≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THE CHARADE OF CAPITALISM IS ABOUT TO BE EXPOSED LEAVING US ALL IN A WORLD THAT IS HEADING FOR A RECESSION CAUSED BY A VIRUS.
Ten-minute read.
Pandemic is used to describe a serious disease that is spreading in an uncontrolled way around the world.
Whether we are in the grips of a Pandemic or not over the past three years in the real world we have seen national polarisation serve as the midwife of political paralysis countries.
With the outbreak of this virus, this is the time for all political parties across the world to realize that their true allegiance is to the people who elected them and not to the special interests that have them in their grip. GDP at all costs.
Hence, the overarching theme in this post is that it is time for the political class to shed their differences and ensure that democracy works in practice and not only in theory.
We are all aware that the Coronavirus has no political preferences, no respects for borders, leaving us to tackle seemingly overwhelming issues by contrasting “political paralysis”
This virus will redefine the world “from a place where nobody sees and nobody cares, into a place where compassion is a possibility and change something that has been hoping for centuries – Equality – and not insulated connectivity.
Unfortunately, our smartphones tell us what you feel does not matter; what you believe is ridiculous; what you envision is worthless; just sit back and let profit-seeking algorithm or your own fear take over.
Such self-numbed people will see themselves as perpetual victims of the Coronavirus.
Their sense of victimization does not allow them to see that they are in charge—of their own choices.
But you know what?
We now see governments using the Pontius Pilate tactic of claiming that just one person, one average person, can do the right thing to make the world better by washing their hands before and after stripping the supermarket shelves clean.
The only logical option is passivity, surrender, and despair as we watch the capitalist system but profit before the health of a nation.
Of course, this is not quite true but it won’t be long before the virus if not controlled will show us the power of consumerism.
It will show us the worthlessness of selfishness, of passing up every opportunity to actually address inequality. The value low-paid work.
Believe me, it will turn invisible activism into the kind of wedge that can topple a giant.
So this one historical moment might propel inequality to centre stage.
We don’t have to be perfect saints or know every answer to every question to begin working for a more just world.
Remember the words take back sovereignty, America first, were confused until they became synonymous with I am all right Jack.
Luckily the EU and Britain are now preoccupied with the Corona Virus so the Brexit deadline will most likely be extended again.
Perhaps limbo is not such a terrible place when the alternative is hell.
While excepting that Britain voted by a slim margin to leave the EU it now has what can only be called a complete rupture with reality, rushing towards its expulsion of the EU with no deal while Rishi Sunak turns on taps with £30bn splurge that could and more than likely tip the nation into such unbridled chaos it won’t be long before to hear a human voice say my name; to be touched: that would mean the world to me.
The problem is not that we have so little power. The problem is that we don’t use the power that we have.
I go to a food bank every two weeks to get my food. I have no car. I can’t carry two weeks worth of food the three miles back to my house.
Though these points might sound cynical and gloomy, the key aspect here is that the political systems around the world have become immune to change and instead, have fallen prey to gridlock and policy paralysis leading to indifference and apathy.
And then what?
Hang on! What about debt?
Pawnshop of treasury bonds loans might seem like a good option for fast cash when you need it, but they could end up costing much more than anticipated.
The UK has the sixth-largest government debt of advanced economies.
If you were doing it right, you’d know, because camera crews will appear at your front door.
So don’t look around to make sure someone is watching do the right thing.
Take the Climate change crisis. Tomorrow’s emergencies today. Syria: It’s not over ‘til it’s over. Yemen
It’s not enough to recycle our bottles. We Must Stop Global Warming Now and bring a halt to wars that are displacing millions.
Viruses are not just bacteria but unregulated AI, Wars, Greed, Sovereign Wealth Funds, High-Frequency trading, Inequality.
This post is also intended as a fact-checking against potentially false pictures, videos and stories.
≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHAT IS A PANDEMIC?
(Three-minute read)
The World Health Organization (WHO) has just declared the Corona Virus a Pandemic.
Should we be concerned?
You bet we should Pandemic is just not a word from the Greek pan (“all”) and demos (“people”), they have killed billions.
In modern-day terms, it refers to the spread of a disease, not its potency or deadliness but to its self-sustaining lines of infection.
What does that mean?
Never mind the annual global cost to the world economy are we now to witness’s the uncontained global spread of this virus has obvious serious consequences.
It’s important to know the differences between these two terms.
Pandemic refers to an epidemic that has spread over several countries or continents, usually affecting a large number of people.
