Why doesn’t Big Business get together and build a new Capital City and leave London to the hired help.

February 26, 2017

What if the cost of business rates etc. in London were hurting profits, wouldn’t it pay a Consortium to create a new Business Capital.
Pick some place with lots of brown land property, central to the largest connurbations, with adequate transport links close-by.
I’m thinking somewhere at the base of the Pennines but somewhere like Huddersfield might be an alternative, used as a Northern Capital, leaving London for politicians and tourists.
This new Capital (or second Capital) would serve as the business capital.
It would be laid out with an ergonomic view to function and futurosity.
My personal choice would be based on the human body

{ i.e. A large area for inward goods and warehousing would be the mouth and stomach. The Admin and Head Offices would be next with Entertainment and Service businesses following. Finally would come the lowly manufacturing, waste management and export facilities. The body of the population would be housed on either side of this alimentary canal.One side would be cheap housing and the other would be executive housing (just like A US railway town). The whole thing would have buffer regions for future expansion/contraction and re-routing, as new or different modes of transport arose and to allow for major disruptions. There would be large underground tunnels (blood vessels) to incorporate the utilities and reduce the digging up of roads.}

Whatever the chosen layout, its main importance would be to ditch London and its associated problems of patchwork structure, potential flooding, high pollution, commuter snarl-ups, high living costs etc.

Consider; Business and the population don’t need to be in London for access to Parliament.
All Government produces is Newspaper copy and verbiage, which can all be obtained digitally.
In fact the only reason that Business has its HQ’s in London, is because Business has its HQ’s in London. Any other place would serve as well. At least that’s the reason used by banks to continually threaten to move, unless Government gives them more money.
Covent Garden, National Theatre, The Oval etc. can all be re-located in purpose built venues in the new Entertainment zone.
There is nothing London can offer, which can’t be improved on and replaced in a new capital

@guardian time to create a defence to cyber warfare

January 25, 2017

There appears to be a lot of concern about cyber warfare but no plan of action.

May I suggest a line of attack?

It requires our politicians to forego the desire to foster the interests of businesses and help them in their quest to find new ways of extracting profit from the masses.

I mean that The State should protect the domestic computer market and its customers.

I’m not referring to legislation against malware but in removing our vulnerability to it.

There are freeware programs (spybot, ccleaner, malware malbytes, AVG antivirus etc.), which do a good job of reducing viruses on business websites by helping to reduce the wild populations.

How much better would it be, if we had a cyber version of the NHS?

A State run (MI5 in alliance with some of the freeware companies ) UK computer Health Service (UKCHS), where professional teams monitored the latest hacks, viruses, trojans etc. and created counter-measures.

There must be many small business’s, which do not have the expertise, or finance, to defend themselves from ransomware etc.

One of the bugbears, of even large organisations, is the use of DOS attacks. These rely on a myriad of domestic PC’s infected with Bots.

The UKCHS would, potentially, be able to inoculate and clean out this source of pestilence. This, last, assumes a globally accessible service, which, in turn, means it’d be able to monitor the earliest manifestations of any malware and variants.

The icing on the cake would be, if the UKCHS could create a rival platform to Microsoft Windows.

We have supported Microsoft Windows by relying on it in our schools and by its pre-installed presence on domestic PC’s.

God knows how much cash flees these shores to fund The USA Treasury (America first?) and Bill Gates’s  lifestyle.

The problem with Microsoft Windows has always been its design flaws, aimed at controlling consumer access to software and in mining our data.  (I read that It enabled the USA to have access to high level USSR secrets).

Every new generation has gone out with backdoors and other exploitable faults, which has fostered a subculture of hackers (antagonistic to Microsoft charges) intent on discovering them.

Add in unintentional flaws, such as the millennium bug, which was present in several generations of windows and which caused a global panic.

How many hours are spent, by all users, installing updates to patch up a designed-in vulnerability, which has then needed further patches?

A platform, free from intentional vulnerabilities, would be a lot easier to defend from cyber attack and it would pay for itself in reduced downtime.

 

musings on salary cap

January 14, 2017

I had already considered the need for a salary cap, as mentioned in some older blogs. The fact that Corbyn and his team have hit on this, as a solution to inequity, has caused me to commit sume of my own musings to blogdom.

