Remember when you were in school assembly as a child and your head teacher told you some story that probably wasn't true (though you no doubt believed it at the time) that acted as a warning against some dangerous behaviour or action. A story about someone getting hit by a train because they were foolishly playing on the railway tracks perhaps, used as a scare story to stop you from playing on the railway tracks. Or a story warning of the dangers of playing with electricity. Or taking drugs, or so on and so forth.
It was similar with those old public information adverts. Or adverts warning of the dangers of drink driving. A gruesome dramatisation of what potentially could go wrong when people engage in such reckless and dangerous behaviour. Of course, the stories would always have much more weight or impact on the audience if they came with the label "this was based on a true story". Or if they were presented in a way where the audience would simply assume that it was a real event.
Anyway, many things in the news today are like that. Tweet. Stories, often not real, but presented as true to guide the audience or general public in their behaviour or thinking. Much like a teacher using a moralistic tale to guide their children. Hopefully it's being done with the same goodwill and intention in this larger pupil/teacher arena. Of course, the question then to ask is who teaches the teachers? What if they're the ones that have it wrong? And do they have the authority, moral or otherwise, to be doing all this?
Saturday, August 31, 2019
Friday, August 30, 2019
Salty Remainers, Crying To Judges
Now we have remainer MPs trying to get a legal ruling to overturn Boris's decision to prorogue parliament. Once again we have an ironical situation where the people crying over "democracy being suspended" are in fact seeking to undermine the whole damn thing. Bringing the courts into decisions that should be the preserve of the political arena.
We saw it last time, again with Boris. Where remainers were trying to get the courts to rule that his "350m Brexit bus" slogan was illegal. Whatever your thoughts on Boris and his political statements it's clearly up to the people to decide how valid they are. That's the whole point of elections - to make judgements on the politicians that rule us. If judges start intruding into that arena then it undermines democracy itself. Who will judge the judges? Who will hold them in check if not the people through their political representatives in parliament.
So it sets a dangerous precedent. Breaking the chain of democratic accountability.
Likewise with this latest attempt. Who do you want deciding when parliament is prorogued? A democratically elected leader or an unelected judge?
We will judge Boris at the next election. The judgement of Boris is a decision ultimately for the British people.
If these remainer MPs want Boris Johnson to be judged they should be calling for a general election. They should be making their case to the people. It's very telling that they're not doing this.
We saw it last time, again with Boris. Where remainers were trying to get the courts to rule that his "350m Brexit bus" slogan was illegal. Whatever your thoughts on Boris and his political statements it's clearly up to the people to decide how valid they are. That's the whole point of elections - to make judgements on the politicians that rule us. If judges start intruding into that arena then it undermines democracy itself. Who will judge the judges? Who will hold them in check if not the people through their political representatives in parliament.
So it sets a dangerous precedent. Breaking the chain of democratic accountability.
Likewise with this latest attempt. Who do you want deciding when parliament is prorogued? A democratically elected leader or an unelected judge?
We will judge Boris at the next election. The judgement of Boris is a decision ultimately for the British people.
If these remainer MPs want Boris Johnson to be judged they should be calling for a general election. They should be making their case to the people. It's very telling that they're not doing this.
Thursday, August 29, 2019
Short, but sweet
It's another day where I have to get up and leave the house pretty soon, so I can't type as much as I'd like. Which is a shame as yesterday was quite a day.
Boris prorogued parliament ..and the response from the remain side has been precisely as predicted. Namely hysterics and cries that he's shutting down democracy. We had the hashtags #StopTheCoup #GeneralStrike and even #Dictatorship trending on Twitter yesterday lmao.
We also had #AbolishTheMonarchy trending at one point. Which shows the level of meltdown on the part of remainers. The Queen is relatively popular across the country (certainly more popular than most politicians) so attacking the royal family is hardly a good strategy for winning people over to your side.
Nor is protesting in the street and stopping traffic.
I've mentioned before that proroguing parliament is not what I would do, it's quite a dangerous strategy as it's perceived as anti-democratic. So you risk losing the moral high ground. Something the leave side have had ever since the referendun ..however, I can't hide my glee that it's happening. I think this is the general feeling outside the remainer bubble. Finally someone has said no to these people. Hopefully they'll now be sidelined and we can get on with enacting the will of the people.
And I'll leave it at that for now.
Boris prorogued parliament ..and the response from the remain side has been precisely as predicted. Namely hysterics and cries that he's shutting down democracy. We had the hashtags #StopTheCoup #GeneralStrike and even #Dictatorship trending on Twitter yesterday lmao.
We also had #AbolishTheMonarchy trending at one point. Which shows the level of meltdown on the part of remainers. The Queen is relatively popular across the country (certainly more popular than most politicians) so attacking the royal family is hardly a good strategy for winning people over to your side.
Nor is protesting in the street and stopping traffic.
I've mentioned before that proroguing parliament is not what I would do, it's quite a dangerous strategy as it's perceived as anti-democratic. So you risk losing the moral high ground. Something the leave side have had ever since the referendun ..however, I can't hide my glee that it's happening. I think this is the general feeling outside the remainer bubble. Finally someone has said no to these people. Hopefully they'll now be sidelined and we can get on with enacting the will of the people.
And I'll leave it at that for now.
Wednesday, August 28, 2019
What Rory Did Next
Shoop shoop, shoop de-lang-a-lang, shoop shoop, shoop de-lang-a-lang.
I got a bit confused. That's What Katie Did by the Libertines. I was thinking it was What Katie Did Next, but that was by Babyshambles. Down in Albion. Shows how far from grace my music knowledge has fallen since the days when I used to listen to this stuff all the time. It has given me a nice excuse to listen to a lot of music that I haven't listened to in a while though.
The reason I had this song in my head was because a few days ago Rory Stewart returned to Twitter after a brief period of absence.
I got a bit confused. That's What Katie Did by the Libertines. I was thinking it was What Katie Did Next, but that was by Babyshambles. Down in Albion. Shows how far from grace my music knowledge has fallen since the days when I used to listen to this stuff all the time. It has given me a nice excuse to listen to a lot of music that I haven't listened to in a while though.
The reason I had this song in my head was because a few days ago Rory Stewart returned to Twitter after a brief period of absence.
(..back in twitterland)
Cool pic. Anyway, since then I've been intermittently thinking what will Rory do next?
Rory, of course, was one of the first people to suggest this idea of an alternative parliament in the event that the real parliament would be prorogued. So I was thinking, is he going to return to be a major figure leading the various cross-party politicians now plotting. Or, has he tempered his feelings about no deal and decided to sit back and let everyone else just get on with it.
As a Brexiteer I was obviously hoping it would be the latter. He's probably the only remain-leaning politician that has any genuine charisma at the moment. So he could tip the balance in their favour.
Sadly it looks as though he's back with a view to kill no deal. Yesterday on Twitter he responded to one of Boris's videos by comparing it to the comedy show Little Britain. I think that's a real window into his soul. Remainers love this "little Britain" meme. The idea that by voting to leave we're retreating into ourselves and into the past. It's simply not accurate and just allows us to see how remainers view their own country. More like Down on Albion ..urgh, total creenge, why do I say these things.
On the plus side I forgot how good Down in Albion is. Albexit.
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Blue Wave
Watching the Brexit Party live stream. I must say Nigel has been completely upstaged by Ann Widdecombe today. She was in fine fettle. Putting things in very clear terms.
It now seems that a Brexit Party / Conservative Party pact is openly and officially on the table for Boris at any future general election should he want it ..with conditions though. He has to be hard on Brexit, and there will be no room for halfhearted Tory remainers that think they can pay lip service to Brexit and then sneak on past any election.
Conversely Jeremy Corbyn is meeting the other opposition leaders today in a quest to find a way to avert a "no deal". You get the feeling that he's looking in the wrong direction. Worried about a no deal which faces out to the channel when there's a tidal wave coming in the other direction. The blue wave.
General Election?
It's hard to predict when any election will be. The general consensus seems to be that it's looking ever more likely. Though it seems Corbyn wants a general election, personally I can't imagine that many remainers in parliament actually want that to happen. It's clear they're doing everything they can to sideline Corbyn and have someone else lead the opposition in his stead. If they succeed in that and put Ken Clarke or someone in charge then how would they be in any sort of position to lead anyone into a general election??
It's hard to understand what's possible and not possible given how messy parliament is these days, but I would suspect if they do get a caretaker leader in charge they'll just try to limp on until May 2022. When the next general election is due under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Or as close as they can get to that date. It's a remain parliament after all, which is their last real point of strength in the country.
Of course, if they're absolutely desperate to stop Brexit at any cost they may just resign themselves to going with Corbyn. In which case an election becomes highly likely. Though even then it would no doubt follow the delay of Brexit rather than precede it. Then once in that scenario all sorts of excuses can be made to delay an election even longer.
The bigger the delay the bigger the tidal wave though. You can't avoid the British public forever.
It now seems that a Brexit Party / Conservative Party pact is openly and officially on the table for Boris at any future general election should he want it ..with conditions though. He has to be hard on Brexit, and there will be no room for halfhearted Tory remainers that think they can pay lip service to Brexit and then sneak on past any election.
Conversely Jeremy Corbyn is meeting the other opposition leaders today in a quest to find a way to avert a "no deal". You get the feeling that he's looking in the wrong direction. Worried about a no deal which faces out to the channel when there's a tidal wave coming in the other direction. The blue wave.
General Election?
It's hard to predict when any election will be. The general consensus seems to be that it's looking ever more likely. Though it seems Corbyn wants a general election, personally I can't imagine that many remainers in parliament actually want that to happen. It's clear they're doing everything they can to sideline Corbyn and have someone else lead the opposition in his stead. If they succeed in that and put Ken Clarke or someone in charge then how would they be in any sort of position to lead anyone into a general election??
It's hard to understand what's possible and not possible given how messy parliament is these days, but I would suspect if they do get a caretaker leader in charge they'll just try to limp on until May 2022. When the next general election is due under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. Or as close as they can get to that date. It's a remain parliament after all, which is their last real point of strength in the country.
Of course, if they're absolutely desperate to stop Brexit at any cost they may just resign themselves to going with Corbyn. In which case an election becomes highly likely. Though even then it would no doubt follow the delay of Brexit rather than precede it. Then once in that scenario all sorts of excuses can be made to delay an election even longer.
The bigger the delay the bigger the tidal wave though. You can't avoid the British public forever.
Monday, August 26, 2019
The Name Norman Lamont
I've been watching a lot of old documentaries about British politics recently. Yesterday I watched one from 1997 about Black Wednesday - this was when the British pound crashed as it tried to survive inside the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM).
I was only ten years old back in 1992 when it happened, so it's one of those things I was vaguely aware of in childhood, but with no real understanding of what it actually was. Anyway, as I watched yesterday it was interesting to note that many of the people in favour of staying in the ERM at the time are the same faces that are highly pro-remain in regard Brexit now. Kenneth Clarke, John Major, Michael Heseltine.
Poor Norman Lamont, who seemed less enthusiastic and was Chancellor at the time, got a bit of a rum deal. Again, as a child the name Norman Lamont was familiar, in a vague sort of way. It was a name I often overheard on TV or in adult conversation. Then later as a teenager when I began to become more politically aware myself it was a frequently occurring name on shows like Have I Got News For You. Where often the mere mention of the name alone would inspire laughter. I didn't fully get the reference, but it was easy enough to understand that he was a Tory politician who messed up the economy in a big way.
Returning to today we now have stories in the press that Kenneth Clarke could become Prime Minister as part of the efforts to thwart Brexit. Watching the documentary yesterday it became even more clear to me that for people like Kenneth Clarke and John Major European integration is their defining political ideology. Rightly or wrongly these politicians believe in this project to the extent that nothing can shake it. Not Black Wednesday, not the huge economic problems seen in Greece and elsewhere. Not the single biggest vote in British history.
I was only ten years old back in 1992 when it happened, so it's one of those things I was vaguely aware of in childhood, but with no real understanding of what it actually was. Anyway, as I watched yesterday it was interesting to note that many of the people in favour of staying in the ERM at the time are the same faces that are highly pro-remain in regard Brexit now. Kenneth Clarke, John Major, Michael Heseltine.
Poor Norman Lamont, who seemed less enthusiastic and was Chancellor at the time, got a bit of a rum deal. Again, as a child the name Norman Lamont was familiar, in a vague sort of way. It was a name I often overheard on TV or in adult conversation. Then later as a teenager when I began to become more politically aware myself it was a frequently occurring name on shows like Have I Got News For You. Where often the mere mention of the name alone would inspire laughter. I didn't fully get the reference, but it was easy enough to understand that he was a Tory politician who messed up the economy in a big way.
Returning to today we now have stories in the press that Kenneth Clarke could become Prime Minister as part of the efforts to thwart Brexit. Watching the documentary yesterday it became even more clear to me that for people like Kenneth Clarke and John Major European integration is their defining political ideology. Rightly or wrongly these politicians believe in this project to the extent that nothing can shake it. Not Black Wednesday, not the huge economic problems seen in Greece and elsewhere. Not the single biggest vote in British history.
Sunday, August 25, 2019
Boris and Trump
It's quite weird seeing Trump and Boris together at the G7. Obviously many people have commented upon how similar in appearance they look. Still it's odd how these things work.
Hopefully everything goes well there.
On a separate topic the Amazonian wildfires continue. The Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro has suggested that NGOs could be to blame. It's becoming a bit of a theme; nationalist leaders complaining about how NGOs are operating in their countries.
Rightly or wrongly it seems that globalism operates through NGOs. These NGOs, though non-profit and charitable, are nevertheless like all things political in nature. A few years ago you perhaps would've been labelled a conspiracy theorist for suggesting that an NGO or charity was being used to push a political agenda, but now it's a much more common expression.
Ultimately, as with the EU, globalism has now marched so far forward that it can't really be hidden anymore. Once upon a time if you said there were plans for an EU superstate you would've been considered paranoid. Now the choice between having an EU superstate and not having one is pretty much on the ballot paper. It's similar with the UN and all the various NGOs. Everything is now too visible to not be noticed. So finally we're all having a conversation about the pros and cons. I think this can only be a good thing.
Hopefully everything goes well there.
On a separate topic the Amazonian wildfires continue. The Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro has suggested that NGOs could be to blame. It's becoming a bit of a theme; nationalist leaders complaining about how NGOs are operating in their countries.
Rightly or wrongly it seems that globalism operates through NGOs. These NGOs, though non-profit and charitable, are nevertheless like all things political in nature. A few years ago you perhaps would've been labelled a conspiracy theorist for suggesting that an NGO or charity was being used to push a political agenda, but now it's a much more common expression.
Ultimately, as with the EU, globalism has now marched so far forward that it can't really be hidden anymore. Once upon a time if you said there were plans for an EU superstate you would've been considered paranoid. Now the choice between having an EU superstate and not having one is pretty much on the ballot paper. It's similar with the UN and all the various NGOs. Everything is now too visible to not be noticed. So finally we're all having a conversation about the pros and cons. I think this can only be a good thing.
Saturday, August 24, 2019
Optimism Versus Pessimism
Let's get cracking. I did have an idea of what I was going to write about earlier on today, but I got sidetracked watching football amongst other things, so I've now lost the moment a little. I was just going to point out the difference in attitude between Brexit supporters and Brexit naysayers. I saw yet another article this morning in the press where Donald Tusk was being incredibly negative about Boris's Brexit proposals.
It really is optimism versus pessimism.
I've mentioned on here before how dealing with remainers is a little bit like dealing with a friend or family member that doesn't want to do something, or keeps putting something off, but won't just admit that they don't want to do it.
"It's not that I don't want to paint the fence, it's just that the weather's been really awful lately."
"Argh, yeah, but what's the point in painting it, it's only going to get ruined again. Plus we don't even have the right paint."
"Urgh, but it's so much messing around. We've got people coming in and out the house, we'll get paint everywhere. I'll do it next year when we're less busy. That's if you haven't changed your mind by then."
You get the picture. It's a bit like that.
"..but we'll have to have checks at the border and everything."
"Urghh, but what about Northern Ireland?"
And so on.
The people that don't want Britain to leave just look to every excuse to avoid doing it. Of course, it's understandable. No one's enthusiastic when it comes to doing things they don't want to do. Nevertheless though it's getting a bit repetitive. The constant sad sack attitude and body language. Zero interest in alternative ideas and solutions. So little goodwill. Endless foot dragging and negativity. The contrast couldn't be more stark.
It really is optimism versus pessimism.
I've mentioned on here before how dealing with remainers is a little bit like dealing with a friend or family member that doesn't want to do something, or keeps putting something off, but won't just admit that they don't want to do it.
"It's not that I don't want to paint the fence, it's just that the weather's been really awful lately."
"..but the weather's supposed to be nice the next few weeks. We can do it then."
"I can get the paint. I'll even paint it, I don't mind. It'll give me something to do."
You get the picture. It's a bit like that.
"..but we'll have to have checks at the border and everything."
"..no worries, we all want as much trade as possible, I'm sure we can find ways around all that :) "
And so on.
The people that don't want Britain to leave just look to every excuse to avoid doing it. Of course, it's understandable. No one's enthusiastic when it comes to doing things they don't want to do. Nevertheless though it's getting a bit repetitive. The constant sad sack attitude and body language. Zero interest in alternative ideas and solutions. So little goodwill. Endless foot dragging and negativity. The contrast couldn't be more stark.
Friday, August 23, 2019
Handshakes and Body Language
I watched the Boris Johnson/Emmanuel Macron joint statement from earlier today, well, technically yesterday - I'm writing in the early hours (this is counting as tomorrow's post, or today's post I guess). Anyway, what was highlighted, as ever whenever Macron meets another world leader, was the body language. He did that handshake thing again, refusing to let go of Boris's hand. It's generally touted as a dominance display, but it just looks a bit arsey.
I always think these type of things are signs of sociopathy. In my personal experience the people who do this have always been ..err, not that nice. I remember one company I worked for where one of the area managers was renowned for gripping people's hands really tightly when shaking. He kind of deliberately crushed the knuckles like it was some weird kind of wrestling move. I'm sure as you read you're imagining this all taking place in some high-powered business-type environment, but sadly no, it was in the lowly world of retail. Imagine that, stacking shelves and getting your hands crushed. The glamour.
Real. World. Experience. (!) ..not like ya politicians.
Anyhow, the handshake was such a big deal I remember actually being prepped for it by the other staff and managers. I was told you had to show you could withstand the grip (like it was some kind of test of character) but to not compete with him by gripping too hard back lmao. When the moment came and he shook my hand I just let out a half-joking, over-exaggerated "argghhh". He couldn't tell if I was patronising him or in genuine agony. I didn't care for the job though, so it was a little bit of cost free personal amusement on my part. I think I'd use the same strategy if I ever had to shake Macron's hand. You've got to confuse these people. Their chimp displays get easily spooked when confronted with ambivalence.
I used to witness this behaviour on the part of Macron and think, "wow, he seems like a total sociopath". However, I'm now beginning to wonder if it's a product of coaching. The media seem to obsess over it so much it's almost like they're aware that this is a deliberate tactic. Perhaps he's been groomed for leadership.
Personally I'm very doubtful that this sort of thing is of any value. It just looks like gesturing, literally. Of course, Macron comes from the banking world, so maybe it worked in that environment. A top down hierarchical world where everyone has to pander to the whims of those directly above them. A world full of bastards where you need a dominant bastard to crack a few heads together. Perhaps this is why the elites love Macron so much.
When people say the EU is run by bank managers it sounds quite boring and humdrum, but the reality is that it means being run top-down by people like this. People who are obsessed with handshakes and dominating their counterparts.
Democracy is about consensus though, and also it must be said about humanity. Our societies aren't simply businesses in need of management. So we want to be led first and foremost by good men and women. A handshake is supposed to be a gesture of goodwill. Why would anybody want to dominate it?
I always think these type of things are signs of sociopathy. In my personal experience the people who do this have always been ..err, not that nice. I remember one company I worked for where one of the area managers was renowned for gripping people's hands really tightly when shaking. He kind of deliberately crushed the knuckles like it was some weird kind of wrestling move. I'm sure as you read you're imagining this all taking place in some high-powered business-type environment, but sadly no, it was in the lowly world of retail. Imagine that, stacking shelves and getting your hands crushed. The glamour.
Real. World. Experience. (!) ..not like ya politicians.
Anyhow, the handshake was such a big deal I remember actually being prepped for it by the other staff and managers. I was told you had to show you could withstand the grip (like it was some kind of test of character) but to not compete with him by gripping too hard back lmao. When the moment came and he shook my hand I just let out a half-joking, over-exaggerated "argghhh". He couldn't tell if I was patronising him or in genuine agony. I didn't care for the job though, so it was a little bit of cost free personal amusement on my part. I think I'd use the same strategy if I ever had to shake Macron's hand. You've got to confuse these people. Their chimp displays get easily spooked when confronted with ambivalence.
I used to witness this behaviour on the part of Macron and think, "wow, he seems like a total sociopath". However, I'm now beginning to wonder if it's a product of coaching. The media seem to obsess over it so much it's almost like they're aware that this is a deliberate tactic. Perhaps he's been groomed for leadership.
Personally I'm very doubtful that this sort of thing is of any value. It just looks like gesturing, literally. Of course, Macron comes from the banking world, so maybe it worked in that environment. A top down hierarchical world where everyone has to pander to the whims of those directly above them. A world full of bastards where you need a dominant bastard to crack a few heads together. Perhaps this is why the elites love Macron so much.
When people say the EU is run by bank managers it sounds quite boring and humdrum, but the reality is that it means being run top-down by people like this. People who are obsessed with handshakes and dominating their counterparts.
Democracy is about consensus though, and also it must be said about humanity. Our societies aren't simply businesses in need of management. So we want to be led first and foremost by good men and women. A handshake is supposed to be a gesture of goodwill. Why would anybody want to dominate it?
Thursday, August 22, 2019
Macron - "British attached to being a great power"
Still mainly fixated with the Greenland story, but what else can you really say about that without getting sucked into conspiracising.