The term Epidemic is often broadly used to describe any problem that has grown out of control.
From an epidemiologic standpoint, terms like these direct the public health response to better control and prevent disease.
Their usages are not inappropriate in the modern context, however, they can cause confusion.
While the level of disease occurrence can be described in many ways, it is primarily defined by the below measurable factors:
The pattern and speed by which a disease moves (known as the reproduction rate
the virus’s incubation period)
The size of the susceptible population (known as the critical community size)
While the terms may suggest that there is a specific threshold by which an event is declared an outbreak, epidemic, or pandemic, the distinction is often blurred.
Epidemic suggests a disease that is out of control.
Pandemic is the need for international cooperation.
By contrast, a plague is not an epidemiologic term but one that refers specifically to a contagious bacterial disease characterized by fever and delirium, such as the bubonic plague.
Smallpox is the only human disease that has been eradicated to date.
We now need to to know region by region with total transparency.
There are four coronaviruses that already circulate in human beings. They cause the common cold, and we don’t have vaccines for any of them.
All bullshit must be removed from social media.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
When it comes to negotiating we all negotiate in notable different ways.
By definition negotiating involves conflict.
It would be complacent to think that either Mr Johnson or the EU will be pushovers.
However, the nature of Brexit will ultimately be decided by the governments of the 27 remaining EU nations and the UK.
So if we look at the present rhetoric on both sides what will be the tactics?
The Uk rhetoric is that because we have been members of the EU for the last four decades a new bilateral relationship with the UK should not be difficult to complete.
The signs of that happening are not promising with Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, setting out a sequence with the first phase of talks to include only goods and fishing.
Therefore it stands to reason that a trade deal cannot be concluded quickly for obvious reasons.
With no such thing fast-track deal, the negotiations on both sides will have to find a way to extend the transition period.
And the longer the negotiations go on despite Johnson’s wish to de-dramatise the negotiations, they will inevitably hit turbulence with a domino-like effect on both sides.
As for tactics the EU has hard power and will deploy it to pursue its interests and safeguard itself when faced with an existential threat like a tax haven on its doorstep.
These negotiations are for the UK to achieve a continuing relationship with the EU, not the other way around.
The UK will be accommodated but never prioritised above the collective
the interest of the EU.
So both sides will start with extreme positions, ignoring deadlines, making small concessions to establish a relationship.
Because the UK power position is lower relative to the EU it is extremely likely that the EU will set deadlines. Take it or leave it.
Without deadlines accurately communicating becomes more difficult across the European Union.
Why should the EU deploy a take it or leave timeline?
Because people from different cultures within the EU perceive, interpret and evaluate not just the EU but the world differently.
So we have a single-culture against multicultural EU. The very reason it took so long for England to join the EU in the first place and now the very reason its departure will also take time.
Self – Interest against collective interest.
Through the eyes of the UK asking for the moon, the EU will have to ask the following questions.
What do they want? What is important to them? Who has the power? What is at stake? What is the time frame? What is their bottom line? What is the best alternative to a negotiated solution? Should the negotiations take place in a neutral location? Who should be present at the negotiations? Should the press be present?
Nobody known’s (or even now knows) what agreement, if any, will be reached.
The combination of uncertainty about the outcome with minimal time for adjustment is grotesquely irresponsible.
One way or the other in getting to yes the EU will end up with a more distant relationship with the UK with both sides inventing options for mutual gain.
Is the UK going to abandon current regulations over the environment, product standards, financial soundness and so forth?
If it is the strategic goal of US President Donald Trump to drive a wedge between Britain and the EU, this would be an ideal opportunity.
The consequences would be devastating for both the Uk and EU. The EU is then likely to be more inward-looking than it would otherwise have been.
Such discord could well take on a life of its own, driving Britain and the EU further apart.
If there is no trade agreement with the EU or one that proves disruptive, a blame game is sure to ensue.
In such a world, reliance on multilateral institutions is likely to prove futile.
Again and again, Britain will face choices over which side to choose in struggles, perhaps over technology or standards, that are occurring far over its head.
Already evident with 5G insulation by Huawei not to mention the ongoing evolution of the single market and EU trade and climate policies that will affect any future trade deals with grim implications for the Uk government revenue and spending.
It is deciding to go its own way in a world dominated by rivalrous superpowers.
It is doing so on the promise of greater control over its own destiny.
It is, not least, acting against the wishes of the majority of its own young people.
Brexit may eliminate many excuses but it will not solve any of these problems.
We can only hope that the separation will not endure? Nobody can know.