It’s not intended as a fully thought-out plan. Just a contribution.

In an era when we have marriages and partnership’s, no longer conforming to the classical concept of a family unit, it is time to re-evaluate income tax structure.
We no longer have the male breadwinner and the stay at home housewife, so it’s time to treat all citizens as stand-alone taxpayers.
The family allowance was to encourage the creation of a stronger nation, at a time when workers and soldiers were of importance.
This no longer applies, as technology is increasingly replacing muscle power.
In fact, the problem of a geometrically increasing overpopulation demands that we should take measures to gently resist it.
Everybody is entitled to receive consideration from the whole of Society and to return it in equal measure.
In terms of taxation, this means everyone legally defined as an adult (of sufficiently sound mind and body to make a useful contribution to Society *), should be remunerated in proportion to their contribution to Society. This can not be decided by committee and must relate to market forces. The only problem with market forces is that they are corrupted by monopolies and cartels.
The only way to defeat the conniving of bureaucratic committee’s and avaricious cartels etc. is to limit the range of remuneration (a cap on income).
The bottom of the range must be a citizen’s pension, for those unable to contribute to any useful extent. This should cover the cost of basic needs, which humanity insists should include a modicum of joie de vivre. (Gandhi is supposed to have said that you can judge how a nation treats its people by how it treats its animals.. joie de vivre).
The next rung must be to reward those in employment that can, or would be done, by anyone. I would say that this would include employment such as shop assistant, call centre operative, porter etc. but Society should decide.
Society would also have to decide how many tiers of employment there should be and the appropriate pay increments.
First Society needs to decide on the top of the range of pay and this will be the real problem.
For me, any person’s income must relate to how much greater his, or her, contribution to Society is, than someone on the lowest rung.
Consider a few of the, at present, highest paid.
{Don’t quibble about the exact values being quoted, they are extremely rough guestimates but carry the essence of the position being presented}
A premier league footballer, for instance: In my lifetime, such a salary has gone from 5x basic wage, to 500 x  basic wage. This is a reflection of the joie de vivre that they contribute, to a much larger number of people, but also to their political muscle, or market forces.
How about an M.P.? Their basic pay is only about 4x basic wage. Add in allowances, golden pensions etc. and it’s probably nearer 10 x basic wage.
A banker? their pay is just obscene, so skip it for a minute.
A C.E.O. of a multi-national? Paid millions with some paid hundreds of millions. Again, skip for a minute.
A pop-star? Internationally known pop-stars rake in more than banker’s, although they do add joie de vivre to millions. Only problem is they decide how much each person pays for it, so effectively in a monopoly position.

How do you decide their worth?
Few have the skills of Wayne Rooney but he does give pleasure to many, for a few hours, each week, of the football season.
On the other hand, how does he compare to a G.P.? A person with skills, years of training, making a huge difference to the lives of several thousand, as and when needed.
I think most would say that a G.P. earns his salary and possibly more.
This pay is about 5x basic wage.
So does Wayne Rooney contribute 100 x more to Society than a G.P.?
It seems to depend on replaceability and the amount of positive interaction with other people.
It’s all very subjective and would need to be put to a public vote.
Simplest would be rate to these jobs in terms of swapsies.
How many G.P.’s for one teacher, road sweeper, nurse, surgeon, M.P., banker, CEO, farmer, shepherd, coalminer, etc.?
At the end of the exercise, we take the figure, which is the largest multiple of the basic wage.
Let’s say it’s 100 x basic wage.
We set a tax system which starts with zero tax for those on 2 x basic wage and goes up to 100% at 101 x basic wage (a cap). That’s not a mistake. If you are being paid 101 x basic wage, you can reduce your tax rate to say 50% (whatever the top rate is), by a simple tax donation of the excess. It would be up to the individual to ensure that they don’t get caught cheating, e.g. by taking payment in kind.
The last would require an end to all bonuses and allowances for business expenses. No farmer’s Range Rovers, no business man’s entertainment in strip club’s, no private jets etc. for PM’s and CEO’s.
Some leeway might be excused for accidental oversight’s but only upto 1 x basic wage.

