Archive

Archive for the ‘Brexit’ Category

A housing market correction will be nothing to do with Brexit, Gov’. A lot of people would actually like a 33%+ drop in prices and those who would suffer could and should have been helped by preventative regulation long before now

September 16, 2018 Leave a comment

images (12)Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England has become a divisive figure, despite some protestations that his efforts are the only thing keeping the Government sound.

Appointed by George Osborne, some would have been surprised by the recent extension of his Contract, but less so by his intervention this week suggesting that there could be a housing market crash, post ‘no deal Brexit’. He has form when it comes to ‘Project Fear’ after all.

First things first. Bank of England Governor or not, nobody has the level of knowledge of the future that it would take to make a credible prediction of this kind with such clarity and yes, conviction too.

The great irony surrounding Mr Carney’s latest projection is that a great many people throughout the UK would not only welcome a drop in house prices of the kind he has suggested. They would probably go out and celebrate it too.

A correction in the massively over-inflated UK housing market is long overdue and We can be sure that with the experience and background that Mr Carney has, he jolly well knows this too. It’s just very easy right now for him to link anything bad with the all absorbing process and negativity being peddled about Brexit by key people who should really behave better.

Houses in this country have been vastly overpriced for an entire generation already.

The gap between income level and the borrowing necessary to secure home ownership grows exponentially every year.

Yet the people who could do more to bring into check the out of control monster that is the housing market – that’s people like Mr Carney himself, have long since given up on trying to tackle the issues creating the housing crisis head on.

They instead rely on hollow excuses to create policies like aggressive house building which won’t actually solve the housing problem through our Country but will certainly ensure that the green parts of England will soon never ever look quite the same.

Ask yourself this. When was the last time you experienced house prices falling in your local area when a new and probably large housing development was built nearby?

No. House prices are drastically over-inflated and it is only because so little meaningful regulation is placed upon the banks and finance houses, that their unbridled processes of money creation have been allowed to build and consolidate a mountain of private debt for the general population.

Meanwhile those responsible for what is to them a distant reality live gilded lives which are only possible because they have been allowed to create a culture of financial oppression for others which is progressively enslaving the masses whilst the benefits push up prices for everyone but only deliver benefits for the few.

The false world which has been created by the work of the financial sector really is a wonder to behold. But it is not real and it is dangerously dependent upon the security and stability of the financial markets which are intrinsically linked to the wants and whims of traders and government appointed officials, leaving little in terms of cushioning or a safety net located in between.

The correction in the housing market for which many are now waiting could as easily come after a no deal Brexit as it could at any other time.

But if the housing market correction should appear to arrive at the time of our leaving the EU, it will not be because of the decision made in the European Referendum in 2016.

It will do so because of the catalystic behaviour of officials and politicians in the European Union and our Government who have and continue to resist the democratic decision of the British People to complete Brexit.

They have worked tirelessly instead for a mismatch and mess of measures which cannot possibly work as a solution as it has always been their aim to place the UK within a mythical no mans land between us and the EU which could never actually exist, even though they would continually tell us all that it was so.

 

image thanks to thetimes.co.uk

 

The problem with the plan for Brexit, is that Brexit has become all about having a plan

July 19, 2018 4 comments

When Prime Minister Winston Churchill arrived in Downing Street in May 1940, he didn’t have a plan or a date in mind for the War to end in 1945. He just knew what he had to achieve, and took the initiative to lead.

Right now, Brexit has effectively fallen on its arse. Not because the instruction given by the Electorate on 23rd June 2016 wasn’t clear. It was.

Brexit seems to be going nowhere because almost everyone has become obsessed by the ‘plan’ that will get us ‘there’.

Having a plan in itself isn’t a problem. Having plans is pretty normal. But when you allow yourself to become paralysed and glued to the spot, just because there isn’t a plan in place which appears to suit your purpose, there is little wonder that everything soon begins to resemble one giant mess.

Plans, or creating plans for any aim or desired outcome is a very deceptive process. Having an ‘agreed’ plan gives a false sense of security, built on the complacent view that everything will then work like clockwork and turn out as good as you could possibly hope.

In practice, or perhaps I should say the real world, plans rarely work out as anticipated, particularly when it comes to Government or running anything which involves the input or influence of more than one person.