In my own view, it is a huge blunder.
But the moment is now upon us, a sad day.
We must all live with its consequences.
The direct influence of British political choices on those of the neighbours will also vanish.
Insisting that one should not have both a British and European political identity is for the birds.
Anyway in the days after Brexit Day, when the European Commission publishes its “negotiation directives”. These will be the commission’s proposals for the negotiating mandate that must be approved by the 27 member-state governments.
The European Council does not undertake negotiations itself.
The Brexit transition period is scheduled to expire at the end of 2020. At that point, Mr Johnson will still have four more years in office ahead of him, longer than any other EU leader maybe knowing what the cost of walking away he will have come to his senses.
As negotiations progress what concessions are likely to be given, and how will they be achieved?
Unfortunately, all negotiators spend the vast majority of their time on short term issues.
Any concessions have to be viewed as relative to the overall agreement.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE’S: CHRISTMAS GREETINGS TO ONE AND ALL.
The continuing exponential deterioration of the world environment — the greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion, desertification, exponential human population growth, air and water pollution, the pollution of the world’s oceans, loss of topsoil, the continuing loss of ancient forests throughout the world, and the rate of species extinction.
The violence already done to the earth is on a scale beyond all understanding…. how the industrial media have been able to convince so many people that if they just recycle they are “doing their part” for the environment, while they continue with their high-consumption lifestyles and all the other environmentally destructive practices that take place in industrial growth societies.
The wild ecosystems and species on the earth have intrinsic value and the right to exist and flourish and are also necessary for the ecological health of the planet and the ultimate well-being of humans.
Humanity must drastically scale down its industrial activities on Earth, change its consumption lifestyles, stabilize and then reduce the size of the human population by humane means, and protect and restore wild ecosystems and the remaining wildlife on the planet.
IN THIS NEW AGE OF visions promote mega technology solutions to economic and environmental ills and propose massive high-tech global management and development schemes for the biosphere.
We just don’t get it with piecemeal political/economic/legal/technological approaches to protecting the environment.
≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. HERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EMPTY SPACE.
THEY SAY THAT THE FIRST ATOM WAS CREATED BY THE BIG BANG.
This photograph shows a single positively-charged strontium atom (An alkaline earth metal, strontium is a soft silver-white yellowish metallic element that is highly chemically reactive) suspended in an electric field between two metal electrodes.
What is amazing here is that we’re looking at is actually the particle emitting light.
To my feeble scientific mind, an electric field is a vector field that shows the direction that a positively charged particle will move when placed in the field.
Vector fields are useful for describing things that we cannot see, such as magnetic attraction and gravity but not time.
My feeble scientific mind again.
As it is impossible to create energy out of nothing (Energy can’t be created or destroyed) it had to be present or introduced before the big bang, therefore time had to have had a power that converted into light.
But there is no evidence for or against the universe having an infinitely long past.
Unfortunately, the Big bang cannot give any direct information about the actual origins of the universe. It only supplies evidence of the start of the expansion which is still visibly in progress because of its light “signature.”
If the universe is or was expanding, then the natural conclusion is that if you were to rewind the universe, you’d see that it must have begun in a tiny, dense clump of matter. A singularity a hypothetical moment in time.
The problem with this line of thinking however, is that the theory of general relativity can’t describe what came before the singularity, which should exist at the point in time just before the Big Bang.
So what we see as time also started with the Big bang, so there is nothing before it.
There is nothing for the big bang to grab hold of in nothing, therefore the Big Bang was nothing blowing up.
The quandary is:
Nothing can create Something and Something cannot turn into Nothing.
So, the universe is just time in an amagnetic field called space, (which is an absence of mass or vacuum) but it is not static because of time.
Space can’t move with respect to time—the time is time governing all existence however there isn’t in my mind even a common time in the entire universe.
Each universe comes with its own time.
A narrative that’s recreated after the event but does not have any boundary or edge as it is incapable of going backwards.
Even space-time itself is a product of the special early stage of the universe.
The ultimate origin of the arrow of time, which is the asymmetry of the world in time, is still a bit contentious.
Is time an emergent property or a fundamental property?
Enter Quantum Mechanics.
Even if you have empty space—no matter, no light—quantum mechanics says it cannot be truly empty.
Here is a picture of time.
Holt disagreed.
“Is that really nothing?” he asked.”There’s no space and there’s no time. But what about physical laws, what about mathematical entities? What about consciousness? All the things that are non-spatial and non-temporal.
