Probably every one of us can tell a tale that shows how far we have fallen as a nation. Most of us can probably tell such a tale where we encounter the businesses that contribute to the economy or where we encounter bits of the states apparatus.
I was reminded of one this morning when I learned that the National Audit Office has issued a report on dealing with the Inland Revenue in which it has been scathing about the service and the cost that those service failings cost the public.
My story was having been made redundant some years ago, I was due a tax rebate at the end of my redundancy. Bear in mind I had been without this money for almost a year. I sent off my paperwork (originals of course as no copies were permitted)
What followed over the next few months was a Keystone Cops routine of phone calls and letters. These calls and letters. These phone calls and letters revealed a system in chaos. First they hadn't got it (post room backlogs). Then they had the letter but it wasn't on the system. Then we had the letters telling me I hadn't sent through various documents. That in reality meant they had lost them because they had all been in the envelope. It was only the states obsession with triplicate or more forms which saved me on that front.
Eventually I rang and spoke to someone who started to take a bit of a tone with me in that sort of "what are you doing contacting us, don't you know you're just supposed to wait until we contact you". She obviously didn't say that, but it was in the tone.
What she told me was that following confirmation that my case was on the system and having been told they had a three week window to call me back. Having been round the houses with these people already I decided to test the waters.
"Okay. If nobody calls me in the three week window and I call again, might I have to wait another 3 weeks before someone is required to contact me"
"Yes" came the answer.
Now you and I can immediately see what's wrong with this. It's a meaningless service level. They can fail to contact me and me reminding them they've failed puts me to the back of the queue again - marvellous.
It was at this point I pointed out that such an arrangement was "unacceptable" to which came the answer that pointed out precisely where some servants of the state think they sit in the grand scheme of things - and I quote
"It's not a question of you think is acceptable Mr....."
It didn't go to well for her after that and eventually I managed to get the situation escalated and my refund calculation resolved by the end of the same day.
Today's news made me smile as the memory came back. I wonder if the Inland Revenue will tell the NAO that "it's not a case of what you think is acceptable."
Tuesday, 18 December 2012
Sunday, 9 December 2012
Touching Your Soul
A change of tack today (and maybe for the rest of the month), thanks to a strange train of thought.
I'm a big critic of the BBC in it's current form, especially it's news output which I take to be left leaning and as such manipulative. That said when they get it right they make some wonderful television. On Friday I happened to catch their fly on the wall documentary about Westminster Abbey and listening to the work of the choir.
Personally I am a believer in the Christian faith. I don't much worry if others are not as long as they are honest people with a personal code of ethics to live an honourable life and to on the whole, do the right thing. It's a choice for each and every one of us. That's all I'm going to offer on the matter.
What I particularly enjoyed was listening to the beauty of the choir singing in such fantastic architecture. It's a hugely powerful combination.
It got me thinking about content for the blog at this time of year. There's endless corruption and inversion of the truth to keep me writing endlessly 24/7 and it's something I'm not even making a dent it.
With that in mind I decided to have a change of tack. I'm going for uplifting. As such I give you this video of a Christmas flash mob. I thought it was a lovely juxtaposition. Set in the middle of a shopping centre (mall for my US cousins), it seemed apt that something so fine should reach into the belly of mammon and uplift the lives of people lost to modern times.
As you watch it, listen to those voices and look at the faces of the young. I've watched this video for a couple of years now and each time, it reaches right in to me and touches my soul. Right there you see people worth saving. Look at the parents, explaining lovingly. Look at the recognition in the eyes of the people that our lives can be a thing of wonder. It's a thing of pure beauty. Forget all the bread and circus cr*p that gets shovelled into our minds.
Enjoy
I'm a big critic of the BBC in it's current form, especially it's news output which I take to be left leaning and as such manipulative. That said when they get it right they make some wonderful television. On Friday I happened to catch their fly on the wall documentary about Westminster Abbey and listening to the work of the choir.
Personally I am a believer in the Christian faith. I don't much worry if others are not as long as they are honest people with a personal code of ethics to live an honourable life and to on the whole, do the right thing. It's a choice for each and every one of us. That's all I'm going to offer on the matter.
What I particularly enjoyed was listening to the beauty of the choir singing in such fantastic architecture. It's a hugely powerful combination.
It got me thinking about content for the blog at this time of year. There's endless corruption and inversion of the truth to keep me writing endlessly 24/7 and it's something I'm not even making a dent it.
With that in mind I decided to have a change of tack. I'm going for uplifting. As such I give you this video of a Christmas flash mob. I thought it was a lovely juxtaposition. Set in the middle of a shopping centre (mall for my US cousins), it seemed apt that something so fine should reach into the belly of mammon and uplift the lives of people lost to modern times.
As you watch it, listen to those voices and look at the faces of the young. I've watched this video for a couple of years now and each time, it reaches right in to me and touches my soul. Right there you see people worth saving. Look at the parents, explaining lovingly. Look at the recognition in the eyes of the people that our lives can be a thing of wonder. It's a thing of pure beauty. Forget all the bread and circus cr*p that gets shovelled into our minds.
Enjoy
Thursday, 6 December 2012
That Autumn Statement
Don't worry, I'm not an economist and I'm not going to bore you with economics despite what it looks like at the beginning.
I didn't catch too much of the autumn statement yesterday when it was broadcast live. I didn't really need to. Governments announcing news to Parliament has become something of a farce (then again what hasn't become a farce where Parliament's concerned?) as we typically get it "leaked" around 10-11pm the evening before. Much of what I was supposed to learn on Wednesday became news on Tuesday evening.
We're skint and we were going to be skint for the foreseeable future. Even me as a bear of small brain knew that before George announced it. Where I (and too many others to consider it any sort of achievement) are smarter than George is that we know if he carries on doing what he's been doing, we will be skint for a damn sight longer than her predicts.