Anyway, back closer to normal politics we have Boris Johnson meeting Angela Merkel, etc. Is it the G7 now? It's always so hard to keep up with these things. It kind of all blends into one.
Apparently the meeting with Merkel went well, but we also have some stiff words from Emmanuel Macron.
He suggested that Britain outside the EU would become a vassal state of the US, though it seems like currently Germany is a vassal state of the French-speaking world. We could have a great relationship with Germany were it not for the EU. It's quite sad really.
I've just read that Macron is hosting the G7 at the weekend. So I'm guessing Boris meeting Merkel yesterday and Macron today is just a Boris thing. I have no idea what's going on. Why are you even reading this? :)
My haphazard approach will pay off in the end though. A good overview requires that you don't get too bogged down in the details unless it's absolutely essential.
Anyway, back closer to normal politics we have Boris Johnson meeting Angela Merkel, etc. Is it the G7 now? It's always so hard to keep up with these things. It kind of all blends into one.
Apparently the meeting with Merkel went well, but we also have some stiff words from Emmanuel Macron.
"We have to help the British deal with this internal democratic crisis but we mustn't be hostage to it nor export it."Stating that the Brexit deal wouldn't be re-negotiated. Later on (I'm lazily reading a BBC article as I type) he's also quoted as saying;
"the British are attached to being a great power"They really have an oozing dislike of Britain. It's almost like globalism is threatened in some way by Britain's desire for independence. It'll be such a relief to finally leave.
He suggested that Britain outside the EU would become a vassal state of the US, though it seems like currently Germany is a vassal state of the French-speaking world. We could have a great relationship with Germany were it not for the EU. It's quite sad really.
I've just read that Macron is hosting the G7 at the weekend. So I'm guessing Boris meeting Merkel yesterday and Macron today is just a Boris thing. I have no idea what's going on. Why are you even reading this? :)
My haphazard approach will pay off in the end though. A good overview requires that you don't get too bogged down in the details unless it's absolutely essential.
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
Greenland and Landless
Just a quickster today. First up the Trump Greenland saga seems to be really rolling on. I thought this might be one of those odd stories that just pops up then goes away again, but it seems to have legs. Again, I'd really love to know what's going on up there, so it's a fascinating story to follow.
I've also just saw a story on the BBC stating;
When I first saw the article I original just assumed it was about another part of the world, but no it's here.
I've also just saw a story on the BBC stating;
210,000 children are estimated to be homeless, with some being temporarily housed in converted shipping containershttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49412835
When I first saw the article I original just assumed it was about another part of the world, but no it's here.
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
Garden Politics
Firstly, a little follow up from yesterday. I mentioned resources. A good example is the internet and the digital tech we now have. People have the resource of their laptop, and from that we now have a superabundance of art, music, journalism, blogs, books, memes and so on and so forth. Part of the impetus for this comes from a desire to make money and become successful of course, but it also comes from a natural desire to create and to share.
If people had the resources to produce more tangible things, like food for instance, we'd have a similar abundance of output. In this day and age, with our advancing technological prowess, we could feed ourselves ten times over if individuals only had the space to be as creative and industrious offline as they are online.
Sadly though the space people have as individuals seems to be shrinking. A good example being the way newly built homes tend to be very small and have a distinct lack of garden.
Part Two.
A little change of tack now. Immigration. It occurs to me that many of the people pushing for hyper-immigration simply don't realise the damage they're doing, and I think it's a psychological issue to some extent. I think they see countries like the US and UK as so big, bad and domineeringly white, and the various minorities as so tiny, weak and small, that they simply cannot conceive the impact these "tiny" immigrants are having on the "enormous" destination countries.
It's a bit like when you play fight with a child. You, the adult, go easy and just joke around, but the child comes at you with all their might. Safe in the belief that they're so small in comparison that it's impossible they could ever actually hurt you. Now it's not so bad when they're just toddlers and they're kicking and punching you, but when they start getting a bit older, say six or seven, it's not quite the same. I sometimes have to say to my nephews, "whoa, mate, if you punch and kick me that really hurts, you're getting too big to do that." But in their heads they simply don't see how big they're getting and conversely still see you the adult as an all-knowing, all-powerful grown-up. Impervious to their little fists of fury.
I think it's similar with immigration. Some people are saying "whoa, this is really damaging us, we can't cope with these immigration levels. It's really hurting us." But the people on the other side of the argument simply cannot envision that that could ever be the case. They see the various host populations as so big and so dominant that it's impossible in their minds that they could ever hurt under the weight of immigration. So therefore any complaints must be down to some other reason. Racism, nationalism, ignorance, etc.
Ironically this attitude is the very opposite of a true belief in equality. As it judges all people, their views and their problems, through the lens of race and creed. It's similar when it comes to things such as crime. A person from a minority background who commits a crime may be deemed a victim of their circumstances and therefore not entirely responsible for their actions, something which may in part be true of course. However, conversely someone from a non-minority background who commits a crime may be deemed entirely responsible for their actions, with no excuse for their behaviour.
It's a worldview that views and treats minorities as children, and that views and treats non-minority people (including they themselves, the people expressing these beliefs) as the responsible adults. It's a very imperial worldview in many ways.
If people had the resources to produce more tangible things, like food for instance, we'd have a similar abundance of output. In this day and age, with our advancing technological prowess, we could feed ourselves ten times over if individuals only had the space to be as creative and industrious offline as they are online.
Sadly though the space people have as individuals seems to be shrinking. A good example being the way newly built homes tend to be very small and have a distinct lack of garden.
Part Two.
A little change of tack now. Immigration. It occurs to me that many of the people pushing for hyper-immigration simply don't realise the damage they're doing, and I think it's a psychological issue to some extent. I think they see countries like the US and UK as so big, bad and domineeringly white, and the various minorities as so tiny, weak and small, that they simply cannot conceive the impact these "tiny" immigrants are having on the "enormous" destination countries.
It's a bit like when you play fight with a child. You, the adult, go easy and just joke around, but the child comes at you with all their might. Safe in the belief that they're so small in comparison that it's impossible they could ever actually hurt you. Now it's not so bad when they're just toddlers and they're kicking and punching you, but when they start getting a bit older, say six or seven, it's not quite the same. I sometimes have to say to my nephews, "whoa, mate, if you punch and kick me that really hurts, you're getting too big to do that." But in their heads they simply don't see how big they're getting and conversely still see you the adult as an all-knowing, all-powerful grown-up. Impervious to their little fists of fury.
I think it's similar with immigration. Some people are saying "whoa, this is really damaging us, we can't cope with these immigration levels. It's really hurting us." But the people on the other side of the argument simply cannot envision that that could ever be the case. They see the various host populations as so big and so dominant that it's impossible in their minds that they could ever hurt under the weight of immigration. So therefore any complaints must be down to some other reason. Racism, nationalism, ignorance, etc.
Ironically this attitude is the very opposite of a true belief in equality. As it judges all people, their views and their problems, through the lens of race and creed. It's similar when it comes to things such as crime. A person from a minority background who commits a crime may be deemed a victim of their circumstances and therefore not entirely responsible for their actions, something which may in part be true of course. However, conversely someone from a non-minority background who commits a crime may be deemed entirely responsible for their actions, with no excuse for their behaviour.
It's a worldview that views and treats minorities as children, and that views and treats non-minority people (including they themselves, the people expressing these beliefs) as the responsible adults. It's a very imperial worldview in many ways.
Monday, August 19, 2019
Get Off Your A... And Do Something
Just a little addendum to that last post. The general attitude of governments towards their people is; "you have to get off your arse and do something, stop living off the state". An increasingly common way of living for many people.
However, if you don't have your own resources. Again, land or space being the primary resource (i.e. somewhere to do something in basic terms). Then really you can't get off your arse and do something. As you have nowhere to do that something and nothing to do it with.
What you can do is go and ask someone else with resources to give you a job. Perhaps a job that many other people also want, or increasingly it seems a job that possibly doesn't even exist. However, you're ultimately dependent on that person or company giving you a job.
If they won't give you one, or there simply isn't one to give you, then you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Being asked to create your own wealth, but with no resources to do that. Essentially being expected to create something from nothing.
Therefore to empower people and get people off the state and into self-sufficiency we need to free up resources.
However, if you don't have your own resources. Again, land or space being the primary resource (i.e. somewhere to do something in basic terms). Then really you can't get off your arse and do something. As you have nowhere to do that something and nothing to do it with.
What you can do is go and ask someone else with resources to give you a job. Perhaps a job that many other people also want, or increasingly it seems a job that possibly doesn't even exist. However, you're ultimately dependent on that person or company giving you a job.
If they won't give you one, or there simply isn't one to give you, then you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Being asked to create your own wealth, but with no resources to do that. Essentially being expected to create something from nothing.
Therefore to empower people and get people off the state and into self-sufficiency we need to free up resources.
Slave to the Grave ..or perhaps not
Yesterday I saw the stories about raising the retirement age to 75. I first thought it was some sort of policy announcement when I saw the headlines. So my initial feeling was this is terrible timing. Why depress everybody with a story like this now. Get Brexit out the way first. However, it was just a think tank report, so it's not quite as bad. Still though it's going to set a bad tone. This is the sort of thing that kind of annoys normal working people.
Of course, everyone knows it's highly likely that things will be heading this way sooner or later anyway. So it's not really news. The initial reaction will be "where will all these extra jobs come from in the future?". But from a government point of view it will probably save money even if many just get shifted from being on a pension to being on unemployment or sickness benefit.
Again, these type of trends are quite depressing on face value. It doesn't exactly feel like progress knowing that everybody's going to be working longer. Where's the technological dividend?
Shouldn't progress be meaning less work for everybody. More leisure time.
Such changes would feel more welcome if it was along of the lines of; yes, we're working longer, but the quality of working life will be better. Perhaps the working week itself shorter even.
It's a little bit like the green belt.
Currently we have a view that says. From leaving school or university your life will be a long miserable slog, but then you get a completely work free retirement which you can enjoy.
A la with the green belt. We're going to completely ruin most parts of the country, but these "green belt" bits are going to be kept completely pristine.
Surely it would be much better to try to make our entire lives happier and more in tune with our desires. Likewise it would make much more sense to make our entire country as beautiful and as in tune with nature as possible.
Of course, these two ideas are entwined and complementary, but politicians and the various think tanks guiding them seem to lack the vision to see beyond the GDP.
What sort of country do we want? What sort of world? What sort of lifestyle?
I've already written more than I planned to, but I really think we need a 21st century vision for the economy that transcends previous models. That actually focuses on what people actually need in real terms. Food, housing, water, energy. And that gives them the ability to provide these things for themselves.
I've wrote about the housing issue elsewhere; The False Dichotomy of Rent and Mortgage
This is the nub of the problem. People are so disenfranchised as things currently stand.
People not only need their own homes, but they need access to resources. The greatest of which is land. Things as simple as allotments. We have huge waiting lists for allotments. People want to grow food. We should make this easier, it's the most basic market economy. It makes every community more robust if they have the space and opportunity to grow and create. Unleash the gardener in people.
Likewise with energy. Technology should be moving us towards a situation where people and communities can take responsibility for their own energy production. Again though, they need the resource of space to do it.
Our towns and cities are currently facing the prospect of having empty unused high streets as their focal points. We should have beautiful towns and cities with public orchards, allotments, gardens as their focal points. Seamlessly intertwined with what remains of more traditional high street commerce. Flowers, trees, bee-keeping. The 21st century village green. The city green.
I'm getting a bit flowery and heady myself now. So I'll stop (I'll return to Brexit tomorrow, I promise)
I do feel we lack imagination though. Where's the vision for something that's actually better. A way of living that's more sustainable and enjoyable.
The current vision seems to be; "it's the same as the 20th century, but you work longer and have iPhones."
Of course, everyone knows it's highly likely that things will be heading this way sooner or later anyway. So it's not really news. The initial reaction will be "where will all these extra jobs come from in the future?". But from a government point of view it will probably save money even if many just get shifted from being on a pension to being on unemployment or sickness benefit.
Again, these type of trends are quite depressing on face value. It doesn't exactly feel like progress knowing that everybody's going to be working longer. Where's the technological dividend?
Shouldn't progress be meaning less work for everybody. More leisure time.
Such changes would feel more welcome if it was along of the lines of; yes, we're working longer, but the quality of working life will be better. Perhaps the working week itself shorter even.
It's a little bit like the green belt.
Currently we have a view that says. From leaving school or university your life will be a long miserable slog, but then you get a completely work free retirement which you can enjoy.
A la with the green belt. We're going to completely ruin most parts of the country, but these "green belt" bits are going to be kept completely pristine.
Surely it would be much better to try to make our entire lives happier and more in tune with our desires. Likewise it would make much more sense to make our entire country as beautiful and as in tune with nature as possible.
Of course, these two ideas are entwined and complementary, but politicians and the various think tanks guiding them seem to lack the vision to see beyond the GDP.
What sort of country do we want? What sort of world? What sort of lifestyle?
I've already written more than I planned to, but I really think we need a 21st century vision for the economy that transcends previous models. That actually focuses on what people actually need in real terms. Food, housing, water, energy. And that gives them the ability to provide these things for themselves.
I've wrote about the housing issue elsewhere; The False Dichotomy of Rent and Mortgage
This is the nub of the problem. People are so disenfranchised as things currently stand.
you cannot be resourceful if you do not have resources
Likewise with energy. Technology should be moving us towards a situation where people and communities can take responsibility for their own energy production. Again though, they need the resource of space to do it.
Our towns and cities are currently facing the prospect of having empty unused high streets as their focal points. We should have beautiful towns and cities with public orchards, allotments, gardens as their focal points. Seamlessly intertwined with what remains of more traditional high street commerce. Flowers, trees, bee-keeping. The 21st century village green. The city green.
I'm getting a bit flowery and heady myself now. So I'll stop (I'll return to Brexit tomorrow, I promise)
I do feel we lack imagination though. Where's the vision for something that's actually better. A way of living that's more sustainable and enjoyable.
The current vision seems to be; "it's the same as the 20th century, but you work longer and have iPhones."
Sunday, August 18, 2019
Remainer Drama
Another short one. Again, just surveying the chaos. More wrangling by remain politicians trying to get some sort of motley crew together to undermine the leadership of their own country. Sorry, that was a quite pejorative way of putting it on my part, but it's hard to hide my disapproval.
On top of this we've had more reports today in the press of the potential chaos a no deal Brexit would cause - food shortages, fuel shortages, medicine shortage. It's like the boy who cried wolf. I've mentioned before on here how these sort of fear-inducing press reports are water off a ducks back for leavers, and only really serve to make remainers ever more hysterical.
They create their own myths and monsters, then, lacking the self-awareness to understand their own role in creating them, shriek in fear when they hear them re-mentioned.
On top of this we've had more reports today in the press of the potential chaos a no deal Brexit would cause - food shortages, fuel shortages, medicine shortage. It's like the boy who cried wolf. I've mentioned before on here how these sort of fear-inducing press reports are water off a ducks back for leavers, and only really serve to make remainers ever more hysterical.
They create their own myths and monsters, then, lacking the self-awareness to understand their own role in creating them, shriek in fear when they hear them re-mentioned.
Saturday, August 17, 2019
Greenlandia
I should really focus on the more mundane, but the story that keeps grabbing my interest is this one about Trump wanting to buy Greenland. It's one of those stories that just seems odd to most people. "What! Why?" I think they just view it as another weird Trump story. That crazy Trump wanting to buy some real estate.
I remember reading that after World War II the Americans wanted to buy Greenland. So it can't just be a Trump thing. It must have some genuine strategic value to America. The attempt to purchase it perhaps made more sense at the very beginnings of the Cold War, though many would say we're now heading back that way. So perhaps the situation is still no different.
The clues in the name. It's all about the cold bits of the Earth's surface. The Alaska purchase also springs to mind. Again being in a similar part of the world.
I don't want to get too conspiratorial so I'll leave it there. I'd love to know what the hell's going on up there though.
I remember reading that after World War II the Americans wanted to buy Greenland. So it can't just be a Trump thing. It must have some genuine strategic value to America. The attempt to purchase it perhaps made more sense at the very beginnings of the Cold War, though many would say we're now heading back that way. So perhaps the situation is still no different.
The clues in the name. It's all about the cold bits of the Earth's surface. The Alaska purchase also springs to mind. Again being in a similar part of the world.
I don't want to get too conspiratorial so I'll leave it there. I'd love to know what the hell's going on up there though.
Friday, August 16, 2019
Daily Round Up
First up we actually have a Brexit Party candidate for Middlesbrough now. A youngish woman called Faye Clements. No idea who she is, but it appears from her social media that she's a costume designer who likes Rick and Morty. So quite cool and arty which is promising.
We also have a candidate for the nearby Stockton North constituency called Martin Walker. Again no idea, but that's another fairly safe Labour seat, so it's BP targeting Labour here with these candidates. I don't think they've put forward a candidate for Stockton South yet, which is another seat currently held by Labour, but only marginally so. It was Conservative previously. So perhaps they're leaving that one for the Tories to contest. Likewise they haven't yet put forward a candidate for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (I don't think) which is currently a Conservative hold.
On a separate, but I guess related issue, we also seemed to have a lot of wrangling yesterday over potential plots and alliances to thwart "no deal". I was out most of the day yesterday so struggled to keep up, but I get the impression all sorts of unholy alliances are in the pipeline. Following in a similar manner to the Caroline Lucas cross-party Loose Women style national government plan, and the earlier Rory Stewart Civil War reenactment counter parliament type plan.
It seems the biggest problem the various plotters have is deciding what they hate more - No Deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn.
Today we see articles suggesting that Kenneth Clark and Harriet Harman could lead an "emergency" government to stop no deal. It all seems a bit mad.
Personally I'm quite laid back about it all. I know we're going to have two more whole months of this. So it's probably worth stepping back and taking a pause for breath at this point. There's no point wasting too much energy. Better to just survey the situation from a good vantage point.
(Faye Clements, Brexit Party - Twitter)
We also have a candidate for the nearby Stockton North constituency called Martin Walker. Again no idea, but that's another fairly safe Labour seat, so it's BP targeting Labour here with these candidates. I don't think they've put forward a candidate for Stockton South yet, which is another seat currently held by Labour, but only marginally so. It was Conservative previously. So perhaps they're leaving that one for the Tories to contest. Likewise they haven't yet put forward a candidate for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (I don't think) which is currently a Conservative hold.
On a separate, but I guess related issue, we also seemed to have a lot of wrangling yesterday over potential plots and alliances to thwart "no deal". I was out most of the day yesterday so struggled to keep up, but I get the impression all sorts of unholy alliances are in the pipeline. Following in a similar manner to the Caroline Lucas cross-party Loose Women style national government plan, and the earlier Rory Stewart Civil War reenactment counter parliament type plan.
It seems the biggest problem the various plotters have is deciding what they hate more - No Deal Brexit or Jeremy Corbyn.
Today we see articles suggesting that Kenneth Clark and Harriet Harman could lead an "emergency" government to stop no deal. It all seems a bit mad.
Personally I'm quite laid back about it all. I know we're going to have two more whole months of this. So it's probably worth stepping back and taking a pause for breath at this point. There's no point wasting too much energy. Better to just survey the situation from a good vantage point.
Thursday, August 15, 2019
Arron Banks' Greta Thunberg Tweet
This was something I saw on Twitter yesterday and immediately thought "oh, that's gonna blow up".
(Arron Banks tweeting about
Greta Thunberg)
My initial reaction was the same as Julia Hartley-Brewer's. She is a child and it is quite a tasteless joke to make. He probably shouldn't have posted it. However, it was a joke. That's pretty clear to anyone reading it, whatever their thoughts on it. So it's hardly crime of the century.
Arron Banks is someone who speaks quite bluntly. Having followed him on Twitter for a while it's clear he doesn't pander to people with his language. This is something I normally quite like. Most the people on Twitter, on all sides of the argument (probably including me half the time), are quite fake. So it's quite refreshing at times when people just say what they think, or joke about what they feel like joking about. Regardless of the wider perception.
In fact, it reminds me a little bit of certain family members I have. Of course, normally that's just in the safety of your own living room. A family member makes a mildly tasteless joke about someone on TV, and you react with "you can't say that !".
Anyway, needless to say, it has blown up a bit. It's currently trending on Twitter (admittedly just in the UK where every minor political soap opera story trends). The much in the media at the moment Caroline Lucas has made a complaint to Twitter about it. Saying it made her "sick to the stomach". Which in turn has led to it appearing on the BBC and elsewhere.
Now, as I've mentioned on here before. Greta Thunberg has been put into the media spotlight by adults. She's essentially being used as a political prop to push a certain worldview. These people are putting her front and centre of this campaign knowing full well that she'll be the focus of any criticism. Be it political or personal in nature. This is something that's a great deal more tasteless than the joke made by Banks in my opinion. Though again, his joke was a little too far across the line for my own tastes.
Julia Hartley-Brewer summed it all up fairly succinctly in another tweet.
(JHB tweet)
So this is the game really. In fact, it reminds me of an image of Greta Thunberg that appeared earlier this year. An image perhaps worth sharing. Where she really does look like a child surrounded by adults. The single image says more than my entire article and all the other media coverage combined ever could in a way.
(Greta Thunberg with politicians, including
Caroline Lucas)
In the long run it'll be very interesting though. Greta Thunberg is clearly a very intelligent, lovely young girl. She'll be much more difficult to manage when she gets older and starts forming her own opinions.
Although the mainstream media will no doubt conveniently get bored of her when that happens.
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
tiny_post
Seems a bit quiet at the moment. Probably a good time to do a tiny little post. Save me some effort. No point just typing for the sake of it. I insist on posting daily though!
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
Witching Season, Part II
I said I'd follow up the Caroline Lucas "all female" cabinet story. It's fairly easy to do so. She was roundly criticised, not just by people on the other side of the fence, but also by people on her own side, who complained that her proposed cabinet was an "all white list of women" lmao. Something she's subsequently apologised for.
I wouldn't normally put lmao in a blog post, but it really is just getting a bit mad now. It's beyond satire even.
It seems like the progressive left have well and truly entered a purity spiral. Where the standards to become a member become ever higher. This is normally something you would associated with the alt-right - that's not the alt-right as envisioned by the mainstream media, i.e. anyone with an opinion about immigration other than complete open borders. But the actual unironic alt-right, the small minority of people who want an actual racial ethnostate.
It goes like this. They want their racial enthnostate, but the problem then comes "who gets in?". What counts as white European? Do we let the Italians in? What about the Irish? What about people that just "look" a bit dark?
"Steve has a great-grandmother who was an immigrant, do we let him in?"
Where do you draw the line?
The requirements to count as "pure" spiral ever upwards until no one's left that can fit. The bar becomes too high for anyone, even those deciding where the bar is.
This is what happens when an ideology is faced with reality. Either it's accepted that the idea is wrong, in this case that there's no such thing as a pure racial type, or you keep refining the criteria in an attempt to find it, excluding ever more people. (Or of course you just lie, to both yourself and others. As many with this ideology often end up doing).
In progressive politics we now have a similar situation. The ideology that is in people's heads, that says there must be absolute "equality" in all things, when confronted with a natural world or set of circumstances that doesn't quite fit, goes into spiral mode. Anyone not whiter than white (pardon the pun, but it's the perfect analogy) is excluded. Even Caroline Lucas, one of the most progressive politicians on the block, can be denounced as horrible, racist and prejudiced.
For all my criticism of her political positions she's clearly a very nice woman. She's certainly not a racist that's for sure. So it's just crazy for anyone to have any such complaints about her ..but as they say in the ironic, media-labelled alt-right, they end up eating their own.
How far this all goes and where it all ends is anyone's guess. However, you would think that surely examples such as this latest one will go someway in highlighting the absurdity. We're creating standards of progressivism that even the progressives making the rules can't live up to. Something has to give.
Finally, on a side note, I became aware of the following article from the Guardian from about a week ago. Stating that women are turning to witchcraft to counter Trump. It's another lmao. I thought I better highlight it as it once again fits very nicely with the Halloween theme.
I wouldn't normally put lmao in a blog post, but it really is just getting a bit mad now. It's beyond satire even.
It seems like the progressive left have well and truly entered a purity spiral. Where the standards to become a member become ever higher. This is normally something you would associated with the alt-right - that's not the alt-right as envisioned by the mainstream media, i.e. anyone with an opinion about immigration other than complete open borders. But the actual unironic alt-right, the small minority of people who want an actual racial ethnostate.
It goes like this. They want their racial enthnostate, but the problem then comes "who gets in?". What counts as white European? Do we let the Italians in? What about the Irish? What about people that just "look" a bit dark?
"Steve has a great-grandmother who was an immigrant, do we let him in?"
Where do you draw the line?
The requirements to count as "pure" spiral ever upwards until no one's left that can fit. The bar becomes too high for anyone, even those deciding where the bar is.
This is what happens when an ideology is faced with reality. Either it's accepted that the idea is wrong, in this case that there's no such thing as a pure racial type, or you keep refining the criteria in an attempt to find it, excluding ever more people. (Or of course you just lie, to both yourself and others. As many with this ideology often end up doing).
In progressive politics we now have a similar situation. The ideology that is in people's heads, that says there must be absolute "equality" in all things, when confronted with a natural world or set of circumstances that doesn't quite fit, goes into spiral mode. Anyone not whiter than white (pardon the pun, but it's the perfect analogy) is excluded. Even Caroline Lucas, one of the most progressive politicians on the block, can be denounced as horrible, racist and prejudiced.
For all my criticism of her political positions she's clearly a very nice woman. She's certainly not a racist that's for sure. So it's just crazy for anyone to have any such complaints about her ..but as they say in the ironic, media-labelled alt-right, they end up eating their own.
How far this all goes and where it all ends is anyone's guess. However, you would think that surely examples such as this latest one will go someway in highlighting the absurdity. We're creating standards of progressivism that even the progressives making the rules can't live up to. Something has to give.
Finally, on a side note, I became aware of the following article from the Guardian from about a week ago. Stating that women are turning to witchcraft to counter Trump. It's another lmao. I thought I better highlight it as it once again fits very nicely with the Halloween theme.
(meme magic vs witchcraft, the
final showdown)
Monday, August 12, 2019
The Witching Season Is Getting Nearer
I really need to keep this short as I have to head on out pretty soon. However, I feel this is one I could write a fair bit about.
Yesterday the following article appeared, where the Green MP Caroline Lucas calls for a "cabinet of national unity" made up of 10 all female MPs.
Where do you start with this one. Again, I'll have to get up and go take a shower in a few minutes so I can't overindulge (I've wasted enough time changing her face colour lol), but it ticks so many boxes. Brexit hysteria, gender politics, parliamentary shenanigans. It feels totemic. It's part amusing, part terrifying. Perhaps I should come back to it tomorrow maybe.
The point I will make here though is a point I've made before. Imagine these politicians were prepared to go to these lengths to tackle homelessness or knife crime, or the myriad other real problems we have.
It's very telling that of all the things they're prepared to cause chaos over this is the topic they choose - the fear that we'll leave an economic union.
..something that a majority of the voting population actually voted for too.
Yesterday the following article appeared, where the Green MP Caroline Lucas calls for a "cabinet of national unity" made up of 10 all female MPs.
(The Guardian article. I'll be honest, her face wasn't green
in the original image. I did that. I just couldn't resist. The first thing that
sprung to mind when I saw the article was a witches' coven. Sorry
if that's too un-PC, but it all fits so nicely with the Halloween theme)
Where do you start with this one. Again, I'll have to get up and go take a shower in a few minutes so I can't overindulge (I've wasted enough time changing her face colour lol), but it ticks so many boxes. Brexit hysteria, gender politics, parliamentary shenanigans. It feels totemic. It's part amusing, part terrifying. Perhaps I should come back to it tomorrow maybe.
The point I will make here though is a point I've made before. Imagine these politicians were prepared to go to these lengths to tackle homelessness or knife crime, or the myriad other real problems we have.
It's very telling that of all the things they're prepared to cause chaos over this is the topic they choose - the fear that we'll leave an economic union.
..something that a majority of the voting population actually voted for too.
Sunday, August 11, 2019
Autumn Calling
Kinda feels like the first day of autumn today. First time I've noticed it feel a bit chilly. Saying that I'm sat in shorts and t-shirt with the windows open, so it can't be that bad really. Still though it feels a bit damp and grey. Hopefully we'll get a few more spurts of summer before we head fully into autumn.
It'll start gradually getting colder as we gradually head towards Brexit. Some things transcend normal day to day politics and the seasonal weather cycle is one of them. We can't control the weather, we just have to work around it.
My first thought when the Brexit date was pushed back to Halloween was the weather. Spring is a new beginning, by Halloween you're heading into winter. Brexit followed by 3 months of summer is different to Brexit followed by three months of winter. Again, you just can't escape the weather. It's bigger than politics. Dark depressing nights, icy roads, all that jazz. So leaving at the beginning of November isn't going to be appealing to many people. It's the main reason I suspect it will be delayed. (Yet again).
Personally I'd leave in a blizzard, but that's just me. With green/blue eyes and freckled skin I feel like I'm genetically primed for dark nights, damp weather and bonfires. So Guy Fawkes might be fun if we do actually leave. I'm not optimistic though.
If we do leave though as planned one positive will be the Christmas economic spending bounce. Everyone will be spending more money buying presents and decorations and the economy will get its yearly kick.
Another positive regarding the weather is that it's going to be pretty cold around the leaving date. Hopefully if it's pouring down it'll make it less likely that all the outraged middle class remainers will head out onto the streets. It's easy to protest and have a nice day out when the weather is clement, but when you're soaked through and your cleverly worded placard is damp and dripping wet it's not quite the same. Likewise with the Tommy Robinson leave idiots. Not quite as easy to be all shouty and angry in the biting cold.
Perhaps we'll have some type of minor Armada moment where Providence brings a stormy tempest to disperse all the protesters from the streets.
Hopefully it'll piss down every day in the week running up to Halloween, then be nice and dry for the Guy Fawkes Day celebrations :)
It'll start gradually getting colder as we gradually head towards Brexit. Some things transcend normal day to day politics and the seasonal weather cycle is one of them. We can't control the weather, we just have to work around it.
My first thought when the Brexit date was pushed back to Halloween was the weather. Spring is a new beginning, by Halloween you're heading into winter. Brexit followed by 3 months of summer is different to Brexit followed by three months of winter. Again, you just can't escape the weather. It's bigger than politics. Dark depressing nights, icy roads, all that jazz. So leaving at the beginning of November isn't going to be appealing to many people. It's the main reason I suspect it will be delayed. (Yet again).
Personally I'd leave in a blizzard, but that's just me. With green/blue eyes and freckled skin I feel like I'm genetically primed for dark nights, damp weather and bonfires. So Guy Fawkes might be fun if we do actually leave. I'm not optimistic though.
If we do leave though as planned one positive will be the Christmas economic spending bounce. Everyone will be spending more money buying presents and decorations and the economy will get its yearly kick.
Another positive regarding the weather is that it's going to be pretty cold around the leaving date. Hopefully if it's pouring down it'll make it less likely that all the outraged middle class remainers will head out onto the streets. It's easy to protest and have a nice day out when the weather is clement, but when you're soaked through and your cleverly worded placard is damp and dripping wet it's not quite the same. Likewise with the Tommy Robinson leave idiots. Not quite as easy to be all shouty and angry in the biting cold.
Perhaps we'll have some type of minor Armada moment where Providence brings a stormy tempest to disperse all the protesters from the streets.
Hopefully it'll piss down every day in the week running up to Halloween, then be nice and dry for the Guy Fawkes Day celebrations :)
Saturday, August 10, 2019
Power Cut Strangeness
Yesterday was an odd one. What with the power cuts an' all. Fortunately my area was unaffected, which is the main thing :) It was quite strange though as it seemed to affect multiple parts of the country and not just a specific region. Which I guess would suggest it was more a systemic issue, rather than an actual physical issue or breakage in a particular part of the power network. It also seemed to disproportionately affect the transport network - though that may just be a false impression I have based on what I saw in the media. The loss of power at Newcastle Airport seemed especially odd given how remote it was from all the other areas affected.
Director of operations, Duncan Burt (I have no idea who that is I'm just copying a BBC article) stated it was an incredibly rare event, "the near simultaneous loss of two large power stations". The article also states that he did not believe it was a cyber attack.
Obviously I have no real idea what happened, but I would lean towards the idea that it was either a test of some sort (one necessitating that the public be kept in the dark), a cyber attack, or some other sort of digital malfunction.
Having watched more of the Duncan Burt interview he seems to suggest that power was deliberately directed away from transport services and hospitals by the system in response to the power shortage - a kind of automatic systems response. Explaining the disproportionate affect on the transport network perhaps. However, again this seems odd given that you'd think the system would prioritise hospitals and transport in such a circumstance. Something he acknowledged when pressed by the interviewer, saying it needed looking into.
So we have the simultaneous loss of two power stations. Unlikely, but certainly possible. Yet also a failure in how the network responded to the crisis. Again perfectly possible, these things happen. However, taken together with the loss of the two power stations we have a series of unlikely occurrences it seems.
Hopefully it won't happen again anytime soon.
Director of operations, Duncan Burt (I have no idea who that is I'm just copying a BBC article) stated it was an incredibly rare event, "the near simultaneous loss of two large power stations". The article also states that he did not believe it was a cyber attack.
Obviously I have no real idea what happened, but I would lean towards the idea that it was either a test of some sort (one necessitating that the public be kept in the dark), a cyber attack, or some other sort of digital malfunction.
Having watched more of the Duncan Burt interview he seems to suggest that power was deliberately directed away from transport services and hospitals by the system in response to the power shortage - a kind of automatic systems response. Explaining the disproportionate affect on the transport network perhaps. However, again this seems odd given that you'd think the system would prioritise hospitals and transport in such a circumstance. Something he acknowledged when pressed by the interviewer, saying it needed looking into.
So we have the simultaneous loss of two power stations. Unlikely, but certainly possible. Yet also a failure in how the network responded to the crisis. Again perfectly possible, these things happen. However, taken together with the loss of the two power stations we have a series of unlikely occurrences it seems.
Hopefully it won't happen again anytime soon.
Friday, August 9, 2019
Shrinking Island
Quick post today. Big news today seems to be that the UK economy has shrank by 0.2% between April and June. I blame Brexit. People were so disappointed that we hadn't left that they just stopped working and putting the effort in.
Seriously though it's always hard to read these things. July was hot as hell, so it'll be interesting to see what this quarter will look like, plus we're heading into another potential leave scenario. One poor quarter we can kind of dismiss it. Two on the bounce, with Brexit on the horizon, people will be hysterical. Also it flips the narrative a bit too. So far Brexiteers like myself have been able to say "look, the economy's doing great, all the doomsayers were wrong ..the European economies however.."
That was never going to last forever though. So it will most definitely now affect the dialogue. When you make such a big song and dance about economic numbers. Whether in a positive or negative way. When the numbers flip you're always going to get a lot of detractors saying "..ha, but you were happy to use these statistics when they were in your favour."
Seriously though it's always hard to read these things. July was hot as hell, so it'll be interesting to see what this quarter will look like, plus we're heading into another potential leave scenario. One poor quarter we can kind of dismiss it. Two on the bounce, with Brexit on the horizon, people will be hysterical. Also it flips the narrative a bit too. So far Brexiteers like myself have been able to say "look, the economy's doing great, all the doomsayers were wrong ..the European economies however.."
That was never going to last forever though. So it will most definitely now affect the dialogue. When you make such a big song and dance about economic numbers. Whether in a positive or negative way. When the numbers flip you're always going to get a lot of detractors saying "..ha, but you were happy to use these statistics when they were in your favour."
Thursday, August 8, 2019
UK: Football vs Politics
It's transfer deadline day for the English Premier League today, so Brexit has to take a backseat. In Britain there's a hierarchy and football is very much on top. We could be going to war, but the football season's starting and it's much more important to know who Manchester United may or may not be signing. Sadly, I'm just as bad as everyone else, so I'm much more consumed by the football at the moment.
In fact, I should really check the football calendar to see what clashes with the Halloween leaving date. If it's a dreaded international break then Brexit will be front and centre (no one wants to see an England friendly these days), but if there's a big game in the Premier League most people won't even notice Brexit happening. If on the other hand there's a big Champions League tie then that could be problematic. If fans miss an important game because of chaos at the border then that will probably mean a new Prime Minister. Or at the very least a Cobra meeting.
Of course, for all the doom and gloom constantly touted by the financial experts in regard Brexit - the so-called "uncertainty in the markets" - there's a rather distinct lack of it in the football world.
We don't see footballers and their agents going;
"Hmm, well, we would go to Manchester City, but what with the Brexit uncertainty an' all we'd probably better wait until we known for sure what the situation is."
The real world and the real market forces continue unabashed in the footballing world it seems.
In fact, I should really check the football calendar to see what clashes with the Halloween leaving date. If it's a dreaded international break then Brexit will be front and centre (no one wants to see an England friendly these days), but if there's a big game in the Premier League most people won't even notice Brexit happening. If on the other hand there's a big Champions League tie then that could be problematic. If fans miss an important game because of chaos at the border then that will probably mean a new Prime Minister. Or at the very least a Cobra meeting.
Of course, for all the doom and gloom constantly touted by the financial experts in regard Brexit - the so-called "uncertainty in the markets" - there's a rather distinct lack of it in the football world.
We don't see footballers and their agents going;
"Hmm, well, we would go to Manchester City, but what with the Brexit uncertainty an' all we'd probably better wait until we known for sure what the situation is."
The real world and the real market forces continue unabashed in the footballing world it seems.
Wednesday, August 7, 2019
BBC No Deal Prepping
Visiting the BBC News site today I saw the "no deal" Brexit feature pieces. I didn't really bother reading them (as you can see from the image below I only even clicked on the first one). Again, as I've mentioned before I'm starting to get bored with reading and talking about it all. I feel we've had the same circular arguments about the dangers of "no deal" for three full years now.
(BBC "no deal" Brexit features)
Anyway, my reason for highlighting these articles is that they seem to strike a more practical tone. Informing people, in a reasonably balanced way, about the practical consequences of a "no deal". Prepping people in a sense, rather than just pushing a political angle. This makes me think that perhaps a "no deal" (do I have to keep putting quotation marks around that?) is looking more likely. In fact, the first article with the fruit and veg imagery is almost identical to an article the BBC published earlier in the year when no deal was looking quite likely then.
On a side note I actually think the BBC has became more balanced on this over the last year or so. It's easy to bash the media, and I've done it a fair bit over the last few years, however you also have to give credit too. For all the supposed division in the country I actually feel like Britain is collectively finding common ground. Sure, the hard remain and hard leave arguments aren't going to disappear anytime soon, but I do think people are increasingly beginning to understand the feelings of people on the opposing side of the argument.
In fact, my main worry remains the EU. I still don't see any sign that they're prepared to change tack. To stop seeing Brexit as an enemy that needs to be defeated, and to start seeing it as simply people on one part of the continent choosing a slightly different path.
In Britain we quite like a good argument. It seems to be our default setting. There are problems with this of course, but one of the great benefits is that the political and social landscape evolves pretty quickly. If someone has a problem with something you get told fairly fast and have no choice but to confront it, with politeness taking a backseat if necessary. It's not even considered impolite to shout and argue in our parliament, which I personally think is great (we're quite a rowdy bunch). It is however something that isn't to everyone's taste, and that's perfectly understandable.
On the continent, particularly within the EU, it seems they much prefer consensus. Again, that way of doing things can have huge benefits, but it does mean that problems sometimes get hidden under the carpet. Then when they do rear their head the arguing and criticism feels all the more stinging, as people just aren't used to being presented with such intransigence. Watching all the various Brexit documentaries I often get a sense that the EU politicians take the criticism a lot more personally than we do. I'm sure this is a cultural thing. I just don't think they're used to being verbally attacked in this way, they have a different way of operating. Whereas for us it's just normal political life.
I always get the same feeling whenever I see Nigel Farage give a tirade in the EU parliament. I feel like tweeting to the EU politicians "Don't worry, this is normal for us, this is how we speak to each other. We don't just speak to you guys like this."
Perhaps there just is a fundamental cultural difference though. The EU like their long term, set in stone plans, we like our more flexible, constant chatter approach. So maybe it's better we head down different paths. This doesn't mean there has to be any enmity though. In fact, it could be great for both sides.
Tuesday, August 6, 2019
Brexit Party Transgender Candidate
The Brexit Party have announced some more of their candidates. The big news seems to be that one is seeking to be the UK's first transgender MP. My first impression is that this seems like tokenism. A kind of "look, we're not bigoted, we're the first party to attempt to get a trans person elected" type thing.
Obviously the transgender issue is quite a controversial one too, so it's something that will generate a lot of content on social media. No doubt in the mainstream media too, though it'll be difficult for news outlets on either side to know how to play this one. Will "the right" take to heart a transgender politician and the accompanying trans rights activism? Will "the left" be able to stomach giving credit to the Brexit Party for being progressive? They've certainly been reluctant to credit them for their gay and ethnic MEPs so far.
I won't go into my own views about the transgender issue here as I've written about this before. So it's easier to just direct anyone interested here -->> The Gender Spectrum Explained
Obviously the transgender issue is quite a controversial one too, so it's something that will generate a lot of content on social media. No doubt in the mainstream media too, though it'll be difficult for news outlets on either side to know how to play this one. Will "the right" take to heart a transgender politician and the accompanying trans rights activism? Will "the left" be able to stomach giving credit to the Brexit Party for being progressive? They've certainly been reluctant to credit them for their gay and ethnic MEPs so far.
I won't go into my own views about the transgender issue here as I've written about this before. So it's easier to just direct anyone interested here -->> The Gender Spectrum Explained
(..._)
Monday, August 5, 2019
Take some time..
There's a natural taboo around death. If someone dies basic human decency implores us to show respect. To say nice, respectful things, or just show a dignified silence. To not speak ill of the dead, especially in the weeks and months following the death.
Even if we didn't like the person in life, or we think that they were a bad person we still show this respect. Partly out of respect to them, partly out of respect for human life in general, and partly out of respect for their family and friends. Who will be in a state of sadness and grief. That are trying to understand and come to terms with a huge loss in their life.
Now sadly some unscrupulous people may exploit death, and the social taboos surrounding it. Either by opportunistically capitalising on an actual death, or by simply concocting a death and exploiting the outpouring of sympathy. Like a conman who invents a tale of self-woe to con an old lady out of her life savings.
Of course, if you call out such a conman it's you that looks like the bad guy. Especially if the people being conned have emotionally invested in his tragic tale. "How could you say such a thing, this man lost his entire family in a freak boating accident."
Again, that natural taboo. In a normal decent society it would be heartless to question such a story, and decent people quite naturally see such a lack of respect for the recently deceased as something intuitively wrong. So if you do suspect that such a tale is false it's a tricky position to be in. You don't like to see your friends and family being conned, but social convention prevents you from speaking out. Plus of course your suspicions could be wrong, in which case you'd very much be the bad person.
So what am I really getting at here? As per the example, basic human decency forbids me from saying. However, what I would stress is that when changes are made to the way we live. Political changes, societal changes. We should always take the time to seriously think about the potential consequences of the changes we're proposing or supporting, and not just base our opinions on emotional "in the moment" responses.
When we make major changes to the laws that govern our societies we need to think about everyone in society, as well as the future generations that will follow us. So it's incumbent upon us all that when serious events occur. Events that make us reconsider our laws and mores. That we first allow a time to grieve. A period of respect for those directly affected. Then patiently and with due diligence proceed with the political response. Allowing for civilised debate, considered thought and time enough to contextualise fully the events that have occurred.
If we act in the heat of the moment. Perhaps based on faulty information, or even deliberately false information. Then that's how major mistakes are made and further problems caused.
Even if we didn't like the person in life, or we think that they were a bad person we still show this respect. Partly out of respect to them, partly out of respect for human life in general, and partly out of respect for their family and friends. Who will be in a state of sadness and grief. That are trying to understand and come to terms with a huge loss in their life.
Now sadly some unscrupulous people may exploit death, and the social taboos surrounding it. Either by opportunistically capitalising on an actual death, or by simply concocting a death and exploiting the outpouring of sympathy. Like a conman who invents a tale of self-woe to con an old lady out of her life savings.
Of course, if you call out such a conman it's you that looks like the bad guy. Especially if the people being conned have emotionally invested in his tragic tale. "How could you say such a thing, this man lost his entire family in a freak boating accident."
Again, that natural taboo. In a normal decent society it would be heartless to question such a story, and decent people quite naturally see such a lack of respect for the recently deceased as something intuitively wrong. So if you do suspect that such a tale is false it's a tricky position to be in. You don't like to see your friends and family being conned, but social convention prevents you from speaking out. Plus of course your suspicions could be wrong, in which case you'd very much be the bad person.
So what am I really getting at here? As per the example, basic human decency forbids me from saying. However, what I would stress is that when changes are made to the way we live. Political changes, societal changes. We should always take the time to seriously think about the potential consequences of the changes we're proposing or supporting, and not just base our opinions on emotional "in the moment" responses.
When we make major changes to the laws that govern our societies we need to think about everyone in society, as well as the future generations that will follow us. So it's incumbent upon us all that when serious events occur. Events that make us reconsider our laws and mores. That we first allow a time to grieve. A period of respect for those directly affected. Then patiently and with due diligence proceed with the political response. Allowing for civilised debate, considered thought and time enough to contextualise fully the events that have occurred.
If we act in the heat of the moment. Perhaps based on faulty information, or even deliberately false information. Then that's how major mistakes are made and further problems caused.
Sunday, August 4, 2019
In the Month of Augustus
A little bit different today. On my other blog I sometimes point out that religions can be viewed as redundant political systems. Once upon a time, in an age before the separation of church and state, religions were the state. And religious law was the law. There was no clear separation. Our failure to recognise this often leads us to misunderstand the past.
Anyway, the case in point that struck me today comes in regard the calendar. Many of our months and days are named after gods and historical figures. Thursday and Friday named after Thor and Freya. The month we're in now, August, supposedly named for the Roman emperor Augustus. The previous month, July, likewise said to be named for Julius Caesar.
We often look back at our forebears with condescension when we see how they named such things after gods, or viewed mere men as gods - or possibly allowed themselves to be ruled by men who portrayed themselves as gods ..but perhaps we're misunderstanding the past. After all we have similar things now.
Lincoln's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Guy Fawkes Day, Columbus Day, and so forth.
All named for real world political figures or for important cultural/political events. Over time these events and figures have become somewhat larger than life, and the further back in time they occurred the more so they begin to blur into myth and legend. Perhaps one day, on seeing the "Lincoln Day" in the calendar, along with the various Lincoln statues we leave to posterity, future people may deem that we worshipped Abraham Lincoln in a similar way to the way the Romans were said to worship Caesar.
Of course, if they did this they'd be completely misunderstanding our culture and why we have these things.
On understanding this the logical thing to do is to reappraise our Roman forebears, give them a bit more credit, and recognise that such relics in our calendar perhaps arrived there because of similar social and political reasons. Rather than due to some vague religious fervour. Perhaps it was also at one time the same with the various "gods" representing the days of the week.
Over time the calendar has become more complex and precisely measured. So it would make sense that we first starting naming the months and the recurring week days. Only to then get more precise later as we developed the technology to more easily remember specific dates. Maybe Lincoln would've got a whole month had he arrived on the scene a few millennia earlier. (Jesus, the major figure in western historic tradition got the whole calendar started on his birthday (!) )
Today we tend to see ourselves as being much more advanced than these earlier cultures, and we believe that we've left a lot of their bad habits behind ..but are we really so different?
Take the inquisition and various other religious persecutions. Where people were persecuted as heretics for simply not believing. For not believing in Jesus Christ, or for not believing the correct version of Christianity. For not believing that a man died for our sins. Surely we wouldn't persecute people today for not believing that someone died? Or that a popular event in our culture wasn't quite as reported. Thank God we're past that, hmm..
It seems that by not believing you become a heretic. Again, we tend to think of these things in purely religious terms now, but like Lincoln's birthday or perhaps the month of July, they're very much political in nature. Heresy is not about belief, but about unbelief. If you stray from the "official" line then you become heterodox. It makes perfect sense. If you question those with power and refuse to fall in line then obviously they're not going to like that very much. It makes much more sense than priests and kings persecuting people for no other reason than religious pedantry.
Once again, we think we've left all this behind. That we're beyond all that backwards superstition and persecution, but the more savvy will see the parallels with the modern world only too well.
It could be said that in many ways the modern heretic is the conspiracy theorist. Again that unbelief thing. "What, you don't believe we went to the Moon? Are you saying all the governments and institutions are lying !! ?"
The conversation must have been similar in earlier times.
"What, you don't believe in the Trinity! Are you saying all the priests and kings are part of some vast conspiracy?"
I'm overdramatising a little, but you get the point. It's not that hard for "conspiracies" or untruths to take root in any society, including today's. Most people will believe anything, or at least pretend to believe anything, if it pays the rent or mortgage. As Winston Zeddemore says in Ghostbusters "..if there's a steady paycheck in it I'll believe anything you say." However, for those that refuse, or for those that reach a point where they simply can't believe nor pretend to believe no more, then they become heretics.
Anyway, the case in point that struck me today comes in regard the calendar. Many of our months and days are named after gods and historical figures. Thursday and Friday named after Thor and Freya. The month we're in now, August, supposedly named for the Roman emperor Augustus. The previous month, July, likewise said to be named for Julius Caesar.
We often look back at our forebears with condescension when we see how they named such things after gods, or viewed mere men as gods - or possibly allowed themselves to be ruled by men who portrayed themselves as gods ..but perhaps we're misunderstanding the past. After all we have similar things now.
Lincoln's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Guy Fawkes Day, Columbus Day, and so forth.
All named for real world political figures or for important cultural/political events. Over time these events and figures have become somewhat larger than life, and the further back in time they occurred the more so they begin to blur into myth and legend. Perhaps one day, on seeing the "Lincoln Day" in the calendar, along with the various Lincoln statues we leave to posterity, future people may deem that we worshipped Abraham Lincoln in a similar way to the way the Romans were said to worship Caesar.
Of course, if they did this they'd be completely misunderstanding our culture and why we have these things.
(A very able looking statue of Abe Lincoln, flanked by Augustus
- and you wonder how the rumours started)
On understanding this the logical thing to do is to reappraise our Roman forebears, give them a bit more credit, and recognise that such relics in our calendar perhaps arrived there because of similar social and political reasons. Rather than due to some vague religious fervour. Perhaps it was also at one time the same with the various "gods" representing the days of the week.
Over time the calendar has become more complex and precisely measured. So it would make sense that we first starting naming the months and the recurring week days. Only to then get more precise later as we developed the technology to more easily remember specific dates. Maybe Lincoln would've got a whole month had he arrived on the scene a few millennia earlier. (Jesus, the major figure in western historic tradition got the whole calendar started on his birthday (!) )
Today we tend to see ourselves as being much more advanced than these earlier cultures, and we believe that we've left a lot of their bad habits behind ..but are we really so different?
Take the inquisition and various other religious persecutions. Where people were persecuted as heretics for simply not believing. For not believing in Jesus Christ, or for not believing the correct version of Christianity. For not believing that a man died for our sins. Surely we wouldn't persecute people today for not believing that someone died? Or that a popular event in our culture wasn't quite as reported. Thank God we're past that, hmm..
It seems that by not believing you become a heretic. Again, we tend to think of these things in purely religious terms now, but like Lincoln's birthday or perhaps the month of July, they're very much political in nature. Heresy is not about belief, but about unbelief. If you stray from the "official" line then you become heterodox. It makes perfect sense. If you question those with power and refuse to fall in line then obviously they're not going to like that very much. It makes much more sense than priests and kings persecuting people for no other reason than religious pedantry.
Once again, we think we've left all this behind. That we're beyond all that backwards superstition and persecution, but the more savvy will see the parallels with the modern world only too well.
It could be said that in many ways the modern heretic is the conspiracy theorist. Again that unbelief thing. "What, you don't believe we went to the Moon? Are you saying all the governments and institutions are lying !! ?"
The conversation must have been similar in earlier times.
"What, you don't believe in the Trinity! Are you saying all the priests and kings are part of some vast conspiracy?"
I'm overdramatising a little, but you get the point. It's not that hard for "conspiracies" or untruths to take root in any society, including today's. Most people will believe anything, or at least pretend to believe anything, if it pays the rent or mortgage. As Winston Zeddemore says in Ghostbusters "..if there's a steady paycheck in it I'll believe anything you say." However, for those that refuse, or for those that reach a point where they simply can't believe nor pretend to believe no more, then they become heretics.
Saturday, August 3, 2019
Elections (lazy post)
Another shorty. I'm really just posting for the sake of it here. I'm determined to post everyday though. Can't let myself get too lazy.
The 50 Brexit Party candidates were revealed yesterday. No one for my area yet :( however, we do have a lady standing for Redcar, Jacqueline Cummins, which is just down the road from here. So things are beginning to move.
Also, I forgot to mention yesterday that the Lib Dems won the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election (I think that's in Wales). Looking at the percentage shares it seems the Lib Dems did very well indeed. Of course, the Conservative vote was split by the Brexit Party standing.
Liberal Democrat: 43.5%
Conservative: 39%
Brexit Party: 10.5%
Labour: 5.3%
The result wasn't too bad for the Conservatives in terms of illustrating their potential vote share should they fulfil Brexit. Labour clearly got trounced though.
Looking at the Lib Dem vote share it leads one to wonder how many of those were voting because of Brexit (remain voters), how many because of a genuine feel for the party in general, and how many just because they've lost faith in, or dislike Labour.
I get the feeling that the way things are heading every individual seat at any forthcoming general election will be a unique set of circumstances. Understanding the local terrain and having a good grass roots campaign could be key. The Lib Dems seem to be excelling in that area at the moment. I've criticised them in previous posts on here by they do seem to have momentum and a clear (or at least clearer) message.
I don't want to think too far ahead but if there continues to be animosity between the Brexit Party and the Conservatives things could get quite chaotic. Of course, this by-election means that there's one more remainer in parliament too now. Which makes a general election even more likely I guess. So it's interesting times.
(That wasn't too short was it actually. Shows that it's just a case of giving yourself that initial kick up the arse to get yourself started.)
The 50 Brexit Party candidates were revealed yesterday. No one for my area yet :( however, we do have a lady standing for Redcar, Jacqueline Cummins, which is just down the road from here. So things are beginning to move.
Also, I forgot to mention yesterday that the Lib Dems won the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election (I think that's in Wales). Looking at the percentage shares it seems the Lib Dems did very well indeed. Of course, the Conservative vote was split by the Brexit Party standing.