“Charles Seife, author of “Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea” (Penguin Books, 2000). He proposed starting with a set of numbers that included only the number zero, and then removing zero, leaving what’s called a null set. “It’s almost a Platonic nothing,” Seife said.
Ultimately, the definition of nothing may just be an ever-moving target, shifting with every scientific revolution as new insights show us what we thought was nothing is really something.
“Maybe nothing will never be resolved,” Tyson said.
But something is moving. “It has a topology, it has a shape, it’s a physical object.”
If there were a true “nothing”, no matter, no energy, no spacetime, then that nothing would be unstable and would begin generating matter, energy, and an expanding spacetime. This is the central thesis of books such as The Grand Design and A Universe From Nothing, which posits that the universe can be explained without reference to a supernatural creator deity.
Saying it was a god doesn’t help.
The same question exists, but now you add a whole new set about where the god came from.
The very first particles of light had to come from somewhere.
The fact is, it is not possible to know exactly what the initial light-source was. It came from in some hidden sector of the universe that we can’t see or touch.
Confused!
This is where it becomes even more than wired.
What time is it?
So if the universe shouldn’t exist, why is it here?
The creation of virtual particles. These are the tiny particles that leave even physicists drooling.
In the field of quantum mechanics, all fundamental forces are carried by particles.
The universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. This fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity.
For instance, light is made up of massless particles called photons that carry the electromagnetic force. Likewise, the graviton is the theoretical particle that would carry the force of gravity.
And so God created the universe by creating the quantum field, therefore, atheists have merely moved the question from who created matter, to who created the quantum field?
The fact remains something can not come from nothing.
Even the subatomic particle called the Higgs boson is the product of something.
It is a superpartner particle for all the currently known particles.
They are all involved in chemical bonding which needs a motion in the form of a vibration.
Where did this vibration come from? Time.
Within the emptiness of this vibration, over time temperatures came into existence with one vibration rubbing up against another creating an electric field, in which magnetic forces are observable. As superpartner particles destroy each other, we get packets of pure energy or particles of light known as photons. A phonon is a quantity of energy found within a vibration.
There is nothing at all strange about the reality of light existing independent of the heavenly bodies.
So, in reality, it is quite beyond Empirical Science (i.e. observable by the scientific method) to claim that they can happen without space or time.
There doesn’t have to be a reason for things existing, nor is there any need for supernatural beings of any kind, Space, matter, energy and forces behave the way they do on their own.
Or is everything happening in your head, the world around you is in your brain?
It’s based upon data created by your sensory organs but it’s still just a sensory construct in your brain and you don’t see reality as it truly is.
First, the universe had to expand and cool down sufficiently for the matter to condense out of the energy following the rule E=mc^2 while the Quantum equation predicts the universe has no beginning it existed forever.
Quantum Matmatice now seems to tell us that it is possible to exist in two places at once.
The universe finally became cool enough for true matter to form; this was when the universe also became transparent, allowing photons to travel, which is what you and I are made of today…trillions of neutrinos stream through your body at any given moment.
So God is outside of time and space, outside the universe and does not have a beginning, but we know the universe has a beginning and will have an end.
Are we look for a new messiah in technology?
Does this mean that we will know the truth for sure?
Absolutely not.
Quantum mechanics can give you the probability to go from one state to another state, in a way that involves summing over possible intermediate states.
The probability sum which tells you the odds of starting with “nothing” and arriving at “a universe like the present”, is then something like a sum over all those possible universes that start at a point and expand to become like the universe we see.
The Big Bounce.
There might never have been such a thing as nothing.
If the environment were different, the probability is that we just wouldn’t be here.
If something falls into a black hole and is eventually squeezed to a singularity, what happens to the information it contained?
Without this information, the reality you see is an illusion. Time will tell.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
(Five-minute read)
The outcome of today’s General Election has been decided by a system called first-past-the-post.
Some seventeen million voted for another referendum and fifteen million voted not to.
An irrefutable travesty of democracy.
In Britain’s electoral system, seats won at a general election are not shared out between the parties proportionally nationwide.
There is no system of proportional representation for candidates who come second in each constituency.
Instead, each one of the 650 constituencies is self-contained, meaning any vote not used to win a seat is, in effect, wasted.
Even if millions of voters support the same party, if they are thinly spread out they may only get the largest number of votes in a couple of these contests. Tens of thousands of voters supporting the same party and living in the same area will end up with more MPs.
This means the number of MPs a party has in parliament rarely matches their popularity with the public.