This is just a skeleton view, which those capable of deeper thought could flesh out and those on obscene pay would want thrown out.

Some attention has to be paid to those unable to make a significant contribution. Ignoring young entrepreneur’s and the likes of Bruce Forsyth, most non-adults, disabled and elderly would qualify for the basic wage.
Now, another problem arises. Ever since “Cathy come home”, popular support has been in favour of supporting the unmarried Mother, or “single parent”. Previously, “having a bastard” was almost a sin and so Cathy had been cast out by Society. In order to take the moral sting out of the situation, the “bastard” became “the innocent child, who didn’t ask to be born”. Abortion was still illegal and back street abortions (the film “Alfie”) were morally repugnant.
It became social mores that all children should be supported by the State, if the errant father couldn’t be hunted down etc.
The CSA apparently does a wonderful job of persecuting and prosecuting those fathers, who are happy and willing to support their progeny but offer little service in terms of the feckless and prolific, who service equally feckless young women who see State support for single parents as a means of avoiding responsibility for their own lives.
If each child received the minimum wage, there would appear to be a problem but only if their single parent had control of it. Instead, each parent could be given control of one child’s wage, whilst the wages of any further children would go to the local Council’s care fund, giving them a co-parental duty of care, when needed..
A single parent could have more than one child but would have to treat the Council care officer as a partner, supporting when needed, or stepping in, if the parent was unable to cope.
Families, who were able to fund their progeny, from their own income, would merely need to show it through regular school attendance etc. (i.e. by not becoming a cause of concern to local authorities).
Errant father’s could still be pursued by the CSA but, on the assumption that they were on min wage, could be conscripted into some form of Community support…. depends on what could be made to work!

Businesses would also need to be capped in some form, perhaps in terms of the number of subsidiaries, or divisions, or partnerships. No one person can usefully be said to control hundred’s of diverse businesses, in diverse locations operating in various fields of commerce.
In any work group, you have one leader, an aide and four or five co-workers. Any bigger group has non-contributing members, or a clique working in opposition to the leader. The leader of a group can only really oversee about 30 people. This is, co-incidentally, a typical teacher’s class size. Taking this further, in school terms, each faculty has upto 9 teachers, with some heads of Department, under the head of Faculty. The headteacher may have a group of Assisstant Headteacher, Deputy Head teacher and Senior teacher’s, each overseeing a few faculties, pastoral heads (one for each year group, with 6/7 form teachers). Essentially groups of six.
Any boardroom, committee, cabinet etc., with more than six people, effectively has a load of makeweights (and they know it).
Continuing with the Secondary school model, any business with more than about 1200 (a cap) shop floor employee’s, is too large and should be split up, under a new tier of management. However, no new tier should coninequity trol businesses with no direct link.
No single person, or group of persons, should own so many businesses that the hierarchical salary structure takes their pay above the income cap for individuals.
Obviously businesses can hire very clever people, who can invent ways and arguments to try and circumvent such control but the spirit of the cap

Various blogs 6

January 11, 2017

11/1/17
Why do the rail operators want to get rid of guards?
The likeliest answer is to save money for improved share dividends.
The unlikeliest answer is that savings will go to improved facilities, or fare cuts.

The service to the public is reduced and made yet more impersonal.
The Public also loses, because of reduced tax revenue and an increase in benefits payments to the now unemployed guards.

It is in the interests of the Government to increase employment, so why are they not supporting the strikers against the money-grubbing of the operators?

As always, Tories are pennywise and pound foolish, blinded by the dogma of keeping the peasants in line and toadying to the money men.

Giving Billions to those behind HS2, whilst saving a few million by severely cutting hospital beds

5/1/17
Has Defence Minister Harriet Baldwin latched onto a new form of Laser?
Back when President Reagan hit on his own Star Wars defence systems, they quickly realised that shiny metal missiles reflect light.
They also move incredibly fast, making them hard to target.
I’m sure the Pentagon spent a lot more than £30 million trying to overcome these problems but they had to concede defeat, as did the Russians, who invested in a ground based Maser.
Swapping one Americanism for another, I expect that Harriet Baldwin will find herself not ahead of the curve but behind the eight ball.
30/12/16
Whilst focus is rightly on “Anna” in the Secret Slave case, it disturbing that the story of the other women in the house is being ignored.
The original report says that these other women colluded in keeping “Anna” enslaved, because they were also subject to intimidation and beatings.
Why are they not also being defended?
Why is there not talk of taking action to prevent their abuse?
Socialism is about treating everyone equally.
This has led to the creed of respecting cultural diversity but in doing so, we have committed ourselves to protecting behaviours, which have legitimised the actions of “Malik” and other’s like him.
Such men could never be described as Socialist, Christian, or, I presume, Islamic.