I came to watch the debate just as Ed Balls was having his own little Chernobyl moment as he went into meltdown as he tried to get across the notion that the Government had failed. I watched that and then I watch Georgie come back at him and it was at that point the really worrying bit hit me.
I watched as Ed Balls criticised our performance as a nation and used the claim that it was less than 1/10th of that of the G20. For some reason that set off a little alarm bell in my head. I had a quick look and although it's not certain which precise set of figure he is using, the set I found suggested that was broadly right. But it wasn't whether such a claim was accurate that made me wonder. It was the question of what made him pick the G20. Why not the G7 say. Of course it doesn't take a lot to work that out. Once you use the G20 as opposed to the G7 you include the BRICS nations in your stats. Take a quick look at the chart on this OECD release and you'll see what it does. It puts a different scale on it that wouldn't be there if the G7 was your comparison.
It was that which tells you all you need to know and it's not about the economic argument. In fact what this shows is that yesterday in Parliament was about anything but the economic argument and it wasn't just Balls. The reality was that all Balls was interested along with his cohorts was about sticking it to the Government by making them look bad and making them look as bad as it was possible to do by using stats that paint the bleakest possible picture. He let Osborne have it both barrels and Osborne responded in kind. The press made as much of the exchanges in the house as the statement itself.
"So what?" you might ask. Westminster is always a pantomime such as this and I would agree. The problem is the press continued to suggest that this was a serious debate about the economy and the state of the country. My point is I believe it was anything but. The economy just happened to be the tool at hand. Arguing with the other was what it was all about. Solving the issue of our dire financial straits, played no part in that debate because they're simply not interested in it. If they were there would have been a proper debate, but there wasn't. The Tories, took a leaf out of the elusive Gordon Brown's playbook and throw endless confusing statistics out their to hide what was going wrong and Labour went with their "out of touch toffs" line backed up by numbers specifically to frame the position as failure on the largest possible scale.
Our economy is in a truly perilous state and it needed a debate that reflected that. It needed a government to say that and an opposition to say where they thought better strategies lay and where they would cooperate with the government. But no, we had none of that. What we really got was a wrestling match driven by nothing more than a lust for power. There is some effort to look like they're doing something, but the reality is none of them are serious about this problem. If they were they would look really hard at what really is working and what really isn't and sell it to the British people. But we don't get that. We get a power struggle masquerading as a debate by those who only want their hands on the reins because they get to sit on the slightly more comfortable seats in an already luxurious ride compared to what the rest of us have to put up with. It wasn't a debate about what's going to stop 60 million people crashing onto the rocks. It was a bun fight in which the only people being considered were those in the two chambers.
We're in a mess. A real big stinking mess. One that needs serious men and women to bring some real gravity to public life who can tell it like it is and sell the much needed hard work to the nation. We need leaders who can tell the lobbyists that the party is over.
We got none of that yesterday. We got posturing by effetes and dilettantes yesterday. 60 million people got sold down the river in something that was nothing more than a disgrace.
I didn't catch too much of the autumn statement yesterday when it was broadcast live. I didn't really need to. Governments announcing news to Parliament has become something of a farce (then again what hasn't become a farce where Parliament's concerned?) as we typically get it "leaked" around 10-11pm the evening before. Much of what I was supposed to learn on Wednesday became news on Tuesday evening.
We're skint and we were going to be skint for the foreseeable future. Even me as a bear of small brain knew that before George announced it. Where I (and too many others to consider it any sort of achievement) are smarter than George is that we know if he carries on doing what he's been doing, we will be skint for a damn sight longer than her predicts.
I came to watch the debate just as Ed Balls was having his own little Chernobyl moment as he went into meltdown as he tried to get across the notion that the Government had failed. I watched that and then I watch Georgie come back at him and it was at that point the really worrying bit hit me.
I watched as Ed Balls criticised our performance as a nation and used the claim that it was less than 1/10th of that of the G20. For some reason that set off a little alarm bell in my head. I had a quick look and although it's not certain which precise set of figure he is using, the set I found suggested that was broadly right. But it wasn't whether such a claim was accurate that made me wonder. It was the question of what made him pick the G20. Why not the G7 say. Of course it doesn't take a lot to work that out. Once you use the G20 as opposed to the G7 you include the BRICS nations in your stats. Take a quick look at the chart on this OECD release and you'll see what it does. It puts a different scale on it that wouldn't be there if the G7 was your comparison.
It was that which tells you all you need to know and it's not about the economic argument. In fact what this shows is that yesterday in Parliament was about anything but the economic argument and it wasn't just Balls. The reality was that all Balls was interested along with his cohorts was about sticking it to the Government by making them look bad and making them look as bad as it was possible to do by using stats that paint the bleakest possible picture. He let Osborne have it both barrels and Osborne responded in kind. The press made as much of the exchanges in the house as the statement itself.
"So what?" you might ask. Westminster is always a pantomime such as this and I would agree. The problem is the press continued to suggest that this was a serious debate about the economy and the state of the country. My point is I believe it was anything but. The economy just happened to be the tool at hand. Arguing with the other was what it was all about. Solving the issue of our dire financial straits, played no part in that debate because they're simply not interested in it. If they were there would have been a proper debate, but there wasn't. The Tories, took a leaf out of the elusive Gordon Brown's playbook and throw endless confusing statistics out their to hide what was going wrong and Labour went with their "out of touch toffs" line backed up by numbers specifically to frame the position as failure on the largest possible scale.