As parties want to get as many MPs as possible, parties prioritise voters who might change their minds who live in swing seats. Parties design their manifestos to appeal to voters in swing seats, and spend the majority of their funds campaigning in them. As the number of MPs a party gets doesn’t match their level of support with the public, it can be hard for the public to hold the government to account.
Many swing seats have two candidates where either could get elected. But some have more. The more candidates with a chance of getting elected the fewer votes the winner needs.
Voters try to second-guess the results.
If a voter thinks their favourite candidate can’t win, they may vote for one with the best chance of stopping a candidate they dislike from winning.
There can never be one nation.
First past the post allows the Nigel Farage’s of this world to manipulate the results as was shown in this election which handed Boris Johnson the victory by not fielding candidates in almost half of the districts.
( In the districts that they did contest, Brexit party candidates divided the pro-Brexit vote and thereby handed Labour some important seats.
In some places, the Conservatives gained seats from Labour on modest swings, while the Brexit party got swings of more than 10%.)
People who voted for the populist Brexit Party at the general election.
They needn’t have bothered:
Nigel Farage’s Brexit party won zero seats but took votes away from the Labour Party that could not support clearly the remain side of Brexit
.Should we laugh or cry. This is the real tragedy.
It’s too early to say what the consequences are going to be – Leave the EU, Yes.
With or without a trade deal. Both possible.
Brake up of the Union. Depending on the forthcoming results of Negotiations with the EU.
A written constitution. Inevitable if there is ever to be one nation.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: JUST IN CASE YOU DON,T KNOW WHY THE UK IS HAVING AN ELECTION.
( A twenty-minute read before you vote)
This post is COMPLEMENTS to a list compiled by MATT TURNBULL.
His list may shock you, but it does not shock me as there is plenty of evidence of a deeper problem. in the UK. His list, in fact, confirms that the referendum to leave the EU has little to do with with the Eu in the first place.
Anyway, before we see England elect the mother of all hung parliaments.
No amount of lever pulling, within the current paradigm, will get England anywhere but back to where it was. England has hocked most of the economy to save a broken and out of date system of governance.
Even before approaching the management of its miserable plight it needs a written constitution.
It is clear to me there are two big things happening in the world:
A tech revolution that started with the internet, but has now spread to everything from materials science to medicine to robotics; and a green revolution, that started with carbon reduction and is now changing the way people run businesses and live their lives.
Bigger structural changes on the horizon because society as a whole has barely yet to recognise the symptoms of climate change.
We are the only species that ROUTINELY overrule natural imperatives.
The tragedy of Brexit in waiting is that the process may be irreversible while it sheds the need to playing world superpower and gain a modest outlook on its position in a world of change.
It needs to create its own value and reinvest that value not in isolation but within the European community to which it belongs.
In fairness to MATT TURNBULL (I have added below the top motivations of the leave vote) which he will be sharing every day until 12th December supported by his headline comment.
“Nothing else really explains it better. Ignore the bluff, the lies, the spin, the opinion and the outright ridiculous and stick to the facts. This is where we are. Do we let it continue?”
Here is his list: 2010-2019, in case you missed it…
1,000 sure start centres closed.
780 libraries closed.
700 football pitches closed.
Foodbank use up 2,400%.
Homelessness up 1,000%.
Rough sleeping up 1,200%
Bedroom tax caused mass evictions.
Evictions are running at record highs.
35% of U.K. kids live in poverty.
Student fees up 300%.
Student debt has risen by 150%.
Eradication of EMA (education maintenance allowance).
The national debt has risen from £850billion to £2.25trillion.
Emergency Brexit stimulus from BoE in June 2016 of £175b.
Brexit related fall in national revenue of £500b.
GDP has fallen to -0.1%.
GBP fell by circa 15% versus EUR and USD.
Manufacturing in recession.
Construction in recession.
Services close to recession.
25-30% cuts to all govt departments.
25-30% cuts to all councils, mainly centred on Labour councils.
Half of the councils facing effective bankruptcy.
185k extra deaths attached to the political ideology of austerity.
25,000 less police.
20,000 fewer prison officers.
10,000 fewer border officials.
10,000 fewer firefighters.
10,000 less medical professionals.
25,000 fewer bed spaces for mental illness.
OECD calculate 3 million hidden unemployed, the rate is really 13%.
Creation of 1.3m jobs, mainly temporary, the self-employed, gig economy and ZHC.
Only 30k full-time work positions created.
Close on 50% of workers are self-employed, ZHC, or part-time precariat.
80% of the 5.3 million self-employed live below the poverty line.
35% of self-employed only earn £100 a month.
25% cuts for our disabled community.
80% cuts to Mobility allowance.
Closing Remploy.
40% of working households have practically no savings.
70% of households have less than 10k savings.
60% of households can only survive 2 months without a wage.
Household debt reaches a new peak, despite emergency base rates.
Increase of 50% in hate crimes.
Increase of knife crime by 150% to 22,000 per year.
Increase in teenage suicide by 70%.
Suicide up 12% in the year 2018.
Self-harm among young women up 70%.
Life expectancy down 3 years.
NHS satisfaction level at lowest recorded rate.
Council home building down 90%.
200k social homes lost since 2010.
Zero starter homes built, despite Tory flagship programme.
Council home building down 90%.
200k social homes lost since 2010.
One million families on council home waiting list.
100,000 increase on the council home waiting list since 2010.
36,000 teachers have left the profession.
….. and we now have MORE BILLIONAIRES IN THE UK THAN EVER BEFORE!!!!
Why England should leave the EU.
Brexit, in all scenarios, means a departure from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and its subsidy and regulatory regime.
The UK will be obtaining exclusive national fishing rights over its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) up to 200 miles from the coast.
Depending on the terms of Brexit, it may be easier for future UK governments to change environmental standards.
It is uncertain how Brexit will affect UK energy policy.
It is far too early to say what impact Brexit will have on aviation, shipping, public transport including rail and bus, and road haulage.
The UK already maintains its own border controls. It is not part of the internal border-free Schengen Area, so free movement is a myth. Entitlement to welfare benefits for people moving between the EU Member States is closely linked to free movement rights.
The UK currently has an opt-out arrangement with the EU on policing and criminal justice measures, whereby it can choose which measures to opt in to.
A UK withdrawal from the EU would mean that the UK no longer has to comply with the human rights obligations of the EU Treaties.
Reciprocal access to healthcare through the European Health Insurance Card could be jeopardised.
Brexit could mean the Government will not have to provide student loans or maintenance funding for EU students, which would save money.
Consumer protection in the UK is currently a complex combination of EU and national law. A huge amount of UK consumer protection regulation is derived from the EU.
Foreign and defence policy; Acting through the EU means a larger aid budget, the promise of access to the largest consumer market in the world and a louder political voice. All of these can be significant ‘soft power’ tools in the pursuit of European interests. If the UK no longer co-ordinates its policy with the Member States, it will lose access to these shared tools.
International development; The UK channels funds for development cooperation and humanitarian aid through two budget lines, both of them managed by the European Commission:
The devolved legislatures: With Brexit, there could be further policy and legislative divergence in areas of devolved competence, as the UK Government and Devolved Administrations will no longer be required to implement the common requirements of EU Directives.
AND:
The EU threatens British sovereignty.
The EU is strangling the UK in burdensome regulations.
The EU entrenches corporate interests and prevents radical reforms.
The EU was a good idea, but the euro is a disaster.
The EU allows too many immigrants.
The UK could have a more rational immigration system outside the EU
The UK could keep the money it currently sends to the EU.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
The problem with the above question is where to start.
Around the world, democracies are distrusted by a majority of their citizens.
As a result, it is creating space for the rise of authoritarian-populist forces or other forms of independent representation.
Without trust we are diminishing our capacity to meet complex, long-term challenges, reducing support for evidence-based public policies and promotes risk aversion in government.
This lack of trust is and will translate into a lack of action.
I suppose that there is no one simple explanation for what drives or undermines political trust but there can be no doubt that social media with the growing worldwide inequality is contributing to spreading distrust. and forming barriers of political engagement.
This is set to get worse with profit-seeking algorithms.
So what is it about citizens, such as their educational background, class, location, country or cohort of birth, that makes them trusting or not?
In general, the strongest predictors of distrust continue to be attitudinal and are connected to negativity about politics which is being influenced more and more by technological algorithms of prediction and recommendation.
What would it be that makes citizens feel that their vote could deliver value?
Most interventions tend to focus on dealing with issues of social disadvantage through education, labour market activation, public participation, improved representation, place-based service delivery and other forms of empowerment.
By offering more participation or consultation we are turning politics into a tokenistic exercise, generating more cynicism and negativity among citizens, who are turning to Populism.
The term populism can designate either democratic or authoritarian movements. Populism is typically critical of political representation and anything that mediates the relation between the people and their leader or government.
Populism usually combines elements of the left and the right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established socialist and labour parties.
In its contemporary understanding, however, populism is most often associated with an authoritarian form of politics.
Populist politics, following this definition.
It revolves around a charismatic leader who appeals to and claims to embody the will of the people in order to consolidate his own power. In this personalized form of politics, political parties lose their importance, and elections serve to confirm the leader’s authority rather than to reflect the different allegiances of the people.
Depending on one’s view of populism, a populist economic program can, therefore, signify either a platform that promotes the interest of common citizens and the country as a whole or a platform that seeks to redistribute wealth to gain popularity, without regard to the consequences for the country.
In Europe, we are seeing the rise of the Swiss People’s Party, the Austrian Freedom Party, the Swedish Democrats, the Danish People’s Party, the Northern League in Italy, Marine Le Pen in France, Victor Orban in Hungary, and Greece’s Golden Dawn and of course the Brexit party in the UK.
Elsewhere in the world one has to only look at Donald Trump, Dufeele in the Philippines.
The question of what’s fueling this populist?
It’s nothing new.
Most of us are now live in two increasingly separate worlds one wants to eliminate health care, shred the social safety net, and cut taxes on the rich—benefit the winners from globalization and work against the economic interests of the working class.
They others want revenge and this revenge is —not of the economically insecure, but of the cultural left-behinds.
So are groups like the those mentioned above, just groups of nativist, putting their nation first?
The answer is obvious. No. They’re looking backwards.
However, that is not the case, because if populism was truly driven by economic fears, populist candidates should be drawing votes from those who are suffering the most: unskilled workers, the unemployed, those with lower levels of education, and less advantaged groups in cities and urban centres.
Because economic issues have declined in importance to voters, like cultural issues—around women’s rights, abortion, same-sex marriage, and gay rights—climate change – have risen to the fore, along with the anti-immigrant sentiment, authoritarianism, mistrust of global national governance, and right-wing ideological self-placement.
The rise of populist parties reflects, above all, a reaction against a wide range of rapid cultural changes that seem to be eroding the basic values and customs of Western societies.
So a populist leader is forced to be in a permanent campaign to convince his people that he is not established and will never be. Magnify the political divide. Ultimately he ignores complicated democratic systems and is therefore viewed with suspicion…
What if anything can be done?
The importance of beliefs can only be tackled through discussion of the role of mass media in influencing public trust.
The power of mass media is not easy to reconcile with the empirical evidence of experimental social psychology research which demonstrates that people with strong beliefs and values often remain unpersuaded even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Positive economic growth does not necessarily increase political trust, but negative economic growth and prolonged economic crises.
Rather, economic development and social modernisation in advanced industrial democracies have encouraged new types of engaged, questioning and assertive publics, for whom strong economic performance no longer automatically leads to increased trust.
There is only one answer to this question.
It is greater political accountability of MPs and political parties to their electorates and members.
Providing performance data will not work because it leads to government officials trying to manipulate the way citizens judge their performance. Positive data is given prominence, less helpful data sometimes hidden.
There is one thing for sure because trust cut across racial and ethnic lines any solution to the puzzle of political trust can not be achieved without our engagement.
Anti-establishment, might having faith in “plain talkers” and “ordinary people” as opposed to the “corrupt establishment” of business, government, academia, and media but without formal rules there can be no good democratic practice.
Here I may be forgiven for indulging in some wishful thinking and believing that, despite the current shortage of inspirational leadership in the West, trust in democratic principles and values that transcend national boundaries will remain strong and shared by a large number of ordinary people across the world.
The good news for political parties that take up the cause of democratic reform is that the citizenry is ready to take up the challenge.
Finding what is the equilibrium point between political trust and distrust requires reducing inequality because political attitudes are shaped by more than people’s pocketbooks.
In effect, political parties are each a product of the world view of their membership or of their directing minds. Their attitudes, carriage or expression are often indicative of the groups’ underlying body of beliefs, catechism or affirmation of faith.
The chattering class will continue to wallow in their own cynical self-assurance, and the best and most principled among us will remain reticent to enter to the moral minefield of public life.
At the heart of this faulty ontology remains the myth of the autonomous self, the pipe dream that our identity is a “blank slate” that WE choose regardless of the desires and influences of others.
Dogmatism and doctrinaire ideology may seem no longer attractive or realistic political attributes. But democracy will continue to mean a change of government from time to time as if oscillating between two sides with opposing philosophies rigidly applied.
The democratic tradition of alternating governments, evolving policies, pragmatic choices, etc theoretically presents us with some choice with regard to the management of our economic and other affairs.
Being so vulnerable to purely political decisions surely honesty is required.