Roll that idea out into a negotiated peace with the European Union, its advisors, negotiators, commissioners and 27 Nation States in between and we can begin to get a very real idea about how hard agreeing a plan which will suit all of them – and don’t forget us – would actually be.

The elephant in the room with all of this process of working up and then waiting for the EU to agree a plan, is and always has been that it is completely unnecessary.

The result of the European Referendum was a clear instruction. An instruction to Parliament and our MPs to take every step necessary to facilitate and then implement the specific action of rescinding, and therefore leaving Membership of the EU.

That instruction wasn’t advisory. It wasn’t just a view. The Electorate’s instruction was not a request for MP’s to go away and spend two years arguing over what the word ‘leave’ actually means and dream up excuse after excuse to excuse themselves from doing that which they have been told to do.

It certainly wasn’t an invitation to delay, divide and destroy a legitimate democratic process by creating the pretence that you don’t need to be in or out, but can hover happily somewhere in between. You can’t.

Even attempting to create a comprehensive or exhaustive plan to undertake such a complicated process as returning full sovereignty, law making and responsibility for our own trade, was always going to be impossible to achieve. But that is no reason to fall into the trap of thinking that without a plan, Brexit or rather leaving the European Union is something that we should not or disingenuously then have an excuse not  to do.

In 1940, Churchill had no plan for winning World War 2. Yet one way or another, dealing with each and every battle, set back, resource issue and foreign affairs nightmare as it came, he achieved for him his aim and for us as a Country, much more besides. As our leader, he just took each and every step, looked each and every day in the eye and didn’t accept defeat as an option which was on the table, let alone a choice which was his alone to decide.

It didn’t take one big plan to win that War. It took a whole series of many smaller plans to do what adds up to being the same.

It’s simply the case that hindsight has allowed the story to fit together snugly when the words of history overlook the mistakes, blunders and blind alleyways that lurked continuously in between his appointment and our Victory.

What the delivery of such a giant task did take however, was leadership. And when we look at the way that we are being led into Brexit today, compared to Churchill’s take on being ruled from Europe from 1940 to 1945, there remains an almost universal gulf sitting in between.

image thanks to Wikipedia

Even if the Government has ‘reports’ on the UK’s future after Brexit, it would remain foolish to rely on expert opinion about an event which hasn’t already taken place

December 27, 2017 Leave a comment

download (9)Brexit has been created by a phenomenon, the elements of which many of us are still failing to understand. For non-decision makers, this is just a social problem between people who are usually friends. But for our politicians it has now become an elaborate game of pin the tail on the donkey which risks much more than a simple prick to the finger if they get their blindfolded judgement wrong.

The exquisite mix of having a government led by people who do not believe in what they are doing, trying to deliver working solutions to problems that they do not understand would in any other situation be recognised for what it is. But politics has regrettably moved on from an age when it really was in some way chivalrous – if it ever really was, and power being all, is all it has now become.

This insidious environment does not lend itself well to the power of original thinking. Trust has become as interchangeable with myth as proof has become with fiction, and unrelated history has become the benchmark of reliability against the future that we can also not personally see.

Measuring the possible impact and consequences of Brexit against such a backdrop is therefore down to either fortune telling – which is at best no more than ‘an educated guess’, or of relying upon economic viewpoints and philosophies which have been developed on the basis of events that have already passed, rather than what will actually happen in the future.

Put simply, nothing like Brexit has happened before and nor will it happen again, as even the smallest difference – perhaps down to the outlook of just one of the key players involved, could deliver an outcome which we could never imagine.

That the Government and Ministers responsible for any part of the Brexit process may or may not choose to rely upon reports which have been devised in this way and within this unique set of circumstances, is perhaps more about their own take on the opinion of others, rather than anything we could really label as setting out to deceive.

Whether they be Specialists, Experts, Economists or not, it is little more than opinion that they actually give and we would all do well to remember that even then, nobody has the ability to offer such ‘expert analysis’ of an event which has not already taken place.

Yes, we all have concerns about what is to come as a result of Brexit. But staying within Europe would not in any way have meant that a stable future of any kind was assured. And it remains worthy of note that whilst Brexit may prove to be temporarily challenging for us, for the UK to have remained a member of the EU may in time have proven to be truly catastrophic.

image thanks to fortune.com

Using money to thwart democracy is dictatorship wearing different clothes

January 26, 2017 1 comment

gina-millerInequality is a current and far reaching issue in the UK today. The difference between rich and poor, the educated elite and those with ‘poor education’ or the 1% and the rest are topics which are never far from the news, even if they are presented in an indirect but nonetheless similar way.