Our economy is in a truly perilous state and it needed a debate that reflected that. It needed a government to say that and an opposition to say where they thought better strategies lay and where they would cooperate with the government. But no, we had none of that. What we really got was a wrestling match driven by nothing more than a lust for power. There is some effort to look like they're doing something, but the reality is none of them are serious about this problem. If they were they would look really hard at what really is working and what really isn't and sell it to the British people. But we don't get that. We get a power struggle masquerading as a debate by those who only want their hands on the reins because they get to sit on the slightly more comfortable seats in an already luxurious ride compared to what the rest of us have to put up with. It wasn't a debate about what's going to stop 60 million people crashing onto the rocks. It was a bun fight in which the only people being considered were those in the two chambers.
We're in a mess. A real big stinking mess. One that needs serious men and women to bring some real gravity to public life who can tell it like it is and sell the much needed hard work to the nation. We need leaders who can tell the lobbyists that the party is over.
We got none of that yesterday. We got posturing by effetes and dilettantes yesterday. 60 million people got sold down the river in something that was nothing more than a disgrace.
Sunday, 2 December 2012
Missing a sitter
There's an interesting debate going on in this post over at Witterings from Witney. The main thrust of David's post and that of other bloggers is that whilst UKIP are making a big thing of their achievement in the Rotherham by-election there's a big question of whether it is anything like the crowning achievement it's being painted as. As both WfW and EUReferendum observe, UKIP have effectively (to use a football parallel) missed a sitter in front of an open goal. Officially they've come second in the race but if we include what Helen over at Your Freedom and Ours calls the sod off party, they came third.
I'm inclined to agree with their analysis if you take a cold hard look at it. They were handed virtually every advantage they're going to get in a bid for a seat. An election forced by an MP standing down in disgrace, their biggest threats about as popular as a fart in a space suit and some timely publicity that put UKIP on the front page of most national newspapers. Any political strategist worth his salt would probably have been considered this the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Furthermore given what we subsequently learned was another paltry turnout all of those advantages should have been magnified and as such more people should be asking the questions of UKIP than just Witterings from Witney, EUReferendum and other bloggers. The mainstream media should ask why they keep coming up short.
I don't plan on dwelling on it, but in short it should have been better and if they genuinely have ambition (either with or without Farage) someone needs to wake up and smell the coffee. The political landscape right now is about as fertile as Kansas for making headway from an organised UKIP. What's more although there are agendas progressing such as the Harrogate Agenda (HA), there is a need for a new force such as UKIP in the political arena even if it's just to show the electorate that something has changed and that the other three donkeys in the derby should be on notice. It needs something of that nature just to get the people of Britain looking around at options such as HA and giving them serious thought as to what's wrong with what we have now and what should be done about it
As the comments reveal however in WfW's post, the organisation both local and national is is the nub of the problem and it would seem David speaks from personal experience of having tried to help UKIP locally. Following on from that comment I took another look at UKIPs site and went to the local section.
When I got there I found three things. A name of the chairman, a phone number and an email address. Nothing more. It would also seem by googling the name, the chairman is also the candidate for the seat.
I almost don't know where to begin with this one. Not only does the available information suggest a one man band, there's just no suggestion anything is going on that points to organisation. There's nothing to suggest UKIP are active in my constituency let alone gaining any traction. It's a schoolboy error to not be getting your grassroots going and raising its profile, especially for UKIP. The common view is UKIP is a home for disgruntled Tories. If that we true, wouldn't you be making more of your local activity at a time when call me Dave appears hell bent on disgruntling his local Conservative parties? It would be like a siren call to them tempting them to jump ship.
They should have had a plan, especially with Rotherham. If they genuinely expected to make ground in Rotherham they should have had local groups across the nation on standby to start signing up newly interested people and their website should have been shouting that from the rooftops. Voting is a funny thing, in that many people will only start voting for a group when it looks like it's going places. They didn't make the most of it and they should have. It's not just my local group. I clicked on several other groups across the country and saw just as little from each of them.
The other schoolboy error is their social media strategy. I'm sure it's an effort to woo the younger UKIPer, which they probably see as vital if they want to lose their golf club image and increase their profile as having something for all age groups. Part of that I would presume is the bit on their homepage pointing towards Facebook and Twitter. I decided to click on the facebook logo to go to the UKIP page and see how switched on they were there.
It doesn't take you to the UKIP Facebook page. It takes you to what I presume to be Nigel Farage's personal facebook page. If you're like me who hears the constant rumour that the problem with UKIP is it's all about Nigel, this would only seem to underline such a rumour. If I were just another ordinary Joe I probably wouldn't go any further. When the button says "Do You Know Nigel - ask him to be your friend" - the reality for many is that this is a big stop button. You don't know Nigel. He isn't your friend in the old school mate sense, so you walk away. Added to which what I saw didn't look up to date.
At the very least that Facebook icon should have gone to a UKIP page. Even better UKIP should be developing a page for each constituency.
Local is where the future is at. There should be an edict coming of of UKIP HQ for every constituency to build a local presence. They need to gather volunteers, build a profile and start telling stories and getting involved. They need to tell a better story than the press are telling about them. If they don't start now they'll find themselves nowhere at the next General Election. If they do it right though, they could take some very large political scalps given the level of apathy in returning some of these folk to Westminster. You can't be 21 days away from an election and then decide to come out of the gates. It's no good. You need to have a plan to start now. The goal will never be as wide open as it is now
I'm inclined to agree with their analysis if you take a cold hard look at it. They were handed virtually every advantage they're going to get in a bid for a seat. An election forced by an MP standing down in disgrace, their biggest threats about as popular as a fart in a space suit and some timely publicity that put UKIP on the front page of most national newspapers. Any political strategist worth his salt would probably have been considered this the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Furthermore given what we subsequently learned was another paltry turnout all of those advantages should have been magnified and as such more people should be asking the questions of UKIP than just Witterings from Witney, EUReferendum and other bloggers. The mainstream media should ask why they keep coming up short.
