If there is one singular argument for a change in the voting system it is the arrogance of the politicians from the two major parties and the way in which they all seem to believe that the democratic process belongs exclusively to them.
Take this quote from Mark Pritchard MP, Secretary of the Conservative 1922 Committee:
"With each of them (Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne) presiding over major government departments they've never had it so good.
"Their personal and political sacrifices are infinitesimal compared to those made by hundreds of public sector workers losing their jobs each week and many of my Conservative colleagues who gave up ministerial office for the sake of the coalition".
Excuse me? Precisely which of Mr. Pritchard's Conservative colleagues "gave up ministerial office" to enter into coalition with the Liberal Democrats?
I was rather under the impression that we had a Labour government prior to the general election of 2010, and that the coalition was a necessary outcome of no party having achieved an overall majority at that contest.
This confused belief on the part of a Conservative politician that his party entered into coalition as some kind of favour rather than due to it not having won enough seats in its own right is not entirely unfamiliar to me. The same sense of shock and indignation was evident on the part of some Conservative councillors during the 2006-2010 administration at the London Borough of Hounslow who genuinely couldn't understand why the ICG had been "given" two seats on the Executive.
Reading the local community forums and witnessing the most virulent mouthpieces for the two major parties, usually engaged in exchanging equally useless soundbites and slogans idiot-style, making common cause against a democratisation of "their" political system is a joy to behold.
I could not have made a better case for a "Yes" vote on May 5th.
Monday, 25 April 2011
Friday, 22 April 2011
Blogger Bloggers Beware - Avoiding Random Deletion
I've just received a call from a friend who, like me, uses the Blogger application to share his thoughts and to keep in contact with the world around him.
At least he did use the Blogger application. Because a few days back, without any warning whatsoever, his blog was deleted by Google, whose product Blogger is, on the grounds that it was allegedly a "spam blog". Despite his appeal for a review (which Blogger claims is conducted by human beings but quite obviously isn't), his content remains deleted and he has been told by a sneering customer "services" oik he will not be getting it back.
I had visited the blog many times before it was removed and can confirm that it was quite manifestly not a spam blog, no more so than this one. Google's robots, it would appear, identify blogs as "spam" quite arbitrarily, and the appeal process as far as as I can tell does not actually exist.
I like the feel of Blogger, its user-friendliness and its extensive range of applications that are easy to follow by a technological zombie like myself. I could probably transfer my work to a Wordpress site, but all the effort that I have put in to publicising this particular website address and building page rank will then have been in vain. For the time being at least I feel that sticking with Blogger is marginally the better of two problematic options.
But this new enthusiasm that Blogger seems to have developed for randomly decimating its own customer base does worry me somewhat. With well over 300 posts on this blog and counting the thought that it could just be switched off for no good reason alarms me.
So for the benefit of other Blogger users, I would like to offer two pieces of advice which they should heed urgently:
1. Always back up your blog. Go to Settings, click Export and save your blog to an .xml file on your hard drive. That way, if your blog is deleted you will have a copy of your material that you can either import to another Blogger blog or transfer to a Wordpress application.
2. Do not use Google AdSense. Including AdSense in your site would seem to trigger the interest of the Google robots and, frankly, for the absolute pittance that you will earn by incorporating AdSense into your blog it really isn't worth the risk.
Follow these two pieces of advice and there really isn't any reason to have any sleepless nights over this.
And enjoy your blogging!
At least he did use the Blogger application. Because a few days back, without any warning whatsoever, his blog was deleted by Google, whose product Blogger is, on the grounds that it was allegedly a "spam blog". Despite his appeal for a review (which Blogger claims is conducted by human beings but quite obviously isn't), his content remains deleted and he has been told by a sneering customer "services" oik he will not be getting it back.
I had visited the blog many times before it was removed and can confirm that it was quite manifestly not a spam blog, no more so than this one. Google's robots, it would appear, identify blogs as "spam" quite arbitrarily, and the appeal process as far as as I can tell does not actually exist.
I like the feel of Blogger, its user-friendliness and its extensive range of applications that are easy to follow by a technological zombie like myself. I could probably transfer my work to a Wordpress site, but all the effort that I have put in to publicising this particular website address and building page rank will then have been in vain. For the time being at least I feel that sticking with Blogger is marginally the better of two problematic options.
But this new enthusiasm that Blogger seems to have developed for randomly decimating its own customer base does worry me somewhat. With well over 300 posts on this blog and counting the thought that it could just be switched off for no good reason alarms me.
So for the benefit of other Blogger users, I would like to offer two pieces of advice which they should heed urgently:
1. Always back up your blog. Go to Settings, click Export and save your blog to an .xml file on your hard drive. That way, if your blog is deleted you will have a copy of your material that you can either import to another Blogger blog or transfer to a Wordpress application.
2. Do not use Google AdSense. Including AdSense in your site would seem to trigger the interest of the Google robots and, frankly, for the absolute pittance that you will earn by incorporating AdSense into your blog it really isn't worth the risk.
Follow these two pieces of advice and there really isn't any reason to have any sleepless nights over this.
And enjoy your blogging!
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Sleazeballs of the World Unite
As I previously stated on this blog I haven't thus far allowed myself to get carried away in the debate over Alternative Voting. I cast a "Yes" vote by post and have made a couple of comments in support, but until this morning it was not something that had taken centre stage in my list of priorities.
This morning a document arrived through my letter box that changed that all.
The "No" campaign has brought together the Conservatives and the larger part of the Labour Party who, despite the differences that may appear to exist between them on the surface, have managed to gel seamlessly into a united front for the preservation of their own cosy little carve-up in which the input of the general public into the political process is retained at the scantest level possible whilst still being able to maintain the charade that we live in a democracy.
The no-expense-spared glossy issued by the "No" campaign contrasts markedly with the modest, two-colour A4 sheet issued by the "Yes" group. But the real contrast lies in the depths to which the "No" campaign has been prepared to plunge in order to con the public into voting for the maintenance of their privileged, lazy lifestyles. Thus the contempt that the establishment parties have for the wit and intelligence of the voters upon whose continued support they ostensibly depend in opened up for all to see.
Typically the hook upon which the "No" campaign hangs is money. Not only are establishment politicians themselves obsessed by money, but they assume the general public is also. Pursuing the lie that AV will cost the county £250m to implement, they point out that this amount could provide 2503 doctors, 6297 teachers, 8107 nurses, 35885 hip replacements or 69832 school places.
Putting to one side for the time being the fact that these are annual costs whereas the £250m that is alleged to be the cost of converting to AV - even if it were true, which it isn't - would be a one-off cost, what do really think the chances are that this government will take on all these doctors, nurses or teachers with the money it "saves" from a "No" vote?
Much more likely it will end up in the pockets of the bankers or the non-dom, tax-avoiding fat cats so beloved of the party in power as the rest of us continue to tighten our belts whilst being reassured that "we are all in this together".
One could just as easily ask, of course, just how many teachers and nurses we could be taking on with the money we are wasting prosecuting a dishonest war in Libya, occupying Afghanistan or maintaining a nuclear "deterrent".
Then we are asked to consider the unpopularity of AV and the fact that it is only used in a few countries worldwide, with the inference contained therein that the rest of the world operates First Past The Post.
It doesn't, of course. Much if not most of the world enjoys some form of real proportional representation. But we are debating AV, not PR, precisely because David Cameron was not prepared to have a referendum on anything other than AV and Nick Clegg was, frankly, too weak to call his bluff when the coalition deal was being agreed. Now Clegg is being ridiculed by David Cameron, amongst others, for seeking approval for a voting system that David Cameron foisted upon him! You just couldn't make it up, could you?
But without doubt the most pernicious argument of all appears on the back page of the glossy, under the heading "AV Leads to Broken Promises" alongside a photo of Nick Clegg holding up a placard containing the promises he broke over student fees when he entered into coalition with the Tories. Remember it the Tories, more than anybody else, who are supporting the campaign that has produced and is circulating this glossy leaflet. The Tories are publicly ridiculing Clegg, their own coalition partner, for sacrificing his own credibility in order that they might realise their political objectives.
I dearly hope the general public has the foresight and the intelligence to see beyond the gloss, the spin, and the combined unscrupulousness of the two big vested political interests who have carved up the political process between them in this country and whose self-serving spin machines have for the time being at least come together to try to pull off one gigantic confidence trick against the very people in whose name they purport to govern. But if the self-serving vested interests do succeed, I hope even more dearly that the Lib Dems will take stock of the situation, understand that they have been had, and do something about it very quickly.
There would, after all, be nothing left for them in continuing to support a coalition partner that sets them up and stabs their backs so shamelessly and so publicly whilst pursuing a neo-Thatcherite political programme in government that depends entirely upon Lib Dem support.
This has to be make or break time for Nick Clegg, and I wish him well.
This morning a document arrived through my letter box that changed that all.
The "No" campaign has brought together the Conservatives and the larger part of the Labour Party who, despite the differences that may appear to exist between them on the surface, have managed to gel seamlessly into a united front for the preservation of their own cosy little carve-up in which the input of the general public into the political process is retained at the scantest level possible whilst still being able to maintain the charade that we live in a democracy.
The no-expense-spared glossy issued by the "No" campaign contrasts markedly with the modest, two-colour A4 sheet issued by the "Yes" group. But the real contrast lies in the depths to which the "No" campaign has been prepared to plunge in order to con the public into voting for the maintenance of their privileged, lazy lifestyles. Thus the contempt that the establishment parties have for the wit and intelligence of the voters upon whose continued support they ostensibly depend in opened up for all to see.
Typically the hook upon which the "No" campaign hangs is money. Not only are establishment politicians themselves obsessed by money, but they assume the general public is also. Pursuing the lie that AV will cost the county £250m to implement, they point out that this amount could provide 2503 doctors, 6297 teachers, 8107 nurses, 35885 hip replacements or 69832 school places.
Putting to one side for the time being the fact that these are annual costs whereas the £250m that is alleged to be the cost of converting to AV - even if it were true, which it isn't - would be a one-off cost, what do really think the chances are that this government will take on all these doctors, nurses or teachers with the money it "saves" from a "No" vote?
Much more likely it will end up in the pockets of the bankers or the non-dom, tax-avoiding fat cats so beloved of the party in power as the rest of us continue to tighten our belts whilst being reassured that "we are all in this together".
One could just as easily ask, of course, just how many teachers and nurses we could be taking on with the money we are wasting prosecuting a dishonest war in Libya, occupying Afghanistan or maintaining a nuclear "deterrent".
Then we are asked to consider the unpopularity of AV and the fact that it is only used in a few countries worldwide, with the inference contained therein that the rest of the world operates First Past The Post.
It doesn't, of course. Much if not most of the world enjoys some form of real proportional representation. But we are debating AV, not PR, precisely because David Cameron was not prepared to have a referendum on anything other than AV and Nick Clegg was, frankly, too weak to call his bluff when the coalition deal was being agreed. Now Clegg is being ridiculed by David Cameron, amongst others, for seeking approval for a voting system that David Cameron foisted upon him! You just couldn't make it up, could you?
But without doubt the most pernicious argument of all appears on the back page of the glossy, under the heading "AV Leads to Broken Promises" alongside a photo of Nick Clegg holding up a placard containing the promises he broke over student fees when he entered into coalition with the Tories. Remember it the Tories, more than anybody else, who are supporting the campaign that has produced and is circulating this glossy leaflet. The Tories are publicly ridiculing Clegg, their own coalition partner, for sacrificing his own credibility in order that they might realise their political objectives.
I dearly hope the general public has the foresight and the intelligence to see beyond the gloss, the spin, and the combined unscrupulousness of the two big vested political interests who have carved up the political process between them in this country and whose self-serving spin machines have for the time being at least come together to try to pull off one gigantic confidence trick against the very people in whose name they purport to govern. But if the self-serving vested interests do succeed, I hope even more dearly that the Lib Dems will take stock of the situation, understand that they have been had, and do something about it very quickly.
There would, after all, be nothing left for them in continuing to support a coalition partner that sets them up and stabs their backs so shamelessly and so publicly whilst pursuing a neo-Thatcherite political programme in government that depends entirely upon Lib Dem support.
This has to be make or break time for Nick Clegg, and I wish him well.
Saturday, 16 April 2011
Some Dates For Your Diary
Monday 18th July: 6.30 for 7 p.m
Talk by Christine Diwell - An A-Z of Isleworth at Isleworth Library
Start off with tea/coffee and a 10 minute presentation by Sanda Connolly (an outreach worker for library services), followed by an informative talk by the Secretary of The Isleworth Society.
Saturday 13th August: 11 a.m. from the Library
Guided Walk
Theme - "Following the TV series Filthy Cities, explore Isleworth's own grimy past from the smoke of steam trains to odours of pigsties, a soap factory and Mogden Sewage Works".
A 90 minute walk led by Christine Diwell, ending at the Library for coffee.
£1 entry will be charged.
At a time when Isleworth's community is under threat from all sides it is important that residents turn out to demonstrate their solidarity with local groups such as TIS and the ICG, who are fighting to preserve our local facilities. As both these activities are taking place at or around Isleworth Library it is particularly essential that they are well-supported, and that the right message is sent.
Please put these days in your diary and come along and give our tireless local campaigners the backing they deserve.
The Deed Is Done
Anything that shakes up the archaic and self-serving political system in this country has to be a good thing, if only because it will demonstrate to the public that things can be different. There is always another way.
Let's hope the referendum brings about a fairer system of voting but, far more importantly, that the switch will prove to be the harbinger of a real, meaningful shake-up of the seedy Old Boys' Network that is the two-party system in this country.
Councils Cut Back on Free Adult Social Care
The number of councils in England cutting back on free adult social care has increased by 13% this year, a survey has suggested.
The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services study found just 26 out of 148 councils would fund people in "moderate" or "low" need, down from 41.
The moves follow a sharp reduction in central funding for local authorities.
However, the government said it had recently allocated an extra £2bn a year by 2014-15 for social care services.
TAKING BATH
The survey revealed that 19 local authorities had raised the eligibility bar for free adult social care.
Only 22 councils in England out of the 148 which responded will now fund those assessed as having moderate needs, down from 36 last year.
This category includes people who are so ill or disabled that they have trouble preparing a meal for themselves or taking a bath.
Six councils have now opted to limit help to people in "critical' need, which includes those suffering from life threatening conditions.
Some authorities say the need to save money has left them with no option but to cut one of their biggest areas of spending.
Andrew Harrop, of the charity Age UK, said people could die as a result of the cuts and many more may land up in hospital unnecessarily.
The government has set up an independent commission on social care, which is due to report in July, and will put forward plans in a White Paper by the end of the year.
'MOST VULNERABLE'
Andrew Dilnott, chairman of the commission, said there was no doubt that social care was being squeezed and there was "a growing amount of unmet need".
He said the current system seemed to "invite variability" and "there was merit in trying to find an assessment system... that seems to give people more of a sense that there was fairness and equality across the UK".
But he said regardless of the cuts, the system needed to be reformed.
"The balance between individual responsibility and state responsibility that we have at the moment doesn't seem to be the right one, it's widely seen to be unfair.
"What we found is that many people think it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to make some contribution.
"They just don't want the system that they face at the moment where if they turn out to be one of the least fortunate who ends up needing a very great deal of care, that they lose everything," he said.
A Department of Health spokesman said: "Protecting and improving local social care services is vital, especially for the most vulnerable.
"The coalition government recently allocated extra money - meaning an additional £2bn a year by 2014-15 - to encourage more joined-up working, support the delivery of social care and protect the most vulnerable in society.
"This funding, together with an ambitious programme of efficiency, should enable local authorities to protect people's access to services and deliver new approaches to improve their care."
Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News.
The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services study found just 26 out of 148 councils would fund people in "moderate" or "low" need, down from 41.
The moves follow a sharp reduction in central funding for local authorities.
However, the government said it had recently allocated an extra £2bn a year by 2014-15 for social care services.
TAKING BATH
The survey revealed that 19 local authorities had raised the eligibility bar for free adult social care.
Only 22 councils in England out of the 148 which responded will now fund those assessed as having moderate needs, down from 36 last year.
This category includes people who are so ill or disabled that they have trouble preparing a meal for themselves or taking a bath.
Six councils have now opted to limit help to people in "critical' need, which includes those suffering from life threatening conditions.
Some authorities say the need to save money has left them with no option but to cut one of their biggest areas of spending.
Andrew Harrop, of the charity Age UK, said people could die as a result of the cuts and many more may land up in hospital unnecessarily.
The government has set up an independent commission on social care, which is due to report in July, and will put forward plans in a White Paper by the end of the year.
'MOST VULNERABLE'
Andrew Dilnott, chairman of the commission, said there was no doubt that social care was being squeezed and there was "a growing amount of unmet need".
He said the current system seemed to "invite variability" and "there was merit in trying to find an assessment system... that seems to give people more of a sense that there was fairness and equality across the UK".
But he said regardless of the cuts, the system needed to be reformed.
"The balance between individual responsibility and state responsibility that we have at the moment doesn't seem to be the right one, it's widely seen to be unfair.
"What we found is that many people think it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to make some contribution.
"They just don't want the system that they face at the moment where if they turn out to be one of the least fortunate who ends up needing a very great deal of care, that they lose everything," he said.
A Department of Health spokesman said: "Protecting and improving local social care services is vital, especially for the most vulnerable.
"The coalition government recently allocated extra money - meaning an additional £2bn a year by 2014-15 - to encourage more joined-up working, support the delivery of social care and protect the most vulnerable in society.
"This funding, together with an ambitious programme of efficiency, should enable local authorities to protect people's access to services and deliver new approaches to improve their care."
Reproduced with acknowledgements to BBC News.
Friday, 15 April 2011
John Baron MP - A Lone Voice of Integrity Amid a Sewer of Deceit
Fair play to John Baron MP, astonishingly the only one out of 306 Conservative MPs in the House of Commons who understands the difference between imposing a No Fly Zone to protect civilians and bombing a sovereign nation into submission in order to steal its natural resources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13091693
It seems clear to me that Cameron and Hague simply assumed that Parliament, and the United Nations, either wouldn't notice when the terms of the original UN resolution were being flagrantly violated, or would turn a blind eye. But unfortunately for these two utterly deceitful and contemptible excuses for human beings it would appear there are some who care for the rule of law, and for truth.
Anybody who has been involved in politics for any length of time will confirm that the very biggest mistake anyone can make is to believe one's own propaganda. Cameron, Hague and the national media have invested a lot of time and effort into selling the conflict in Libya as being one between an entire, unarmed population that spontaneously rose up against oppression in the selfless, lofty pursuit of some high principle and a universally despised dictatorship that suppresses them by force, shooting and killing them indiscriminately for fun.
The reality of course is that whilst Gaddafi's regime certainly is a ruthless dictatorship in a great many respects it also enjoys the support of a signicant proportion, quite possibly a majority, of its population, particularly in the west of the country.
It looks increasingly likely too that the insurgents, far from being unarmed innocents (with a tank division and an air force), represent in fact an unholy alliance of militant Islamists and Western lackeys who were misled into believing that the nature of Gaddafi's regime and its lack of a conventional army of any consequence left it vulnerable to any sudden attack from within, especially when fortified by Western air power.
In their lust to bring about regime change by deception in a country that was threatening to become just a bit too possessive about its own natural resources Cameron, Hague and Sarkozy misjudged an awful lot of people. They overestimated the capablities of their "rebels", misunderstood the structure of Gaddafi's power base in the west of Libya, and probably assumed too that Barack Obama would be keener than he apparently is to out-macho his chimpoid predecessor.
They seem too to have reckoned without the courage and decency of a solitary backbench MP, whose potential to expose them and their agenda is almost limitless should that be his desire.
I want to see more democracy and improved human rights in Libya, but this can only come about by honest pressure and courageous political engagement. Not by deceit, military bombardment and pillage.
The amusing irony is that as everything that can go wrong does go wrong in their increasingly wobbly North African crusade there is one law that Cameron, Hague and Sarkozy are going to find themselves increasingly compelled to acknowledge, and that is the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Whatever humiliations and repercussions they suffer they will only have themselves to blame.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13091693
It seems clear to me that Cameron and Hague simply assumed that Parliament, and the United Nations, either wouldn't notice when the terms of the original UN resolution were being flagrantly violated, or would turn a blind eye. But unfortunately for these two utterly deceitful and contemptible excuses for human beings it would appear there are some who care for the rule of law, and for truth.
Anybody who has been involved in politics for any length of time will confirm that the very biggest mistake anyone can make is to believe one's own propaganda. Cameron, Hague and the national media have invested a lot of time and effort into selling the conflict in Libya as being one between an entire, unarmed population that spontaneously rose up against oppression in the selfless, lofty pursuit of some high principle and a universally despised dictatorship that suppresses them by force, shooting and killing them indiscriminately for fun.
The reality of course is that whilst Gaddafi's regime certainly is a ruthless dictatorship in a great many respects it also enjoys the support of a signicant proportion, quite possibly a majority, of its population, particularly in the west of the country.
It looks increasingly likely too that the insurgents, far from being unarmed innocents (with a tank division and an air force), represent in fact an unholy alliance of militant Islamists and Western lackeys who were misled into believing that the nature of Gaddafi's regime and its lack of a conventional army of any consequence left it vulnerable to any sudden attack from within, especially when fortified by Western air power.