Whilst it would now be easy to challenge any portrayal of imbalance within ‘normal’ life across in the media, the fact remains that wealth, education, housing, employment, healthcare and the opportunities to access just about every method of support which can make a difference to any one persons quality or experience of life is not available to each and every one of us in exactly the same way. The same opportunities are not given to everyone, and however unacceptable or unpalatable this may seem, it remains an almost universal fact.

The social disparity which people experience today is sadly just an evolution of a problem which has been consistent throughout history, albeit at varying levels and presented in terms which have been contemporary for the times.

Beyond birth and death, our shared reality offers no genuine equality between any two people.

Whilst the rights lobby and so-called ‘progressives’ are unlikely to agree, human experience and free will render the possibility of true equality obsolete.

Democracy and the process of giving everyone within a community the same choices – even within the framework of restrictions which is imposed, is likely to be one of the most equal of opportunities which are the same for everyone. Whatever somebody’s background, address, bank balance or work status, they equate to the very same thing when it comes to placing a voting slip in the ballot box. We are conditioned to expect the same of the Law in this Country too.

The relationship between democracy and Law is all too easily overlooked. This has been alarmingly well illustrated by the decision on triggering Article 50 by the Supreme Court.

In the UK today, democracy franchises the Law. Yet the Law has now inadvertently been used to franchise an alternative to democracy; one which is being facilitated by money, which has been supplied by just a few people who have the financial means to manipulate a process which places emphasis upon technical truths, in order to promote and deliver upon their own view.

Dress it up in whichever way you like, by challenging the instruction which the result of the European Referendum provided, those who funded the Court action against the Government have used independent means to frustrate democratic process. They have successfully played the process of Law against the very people it is there to consider, to support and intended to represent above any private interest.

In this light, we can clearly observe the relationship between wealth and influence. Money is power and the injustice that befalls far too many everyday people, simply because the views of the few who have sufficient wealth to facilitate a decision which frustrates the will of the many is very frightening indeed.

At best, it appears that money can now be openly used to manipulate the result of a democratic process which will effect the lives and future of everyone in the Country.

If such ignorance of the majority view were to be as blatantly replicated by a handful of politicians or the prime minister who leads our Government by misusing their power – no matter how valid they believe their own argument to be, we would be justified in using terms to describe such behaviour as being akin to dictatorship.

The question we should all perhaps now be asking is what is the difference here and perhaps where else is this approach being used?

image thanks to telegraph.co.uk

Stoke Central will define UKIP’s future success or failure

January 21, 2017 Leave a comment

paul-nuttallWith our world being awash with significant events on what feels like an almost daily basis, it would be very easy to overlook the potential impact of the Stoke Central By-Election both in terms for the future of Labour, put perhaps more importantly UKIP.

Speculation over when and where Paul Nuttall, the new leader of UKIP might next attempt to secure a seat in Parliament have been trickling around the media and blog sites since he was elected. But his decision to now contest what some will say is a very winnable seat, will surely define much more in terms of his Party’s future, than it will about him alone.

UKIP’s definitive purpose was effectively achieved on the 23rd of June. This is a fact that it is surely borne out by Nigel Farage’s decision to quit the Leadership of the Party and take up commentating roles first with LBC and now Fox News in the States.

Those remaining within UKIP may overtly tell us that their job is now to ‘hold the government’s feet to the fire’ in terms of what Brexit will ultimately deliver. However, the motives of those who have stuck with that specific cause may now come into serious public question, given that in their own words, much of Theresa May’s Brexit Speech either echoes or copies much of what they have already said.

It would be foolish to write off the influence that UKIP has had upon the Brexit decision and the chances are that the Prime Minister will still come to regret not reaching out to Farage in some meaningful way. However, the question of whether people really see UKIP as the voice which speaks for change, or as a change which gave them a voice has yet to be fully proven. Stoke Central will almost certainly provide that opportunity.

In the weeks ahead, the lamentable performance of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn will go head to head with what we are led to believe is a resurgent Conservative Party and a UKIP which is now attempting to channel itself as the people’s champion and all things to all people.