28/12/16
The Tory plan to demand photo ID is annoying in a number of ways.
Initially, because it’s smacks of an attempt to, once more, enforce the national ID card.
It is also resonant of the way that many poorer voters (mostly black) in the Southern States of America have been denied a vote, because of the cost and the bureaucratic hurdles put in place.
Then there’s the core issue of the validity of photo ID as a means of security.
The two photo’s of the Tunisian assassin, recently shown throughout the Media, are so different that I wonder if they are the same man.
Such photo’s are, often, so unlike the person presenting them that few photo ID’s are given more than a passing glance.
Apparently, the Tunisian assassin found it easy to procure three legitimate (?) passports in different names.
They are neither secure, nor feasible, when dealing with even local elections, which often rely on volunteers working in adverse, makeshift conditions.

17/12/16
A 101 yr old paedophile, sent to prison, was reported to show no remorse.
It strikes me that he may have shown gratitude.
What other person of that age can be guaranteed immediate access to medical aid, should he need it.
Free heating, regular hot meals and constant care.
Outside prison, he would have to fend for himself, risk losing his home and while away many hours in solitude.
It’s another Wonderful Life story for Brian Reade

14/12/16

This was from Twitter. Nothing on TV.
It’s the sort of thing that is more relevant (to those affected) than who’s won Strictly, or X-factor.
http://www.highways.gov.uk/traffic-information/traffic-information-services/highways-england-post-incident-bulletin/january-2016-post-incident-bulletins/december-2016-post-incident-bulletins/m6-closure-northbound-lancashire-monday-12-tuesday-13-december-2016/

14/12/16

The report on the lives of the children in North Korea is so depressing and so hard to deal with.
As individuals we can do nothing and we look to politicians to act on our behalf.
The UN seems totally incapable of anything other than passing votes condemning such regimes. Although in this case a demand of all nations to totally ostracise North Korea and expulsion of its representatives might have an effect.
There will be calls for further action but what?
For instance, Paddy Ashdown has called for action on Aleppo but I fail to see how a few more bombs in that region of The World helps.
Nothing will change in these places, in India’s sweatshops, Brazil’s favela’s, China’s industrialised regions, Africa’s desert regions etc. until politicians slough off their reliance on the rich and end exploitation of the vulnerable.
We won’t see it in our lifetimes and we won’t even see it in our own country whilst we have a political system that can cut taxes on the rich and care services to the poor.
Happy Xmas, to all
11/12/16
Sunday morning BBC1; I’m watching Fern Briton telling Michael Gove that homework is counterproductive and I’m loving it.
As a teacher, I was compelled to set homework, whether, or not, it was helpful.
I was compelled to mark, grade and record it in a particular way and then punish pupils for not completing it, regardless of their ability, home circumstances, or any other consideration.
Consequent discipline problems, alienation and disaffection made attempts to interest pupils in my subject grow less possible, even amongst pupils with an aptitude for it.
Before Blunkett set down rules on homework, I could set homework when and where it would help.
Some homeworks would merely need a tick of approval, some would need chasing, some would need detailed examination but it was as I judged suitable for each pupil.
It would be nice if politicians could lose interest in Education and left school’s, teacher’s, parent’s and those with an investment in it, to get on with it.

“it was alright in the 70’s” is so sanctimonious.

December 10, 2016

I’m watching “it was alright in the 70’s” and I’m amazed at the prudish attitude of the present generation.
I suppose it’s our fault; It was our generation, who encouraged this puritan attitude, as part of our “everyone has rights” and should stand up for them.

It’s become a culture of “look for offence and condemn it, unconditionally”.

In the 70’s, I was in my late 20’s. We had entered a period, where we no longer went from children to responsible adults at 21. We were liberated young adults, who could define our own boundaries.
The key was that the contraceptive pill had become available.

Previously, any man forcing himself on a woman, was a potential rapist and would not be tolerated. Any girl, who became pregnant was “no better than she ought to be”.

Now women could have sex without fear of pregnancy. Combine that with the surge of post-war feminism, Germaine Greer’s “female Eunuch”,”burn your bra” and the Summer of Love, suddenly it was OK for men to be more aggressive and for women to be more approachable. Newspapers reported pubescent girls fighting to have sex with rock stars. It was a period where new boundaries were being set and, to an extent, it’s still settling in with ladettes, Ibiza and same sex marriage.
Perhaps in another 30 years, the next generation will be perplexed by the sanctimony oozing out of this TV series.
It’s also worth pointing out that we had only recently got 4 terrestrial TV channels, which not everybody could receive, and we did not have PC’s or Google. A phone call to the USA cost £’s per second. We were not as sophisticated as we are now. Anything we knew of other cultures, came to us third hand. As for racial stereotypes, even ultra-sophisticated Hollywood still used white actors faking Asiatics(Charlie Chan, Flash Gordon). It was still possible for the BBC to cast public school actors as Scouser’s using cod Brummie accents. For the Public School types it was on par with actors holding masks in Greek theatre and we accepted it ( although I admit to a slight aggravation at the Brummie accent)

various blogs 5

December 10, 2016

letters to Daily Mirror, not published:

10/12/16
It seems obvious what Labour must do to wim the next general election.
Stop opposing brexit and start opposing the privatisation of the NHS.
Brexit is going ahead and whilst a soft brexit won’t win any more votes from Remainers, it will lose them votes from Brexiteers.
Jeremy Corbyn and all Labour MP’s must go on the offensive over the NHS.
Not just whinging about Hunt’s manic delight but promising to overturn all his actions and hit the privateer’s where it hurts.
Brexit can only win votes for Tories and UKIP
NHS can win votes from Tories and UKIP
 

9/12/16
I’ll agree with your reader on compulsory voting, if we can have a “none of rhe above” box on the ballot.
It’d be interesting to see how often it would collect the most votes.

9/12/16
Your Reader is wrong to say that we have a representative democracy.
If it were so, our MP’s would vote according to what they believe their electorate would wish them to vote.
We actually have a Parliamentary Democracy, in which MP’s only consider their own wishes and self interest.
Usually that means, in order of priority, the party whip (Leader’s views), a rich lobbyist, a political clique, or, when needing to be re-elected, what their party agent advises.

8/12/16
It’s sad, when a retired ship like HMS Illustrious ( Lusty ) is sent to the scrapyard but why is it invariably a foreign scrapyard?
In this case, a Turkish one.
Wouldn’t it make political sense to dismantle her in the same yards where she was assembled?
It’d create work for our domestic workforce, reduce the need for imported steel feedstock and enable ship designer’s to re-examine the viability of their original technique’s.

This was published as was a response but not my response Viz:

published
#|t’s sad when a retired ship like HMS Illustrious is sent to the scrapyard, but why is it invariably a foreign scrapyard (Mirror, Dec 8)?
Wouldn’t it make sense to dismantle her in the same yards where she was assembled, creating jobs for our domestic workforce?
John Shale, Wigan

published
SINKING FEELING
# John Shale of Wigan asks why HMS Illustrious was scrapped abroad (Madeuthink,
Decemberi 2).
In Hartlepool, Able UK scrapped ships and won a contract from the US to scrap 13 of its Navy ships. Four were brought to the yard. There followed a five-year legal battle brought by people who said it was dangerous to scrap ships in the UK.
The go-ahead was finally given but because of the case, the contract for the others was lost. I imagine no UK yard wants that sort of hassle.
Alan Short Redcar, North Yorks