I don't plan on dwelling on it, but in short it should have been better and if they genuinely have ambition (either with or without Farage) someone needs to wake up and smell the coffee. The political landscape right now is about as fertile as Kansas for making headway from an organised UKIP. What's more although there are agendas progressing such as the Harrogate Agenda (HA), there is a need for a new force such as UKIP in the political arena even if it's just to show the electorate that something has changed and that the other three donkeys in the derby should be on notice. It needs something of that nature just to get the people of Britain looking around at options such as HA and giving them serious thought as to what's wrong with what we have now and what should be done about it
As the comments reveal however in WfW's post, the organisation both local and national is is the nub of the problem and it would seem David speaks from personal experience of having tried to help UKIP locally. Following on from that comment I took another look at UKIPs site and went to the local section.
When I got there I found three things. A name of the chairman, a phone number and an email address. Nothing more. It would also seem by googling the name, the chairman is also the candidate for the seat.
I almost don't know where to begin with this one. Not only does the available information suggest a one man band, there's just no suggestion anything is going on that points to organisation. There's nothing to suggest UKIP are active in my constituency let alone gaining any traction. It's a schoolboy error to not be getting your grassroots going and raising its profile, especially for UKIP. The common view is UKIP is a home for disgruntled Tories. If that we true, wouldn't you be making more of your local activity at a time when call me Dave appears hell bent on disgruntling his local Conservative parties? It would be like a siren call to them tempting them to jump ship.
They should have had a plan, especially with Rotherham. If they genuinely expected to make ground in Rotherham they should have had local groups across the nation on standby to start signing up newly interested people and their website should have been shouting that from the rooftops. Voting is a funny thing, in that many people will only start voting for a group when it looks like it's going places. They didn't make the most of it and they should have. It's not just my local group. I clicked on several other groups across the country and saw just as little from each of them.
The other schoolboy error is their social media strategy. I'm sure it's an effort to woo the younger UKIPer, which they probably see as vital if they want to lose their golf club image and increase their profile as having something for all age groups. Part of that I would presume is the bit on their homepage pointing towards Facebook and Twitter. I decided to click on the facebook logo to go to the UKIP page and see how switched on they were there.
It doesn't take you to the UKIP Facebook page. It takes you to what I presume to be Nigel Farage's personal facebook page. If you're like me who hears the constant rumour that the problem with UKIP is it's all about Nigel, this would only seem to underline such a rumour. If I were just another ordinary Joe I probably wouldn't go any further. When the button says "Do You Know Nigel - ask him to be your friend" - the reality for many is that this is a big stop button. You don't know Nigel. He isn't your friend in the old school mate sense, so you walk away. Added to which what I saw didn't look up to date.
At the very least that Facebook icon should have gone to a UKIP page. Even better UKIP should be developing a page for each constituency.
Local is where the future is at. There should be an edict coming of of UKIP HQ for every constituency to build a local presence. They need to gather volunteers, build a profile and start telling stories and getting involved. They need to tell a better story than the press are telling about them. If they don't start now they'll find themselves nowhere at the next General Election. If they do it right though, they could take some very large political scalps given the level of apathy in returning some of these folk to Westminster. You can't be 21 days away from an election and then decide to come out of the gates. It's no good. You need to have a plan to start now. The goal will never be as wide open as it is now
Saturday, 1 December 2012
Hair Trigger
Here's a video I put out there with some caution, because I'm not quite sure what to make of the message
within it.
An SGTreport.com Micro Documentary, in association with TheLibertyMill.com (H/t Mac Slavo at shtfplan.com)
Now I hesitate because it contains some messages I'm not certain where I am on them, but I put it out there to let people think about what they make of it. The other reason is that it gives a bit of an insight as to what's worrying me. Many of my fellow bloggers are concerned about spending, especially the unfettered spending that has become the hallmark of modern Britain. I don't mind useful spending but what we have now can hardly be classed as useful. We've had decades of it yet if anything we're going backwards. The reason for that is twofold and there is a causal relationship between the two:
1) The politicians and their state apparatus are spending money to do nothing more than garner further votes to keep their place at the taxpayer funded trough.
2) The population has learned that this relationship enables them to vote for money for themselves.
That puts us in a dangerous situation for all kinds of reasons, but they all lead to one thing if unchecked and we fail to reverse it.
We run out of money.
You see the problem with the two points above is that that cash requirement is never static. Once you start it, more and more people want to get in on the act. The people enjoying it very rarely want to stay at the same level of cash. They soon learn to need more to have the same level of "enjoyment" and tend to grow ambitious in terms of other things they want. Politicians learn that this behaviour gets them votes so doing it for more people will get them more votes. More votes equals greater security at the trough.
Unchecked, this takes us down the dark path of preparing to run out of money.
Now as I mention many of us in the blogging world are screaming stop the bus. Yes we're angry and it's a bit of a cathartic rant but it's much more also. We've seen where this ends if you play it out to it's ultimate result and it is a dark, dark place.
The bit I wanted to you to see in that video was the madness that takes place for what are effectively pointless doodads. They're not really needed but we're locked into a psychology of greed, avarice and "me, me, me". Look at the level of violence involved for this junk.
Now imagine how that would look for food, water and medicine.
You're possibly thinking I've lost the plot and that we're in to tin foil hat territory here. I'm not saying this is inevitable. I'm looking at the voracious demand for more spending from everyone. You might be thinking that the fact that it's an American video and has no relevance to the UK, but let me bring some other things into play to prompt you to think again. We're more connected than people know in one particular area - finance. The money we're relying on is all interconnected. The banks that move it about are global banks. If one bank takes a hit, there is a knock on effect. Geographically this video is thousands of miles but financially it's on our doorstep.
You might be saying, "yeah but the banks will be alright". My question is will they? It doesn't take much of a search outside of the lame efforts of the legacy media to show you they're in a right pickle. It's happening all over Europe and look at the calibre of the politicians supposedly trying to fix it. They're struggling to manage the simple stuff never mind the big stuff.
We're in a time for serious brains with a capacity for telling us the truth to be running the show yet all we have are peacocks strutting their stuff, demonstrating they're pure lightweights posturing on pointless initiatives to look good to a crowd they've dumbed down. Events over take them day after day.
You might be thinking that we're not like those people in the video. My question is are we sure? I don't think we all are but here's some food for thought. Think back to the riots of 2010. That was a domino effect in action. One incident kicked off a riot. Many of them had no connection to Mark Duggan, yet they couldn't wait to get out there and let rip. It soon became not about anger, but a free for all robbery and a thumping for anyone they just didn't happen to like the look of for that moment.
Look at where we were earlier in 2012 when there was the mere suggestion that there might be a fuel strike. We started panic buying at the pumps. The country almost came to stop over something that didn't happen because too many of us are operating on a hair trigger level when it comes to what we want for ourselves.
Too many of us have little or no tolerance for a downturn in our lifestyles. I Understand that. We've had decades which by and large today has been better than yesterday in terms of overall lifestyle. Today is more comfortable than yesterday was. There is more abundance today than there was yesterday. I have more "stuff" today than I had yesterday. We have become reliant on the notion that today is better than yesterday and that in all likelihood, tomorrow will be better still and so on and so on. Those who lived closer to the war years, have more awareness of tough times, but for people like me whose teenage years were the 80's and onwards we have no real notion of hard times and going without. I'm not talking about going without computer games, two cars and all that stuff. I'm talking about making food for two go around four. I'm talking about staying warm and keeping the lights on. I'm talking about the stuff right at the base of Maslow's Hierarchy of Need.
That brings me to the last point and almost brings me full circle. The petrol "shortage" incident of 2012 demonstrated something that wasn't really commented on at the time and we take for granted. We presume that something will always be there. Because we've had decades of better times the dominant thinking is that it will always continue. But we nearly ran out of fuel where we needed it, in the pumps. This is because so many of our businesses operate on "just in time" basis. The fuel deliveries to the station. The food deliveries to the supermarket. The drug deliveries to the chemist and the hospital. They all operate on a finely balanced just in time system, driven by computers and schedules. It's a constant never ending stream of delivery to keep things topped up. It's designed to cope with a certain level of demand. It can accommodate some fluctuations, mostly seasonal, but there is a limit. Hit it hard like we did with the fuel strike that never was and we expose its fundamental flaw. That flaw is we run out if we hit it with sustained excessive demand. Excessive demand that comes from pure self interest.
It's this sort of demand that will see the supermarkets empty very quickly along with the chemist and the petrol station. That would be the petrol that the power station workers use to get to work to keep the lights on and the boiler running. What's worse, when it gets to this point the prices start shooting through the roof and stuff begins to cost money we won't have and money government won't have and can no longer borrow have. It's a horrible dark and downward spiral.
We're fortunate. The lights are still on. The boiler is still getting electricity and gas and there is still food in the supermarkets
So when bloggers are talking about need to cut down on the excesses of state spending, it's this spiral we're really trying to prevent so that everything stays at a level we're able to cope with in these here modern times. We do it because down the path is an unimaginable darkness for all of us.
within it.
An SGTreport.com Micro Documentary, in association with TheLibertyMill.com (H/t Mac Slavo at shtfplan.com)
Now I hesitate because it contains some messages I'm not certain where I am on them, but I put it out there to let people think about what they make of it. The other reason is that it gives a bit of an insight as to what's worrying me. Many of my fellow bloggers are concerned about spending, especially the unfettered spending that has become the hallmark of modern Britain. I don't mind useful spending but what we have now can hardly be classed as useful. We've had decades of it yet if anything we're going backwards. The reason for that is twofold and there is a causal relationship between the two:
1) The politicians and their state apparatus are spending money to do nothing more than garner further votes to keep their place at the taxpayer funded trough.
2) The population has learned that this relationship enables them to vote for money for themselves.
That puts us in a dangerous situation for all kinds of reasons, but they all lead to one thing if unchecked and we fail to reverse it.
We run out of money.
You see the problem with the two points above is that that cash requirement is never static. Once you start it, more and more people want to get in on the act. The people enjoying it very rarely want to stay at the same level of cash. They soon learn to need more to have the same level of "enjoyment" and tend to grow ambitious in terms of other things they want. Politicians learn that this behaviour gets them votes so doing it for more people will get them more votes. More votes equals greater security at the trough.
Unchecked, this takes us down the dark path of preparing to run out of money.
Now as I mention many of us in the blogging world are screaming stop the bus. Yes we're angry and it's a bit of a cathartic rant but it's much more also. We've seen where this ends if you play it out to it's ultimate result and it is a dark, dark place.
The bit I wanted to you to see in that video was the madness that takes place for what are effectively pointless doodads. They're not really needed but we're locked into a psychology of greed, avarice and "me, me, me". Look at the level of violence involved for this junk.
Now imagine how that would look for food, water and medicine.
You're possibly thinking I've lost the plot and that we're in to tin foil hat territory here. I'm not saying this is inevitable. I'm looking at the voracious demand for more spending from everyone. You might be thinking that the fact that it's an American video and has no relevance to the UK, but let me bring some other things into play to prompt you to think again. We're more connected than people know in one particular area - finance. The money we're relying on is all interconnected. The banks that move it about are global banks. If one bank takes a hit, there is a knock on effect. Geographically this video is thousands of miles but financially it's on our doorstep.
You might be saying, "yeah but the banks will be alright". My question is will they? It doesn't take much of a search outside of the lame efforts of the legacy media to show you they're in a right pickle. It's happening all over Europe and look at the calibre of the politicians supposedly trying to fix it. They're struggling to manage the simple stuff never mind the big stuff.
We're in a time for serious brains with a capacity for telling us the truth to be running the show yet all we have are peacocks strutting their stuff, demonstrating they're pure lightweights posturing on pointless initiatives to look good to a crowd they've dumbed down. Events over take them day after day.
You might be thinking that we're not like those people in the video. My question is are we sure? I don't think we all are but here's some food for thought. Think back to the riots of 2010. That was a domino effect in action. One incident kicked off a riot. Many of them had no connection to Mark Duggan, yet they couldn't wait to get out there and let rip. It soon became not about anger, but a free for all robbery and a thumping for anyone they just didn't happen to like the look of for that moment.
Look at where we were earlier in 2012 when there was the mere suggestion that there might be a fuel strike. We started panic buying at the pumps. The country almost came to stop over something that didn't happen because too many of us are operating on a hair trigger level when it comes to what we want for ourselves.
Too many of us have little or no tolerance for a downturn in our lifestyles. I Understand that. We've had decades which by and large today has been better than yesterday in terms of overall lifestyle. Today is more comfortable than yesterday was. There is more abundance today than there was yesterday. I have more "stuff" today than I had yesterday. We have become reliant on the notion that today is better than yesterday and that in all likelihood, tomorrow will be better still and so on and so on. Those who lived closer to the war years, have more awareness of tough times, but for people like me whose teenage years were the 80's and onwards we have no real notion of hard times and going without. I'm not talking about going without computer games, two cars and all that stuff. I'm talking about making food for two go around four. I'm talking about staying warm and keeping the lights on. I'm talking about the stuff right at the base of Maslow's Hierarchy of Need.
That brings me to the last point and almost brings me full circle. The petrol "shortage" incident of 2012 demonstrated something that wasn't really commented on at the time and we take for granted. We presume that something will always be there. Because we've had decades of better times the dominant thinking is that it will always continue. But we nearly ran out of fuel where we needed it, in the pumps. This is because so many of our businesses operate on "just in time" basis. The fuel deliveries to the station. The food deliveries to the supermarket. The drug deliveries to the chemist and the hospital. They all operate on a finely balanced just in time system, driven by computers and schedules. It's a constant never ending stream of delivery to keep things topped up. It's designed to cope with a certain level of demand. It can accommodate some fluctuations, mostly seasonal, but there is a limit. Hit it hard like we did with the fuel strike that never was and we expose its fundamental flaw. That flaw is we run out if we hit it with sustained excessive demand. Excessive demand that comes from pure self interest.
It's this sort of demand that will see the supermarkets empty very quickly along with the chemist and the petrol station. That would be the petrol that the power station workers use to get to work to keep the lights on and the boiler running. What's worse, when it gets to this point the prices start shooting through the roof and stuff begins to cost money we won't have and money government won't have and can no longer borrow have. It's a horrible dark and downward spiral.
We're fortunate. The lights are still on. The boiler is still getting electricity and gas and there is still food in the supermarkets
So when bloggers are talking about need to cut down on the excesses of state spending, it's this spiral we're really trying to prevent so that everything stays at a level we're able to cope with in these here modern times. We do it because down the path is an unimaginable darkness for all of us.
Saturday, 17 November 2012
They're just not that into you
For those of you with a masochistic streak in them, Thursday evening's Question Time was very telling about our political class and even more so about one particular party.
Someone among the audience asked the question around the notion of should we boycott those corporations who pay a very low rate of tax in the UK. The response was first offered to Labour's Harriet Harman who slightly danced around it, but somewhere in there put out something about how they should pay their fair share. Then Chris Grayling offered something a bit weaselly as well in which he threw in a "I don't drink at Starbucks".
Smiling wryly through all of this was Nigel Farage. He started to point out the Euro angle to this which seemed originally to be met with groans suggestive of "here we go again", but his finish was quite revealing about the others.
In his reply he essentially pointed out the gaping hole in their arguments when he stated that these corporations were only taking advantage of a EU wide agreement that permits them to choose which EU member state they pay their corporation tax to. He further explained that's why so many organisations choose either Ireland or Luxembourg because they've priced theirs to attract business.
Now this post is not about Farage, the EU or the rights and wrongs of tax payments of international corporations.
It's about politicians. It's about the fact that Farage wasn't the only one on that panel who knew what the arrangement was for these companies. They pretty much all knew it. If they didn't, well that's a whole new issue. In reality they will have known, yet when asked the question, not one of them (excepting Farage) gave the audience the honest answer. They danced around it with grandstanding pronouncements that give the impression they too are outraged are efforts to wriggle out of paying the British Exchequer what it's owed. They could have told you straight but they didn't. Anything but the truth was fine by them when answering to the public.
It was bad of all of them to omit this, but worse still I think for Labour. Regular readers will know I am scornful of Labour in their pretence to stand for the "working" man and woman which they wear like a cloak to hide all manner of views that run counter to such a philosophy. Harman knew the answer as well as Farage and Grayling did, but she carried on the pretence to promote herself and her party with the notion of taking the fight to big bad business. The truth was secondary to that need.
My point? It's this. They're just not that into you whatever their window dressing might suggest. In fact the more they suggest they're for the everyday man and woman, the more it seems the counter is true. Telling you what's real and letting you decide doesn't even come in to it because their need is more power for them. You're little people. When they want your opinion they'll give it to you, so you just sit down sonny and wait until you're told what to do. You don't matter to them except for the fact that you're currency, a down payment on their place at the trough. The only time they really want you is when they want your vote. They'll roll their meaningless manifesto in a bit of fairy dust, grab your vote and crack on with what they wanted to do in the first place. they don't care about you because you have given them permission to.