However, whether those who vote come from a suburban re-mainstay or a potteries haven for leavers, attempting to equate the outcome of any future election with the way that people voted in the European Referendum, would in itself do them the considerable injustice of suggesting that Brexit has only ever been about one thing. It never was and never will be.

The question that the media and political establishments might now be better asking would be about the relationship of UKIP’s election successes to date. Yet none of them seem interested in whether the population as a whole is rather more savvy or intuitive about the political branding to which it will entrust real responsibility, choosing instead to continue talking up the kind of populist mobilisation that out-of-touch politicians are staking the hells-pace evolution of their unedifying careers upon.

If Nuttall wins in Stoke Central, the out-of-touch establishment may be seen to be correct in their assumptions. We will surely then observe even more of a scrap within Labour, UKIP and the Tories as they try and deliver messages that sound every bit more radical than the last.

However, if UKIP fails, the point will surely have been made that the establishment is overdue in accepting that meaningful change must now come from within the mainstream of politics itself and that it is time to stop blaming all of their political woes upon everybody else.

That would of course be the case if we had a political culture which could face up to being wrong.

image thanks to http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

Truth, post truth, lies or one persons truth is another is another mans lies: falsehoods and technical truths are the order of the day, but filtering for fake news will just take mass manipulation to a new level

December 23, 2016 1 comment

truth-2

Whichever way we turn, we have started to hear the media using the term ‘post truth’ as a label for just about every piece of news with which someone, somewhere disagrees. Some are more direct and call these stories lies. But politicians and activists have been using the same methods that they do now that they have for generations before the events of 2016 were even thought as being the remotest of possibilities. The only thing that has changed is that this method of communicating politically expedient truths has simply been given a name.

Perhaps it isn’t surprising that this as happened, given that both the result of the European Referendum and the US General Election went completely against the establishment script, leaving many of most skillful users of this manipulative dark art crying foul, simply because the very same weapon that they have used against so many, has been so effectively been used against them.

So what is the ‘post truth’ – It literally sounds as if we have entered an era where everything now being said and done in government has progressed beyond the point of being true?

To be fair, we often say to others observing and discussing the same events that we experience, that they are ‘unbelievable’. But this is a turn of phrase that doesn’t suggest that these events or what has been said is untrue. It reflects a reality that the acts of the political classes often defy logical explanation; that they present outcomes it would be unlikely to imagine, or that the stories we hear are of kind ‘that you simply couldn’t write’.

Words present a different challenge again and we must be mindful of the fact that a story which one person’s experience tells them is true, can all too easily be dismissed through the eyes of another who has had an alternative or perhaps wider level of experience.

Sadly, the world of politics long since arrived at the point where saying that something was true – but in reality only just from the point of view of the speaker, would mean they could make what are wilfully misleading statements, whilst ‘honestly’ painting that particular perspective or alternative reality as being true.

Doubling down or the art of sticking to the story or script makes watching media interviews with politicians from all sides absolutely cringeworthy. I am sure I have not been alone in wondering ‘why the hell don’t you just tell them the bloody truth?!’

Unfortunately that’s how today’s unethical and morally devoid political establishment operates and how it expects new entrants to always behave. Whether always being ‘on message’, accepting that as a junior politician you will be told what you will think, or simply becoming a vote to be used in government at the will of the party leadership as soon as the elections are over, that is the distasteful and utterly dishonest way that the current political regime works.

Trump, Cameron, Farage, Osborne, Johnson, Gove, Hannan, May and every figurehead politician we can identify as having played a role in key events this year have all been telling us their very own truths. What they are not however, are genuinely or completely false. And we should all be very concerned that there is now a growing movement at work which is looking to filter ‘fake news’ from the material that we read. A development which has been spearheaded by the work which Facebook is now doing.

Fake news in its genuine sense is a concept which social media has facilitated and a source of satire and ridiculous comedy that most of us thoroughly enjoy. The Poke, The Southend News Network, Newsthump and The Onion are but just a few of many more that we can as easily have posting to our newsfeeds each day.

We access them just the same as the apparently legitimate sources we read like the BBC, Sky News, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Times, The Huffington Post, The Wall Street Journal, or again a great many others too. Yet even they all promote the truths of the journalists, the editors, the companies that own them and the advertisers who pay the bigger part of their wages within them too.