Not published
Thanks to to Alan Short from Redcar for his letter on the response to my query about HMS Illustrious.
I was able to find details here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-24636597
 It’s a shame that a compromise couldn’t be reached.
I’m sure that a British scrapyard would have been a lot more conscientious in the waste handling than often happens, elsewhere.
This BBC report suggests that the waste from the four ships, which were dismantled, was dealt with in a proper manner.
It’s also worth noting that the USA mostly handles the dismantling of old naval vessels in its own facilities, such as the Philadelphia naval yard (http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/scrappers.htm)

3/12/16

Brian Reade has correctly identified the problem with paedophiles in football.
It’s not that there are no whistleblowers but that those in authority have always tried to cover it up.
It is not a crime to do so and maybe it should be, at least in this particular case.
So, let’s make it a criminal offence to not report such cases to the Police.
The Police may not have sufficient evidence to take action but they can, at least, make the accused formally aware that the matter is on file.
To make it effective, it should also be a crime for any member of the police force to not log the accusations.
That way repeat offenders can become known and the newly created Police Commissioners can justify closer surveillance of suspected paedophiles.

2/12/16
Wonderful!
Scientists in Bern say that we could have a decade of of icy Winter’s bringing starvation and death.
 Perhaps we should re-open the pits?

2/12/16
Politically there are two main issues, which concern the UK electorate.
They are Brexit and the NHS.
The Remain political elite are saying they’ll accept a “soft” Brexit but, as seen on BBC Question Time, Brexit voter’s do not want that.
This would seem to indicate another “shock” vote at the next General Election with only UKIP offering a true , or “hard”, Brexit.
Then, again UKIP is happy with the privatisation of the NHS, so, many  won’t vote UKIP.
But what if it’s true, as some say, that the EU rules mean that the privatisation of the NHS can not be reversed.
No-one seems to be offering a re-nationalisation of the NHS, even Corbyn has stayed eerily quiet on that point, whilst Tony Blair has teemed up with Branson, who looks to make millions out of the NHS.
On polling day, politicians and pundits will be hoping that voters will go for a “soft” Brexit.
It all depends on whether voters are as simple as politicians are hoping they are.
As I said, a “shock” vote could be on the cards, despite Blair and Branson’s millions and their “not for profit” trust.

The @DailyMirror campaign, to force an opt-out organ donation scheme on the UK, could be a cause for concern.

December 10, 2016

Would there be a lower age limit, or would those, too young to vote, be automatic candidates?
In view of the privatisation of the NHS and what we’ve seen with blood donations, would the trade in organs be administered by a private organisation (I include those claiming charitable status) and, if so, how would priorities be arranged? Hopefully not by auction.
Some people, because of religious beliefs, see their body as a temple to God and oppose desecration of that temple. It is likely that an over-zealous Hospital administration may be remiss in verifying that a deceased patient had opted out. Will there be sanctions for such cases, or will a “lessons will be learned” apology be deemed sufficient.
Will organs be harvested, “just in case”?
I’m sure there may be other issues but none seem to be addressed in this campaign, which dwells entirely on the feel-good gratitude of the recipients and the “everyone else is doing it” argument.

 

 

 

tweeted this last night. I wonder if the phrase “political cousins” will catch on.
“the Leader of the Opposition is one of a few Socialists The rest are political cousins”.

various blogs 4

December 1, 2016

28/11/16

Dan Jarvis is right to call on Labour MP’s to stop treating complaints on immigration as racism.
Such complaints are better understood by comparison with train journeys.
Of course some journeys will have empty seats but there will be some, where people will be packed like sardines, some sitting on the floor and some risking their health.
Those on the train will object to any more coming aboard.
Telling them that they are being racist won’t help and may even encourage them to accept the label out of anger.
The solution is to spend some money on more carriages.
In the same way, the best solution to racism in this country is to stop sacking public sector workers and create more jobs.
Build more houses, powerstations, reservoirs etc.
Create more public transport links.
Let Labour voters feel that they have some elbow room and won’t have to count their pennies.
In other words reverse all the policies of successive Governments since Maggie and re-nationalise.

published version (30/11/16)

#Dan Jarvis is right to call on Labour MPs to stop treating voters’
complaints about immigration as racism.
Telling people they are being racist when they have legitimate concerns
may even encourage some Labour voters to desert the party.
Labour voters need to feel they have some elbow room and a chance of
earning a fair wage.