Now I don't say that to depress you. I don't want you to decide it's all pointless return to the electronic mogadon in the corner of your lounge. That's the worse thing you can do. Those we think of as "in charge" are being overtaken by events across the world. We've seen they're not really cut out for responsibility. They ballsing up the simple things so let's have a think about how well they're really managing the difficult stuff. Well, one example of how they handle it is evidenced in the QT example that leads this post. They tell a different story altogether and hope you don't notice. Returning to your comfy chair however is the worst thing you can do. You see they're breaking things so badly that if they're left unchecked, or we don't find leaders who are cut out for handling serious issues, the whole thing is going to go bang. When I say go bang, I mean break, shatter, collapse. If you think it's bad now, wait till it goes bang then you'll see a definition of bad.
If it goes that wrong, you won't be watching riots like they have in Greece and Spain on your television, you'll be watching them from your lounge window.
Have a think about that and decide whether it's back to the television or if you need to think about what you can do to put this nation back on the right track to prosperity and liberty.
Someone among the audience asked the question around the notion of should we boycott those corporations who pay a very low rate of tax in the UK. The response was first offered to Labour's Harriet Harman who slightly danced around it, but somewhere in there put out something about how they should pay their fair share. Then Chris Grayling offered something a bit weaselly as well in which he threw in a "I don't drink at Starbucks".
Smiling wryly through all of this was Nigel Farage. He started to point out the Euro angle to this which seemed originally to be met with groans suggestive of "here we go again", but his finish was quite revealing about the others.
In his reply he essentially pointed out the gaping hole in their arguments when he stated that these corporations were only taking advantage of a EU wide agreement that permits them to choose which EU member state they pay their corporation tax to. He further explained that's why so many organisations choose either Ireland or Luxembourg because they've priced theirs to attract business.
Now this post is not about Farage, the EU or the rights and wrongs of tax payments of international corporations.
It's about politicians. It's about the fact that Farage wasn't the only one on that panel who knew what the arrangement was for these companies. They pretty much all knew it. If they didn't, well that's a whole new issue. In reality they will have known, yet when asked the question, not one of them (excepting Farage) gave the audience the honest answer. They danced around it with grandstanding pronouncements that give the impression they too are outraged are efforts to wriggle out of paying the British Exchequer what it's owed. They could have told you straight but they didn't. Anything but the truth was fine by them when answering to the public.
It was bad of all of them to omit this, but worse still I think for Labour. Regular readers will know I am scornful of Labour in their pretence to stand for the "working" man and woman which they wear like a cloak to hide all manner of views that run counter to such a philosophy. Harman knew the answer as well as Farage and Grayling did, but she carried on the pretence to promote herself and her party with the notion of taking the fight to big bad business. The truth was secondary to that need.
My point? It's this. They're just not that into you whatever their window dressing might suggest. In fact the more they suggest they're for the everyday man and woman, the more it seems the counter is true. Telling you what's real and letting you decide doesn't even come in to it because their need is more power for them. You're little people. When they want your opinion they'll give it to you, so you just sit down sonny and wait until you're told what to do. You don't matter to them except for the fact that you're currency, a down payment on their place at the trough. The only time they really want you is when they want your vote. They'll roll their meaningless manifesto in a bit of fairy dust, grab your vote and crack on with what they wanted to do in the first place. they don't care about you because you have given them permission to.
Now I don't say that to depress you. I don't want you to decide it's all pointless return to the electronic mogadon in the corner of your lounge. That's the worse thing you can do. Those we think of as "in charge" are being overtaken by events across the world. We've seen they're not really cut out for responsibility. They ballsing up the simple things so let's have a think about how well they're really managing the difficult stuff. Well, one example of how they handle it is evidenced in the QT example that leads this post. They tell a different story altogether and hope you don't notice. Returning to your comfy chair however is the worst thing you can do. You see they're breaking things so badly that if they're left unchecked, or we don't find leaders who are cut out for handling serious issues, the whole thing is going to go bang. When I say go bang, I mean break, shatter, collapse. If you think it's bad now, wait till it goes bang then you'll see a definition of bad.
If it goes that wrong, you won't be watching riots like they have in Greece and Spain on your television, you'll be watching them from your lounge window.
Have a think about that and decide whether it's back to the television or if you need to think about what you can do to put this nation back on the right track to prosperity and liberty.
Sunday, 4 November 2012
Counterattack
One of the things I've being thinking about and trying to do with this blog is to get large numbers of every day people to take action to get Britain off the track it appears to be on and back onto a track that has a better long term future for all. Its a numbers game. I believe the mess we currently find ourselves in is down to a campaign that has been in action over several decades. As such it has riddled our institutes and therefore the people we have running them. Turning this around therefore takes numbers. I believe the numbers are out there but they're either slumbering or overwhelmed by the organisation of it all, made worse by everyday "useful idiots" who enable their narrative.
The result is I try to think about how I can use this blog to give practical advice to everyday folk, to counter it and push back. Hopefully I've found something to help with that.
One such area of that philosophy is man made global warming(AGW). Yes I know, I've got the words wrong. It now doesn't get called that. The new phrase is man made climate change. I'm sticking with my term for this article because this is what its proponents are still really arguing, they're just trying to dress it up in confusing language (note to self - post some entries on Propaganda) so they can claim any piece of odd weather is evidence for their claim.
AGW is all pervading. When you hear about it, it's often positioned as a subject in which "The Science is Settled". The truth of the matter their version of the science is settled at all. In fact (and I wish I could find the link), that science is settled phrase was a recommendation in a strategy document by a PR agency that did a lot of work for pro AGW bodies. The science isn't settled. It's possible to learn if you do some background in to it that the AGW story is a tale of manipulation, fudge, lies and corruption of science. If it was so self evident why would this manipulation need to take place?