Perhaps it is time to remove politics from decisions that require long term solutions andset them in law, like reducing Carbon emmission, before we see civil unrest, and migration on a massive scale.
Why should this be done:
Because elections are for political parties to be in office for the short term – five years if not re-elected.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
On behalf of all of us who will not be in attendance on September the 23rd, let me say that there is no point in the United Nations showcasing a leap in collective national political ambitions at the forthcoming Climate Summit.
Why?
Because the conference will not inject momentum in the “race to the top” among countries, companies, cities and civil society that are needed to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
Because like the Paris summit this gathering will not demonstrate a massive movement in the real economy terms in support of the Paris agenda.
There is no point in asking countries to show how they are going to full transformation their economies in line with sustainable development goals.
Why?
Because as before there will be no concrete, realistic plans by nations to enhance their nationally determined contributions by 2020, in line with reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45 per cent over the next decade, and to net zero emissions by 2050.
As you very well know the world is incapable of leapfrog to cleaner, more resilient economies.
The reason for this is that there can be no collective decision on reducing emmissions world wide without financial support.
There is no need to tell you that the world as we see it today is turning inwards to I am all right Jack.
No matter what the forthcoming Climate Conference achieves I am afraid there is no country, organisation or individual that is willing now or in the future to pay the costs associated with reverting Climate change.
We all know that to set radical change in motion it is going to take more than hollow promises coming out of confrences around the world.
The implications of global warming are non-negotiable and therefore there can be no compromises.
SO MR GUTERRES.
To really accept that the climate is being affected by human practices and that it is our collective responsibility to take action, we have to get our head around a series of mental obstacles put in place by our evolutionary history and cultural practices.
What is needed is to make profit for profit sake foot the billions that are going to be required.
This can be achieved by getting all world stock exchanges to place a 0.05% world aid commission on all transactions – Hight frequency trading – Sovernighty Wealth funds acquisitions- Foreign Exchange transactions over $50,000.- Lotteries –
Yours faithfully
Robert de Mayo Dillon.
( If you agree with the above please add your signature to this letter and forward it to- antonio.guterres@un.org )
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/hs-2014-10_0-58b843765f9b5880809c2a3a.jpg)
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/060915_CMB_Timeline150-56a72b9c5f9b58b7d0e78855.jpg)
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/131226922_HighRes-resize-56a72be03df78cf77292fbe1.jpg)
Some seventeen million voted for another referendum and fifteen million voted not to.
An irrefutable travesty of democracy.
In Britain’s electoral system, seats won at a general election are not shared out between the parties proportionally nationwide.
There is no system of proportional representation for candidates who come second in each constituency.
Instead, each one of the 650 constituencies is self-contained, meaning any vote not used to win a seat is, in effect, wasted.
Even if millions of voters support the same party, if they are thinly spread out they may only get the largest number of votes in a couple of these contests. Tens of thousands of voters supporting the same party and living in the same area will end up with more MPs.
This means the number of MPs a party has in parliament rarely matches their popularity with the public.
As parties want to get as many MPs as possible, parties prioritise voters who might change their minds who live in swing seats. Parties design their manifestos to appeal to voters in swing seats, and spend the majority of their funds campaigning in them. As the number of MPs a party gets doesn’t match their level of support with the public, it can be hard for the public to hold the government to account.
Many swing seats have two candidates where either could get elected. But some have more. The more candidates with a chance of getting elected the fewer votes the winner needs.
Voters try to second-guess the results.
If a voter thinks their favourite candidate can’t win, they may vote for one with the best chance of stopping a candidate they dislike from winning.
There can never be one nation.
First past the post allows the Nigel Farage’s of this world to manipulate the results as was shown in this election which handed Boris Johnson the victory by not fielding candidates in almost half of the districts.
( In the districts that they did contest, Brexit party candidates divided the pro-Brexit vote and thereby handed Labour some important seats.
In some places, the Conservatives gained seats from Labour on modest swings, while the Brexit party got swings of more than 10%.)
People who voted for the populist Brexit Party at the general election.
They needn’t have bothered:
Nigel Farage’s Brexit party won zero seats but took votes away from the Labour Party that could not support clearly the remain side of Brexit
.Should we laugh or cry. This is the real tragedy.
It’s too early to say what the consequences are going to be – Leave the EU, Yes.
With or without a trade deal. Both possible.
Brake up of the Union. Depending on the forthcoming results of Negotiations with the EU.
A written constitution. Inevitable if there is ever to be one nation.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.
bobdillon33blog 