Liberal Democrat: 43.5%
Conservative: 39%
Brexit Party: 10.5%
Labour: 5.3%
The result wasn't too bad for the Conservatives in terms of illustrating their potential vote share should they fulfil Brexit. Labour clearly got trounced though.
Looking at the Lib Dem vote share it leads one to wonder how many of those were voting because of Brexit (remain voters), how many because of a genuine feel for the party in general, and how many just because they've lost faith in, or dislike Labour.
I get the feeling that the way things are heading every individual seat at any forthcoming general election will be a unique set of circumstances. Understanding the local terrain and having a good grass roots campaign could be key. The Lib Dems seem to be excelling in that area at the moment. I've criticised them in previous posts on here by they do seem to have momentum and a clear (or at least clearer) message.
I don't want to think too far ahead but if there continues to be animosity between the Brexit Party and the Conservatives things could get quite chaotic. Of course, this by-election means that there's one more remainer in parliament too now. Which makes a general election even more likely I guess. So it's interesting times.
(That wasn't too short was it actually. Shows that it's just a case of giving yourself that initial kick up the arse to get yourself started.)
Friday, August 2, 2019
Brexit Party GE Candidates
I'll keep it short this time. I ended up sat there til two in the morning with the last one. Plus the English football season is starting this weekend, so plenty of distractions.
Today the Brexit Party are announcing 50 of their potential GE candidates. So it'll be interesting to take a look at them. To see who they are and where they're standing. We should learn a lot. I wonder if they have someone lined up for my area??
Today the Brexit Party are announcing 50 of their potential GE candidates. So it'll be interesting to take a look at them. To see who they are and where they're standing. We should learn a lot. I wonder if they have someone lined up for my area??
I'm Bored Of The Irish Border
Almost forgot to post today. Was just gonna head off for bed, but it suddenly occurred that I hadn't had my daily whine. So a cup of coffee, some music and little bit of typing in the midnight hour for me.
Having been on Twitter at varying points today I get the feeling that things are fragmenting a little bit politically. I'm talking about the general public here. I think people are starting to get tired of the Brexit argument, from both sides. I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I guess it was inevitable that the fizz would start to go. It always massively benefits the status quo whenever this happens. As change requires energy. So I fear for Brexit if Boris's heart (and his boundless energy) is not in it.
I can feel this jadedness myself. Today we've seen more fear regarding the potentiality of a "no deal", especially in regard Northern Ireland yet again. Before I would've been annoyed and ready to make the counter argument, but I haven't really felt the urge to do that today. Mainly through sheer boredom. I'm getting too bored to even argue now (!) There are only so many times you can explain the Irish border to someone.
I said I was getting bored making this argument, but I've somehow found the ire and energy to do it here it seems - even at this late hour 😄
It is quite infuriating though to see people looking for problems that aren't really there, and refusing to look at the nuts and bolts reality.
The way the doom-mongers conflate the Irish border and the border in the English Channel is particularly revealing and indicative of their lack of basic common sense too.
Obviously when things come into the country by a sea port there have to be checks. As a ship journey ends, and a land journey begins. So goods need to be unloaded from a ship and then loaded onto a lorry or some other vehicle. So you have to check to make sure you know what's coming off the ship or going onto the lorry, or vice versa.
Because of these checks at the ports - be they extra checks, or just different checks - then yes, there could be some temporary slow down at these borders. It would only be temporary though, as the change is adapted to, and it isn't really a huge thing to worry about. Certainly not to the extent of panic reporting we've been subjected to. Of course, in reality, as everyone who's worked in the real world knows, sometimes checks can be rushed through or completely ignored anyway if things are running way behind schedule. So even if there were delays they could be dealt with pretty quickly I would wager.
I'm not sure how seriously regulations are taken at the ports - I would guess much more strictly than the places I've worked (: However, we are just talking about basic goods for the most part here. If a company pays for 40,000 tins of beans but only receives 38,000 on the delivery it's bad for business, but hardly a national security issue. Plus it must be noted, all the doom-mongers and remainers getting their heads in a tizz over border checks seem rather blase about the countless illegal migrants that are turning up in the backs of lorries every day at it stands. I really don't know how they have the nerve to complain about the potential state of a post-Brexit border when the borders are in absolute chaos already.
At the Irish border there's obviously no need for such checks though. It's not like goods are unloaded from one vehicle and then put into another at the border. It's just one long journey from factory to warehouse, or warehouse to shop. This is just basic common sense. It shouldn't need pointing out really. Although to be fair these things, even though they're simple, practical things, only really become obvious once you begin to think about it all. When you actually imagine (or experience in real life) the process of moving goods from one place to another.
Remainers just seem to refuse to think about it altogether though, and continue to conflate all these small practical issues into one huge calamity. Blurring all borders into one big imaginary one.
It's a bit like dealing with a friend or family member that doesn't want to do something, but won't admit it. Instead of just saying they don't want to go to the cinema they pretend they want to but make excuses..
"..but what if the film we want to see isn't on?"
"Don't worry, no problem, I'll phone up and find out."
"..yeah, but it's going to rain, we'll get soaked."
"No worries, I'll get a brolly."
"...but, but, but.."
It's a bit like that. Any excuse to drag their feet.
Finally, regarding the idea of a hard border on the "island of Ireland" as they say. The very idea that the EU would do this or insist upon it is particularly insulting to the UK and Northern Ireland. Just look at how poorly maintained the entire external border of the EU has been over the last decade or so. It's so porous as to be non-existent. The idea that they would go to such trouble and get so uppity about border problems in Ireland, while at the same time taking their real, wider border issues so unseriously just illustrates a complete lack of goodwill on their part.
I keep hoping, given the reality of the situation at present, that the EU will start listening to people and reform, but it's just not happened. Quite the opposite in fact. We're seeing a bigger push for further integration.
Why not be more flexible with Britain either within or outside the EU?
The fact that it will neither offer Britain the option to reform things from within, or to have good, friendly relations without, shows that we are dealing with sheer idealism here. An idealism that leaves no room for alternative opinions, and that puts ideology ahead of reality and compromise.
I really wish they'd all just chill out a bit.
Having been on Twitter at varying points today I get the feeling that things are fragmenting a little bit politically. I'm talking about the general public here. I think people are starting to get tired of the Brexit argument, from both sides. I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I guess it was inevitable that the fizz would start to go. It always massively benefits the status quo whenever this happens. As change requires energy. So I fear for Brexit if Boris's heart (and his boundless energy) is not in it.
I can feel this jadedness myself. Today we've seen more fear regarding the potentiality of a "no deal", especially in regard Northern Ireland yet again. Before I would've been annoyed and ready to make the counter argument, but I haven't really felt the urge to do that today. Mainly through sheer boredom. I'm getting too bored to even argue now (!) There are only so many times you can explain the Irish border to someone.
- That there already is a border. That they even use a different currency in the Republic of Ireland at present !
- That we don't need checks at the border for businesses as it's their responsibility to act within the law. That if they get caught fiddling their taxes, or selling illegal products, or not following the law of the land - anywhere in the land - then they will be taken to court and prosecuted. Just like any business breaking the law anywhere else.
- That when goods from a factory in the Republic of Ireland are taken to a shop in Northern Ireland all the paperwork is done by the respective companies, at their respective shops and factories. Not at some imaginary point on the journey.
- That a hard border, with border checks at the border, is only required to stop serious criminal activity. Smuggling weapons, human trafficking, etc. That given the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are both modern, civilised countries, that believe in the rule of law, they will obviously work together to tackle such illegal behaviour.
- That any such checks can be as soft as random checks on the respective motorways or checks simply pulling over suspicious vehicles. Again, just as police would do anywhere else in the country.
So any talk of a hard border that would stop Irish people and businesses from carrying on exactly as normal is just blatant fear mongering. It's pretty irresponsible as well given the history.
I said I was getting bored making this argument, but I've somehow found the ire and energy to do it here it seems - even at this late hour 😄
It is quite infuriating though to see people looking for problems that aren't really there, and refusing to look at the nuts and bolts reality.
The way the doom-mongers conflate the Irish border and the border in the English Channel is particularly revealing and indicative of their lack of basic common sense too.
Obviously when things come into the country by a sea port there have to be checks. As a ship journey ends, and a land journey begins. So goods need to be unloaded from a ship and then loaded onto a lorry or some other vehicle. So you have to check to make sure you know what's coming off the ship or going onto the lorry, or vice versa.
Because of these checks at the ports - be they extra checks, or just different checks - then yes, there could be some temporary slow down at these borders. It would only be temporary though, as the change is adapted to, and it isn't really a huge thing to worry about. Certainly not to the extent of panic reporting we've been subjected to. Of course, in reality, as everyone who's worked in the real world knows, sometimes checks can be rushed through or completely ignored anyway if things are running way behind schedule. So even if there were delays they could be dealt with pretty quickly I would wager.
I'm not sure how seriously regulations are taken at the ports - I would guess much more strictly than the places I've worked (: However, we are just talking about basic goods for the most part here. If a company pays for 40,000 tins of beans but only receives 38,000 on the delivery it's bad for business, but hardly a national security issue. Plus it must be noted, all the doom-mongers and remainers getting their heads in a tizz over border checks seem rather blase about the countless illegal migrants that are turning up in the backs of lorries every day at it stands. I really don't know how they have the nerve to complain about the potential state of a post-Brexit border when the borders are in absolute chaos already.
At the Irish border there's obviously no need for such checks though. It's not like goods are unloaded from one vehicle and then put into another at the border. It's just one long journey from factory to warehouse, or warehouse to shop. This is just basic common sense. It shouldn't need pointing out really. Although to be fair these things, even though they're simple, practical things, only really become obvious once you begin to think about it all. When you actually imagine (or experience in real life) the process of moving goods from one place to another.
Remainers just seem to refuse to think about it altogether though, and continue to conflate all these small practical issues into one huge calamity. Blurring all borders into one big imaginary one.
It's a bit like dealing with a friend or family member that doesn't want to do something, but won't admit it. Instead of just saying they don't want to go to the cinema they pretend they want to but make excuses..
"..but what if the film we want to see isn't on?"
"Don't worry, no problem, I'll phone up and find out."
"..yeah, but it's going to rain, we'll get soaked."
"No worries, I'll get a brolly."
"...but, but, but.."
It's a bit like that. Any excuse to drag their feet.
Finally, regarding the idea of a hard border on the "island of Ireland" as they say. The very idea that the EU would do this or insist upon it is particularly insulting to the UK and Northern Ireland. Just look at how poorly maintained the entire external border of the EU has been over the last decade or so. It's so porous as to be non-existent. The idea that they would go to such trouble and get so uppity about border problems in Ireland, while at the same time taking their real, wider border issues so unseriously just illustrates a complete lack of goodwill on their part.
I keep hoping, given the reality of the situation at present, that the EU will start listening to people and reform, but it's just not happened. Quite the opposite in fact. We're seeing a bigger push for further integration.
Why not be more flexible with Britain either within or outside the EU?
The fact that it will neither offer Britain the option to reform things from within, or to have good, friendly relations without, shows that we are dealing with sheer idealism here. An idealism that leaves no room for alternative opinions, and that puts ideology ahead of reality and compromise.
I really wish they'd all just chill out a bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)