As I say it's all pervading. Everything you see about nature has a reference to it. It runs through our institutions and includes the indoctrination of our children with junk science so that they develop an entrenched mindset about it in which they are unable to question the orthodoxy.
I have to concede this to those advocates. They've been very successful in turning logic on its head. They've even got the man and woman in the street trotting out their nonsense without really knowing whether it's true or not. I say that because they simply repeat the orthodoxy, without having questioned it. These people are what Lenin termed "useful idiots".
Some of them however I suspect aren't really sure. They kind of laugh it off with a air of resignation in the same way we did about political correctness in the 80's. They laugh it off because they still see the contradictions so know something isn't right, but because it's all they hear they eventually become lost to the orthodoxy and get in line like the rest of the herd.
So here's what I have. If you're one of those who aren't sure go over to this site and have a quick learn or download the PDF file. It's a nice boiled down version of facts to rebut the tosh that's trotted out day after day to progress the AGW narrative. It's a great little read.
Don't worry about the simplicity because that's what makes it perfect for me. The average man and woman in the street isn't bothered abut the complex science. Keeping it complex helps the AGW advocates. It gives them a cloak to hide behind. I believe the complexity argument helps the sheep get into line and swallow the narrative. That's how the the herd reconcile the contradictions they see all around the story as they presume these contradictions must be explainable by something a bit complicated and only the AGW scientists understand, so what they say must be true (see how it works?).
Simplicity is the key. Despite being in the list of all time reprehensible list of characters, Adolf Hitler did make one astute observation. If you want a message to gather traction amongst the masses, you have to simplify it to the point that even the least clever amongst us can grasp it. The site I mentioned enables you to do that, It's pitched at a level you need to see the flaws in the AGW argument so that you can counter the onslaught that's thrown at you each and every day.
So take it and use it to push back with simple clear arguments. The advocates who push the narrative for malign reasons need the useful idiots. Losing these useful idiots is the first step in the erosion of their narrative. They're relying on being unchallenged or in such small numbers as to be insignificant. So use it and take back some ground and then take back a bit more and a bit more.
Talk to people and politely correct them and show them where they've been had and been conned. Eventually you'll find someone who sees the light. Then there will be two of you pushing back and before you know it there will be four pushing back and so on. Eventually you'll come across one of the corrupt and there will be enough of you to send them running for the hills because like all bullies, they're not after a challenge, they're after a victim.
Push back and bring your mates along. They don't like that and they're not ready for it. Let them know the day of the dog is here.
The result is I try to think about how I can use this blog to give practical advice to everyday folk, to counter it and push back. Hopefully I've found something to help with that.
One such area of that philosophy is man made global warming(AGW). Yes I know, I've got the words wrong. It now doesn't get called that. The new phrase is man made climate change. I'm sticking with my term for this article because this is what its proponents are still really arguing, they're just trying to dress it up in confusing language (note to self - post some entries on Propaganda) so they can claim any piece of odd weather is evidence for their claim.
AGW is all pervading. When you hear about it, it's often positioned as a subject in which "The Science is Settled". The truth of the matter their version of the science is settled at all. In fact (and I wish I could find the link), that science is settled phrase was a recommendation in a strategy document by a PR agency that did a lot of work for pro AGW bodies. The science isn't settled. It's possible to learn if you do some background in to it that the AGW story is a tale of manipulation, fudge, lies and corruption of science. If it was so self evident why would this manipulation need to take place?
As I say it's all pervading. Everything you see about nature has a reference to it. It runs through our institutions and includes the indoctrination of our children with junk science so that they develop an entrenched mindset about it in which they are unable to question the orthodoxy.
I have to concede this to those advocates. They've been very successful in turning logic on its head. They've even got the man and woman in the street trotting out their nonsense without really knowing whether it's true or not. I say that because they simply repeat the orthodoxy, without having questioned it. These people are what Lenin termed "useful idiots".
Some of them however I suspect aren't really sure. They kind of laugh it off with a air of resignation in the same way we did about political correctness in the 80's. They laugh it off because they still see the contradictions so know something isn't right, but because it's all they hear they eventually become lost to the orthodoxy and get in line like the rest of the herd.
So here's what I have. If you're one of those who aren't sure go over to this site and have a quick learn or download the PDF file. It's a nice boiled down version of facts to rebut the tosh that's trotted out day after day to progress the AGW narrative. It's a great little read.
Don't worry about the simplicity because that's what makes it perfect for me. The average man and woman in the street isn't bothered abut the complex science. Keeping it complex helps the AGW advocates. It gives them a cloak to hide behind. I believe the complexity argument helps the sheep get into line and swallow the narrative. That's how the the herd reconcile the contradictions they see all around the story as they presume these contradictions must be explainable by something a bit complicated and only the AGW scientists understand, so what they say must be true (see how it works?).
Simplicity is the key. Despite being in the list of all time reprehensible list of characters, Adolf Hitler did make one astute observation. If you want a message to gather traction amongst the masses, you have to simplify it to the point that even the least clever amongst us can grasp it. The site I mentioned enables you to do that, It's pitched at a level you need to see the flaws in the AGW argument so that you can counter the onslaught that's thrown at you each and every day.
So take it and use it to push back with simple clear arguments. The advocates who push the narrative for malign reasons need the useful idiots. Losing these useful idiots is the first step in the erosion of their narrative. They're relying on being unchallenged or in such small numbers as to be insignificant. So use it and take back some ground and then take back a bit more and a bit more.
Talk to people and politely correct them and show them where they've been had and been conned. Eventually you'll find someone who sees the light. Then there will be two of you pushing back and before you know it there will be four pushing back and so on. Eventually you'll come across one of the corrupt and there will be enough of you to send them running for the hills because like all bullies, they're not after a challenge, they're after a victim.
Push back and bring your mates along. They don't like that and they're not ready for it. Let them know the day of the dog is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)