In their lust to bring about regime change by deception in a country that was threatening to become just a bit too possessive about its own natural resources Cameron, Hague and Sarkozy misjudged an awful lot of people. They overestimated the capablities of their "rebels", misunderstood the structure of Gaddafi's power base in the west of Libya, and probably assumed too that Barack Obama would be keener than he apparently is to out-macho his chimpoid predecessor.
They seem too to have reckoned without the courage and decency of a solitary backbench MP, whose potential to expose them and their agenda is almost limitless should that be his desire.
I want to see more democracy and improved human rights in Libya, but this can only come about by honest pressure and courageous political engagement. Not by deceit, military bombardment and pillage.
The amusing irony is that as everything that can go wrong does go wrong in their increasingly wobbly North African crusade there is one law that Cameron, Hague and Sarkozy are going to find themselves increasingly compelled to acknowledge, and that is the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Whatever humiliations and repercussions they suffer they will only have themselves to blame.
Direct Action to Save Chiswick Day Centre - Saturday, 16th April
Hounslow Council is threatening to close the Chiswick Day Centre due to funding cuts. The Centre is a vital local resource providing much needed support and respite care for vulnerable pensioners and the disabled in Chiswick, and the only place in Chiswick to do so.
Come join us for tea, cake and bingo at a peaceful protest pop-up Day Centre, dress code is plucky pensioner granny-chic; sparkly cardies, hair rollers, zimmer frames and bi-focals.
Meet at the War Memorial on the corner of Heathfield Terrace and Chiswick High Road at 10.45am, for a location that will be revealed on the day.
http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/actions/518
Reproduced with acknowledgements to Carrie Richards at the Chiswick W4.com forum.
Come join us for tea, cake and bingo at a peaceful protest pop-up Day Centre, dress code is plucky pensioner granny-chic; sparkly cardies, hair rollers, zimmer frames and bi-focals.
Meet at the War Memorial on the corner of Heathfield Terrace and Chiswick High Road at 10.45am, for a location that will be revealed on the day.
http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/actions/518
Reproduced with acknowledgements to Carrie Richards at the Chiswick W4.com forum.
Thursday, 14 April 2011
Write to Your MP to Help Save Our NHS
Your name, address and email address
Date
Dear MP
There has been a lot said about how the NHS reforms will affect doctors, NHS and PCT staff who no doubt have the best interests of patients at heart, but do have conflicts of interest – their jobs and their roles. I do not have any conflicts of interest. I have only one concern – the standard of healthcare I will receive. The complete dismantling of a system which has served us for over 60 years, leaves me fearful about my future care and with many unanswered questions.
Such fundamental changes require time for consideration with all views being taken into account, especially patients who will be the recipients of the reforms. With ‘consultation’ taking place whilst the Bill is being read and 52 consortia already in place, albeit a pilot, I don’t feel that patients have been involved in decisions about reform and wonder if lip service is being paid to the ‘consultation’.
I hope that you will be able to answer the above questions and the following unanswered questions:-
I would like to stop the Bill in its present form and slow down the process so that I can be provided with the evidence and the answers I need. I need “no decision about me without me” to become a reality.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Your name
Date
Dear MP
There has been a lot said about how the NHS reforms will affect doctors, NHS and PCT staff who no doubt have the best interests of patients at heart, but do have conflicts of interest – their jobs and their roles. I do not have any conflicts of interest. I have only one concern – the standard of healthcare I will receive. The complete dismantling of a system which has served us for over 60 years, leaves me fearful about my future care and with many unanswered questions.
Such fundamental changes require time for consideration with all views being taken into account, especially patients who will be the recipients of the reforms. With ‘consultation’ taking place whilst the Bill is being read and 52 consortia already in place, albeit a pilot, I don’t feel that patients have been involved in decisions about reform and wonder if lip service is being paid to the ‘consultation’.
I hope that you will be able to answer the above questions and the following unanswered questions:-
- Where is the evidence base to demonstrate that these reforms will produce a better standard of care for patients? Are patients going to be part of just a huge experiment that may or may not work?
- Many of us treated in both primary and secondary care, why are hospital consultants with their expertise not involved with GPs in designing services and how money will be spent?
- How can I have the promised greater choice and more involvement in my care when consortia will have already decided from which of the “any willing providers” they will purchase services? Will I be given an informed choice of treatment which, by definition, could be the information that the consortium cannot afford my treatment this year? Will I trust my GP to give me a truly informed choice when they are in control of the financial and administrative running of the NHS?
- The stated intention is to overturn the previous emphasis on targets and make quality of care and clinical outcomes the benchmark for setting service standards. Are “benchmarks” just a different term for targets? Who defines the benchmarks and are they set nationally or locally?
- Where is the logic in scrapping PCTs when the same work will have to be done by GP consortia while at the same time running their surgeries? Do GPs have these skills or will this management be farmed out to private companies?
- Apparently all hospitals have to become Foundation Hospitals, is this irrespective of the standards of care they offer?
- Given that the element of price competition between any will providers appears to have been removed, what role does Monitor have?
- Where is the accountability? What is the complaints procedure for patients if the level of care is not satisfactory or does not meet standards?
I would like to stop the Bill in its present form and slow down the process so that I can be provided with the evidence and the answers I need. I need “no decision about me without me” to become a reality.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Your name
Conservatives in Coalition Do Their Own Thing
The Business Secretary Dr. Vince Cable has this morning criticised comments about to be made by the Prime Minister about the overall impact of immigration into the UK. The full story can be found here at BBC News.
There is of course a debate to be had on immigration, however the significance of this disagreement between coalition partners is that it would appear the Prime Minister is doing his own thing, without first having sought any kind of accommodation or common ground with those upon whom he depends for his continued tenure.
As somebody who has been there myself I instinctively recognise all the signs. Coalition begins with a sense of excitement on the part of all concerned, with a tangible and genuine feeling of elation and promise of great things to come. When credit is due it will be due all round, and everybody involved is entirely cool with that.
Then, after a short while, a negative mentality sets in in which the senior partner, being a major party, begins to feel resentful towards the "imposter" upon which it is compelled to depend for its continued presence in office.
Like the Labour Party, the Conservative Party instinctively believes that democracy is a process that belongs essentially to the two main parties, and that small parties and independents, although an integral and necessary part of the democratic process, are really there to maintain the charade rather than to actually wield real power.
By now the Conservative part of the coalition will be looking at its agreement with the Liberal Democrats as something to be got around rather than honoured in spirit as well as in deed. It will be scrutinising the small print to see how it can be interpreted to its own benefit, rather than troubling itself too deeply about what was actually intended when the agreement was drawn up.
The bad news for the Lib Dems is that it will get worse, as the next election approaches not only the terms but even the very existence of the coalition will be in danger of becoming completely forgotten. The Lib Dems will find themselves undermined, with progressively less co-operation from Whitehall and a gradual but sustained increase in political attacks and general mischief emanating from the national media.
And then, when Labour is returned to office with a thumping majority in 2014, the Conservatives will scratch their heads and wonder, honestly, where it all went wrong.
What can the Lib Dems do about it? The answer is really not very much. Lib Dem voters supported their party in the hope that it would be in a position to exercise some power. To decline to do so when the opportunity arises would be seen by many as a betrayal, and carries with it the risk of rendering a vote for the Liberal Democrats singularly pointless.
The option of coalition with Labour after the last general election was never a realistic one. Notwithstanding the fact that it lacked legitimacy, having acquired less votes, the Labour Party is even more sectarian than the Conservative Party and would not have been prepared to give an inch in exchange for Liberal Democrat support. When a similar situation arose locally in 2006 I don't recall having given the prospect of a coalition with Labour a second thought. It was simply assumed by us all that it was a thing that wouldn't and couldn't happen.
When looked at in this way AV begins to make perfect sense. I am hoping that the Liberal Democrats are holding out, buying time, until a different electoral system empowers them to the point where they no longer have to play the part of the poor relation in somebody else's government.
Let's just hope they are not so damaged by that time that they still have the opportunity to explain that to the electorate.
Because if their "partners" have anything to do with it, they will be.
There is of course a debate to be had on immigration, however the significance of this disagreement between coalition partners is that it would appear the Prime Minister is doing his own thing, without first having sought any kind of accommodation or common ground with those upon whom he depends for his continued tenure.
As somebody who has been there myself I instinctively recognise all the signs. Coalition begins with a sense of excitement on the part of all concerned, with a tangible and genuine feeling of elation and promise of great things to come. When credit is due it will be due all round, and everybody involved is entirely cool with that.
Then, after a short while, a negative mentality sets in in which the senior partner, being a major party, begins to feel resentful towards the "imposter" upon which it is compelled to depend for its continued presence in office.
Like the Labour Party, the Conservative Party instinctively believes that democracy is a process that belongs essentially to the two main parties, and that small parties and independents, although an integral and necessary part of the democratic process, are really there to maintain the charade rather than to actually wield real power.
By now the Conservative part of the coalition will be looking at its agreement with the Liberal Democrats as something to be got around rather than honoured in spirit as well as in deed. It will be scrutinising the small print to see how it can be interpreted to its own benefit, rather than troubling itself too deeply about what was actually intended when the agreement was drawn up.
The bad news for the Lib Dems is that it will get worse, as the next election approaches not only the terms but even the very existence of the coalition will be in danger of becoming completely forgotten. The Lib Dems will find themselves undermined, with progressively less co-operation from Whitehall and a gradual but sustained increase in political attacks and general mischief emanating from the national media.
And then, when Labour is returned to office with a thumping majority in 2014, the Conservatives will scratch their heads and wonder, honestly, where it all went wrong.
What can the Lib Dems do about it? The answer is really not very much. Lib Dem voters supported their party in the hope that it would be in a position to exercise some power. To decline to do so when the opportunity arises would be seen by many as a betrayal, and carries with it the risk of rendering a vote for the Liberal Democrats singularly pointless.
The option of coalition with Labour after the last general election was never a realistic one. Notwithstanding the fact that it lacked legitimacy, having acquired less votes, the Labour Party is even more sectarian than the Conservative Party and would not have been prepared to give an inch in exchange for Liberal Democrat support. When a similar situation arose locally in 2006 I don't recall having given the prospect of a coalition with Labour a second thought. It was simply assumed by us all that it was a thing that wouldn't and couldn't happen.
When looked at in this way AV begins to make perfect sense. I am hoping that the Liberal Democrats are holding out, buying time, until a different electoral system empowers them to the point where they no longer have to play the part of the poor relation in somebody else's government.
Let's just hope they are not so damaged by that time that they still have the opportunity to explain that to the electorate.
Because if their "partners" have anything to do with it, they will be.
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
69 Years And Still Waiting
Belated commiserations to Brentford FC, who gave their all during a spirited second half at Wembley on Sunday at the Johnson's Paint Trophy Final against Carlisle United after having gone a goal down during a disappointing first half.
They did well to get there, and in the event were the width of a goalpost away from extra time.
It was a great experience for my son Joe, my father, my brother-in-law, my nephew and his friend, and my first time at the new stadium.
A big thank you to Vic London and to all at the Isleworth Royal British Legion who organised the double decker bus that got us there and back, and to Di for the bar and barbie beforehand.
It has been 69 years since Brentford last won a cup final. Maybe next time?
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Why I'll Be Voting "Yes" to AV
Next month I will be voting "Yes" in the referendum to change the voting system at British general elections from First Past The Post (FPTP) to Alternative Voting (AV).
I have never been one to get particularly excited about proportional representation. My default view is that when the time has come for change then democracy's natural selection process will eventually see to it that that change happens irrespective of which voting system we have. However slow and stupified they may sometimes appear, the voters tend to make the right decision on the day.
Alternative Voting is not proportional representation, of course. It is a fudge that lies somewhere between PR and FPTP. Essentially it means you can vote for a candidate whom you like but who is unlikely to win in the knowledge that when he or she is inevitably unsuccessful your second preference vote for a more credible candidate will still count for something. In other words you need not vote for a candidate who would not otherwise be your first choice for fear of wasting your vote completely.
From a purely selfish perspective I believe that on balance AV would have benefited ICG candidates at local elections, some might argue unfairly so, and that we probably would have won across the board in both Isleworth and Syon wards had it been in operation locally in 2010 in spite of the general election having been held on the same day. My reason for thinking this is that, whilst the politicos from both of the major parties might themselves prefer the relative safety of one another to the (to them) uncertain radicalism of the ICG, the voters themselves would probably have thought differently. In my view casual Labour voters (as opposed to members) would in most cases have preferred the ICG to their traditional Tory opponents, and likewise Tory voters would in most cases have opted for the ICG ahead of Labour.
In other words in the absence of a straight 50% first preference vote for either Labour or the Conservatives (unlikely in Labour's case and nowt but a pipe dream for the Conservatives), the likelihood is that the ICG's second preference vote tally would have been substantially more powerful than either of theirs.
At the local elections in 2002 and 2006 on the other hand, when we won our seats with very strong majorities in the absence of a "general election factor", AV would almost certainly have made no difference to the outcome.
But all that is by the by. All those elections were fought under FPTP and even the proposed changes would only apply to general elections, at least to begin with. So my interest in the subject now, inasfar as I have any, concerns the effect upon the national body politic of a conversion to an AV system of voting.
The likely consequence of "Yes" vote would be a significant increase in the number of seats held by the Liberal Democrats (under less controversial conditions than presently exist anyway), and an effective normalisation of the currently unusual spectre of coalition government.
Some Labour politicians (although not Ed Miliband) are opposing AV because they feel a "No" vote will weaken the political standing of the Liberal Democrat leadership, who have kissed a lot of butts in order that this referendum might become a reality. A "No" result would make so many of those sacrifices appear to have been in vain. Others are whining about the cost of holding the referendum.
But it is surely wrong to judge an issue as fundamental as electoral reform on consideration of short-term political advantage? And it is certainly not good enough to try to place a price on democracy (and let's face it, money is certainly no object where the crusade to "bring democracy" to the lesser breeds of the Middle East and North Africa via the bomb and bullet are concerned).
A more valid fear is that AV will lead to perpetual coalition in which Labour might be the loser. Anybody who has had dealings with Labour as an organisation will know how politically frigid and unapproachable they tend to be and this leads sometimes to the most improbable coalitions finding themselves lined up against them often almost by default.
Some, most notably the Labour leader Ed Miliband, take the contrary view that Britain has an inbuilt "progressive majority" which would make it much more difficult for the Conservatives to achieve absolute power, a view that may be shared by the Tories themselves if their almost unanimous opposition to AV is to be explained.
One possibly accidental consequence of the AV debate therefore has been to force the Labour camp to consider what is ultimately more important to them - their "progressivism" or their party badge.
I believe Ed Miliband has taken a very intelligent position, probably recognising as a forward-thinking and relatively young man that the shelf-life of the Labour Party, like those of the other traditional parties, is nearing its end and that the product is likely to be replaced sooner or later by something altogether less tribal, less reactionary and more suited to the open society that must be an inevitable consequence of the Internet age.
There will as I see it be a realignment in our body politic with new alliances being formed that will empower the progressive majority but at the expense of the Labour Party in its current insular persona.
Almost anything that shakes up the stale old system and that encourages voters to think outside the box into which it has successfully confined them for so long has to be a good thing. That is why I intend to vote "Yes" on May 5th.
I have never been one to get particularly excited about proportional representation. My default view is that when the time has come for change then democracy's natural selection process will eventually see to it that that change happens irrespective of which voting system we have. However slow and stupified they may sometimes appear, the voters tend to make the right decision on the day.
Alternative Voting is not proportional representation, of course. It is a fudge that lies somewhere between PR and FPTP. Essentially it means you can vote for a candidate whom you like but who is unlikely to win in the knowledge that when he or she is inevitably unsuccessful your second preference vote for a more credible candidate will still count for something. In other words you need not vote for a candidate who would not otherwise be your first choice for fear of wasting your vote completely.
From a purely selfish perspective I believe that on balance AV would have benefited ICG candidates at local elections, some might argue unfairly so, and that we probably would have won across the board in both Isleworth and Syon wards had it been in operation locally in 2010 in spite of the general election having been held on the same day. My reason for thinking this is that, whilst the politicos from both of the major parties might themselves prefer the relative safety of one another to the (to them) uncertain radicalism of the ICG, the voters themselves would probably have thought differently. In my view casual Labour voters (as opposed to members) would in most cases have preferred the ICG to their traditional Tory opponents, and likewise Tory voters would in most cases have opted for the ICG ahead of Labour.
In other words in the absence of a straight 50% first preference vote for either Labour or the Conservatives (unlikely in Labour's case and nowt but a pipe dream for the Conservatives), the likelihood is that the ICG's second preference vote tally would have been substantially more powerful than either of theirs.
At the local elections in 2002 and 2006 on the other hand, when we won our seats with very strong majorities in the absence of a "general election factor", AV would almost certainly have made no difference to the outcome.
But all that is by the by. All those elections were fought under FPTP and even the proposed changes would only apply to general elections, at least to begin with. So my interest in the subject now, inasfar as I have any, concerns the effect upon the national body politic of a conversion to an AV system of voting.
The likely consequence of "Yes" vote would be a significant increase in the number of seats held by the Liberal Democrats (under less controversial conditions than presently exist anyway), and an effective normalisation of the currently unusual spectre of coalition government.
Some Labour politicians (although not Ed Miliband) are opposing AV because they feel a "No" vote will weaken the political standing of the Liberal Democrat leadership, who have kissed a lot of butts in order that this referendum might become a reality. A "No" result would make so many of those sacrifices appear to have been in vain. Others are whining about the cost of holding the referendum.
But it is surely wrong to judge an issue as fundamental as electoral reform on consideration of short-term political advantage? And it is certainly not good enough to try to place a price on democracy (and let's face it, money is certainly no object where the crusade to "bring democracy" to the lesser breeds of the Middle East and North Africa via the bomb and bullet are concerned).
A more valid fear is that AV will lead to perpetual coalition in which Labour might be the loser. Anybody who has had dealings with Labour as an organisation will know how politically frigid and unapproachable they tend to be and this leads sometimes to the most improbable coalitions finding themselves lined up against them often almost by default.
Some, most notably the Labour leader Ed Miliband, take the contrary view that Britain has an inbuilt "progressive majority" which would make it much more difficult for the Conservatives to achieve absolute power, a view that may be shared by the Tories themselves if their almost unanimous opposition to AV is to be explained.
One possibly accidental consequence of the AV debate therefore has been to force the Labour camp to consider what is ultimately more important to them - their "progressivism" or their party badge.
I believe Ed Miliband has taken a very intelligent position, probably recognising as a forward-thinking and relatively young man that the shelf-life of the Labour Party, like those of the other traditional parties, is nearing its end and that the product is likely to be replaced sooner or later by something altogether less tribal, less reactionary and more suited to the open society that must be an inevitable consequence of the Internet age.
There will as I see it be a realignment in our body politic with new alliances being formed that will empower the progressive majority but at the expense of the Labour Party in its current insular persona.
Almost anything that shakes up the stale old system and that encourages voters to think outside the box into which it has successfully confined them for so long has to be a good thing. That is why I intend to vote "Yes" on May 5th.
Libya : Why a Two-State Solution Offers Civilians the Best Protection
I do realise that I am probably overdosing on articles about the situation in Libya. It is not, after all, a part of my community and it is upon events affecting my community that I do prefer to concentrate.
Nevertheless as I have said many times before I do feel strongly that honesty in politics is essential if our claim to uphold real democratic values and our expressed concern for protecting the public interest are to be taken at all seriously.
Where the current bombing campaign against Libya is concerned we are being lied to. Pure and simple. Lied to by a government and a national media that depends upon a perceived inherent inability of the British people - stupified by reality TV, soccer and soap operas (panet et circenses for the modern age) - to follow even short and simple sequences of events in a logical manner or to study the underlying causes of them.
It is my belief that the establishment's arrogance is misplaced. A recent poll conducted by the BBC showed that just 38% of British people, from a sample of a little over 2000, actually support this latest military crusade.
Think about that carefully - in the face of almost a month of unrelenting propaganda less than 4 out of every 10 UK citizens actually buy this latest war. The power of the Internet and the ability of its users to access information from all around the world and from literally any source is breaking the power of our lords and masters to exercise complete control.
And complete control, or something at least approaching it, is what the New World Order will need if it is to achieve its objectives without fear of disruption or significant dissent.
This why I truly believe that the fraudulent "democracy" that bases itself on the current two-party or three-party system will crash within the lifetimes of many people reading this blog, but I guess I am digressing somewhat. For the moment let's concentrate on Libya.
A QUESTION OF SOVEREIGNTY
The West has no right to tell the Libyan people whom they must have as leaders and which political system they must have in place in their country.
This notwithstanding it is obvious that a very large body of opinion in that country is opposed to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and to his regime. This is particularly so in the east of the country, where tribal loyalties are not to Gaddafi and his entourage as they are in the west of Libya.
Whilst there would certainly seem to be a significant Al Qaeda element amongst the rebels and whilst it is clear the Islamists are waiting in the wings for their opponents on both sides to fight each other to a standstill, it is equally clear that there is a strong pro-Western element involved too. It is an uneasy alliance, which will probably turn on itself if and when the battle against the Gaddafi loyalists concludes in the rebels' favour.
Misrata excepted, this is self-evidently not the case in the west of the country and no amount of ridiculous nonsense from Western media sources telling us that hundreds of thousands of residents of Tripoli and Sirte wave green flags and dance in the streets under threat of being shot is going to change that. Whether their misrepresentations are deliberate or whether there is a genuine inability amongst Western leaders and their news media to understand that even dictators can be popular amongst their own, it is patently obvious that Gaddafi and his regime enjoys widespread support in large areas of the country, and in particular in the west of Libya.
THE WEST'S DILEMMA
All of this presents the forces of the NWO with a not inconsequential logistical problem. Even if they, with their special services, can arm and train a pitiful but motivated rag-tag army of rebels into a force capable, with the benefit of the air cover that they are already providing, of reversing its current fortunes and advancing to the gates of the capital, just how do they propose to defeat the citizens of Tripoli without the wholesale slaughter of hundreds or even thousands of civilians which would make a mockery of their already unconvincing pretence of involving themselves in this war to "protect civilians"?
Western military leaders will, of course, have worked this out for themselves already. Which is why they are already bombing Tripoli mercilessly on a daily and nightly basis in spite of the fact that the civilians they profess to be protecting are located several hundreds of miles due east. They are not targeting civilians but there will have been accidental civilian casualties as there always are in any war, particularly when the Americans are involved (in the conflict with Serbia, for instance, despite its boasts of "smart" pinpoint technology the US couldn't even manage to direct all its missiles to the right country). The official response has been to tell us that claims of civilian losses "cannot be verified", which of course they can't because the West doesn't have anybody on the ground in Tripoli to count the bodies and it routinely rejects claims of civilian losses by the government, possibly with good reason.
Even if, having artificially reversed the natural order of things from the air, the West then stands back and allows the rebels to sack Tripoli on their own, it will not be able to absolve itself of responsibility for any loss of innocent life.
LIBYA'S OWN TWO-STATE SOLUTION?
This is why I am persuaded, reluctantly, that the best and most bloodless solution must lie in the creation of a two-state Libya, east and west, with an NWO-approved regime in the east of the country with Benghazi as its capital and a regime in the west of the country, whether led by Gaddafi or somebody else, remaining true to the principles of the Third Universal Theory that he devised early into his tenure as leader - if, of course, that is what the citizens there want.
Whilst such a solution has the potential to create a state of permanent tension between the two "Libyas", my view is that fear of attack by the west will lead the east to seek cordial relations with its neighbour, whilst its own fear of attack by the US and its allies would deter any aggression by the western nation towards its neighbour. Some accommodation would have to be reached in respect of the country's natural resources, most particularly oil, but there is plenty enough of it to go round.
WOULD THIS SATISFY THE WEST?
To answer this question one needs first to be clear about the true objectives behind the West's involvement in Libya. I would suggest there is no one single objective, but rather at least four and possibly more:
1. Oil. Obviously. Just as was the case in Iraq, there is a great deal of evidence to be found in events leading up to the attack to suggest that Gaddafi was becoming rather too protective of his own natural resource and choosy about whom he decided to share it with than the West would have liked.
2. China. Whilst it may not enjoy the high profile that the old Cold War with the USSR had a few decades ago, there is a lot of concern over China's growing involvement and influence in Africa. The replacement of Gaddafi's regime with one under the effective ownership of the West would help address this situation.
3. Ideology. Despite widespread dissatisfaction and a well-earned growing distrust of the political system in the West, it is in my view unlikely that the Third Universal Theory would gain much currency in Europe or the USA. However the Western establishment has always been paranoid and may have considered a need to err on the side of caution. Capitalism is in its death throes and state socialism died many years ago. Something has to fill the vacuum.
4. Pride. Within a day or two of the insurgency coming into being Western nations were writing off the man they had re-embraced in 2003 and his regime and were telling him to go whilst going to great lengths to ingratiate themselves with the rebels. Then suddenly it all went belly up, and the West's new friends found themselves staring military defeat in the face. How would that have worked out if the insurgency had been quashed for good? On one side embarrassed Western leaders and on the other a man with an awful lot of oil and the hump.
Would a two state solution address these Western concerns?
First of all a pro-West eastern Libya would, one assumes, be happy to supply oil to Europe and to the US. They may not have access to all of Libya's oil, but they would have access to a lot of it. So I guess this would depend on how greedy the Western leaders in fact are.
Secondly the NWO would at least have expanded its influence to another swathe of North Africa, and diminished that of China at the same time. Again, whether this would be acceptable would depend entirely on whether the West is in a mood to compromise.
Where ideology is concerned, history shows that an idea does not die with its creator. If the West finds itself discredited, at the time or in the future, by the wanton slaughter of thousands of civilians loyal to the government either by means of its own air campaign or through its arming of the rebels then some of that discredit will undoubtedly attach itself to the values held dear by Western governments. Thus a fight to the finish could have the effect of raising awareness of Gaddafi's ideology rather than extinguishing it. Western leaders should think well on this.
Lastly, the West could save face following its early championing of the insurgency by bringing about the creation of a new NWO-friendly eastern Libya. It would give some purpose to its intervention and would certainly have a "freedom" factor for those many Libyans who are at war with Gaddafi's regime.
There is a fifth objective that would undoubtedly be served by the creation of a two-state Libya, of course. That would be to greatly minimise loss of life as a result of this conflict from amongst the civilian population.
The fact that I have thrown this factor into the discussion almost as an afterthought will give the reader some idea as to how much credence I give to the "offical" reason for military intervension - to protect innocent civilians.
Nonetheless if I am wrong, and this was indeed the underlying ethic that inspired Western leaders to attack Gaddafi with the same enthusiasm as they have defended their pet dictators in the Gulf as they suppress their own rebellions with similar violence, then this would be the best argument of all for a two-state solution - that it would protect innocent life in a way that it would not be protected by a Libya either under a continuation of Gaddafi's regime or under a new government led by the rebels.
So here is the question - bearing in mind that the objective of the military campaign is to "protect civilians" and that Western leaders so desire to scrupulously observe a UN resolution which categorically does not provide for regime change from outside, would they be prepared to explore the feasibility of a two-state solution?
And if not, why not?
Nevertheless as I have said many times before I do feel strongly that honesty in politics is essential if our claim to uphold real democratic values and our expressed concern for protecting the public interest are to be taken at all seriously.
Where the current bombing campaign against Libya is concerned we are being lied to. Pure and simple. Lied to by a government and a national media that depends upon a perceived inherent inability of the British people - stupified by reality TV, soccer and soap operas (panet et circenses for the modern age) - to follow even short and simple sequences of events in a logical manner or to study the underlying causes of them.
It is my belief that the establishment's arrogance is misplaced. A recent poll conducted by the BBC showed that just 38% of British people, from a sample of a little over 2000, actually support this latest military crusade.
Think about that carefully - in the face of almost a month of unrelenting propaganda less than 4 out of every 10 UK citizens actually buy this latest war. The power of the Internet and the ability of its users to access information from all around the world and from literally any source is breaking the power of our lords and masters to exercise complete control.
And complete control, or something at least approaching it, is what the New World Order will need if it is to achieve its objectives without fear of disruption or significant dissent.
This why I truly believe that the fraudulent "democracy" that bases itself on the current two-party or three-party system will crash within the lifetimes of many people reading this blog, but I guess I am digressing somewhat. For the moment let's concentrate on Libya.
A QUESTION OF SOVEREIGNTY
The West has no right to tell the Libyan people whom they must have as leaders and which political system they must have in place in their country.
This notwithstanding it is obvious that a very large body of opinion in that country is opposed to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and to his regime. This is particularly so in the east of the country, where tribal loyalties are not to Gaddafi and his entourage as they are in the west of Libya.
Whilst there would certainly seem to be a significant Al Qaeda element amongst the rebels and whilst it is clear the Islamists are waiting in the wings for their opponents on both sides to fight each other to a standstill, it is equally clear that there is a strong pro-Western element involved too. It is an uneasy alliance, which will probably turn on itself if and when the battle against the Gaddafi loyalists concludes in the rebels' favour.
Misrata excepted, this is self-evidently not the case in the west of the country and no amount of ridiculous nonsense from Western media sources telling us that hundreds of thousands of residents of Tripoli and Sirte wave green flags and dance in the streets under threat of being shot is going to change that. Whether their misrepresentations are deliberate or whether there is a genuine inability amongst Western leaders and their news media to understand that even dictators can be popular amongst their own, it is patently obvious that Gaddafi and his regime enjoys widespread support in large areas of the country, and in particular in the west of Libya.
THE WEST'S DILEMMA
All of this presents the forces of the NWO with a not inconsequential logistical problem. Even if they, with their special services, can arm and train a pitiful but motivated rag-tag army of rebels into a force capable, with the benefit of the air cover that they are already providing, of reversing its current fortunes and advancing to the gates of the capital, just how do they propose to defeat the citizens of Tripoli without the wholesale slaughter of hundreds or even thousands of civilians which would make a mockery of their already unconvincing pretence of involving themselves in this war to "protect civilians"?
Western military leaders will, of course, have worked this out for themselves already. Which is why they are already bombing Tripoli mercilessly on a daily and nightly basis in spite of the fact that the civilians they profess to be protecting are located several hundreds of miles due east. They are not targeting civilians but there will have been accidental civilian casualties as there always are in any war, particularly when the Americans are involved (in the conflict with Serbia, for instance, despite its boasts of "smart" pinpoint technology the US couldn't even manage to direct all its missiles to the right country). The official response has been to tell us that claims of civilian losses "cannot be verified", which of course they can't because the West doesn't have anybody on the ground in Tripoli to count the bodies and it routinely rejects claims of civilian losses by the government, possibly with good reason.
Even if, having artificially reversed the natural order of things from the air, the West then stands back and allows the rebels to sack Tripoli on their own, it will not be able to absolve itself of responsibility for any loss of innocent life.
LIBYA'S OWN TWO-STATE SOLUTION?
This is why I am persuaded, reluctantly, that the best and most bloodless solution must lie in the creation of a two-state Libya, east and west, with an NWO-approved regime in the east of the country with Benghazi as its capital and a regime in the west of the country, whether led by Gaddafi or somebody else, remaining true to the principles of the Third Universal Theory that he devised early into his tenure as leader - if, of course, that is what the citizens there want.
Whilst such a solution has the potential to create a state of permanent tension between the two "Libyas", my view is that fear of attack by the west will lead the east to seek cordial relations with its neighbour, whilst its own fear of attack by the US and its allies would deter any aggression by the western nation towards its neighbour. Some accommodation would have to be reached in respect of the country's natural resources, most particularly oil, but there is plenty enough of it to go round.
WOULD THIS SATISFY THE WEST?
To answer this question one needs first to be clear about the true objectives behind the West's involvement in Libya. I would suggest there is no one single objective, but rather at least four and possibly more:
1. Oil. Obviously. Just as was the case in Iraq, there is a great deal of evidence to be found in events leading up to the attack to suggest that Gaddafi was becoming rather too protective of his own natural resource and choosy about whom he decided to share it with than the West would have liked.
2. China. Whilst it may not enjoy the high profile that the old Cold War with the USSR had a few decades ago, there is a lot of concern over China's growing involvement and influence in Africa. The replacement of Gaddafi's regime with one under the effective ownership of the West would help address this situation.
3. Ideology. Despite widespread dissatisfaction and a well-earned growing distrust of the political system in the West, it is in my view unlikely that the Third Universal Theory would gain much currency in Europe or the USA. However the Western establishment has always been paranoid and may have considered a need to err on the side of caution. Capitalism is in its death throes and state socialism died many years ago. Something has to fill the vacuum.
4. Pride. Within a day or two of the insurgency coming into being Western nations were writing off the man they had re-embraced in 2003 and his regime and were telling him to go whilst going to great lengths to ingratiate themselves with the rebels. Then suddenly it all went belly up, and the West's new friends found themselves staring military defeat in the face. How would that have worked out if the insurgency had been quashed for good? On one side embarrassed Western leaders and on the other a man with an awful lot of oil and the hump.
Would a two state solution address these Western concerns?
First of all a pro-West eastern Libya would, one assumes, be happy to supply oil to Europe and to the US. They may not have access to all of Libya's oil, but they would have access to a lot of it. So I guess this would depend on how greedy the Western leaders in fact are.
Secondly the NWO would at least have expanded its influence to another swathe of North Africa, and diminished that of China at the same time. Again, whether this would be acceptable would depend entirely on whether the West is in a mood to compromise.
Where ideology is concerned, history shows that an idea does not die with its creator. If the West finds itself discredited, at the time or in the future, by the wanton slaughter of thousands of civilians loyal to the government either by means of its own air campaign or through its arming of the rebels then some of that discredit will undoubtedly attach itself to the values held dear by Western governments. Thus a fight to the finish could have the effect of raising awareness of Gaddafi's ideology rather than extinguishing it. Western leaders should think well on this.
Lastly, the West could save face following its early championing of the insurgency by bringing about the creation of a new NWO-friendly eastern Libya. It would give some purpose to its intervention and would certainly have a "freedom" factor for those many Libyans who are at war with Gaddafi's regime.
There is a fifth objective that would undoubtedly be served by the creation of a two-state Libya, of course. That would be to greatly minimise loss of life as a result of this conflict from amongst the civilian population.
The fact that I have thrown this factor into the discussion almost as an afterthought will give the reader some idea as to how much credence I give to the "offical" reason for military intervension - to protect innocent civilians.
Nonetheless if I am wrong, and this was indeed the underlying ethic that inspired Western leaders to attack Gaddafi with the same enthusiasm as they have defended their pet dictators in the Gulf as they suppress their own rebellions with similar violence, then this would be the best argument of all for a two-state solution - that it would protect innocent life in a way that it would not be protected by a Libya either under a continuation of Gaddafi's regime or under a new government led by the rebels.
So here is the question - bearing in mind that the objective of the military campaign is to "protect civilians" and that Western leaders so desire to scrupulously observe a UN resolution which categorically does not provide for regime change from outside, would they be prepared to explore the feasibility of a two-state solution?
And if not, why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)