-carry black male in America being killed by a terrified sounding cop, it struck me that fear is being used as a method of justifying violence rather a lot.

Both of the recent killings of black males this week were committed by police who appear to be trained to fear first, think later and to kill before risking their lives. The result has been that far more have been killed, and yet again America is displaying the usual inability to react appropriately.

Today an Etsy seller was promoting her bluelivesmatter wristbands, and rather than just roll their eyes and move on, she was duly challenged on facebook by a variety of other sellers. Why do people stop and discuss this stuff? It is not acceptable for the police to kill civilians going about their business. It is not acceptable that they feel they are working a warzone because these same civilians are armed, and what on earth does it take before America decides to take action on gun control?

It does not take an enormous amount of effort to determine that the real problem is that the population is armed, therefore the police need to be armed, therefore life is cheap. Likewise it does not induce huge strain to see that American foreign policy and cultural influence is not beneficial to the rest of the world. I am not sure why people would be confused about this. Life matters.

From the perspective of someone like me, looking at culture and economics, America’s devotion to capitalism means that social stratification is used by marketers and government alike to suppress wages, to market goods, to encourage social groups to compete with one another for goods, services and rights. If the population were not being kept stupid via tension and overmarketing, they would soon see that racial tension is a method of divide and conquer, useful only to an oppressive regime which relies on capital labour to maintain a hugely unfair economic system.

Instead Americans of any colour continue to get confused over things like how airline staff should talk to them when they have some money, and whether it is OK to risk being murdered because you want to carry a gun around with you.

The solution to the problem is very simple. Strict gun laws lessen the need for armed police, putting fewer people at risk from trigger happy and apparently poorly trained police.

It has been said that in a military situation, American troops are extremely wasteful with ammunition for much the same reason. Bullets are apparently cheaper than discourse. Lose the bullets, lose the problem. We have reached saturation point in terms of feeling sympathetic to a problem which has been going on for far too long, for entirely spurious reasons. America is not OK, and we should be distancing ourselves as much as we can. It is a rude, stupid and violent society, and it is not improving with events like this. Having money does not justify crappy behaviour towards others. Being poor should not put you at risk of being shot dead. Not rocket science.

Interestingly, under our beloved Conservative government, it appears that jobcentre staff have been retrained much the same way as American police. Even if you are asking for a form to be signed off or a simple question, the staff will react as if you are a potential assailant, and each jobcentre has security staff on hand to haul you out of the door if you should raise your voice for any reason. The appearance of fear is being used as justification for making sure that you are aware that you do not matter, that nobody cares about you, and that you should not expect to be treated with the smallest amount of dignity. In this way they can laugh about making sure that you cannot survive, and that you cannot question them when they get it wrong.

They have also been instructed to give you no information, and calls are recorded to retrain anyone stupid enough to be helpful. I am aware that there are American companies involved with the DWP, and so I am forced to wonder whether we are all entering a war situation, in which those fortunate enough to not need anything assume everything is OK, whilst those who do are in a vortex of pain leading to premature death in the form of being repeatedly told that they do not matter, that they are frightening, and that they will not be getting any help from anywhere.

If this is the case, and from the evidence I have looked at, it certainly seems as if it is, then we are already in a situation that cannot continue. Either the politics of fear and loathing will kill even more people, whilst everyone else becomes dimly aware that there is a problem, or we have to decide that this is not acceptable to us as a society. I move that we adopt the latter policy.

Black lives matter, blue lives matter, life matters. You matter. We need to take action in our own countries to defeat the loathsome strategy of the fear defence, especially when the fear is staged to justify murder. Murder by starvation, or murder by shooting innocent people. It is all murder.

politics

Must I do everything?

July 7, 2016 No Comments

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?

creativity, economics, motivation, politics

Broad Brush Thinking

July 5, 2016 No Comments

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.

motivation, politics

Intelligence and Flexibility

July 2, 2016 No Comments

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.

economics, politics

Brexit and Scotland

July 1, 2016 No Comments

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.

politics

That Referendum Swordplay in full

June 30, 2016 8 Comments

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.

politics

Goodbye Britain

June 29, 2016 2 Comments

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.

politics

Why we must ensure Brexit

June 28, 2016 No Comments

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

politics

A positive response to Brexit

June 27, 2016 No Comments

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.

As 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.

« Previous 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 Next »