People do know and understand the difference between ‘real’ and ‘fake’ news already. They do not need filters – which will inevitably contain the bias or prejudices of the people who run or program them – to ensure that they are only exposed to news that they can ‘trust’.

In a certain manner of speaking, no form of news can really be trusted today, as very little of the news we read or hear arrives on the screen in front of us without some hint of opinion being present. This has always been the case on a broader level within the various parts of the national press. But it does now seem to have become that bit more unpalatable to dissenters when a reader’s exposure to the ‘wrong’ stories through targeted material they often really want to read removes the chance that the alternative – or to others the ‘acceptable’ or ‘correct’ point of view will not be revealed to them.

If every reader or viewer were to engage with the news that reaches them by thinking critically today, the media industry would simply cease to exist overnight. But that doesn’t mean they are unaware of the realities and truths at some level.

It has long been accepted socially that opinion is what makes news sell and what turns ‘news’ into a product that we then want to buy. However, we certainly don’t want to read, watch or hear anything with which we don’t identify, and this is the indisputable truth that all of those who now want to control news for their own purposes will be very quick to deny.

image thanks to unknown

‘Soft Brexit’ or ‘Hard Brexit’ are no more than a Yes/No choice to a question which no longer exists

December 20, 2016 1 comment

brexitIf you are driving a car and find yourself in the unfortunate position of knowing you are about to hit something, time and space might momentarily slow down as you brace for the inevitable impact, but you don’t get a choice over the damage it will cause and whether the impact will be soft or hard. You just deal with the consequences thereafter.

It’s an analogy which some will quickly dismiss in relation to Brexit, but the parallels are there for all to see. The distinct difference being that in relation to the European Referendum, the result – and therefore the destination to which we already know we must travel, is a genuine exit for Britain from the European Union.

Much is now being made of the difference between the two terms ‘soft Brexit’ and ‘hard Brexit’, yet they are discussed in a way which suggests a choice about leaving the EU continues to exist.

If we respect the will of the majority of the British people, we will also accept that it does not.

What will be discussed when Article 50 has been triggered, both with the remaining Member Countries of the European Union and also the many Countries beyond will be the relationship and the way that it will work between all of us thereafter.

On the part of some, it is intentionally misleading. With others it is the the effect of a process of engagement being conducted by politicians who simply do not understand the impact on the general public from what they are doing. But either way, talk about dictating the terms under which the Government will negotiate Brexit do little more than indicate that the ‘remain lobby’ intend to halt Brexit in all but name, simply by insisting that the key qualifications and requirements of membership will ultimately be retained.

For them to succeed would be a political fudge of momentous proportions, not least of all because it will be representative of the same manipulation and game playing, focused on self-interest and political expediency by those in power, which inadvertently created the disillusionment and disenfranchisement which led to the choice for Brexit in June.

The choice was not simply about Europe, even if the question was framed that way. Outspoken Europhiles as well as those masquerading as born-again leavers within the political bubble would do well to remember this. People know their minds and they are not going to accept a giant backslide of the kind being advocated under the auspices of the disingenuous suggestion that anyone sensible or without prejudice who voted for Brexit didn’t have a clue what they were doing.

Talking up technical truths may well have been a big part of what the success of the Leave Campaign message was about. But these messages resonated so well with people because as any good marketing man knows, the adverts that really sell are always the ones which play on an element of a story which is inherently true.

Remain failed to connect with a working majority not only because they relied upon events that had no guarantee of ever happening – no matter how scary they might have been presented to seem, but because they were not able to sell or even speak of benefits to the lives of everyone in this Country which as a majority we could either see or believe.

It is a mistake to believe that a different campaign on EU membership dressed as ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ Brexit will now yield a different result, just as it is foolish to imagine that the European political terrain of before the 23rd of June 2016 still exists.

brexit-2

Our focus should now be well and truly upon developing the best post-Brexit relationships that we possibly can, whilst recognising that the remaining Members of the EU have as much to lose from a bad deal with the UK, if not arguably more so than we ever could, given the position as a self-governing, unrestricted and fully-open-for-business entity that this Country will then actually be.

images thanks to http://www.inthenews.co.uk, http://www.dailymail.co.uk

%d bloggers like this: