Surf The Algorithms

I'm sat listening to Mountain At My Gates by Foals. In between a bit of Tame Impala. YouTube mix. One of the few places on YouTube and elsewhere where the algorithms haven't been hijacked and perverted by politics and censorship. At least I think and hope anyway. Music's certainly the only thing left on YouTube where I can put a degree of faith in the next video autoplay.

Is this a music blog now? Perhaps I would surf the algorithms better if it was.

On the politics front it's mainly been Brexit and Extinction Rebellion. It is all globalism isn't it. Both things. That's what it's all about. Brexit - sign up to one-world-ism and further centralisation, or leave. Extinction Rebellion - likewise a push to harmonise all the countries of the world, and get 'global' regulation for 'global' problems.

Obviously both sides of the argument are perfectly legitimate. It's fine to advocate for a one world vision if that's what you believe. We probably should be having that debate. However, I just wish the people pushing for it would be more honest. I posted about the Extinction Rebellion demands last night on Twitter. I even got a few retweets (!) I'll run through it again here.

(A well-funded operation)

Aside from the fact that "making demands" sounds like something a hostage taker would do (though apt, as they are after all attempting to hold capital cities hostage). Their demands are essentially demands to overturn and subvert the democratic process.

An extreme analysis of their aims perhaps? Read 'em yourself.

These are straight from Rebellion.Earth 

(click to enlarge)

First up. Declare a climate emergency. A little vague, but a decision, if taken up by governments, that would put 'climate concerns' as they see them front and centre of all government policy.

Secondly. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025. Just 6 years time, 5 if they give us this Christmas off.

Thirdly, and this is the real one to watch out for. "Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice."

Notice that "be led". Nice.

"..but it's a "citizens" assembly" you say, "that can't be too bad right? That's just us, isn't it?"

Well, how is this assembly chosen? Who decides how it is chosen? What is the criteria?

Fortunately they tell us.

"The Citizens’ Assembly will be run by non-governmental organisations.."

So, NGOs. Great.

"Similar to jury service, members will be randomly selected from across the country."

"Similar" to jury service. Of course, with jury duty you're forced by law to sit, but this won't be the case with Citizens' Assemblies (at least I hope not, that would be even worse).

This brings us to one of the many problems with Citizens' Assemblies. What about all the millions of people that wouldn't want to take part - even if they were asked to. Who has the time or inclination to go and do something like this. Sitting there in public debating climate issues. Especially when they have other commitments like work and children.

In normal democratic societies we tend to call the people that want to go and do this politicians. And most people normally prefer to vote for a politician to go and do this for them.

"The process will be designed to ensure that the Assembly reflects the whole country in terms of characteristics such as gender, age, ethnicity, education level and geography."

Ahh, so it will also be "designed". Again, who does this designing? And how are these "designers" accountable to the general public? How can we be sure there's no bias in that process? We can't exactly vote them out can we.

"Assembly members will hear balanced information from experts and those most affected by the emergency."

Again, who chooses these "experts"? Who decides what constitutes "balanced information"?

To be blunt it all looks to me like a way for NGOs to press governments to accept their positions and advice, using the veneer that it's "public opinion". The peoples' voice.

Of course, such assemblies could also be used by governments to push through agendas the public won't vote for using this same veneer. For instance, they could create a Citizens' Assembly to "decide Brexit" in a way that's desirable to them. Then stating; "but look the "citizens" have "told us" to do this." This is what you want.

In fact, a few months ago we noted that Rory Stewart was pushing this very idea in regards Brexit. Oh my! See how it works yet? This is not a policy of environmentalism. It's a policy of globalism.

Again, as I noted earlier. It's fine to advocate for globalism, but this is a very devious way to do it. Why aren't Extinction Rebellion standing candidates at elections? They're perfectly free to do it. They certainly seem to have the funding. But they aren't. Very telling. Yet they want a "Citizens' Assembly".

However, we already have one. It's called parliament.

The Brexit Party - I'm Guessing Proportional Representation Will Be Part Of The Plan

I'm currently listening to Nigel Farage speak live in Watford at the Brexit Party rally. I say live it's from last night, but you get the meaning. He's in rousing form. He was preceded by Richard Tice who ran through some of the Brexit Party policies. They're on the front foot with a lot of this stuff. So I think they'll be in good shape going into any election. They're running quite a tight and tidy ship.

Richard Tice did allude to proportional representation in his run-through though. This is the one major policy issue I have big reservations about. Personally I'm against it for many reasons. I go through some of those here;

https://freckledmonkey.blogspot.com/2019/05/will-brexit-party-be-harbinger-of-pr.html

However, I also think it's a bit of a faux pas electorally too. Why complicate things with what would be a divisive issue. Last time we had a referendum to change the system to the alternative vote it lost pretty heftily. There are so many other big issues, even aside from Brexit. Plus there are larger voting reform issues to fix first. For a start both the postal voting issue and the House of Lords (Richard Tice mentioned both of these, so they will definitely be on the agenda). Almost everyone agrees the House of Lords needs reform so it's not going to be a vote-loser. Postal voting could be controversial, but it needs reforming, and it's easy to explain to people how open the system is to voter fraud. So both of those are sensible policies to pursue. Why then throw PR into the mix?

Also, with our current system the problem is that it favours the two party system. However, I would speculate that a major reason for this is the media. Traditionally people have received most of their information about politics from the mainstream media, and the media have a tendency to present things as a binary selection. As a Pepsi vs Coke choice. Partly because television as a format naturally favours good vs bad battles and confrontations, and partly of course because the people who have power also tend to have a big investment and control of the media. So it favours the status quo to exclude outsiders and deny them such a powerful platform.

With the rise of social media though that is all breaking down, and parties and individuals now have ways of matching the mainstream when it comes to reaching an audience. This may partly be why we're seeing the two party system already begin to break down now. So again, why rush to ditch the political system when it might finally be beginning to work in our favour. PR potentially could end up being a lifeline to existing parties that are on the way down.

It's probably all a bit of a moot point anyway though, as if the Tories are the main party with a Brexit Party side cart, then they'll probably kick it out the park. So once again, why complicate things by promising it as a policy only to ditch it out of necessity in reality.

v. short

Nothing much today. So nice and short. That's it :)

Referendum: No Deal vs EU Army

So back to Brexit. I've just watched Tony Blair on The Andrew Neil Show arguing his case for a second referendum. The biggest problem I have with the idea of a second referendum is that we can't trust this parliament to frame the question fairly. Obviously the other big problem is that we've already had the referendum. So even a win for remain would just make it 1-1.

He was also arguing against a general election. Unsurprisingly. Which I can understand as a general election must be a pretty terrifying prospect for people on the remain side. In fact, personally I'm now back to my default position of not expecting an election any time soon. I think parliament will cause chaos. I think they will block leaving. I think they will cling on to their green benches long enough to bring about a referendum, or some other mechanism to stop Brexit.

I hope I'm wrong and the government can wrangle some way out of this bind, but I don't expect it.

Anyway, returning to the idea of a referendum. Aside from the fact that the question will be loaded. I'm actually not that fearful of it. Whatever the question posed the real question will be a simple one.

No Deal vs EU army

I think the remain faction are imagining any referendum will be the fear of "no deal" versus their seemingly more moderate option. However, once again I think they're misreading both the mood and shrewdness of the nation. The fear of "no deal" is wearing off. [The. Boy. Cried. Wolf.] The fear of an EU army is becoming realised, and ever more evidenced.

The Carbon Poll Tax

Last night I finished my post with the common phrase;

"If they could tax the air we breathe they would."

(Oh and it was a new series of Only Connect for the record :D)

Now it's my opinion that the whole carbon tax issue is part of the onward march towards globalism or one-world-ism. In the short term it's designed to harmonise and meld together the economic policies of individual countries. In the longer term I suspect it will act as the ultimate poll tax. Where every individual is taxed according to their "carbon footprint".

I'm saying poll tax, a poll tax is a fixed tax that everyone pays regardless of income. So that might not quite be the best moniker, nor description of how it works. In fact, I'm not entirely sure how it will work exactly. Either way though I imagine it will be a tax encompassing all things that are taxable, and used to weigh each and every single individual.

The electricity you use - well, that has a carbon footprint. The food you eat - a carbon footprint too. The journeys you make - likewise, a carbon footprint. Every action and product can be measured in carbon.

We even breathe out carbon dioxide of course. Is that added to our overall personal and taxable carbon footprint? "Surely not, don't be silly" you say.

However, they're already stating that we shouldn't be eating meat because the emissions from cows are contributing to climate change (!)

Now personally I don't believe this and think it's just more silly propaganda (I'm a vegetarian so I won't be losing any sleep over it anyhow). Either way though if they're counting cow's farts then why not human breath. After all the logic is the same. There are just so many cows - it all adds up. With 8 billion humans it must also add up too.

So in summary, a one world government, where everyone is measured by their carbon use. What a nice tidy system. How fortunate we are to have a "climate crisis" to push us all in this glorious direction. It couldn't have been planned in a boardroom better.

..now just ask the question; where do Extinction Rebellion get their funding?

Brextinction Rebellion

I'd like to type more today, but I've been on phones and laptops so much over the last 24 hours that my fingers are literally aching :( I need a holiday for my hands I think. Blogging ain't easy. No one knows how hard I have it.

Anyway, there are a few things going on. The MP Heidi Allen has just joined the Lib Dems. I won't repeat what I said a few months ago about the Lib Dems absorbing renegade politicians, but it's a trend I very much welcome. It's a bit like herding sheep. Only in this case the sheep are self-herding.

The Brexit debate is also continuing full steam. No. 10 seem to be really hunkering down for the fight. Unless it's all bluff of course. They certainly seem to be going all out to create the impression that leaving without a deal on October 31st is still very much on the cards. The following article from The Spectator is well worth a read;

How Number 10 view the state of the negotiations

We've also had the Extinction Rebellion protests in London and elsewhere today. This is the topic I could write a fair bit about today (could I be arsed). I may come back to it over the next few weeks and days (apparently these protests are scheduled for two full weeks, so plenty of opportunity). Needless to say I'll leave with this common old saying as a precursor, which I'm probably misquoting.

"If they could tax the air we breathe they would."

Now I'm going to go and make some soup, if I can even be bothered. Then sit down and watch Only Connect, which I've only just noticed was on today. Is it a new series now?? Hopefully that means there'll be a few more episodes on the iPlayer to watch that I've missed. Exciting times.

Marmaduke Days

Stalemate and speculation continues. Nothing much can really be said at the moment in regards Brexit. So I'll leave it at that. A bit of minor amusement did pop up recently when it emerged that Boris Johnson had written a movie script a few years ago. Or so the following article states at least anyway.

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/boris-and-the-undiscovered-film-pitch-starring-scarlett-johansson-and-a-hero-called-marmaduke-a4254151.html

I only really mention it here as his lead character was called Marmaduke Montmorency Burton. Quite a mouthful. We mentioned names with the "double M" sound a few posts ago. This one has the quadruple.