28/11/16

When viewing the House of Lords, one sees many ex-MP’s, well over the age of 70.
Many make a useful contribution to their debates and it seems politics is one of those professions, where being old is not a problem.
In the wider world, most people find the life of work increasingly difficult upon reaching 60 and, indeed, once you’re past 50, you’ll notice employer’s taking a stronger interest in your abilities.
Look around most workplaces and you’ll see few people, especially men, over the age of 55.
I’ve no doubt that those public sector workers, reported as being made redundant, will mainly be in their 50’s.
True, we’re living longer but we’re still suffering the ravages of time and any talk of raising the pensionable age to 70 is a callous sentence of death for most of the population.
Who will employ these old wrecks? They can’t all work for B&Q.
Politician’s need to reconsider this intent, or are they also considering disenfranchising the old.

25/11/16
Paul Routledge’s piece about a snowflake generation was depressing, although his advice to them was sound, it is an extrinsic solution when an intrinsic solution is needed.
It needs a change in culture, which can be best implemented in schools,
The question is how it came about and what we can do about it.
It maybe that they’ve been over-protected with excessive H&S restrictions, too much separation from the realities of life with oven-ready chickens and restrictions against children having pocket money jobs.
Maybe they’ve been cowed by the lack of police protection from bullies and gangs, or from fear of being accused of committing hate crimes.
For me, their biggest handicap, pointed out by Paul Routledge, looks to be their inability to stand up in front of crowds and speak garbage, with confidence.
This ability seems to be key to achieving the best paying jobs of politics, sales, P.R., acting and all front room jobs involving the Public.
This is probably the one skill we need to copy from those who have attended Public Schools.
The US “Show and Tell” lessons, “mock elections and Debating Societies could possibly be more greatly emphasised in State Schools.

19/11/16

The Queen is said to prefer Windsor to Buck House and only uses Buckingham Palace for State functions.
Why not make a compulsory purchase?
Chequers could be fitted out for State functions, instead of being a second (rarely used) pad for the Chancellor.
Most of Buck House could be converted to accommodation for MP’s.
A new Parliamentary chamber could be built in the spacious Palace grounds and Westminster Palace could be sold off, saving the £3-4 Billion its refit will cost.

17/11/16

Capping whip lash claims for car accidents, shows up the farce of car insurance, which was originally enforced, by Law, to protect those hurt in car accidents.
The Road Traffic Act Insurance standard is no longer offered by Insurance Companies. In many cases their Third party, Fire and Theft has been totally supplanted by Comprehensive cover.
For many of us the “Service” offered by insurance companies is a legal imposition, which doesn’t make financial sense.
If Government wasn’t run for those, who own the Insurance companies (and will soon own our NHS), it’d make more sense to increase road tax and let the State carry the burden of those hurt in Road Traffic Accidents.
Those with expensive cars would still buy Comprehensive car insurance policies, without the threat of being arrested.

17/11/16

Jack Blanchard reports that the Chancellor is considering cutting air passenger duty in order to help those families, who are “just about managing” (JAM’s).
They truly have a different mind-set to the lower orders.
For them, “just about managing” probably means only having one foreign holiday a year, having a car that needs an MOT certificate, travelling by Second Class Rail etc.
For most, it’s having some money at the end of the week, having some Xmas presents for the kids, perhaps being able to afford a Newspaper.
It’s Mr Micawber’s definition of happiness.

9/11/16

I have a lot of sympathy with Prince Harry and his personal life.
It’s one thing to print pictures of his antics in a US hotel room, quite another to leer over the young woman, whom he is now romancing.
He’s a young man, who’s seen active service in a war zone and projected a far better image of this country than any present politician or celeb.
It’s fair enough to allow interest in his public life, although he’s not in direct line to the throne, but his private life seems unremarkable and doesn’t deserve the attention that it is getting from the Media.
Indeed, it is The Media, which controls this.
There are millions of trolls on Social Media but they are like piranha. They only nip into attack mode as part of a feeding frenzy.
We saw it, in the Media, with Brexit, where racists saw mainstream politicians sniping at immigrants and became emboldened to try to physically attack them in public.
IPSO is an irrelevance in such cases and it is up to Media Editor’s to take a responsible role.
In the case of Meghan Markle, it’s natural to report on her being seen with him, in public, but maybe the social media stories didn’t need encouragement by referencing them
As an example the papparazi telephoto shots of his sister-in-law sunbathing were not socially responsible and shouldn’t have been published. The black bars on the published photo’s made them worse in this respect.
Perhaps the Daily Mirror could take the lead, declare a self-censoring set of standards and promote them.
Try to make them the norm thoughout The Media, such that ordinary users of Social Media take them up and the Trolls feel isolated.

8/11/16

I hope, when Clinton makes her first speech to the nation,she has enough sense to incorporate a message of hope to those who voted against her, rather than for Trump.
It was quite clear on our screens that many black Americans were saying that despite successive Democrat Presidencies, they were still feeling oppressed.
Blue collar workers felt that they were being deprived of jobs and rhe ability to earn a decent living.
The Occupy movement reflects the feeling of many Americans that she only cares about those with money and that nothing has been done for those, whose houses were left empty, whilst they slept in trucks, after the sub-prime mortgages scandal.
There’s a lot of discontent in America and they have access to guns.

@DailyMirror publishes first puff piece in Blair’s campaign against populism

November 25, 2016

Tony Blair has begun his campaign to destroy #brexit,  with a puff piece in the Daily Mirror.

He begins by saying:

“When I say ‘let’s just keep our options open’, it’s condemned as treason”.

Straight in, with two lies in one sentence.

He uses his favourite impression  of “I’m just a nice, reasonable guy”

First lie is that he merely wants us to keep our options open, when he’s pushing  “The remain” option, as the one he’s wants to sell us.

M r. reasonable guy lays the ground for his second lie,  that this reasonable view has seen him condemned as treasonous.

No-one has condemned as treasonous for  wanting to keep our options open.

He’s been condemned as treasonous for the illegal Iraq war.

He’s also been condemned as anti-democratic in announcing that he’ll use his money and influence to try and overthrow the referendum vote.

This could be regarded as treason, depending on how he goes about it.

You have to look closely at everything he says.

That two-lie sentence wasn’t an off-the-cuff line.

It will have been carefully crafted, with the aid of his wordsmith, Alistair Campbell.

He’s announced that Labour has lurched to the Left and Tory’s to the Right, thus leaving the middle ground for him to step into and speak up for all those floating voters., who’ll buy what he’s selling.

It’s untrue that the Centre ground is vacant.

Corbyn and McDonnell may be old Left but they are heavily constrained by MP’s, who were raised to eminence under Blairite policies and who still occupy the centrist seat

(It wasn’t Socialists, who voted to bomb Syria).

For me , as a supporter of Corbyn, the mis-named centrist position isn’t a midway position, so much as a right of centre position and Tony Blair is a Tory in disguise.

Look at who he’s teamed up with.

Richard Branson isn’t a cavalier/hippy entertainments guy.

He’s the banker who’s buying up much of our NHS and is pushing to buy up more.

That’s why he’s linked up with Blair, who made his millions bringing “peace” to the Middle East and brokering deals for Haliburton and other US companies, eager to “help” in that region.

Listen to Blair but learn to recognise phrases that he repeats word for word, because they’re the one’s, which are selling the biggest lies

why keep crumbling buildings and outmoded traditions, when we plebs have to accept modernisation

November 20, 2016

If Republicans really believe our constitutional Monarchy needs updating, then lets clean house with Parliament first.
The pomp and circumstance of present Parliamentary traditions are a ridiculous relic of a period when the Rich turfed the peasantry off their land, so why keep it?
All State functions are being sold off in the name of efficiency, yet we still have MP’s voting by walking through lobbies.
We have the speaker elected and carried to his chair in a manner redolent of public school “high jinks”.
When there, he then spends most of his time calling for these same honourable members to come to “order, order, order”.
Black rod and the Queen’s speech are an unnecessary nonsense and would go, if we abandoned the Monarchy, anyway.

Either we keep these crumbling Palaces, institutions and farcical traditions, or we modernise, like any other rational nation.
If it’s felt that these places are important for tourism, we could keep just the facades that the tourists only ever see, as many our other cities have had to do.