Blog 8                                                                                          30/01/2017

New Horizons?

Looking at a particular illustration: rather than ‘the grand’ or larger picture, we are all familiar with the ‘side stepper’. Some of these steppers are more adept than others. I refer to the politician under scrutiny by an interviewer.  Imperceptibly, almost - the interviewee changes the original football pitch. The football pitch on which the game started!

The interviewer can be left none the wiser and rather frustrated, the viewers may feel there are other issues they were unaware of, and feel a little foolish: whereas the politician blithely leaves the studio feeling satisfied the waters are muddied sufficiently and may continue unabashed. The public will continue not to view that which was not intended.

The actions of any individual wishing to distract another asking a question (that they would prefer not to answer): are known. One, may be visual- pointing to some movement in the far distance, or perhaps in the immediate vicinity. Making the question and often the questioner not the main issue at present time or staging a mini-accident/distraction; those adept at this could give a much longer list

My thoughts in writing this perhaps illustrate that clarity is probably unachievable. Focus on one factor without surrounding circumstance: distorts. Add an interplay of players; and the art of time casting a different light makes all nebulous.

One of the greatest deflections I perceive at present, although it has been happening possibly in this country since the 1960’s is by blaming- the other side (in what has been a two-party system), or it could be displacement to another country, or another person. Observation of squabbles between young children illustrate this. Siblings are capable of elaborate plots to implicate the other at a very early age!

One apparent reason is to deflect attention from themselves. When individuals started to be highlighted as “evil” (the George W. Bush speech after 9/11) this appeared to be a new ball game.

It may be recognised that countries appear, at times to act with the nature of individuals. Some, we need to admit, are more mature that others. Some with older experience, (although more may be expected of them), may deliberately seek to influence those with less.

The balance of weight of weaponry on two sides created a type of ‘peace’ after WW2, fear also being a factor: by recognition of the might of the modern bomb. The inhabitants of Japan, their children, children’s children bear testament.

The issue basically is based on blindness and a presumption of superiority and a right to exist where others don’t. This can only work with a strong sense of nationalism and identity. If groups are portrayed as alien and dehumanised, castigated through lies and generally unworthy- it is easier apparently to drop bombs on them. If too, they are portrayed as some threat to the dominant race it is easier to manipulate ‘their people’ into (through fear) which leads to persecuting the down trodden further (Afghanistan is rated as one of the poorest nations on Earth).

The root is ‘money’. The West, relies on sale of weaponry and wars to test latest new developments with a view to producing more. The difference today is some of us at least, are aware of the mammoth wide scale suffering this is causing. Another change being a development of global both in finance, trade and the movement of peoples.

To conduct war - you need enemies. Weapon production is mammoth business and reliable. It has been a corner stone in injecting a boost into the system a, a system now favouring fewer and fewer. There is little incentive for the powerful to rely on anything else, or change. Change requires more effort and imagination and after all they have done very well so why change it?

Politicians morph into corporations which is of mutual benefit to some individuals. At the same time funded from the Public purse.

There is now an awareness, a waking up and it is only through public opinion and the ballot box, that Joe Blogs: me - the people next door, can change anything.

The American President has distracted or focused away from US problems- the third world within- lack of mental health care, shootings by police, and unrest by pointing at Muslims. Mass murders in public places are frequently due to mental health issues (break down of community structure), alienation of individuals. and/or the number of weapons widely available to the public. On the other hand the President has offered hope to the dispossessed needing jobs even a new view on world order by suggesting working with Russia and its allies to find strategies to deal with extremism in the ME.

Monitoring Muslims complies with the finding of the new enemy after 1989 when the Cold War ceased, but it is apparent the embers are being stoked again. Other embers are being stoked of elitist Western supremacy. Whether this is due to fading memory of WW2 and Hiroshima, or due to Western economies dependence on arms creation, or Western wish to be omnipotent by having Power to destroy: or some, or all of these - is an open to question.

The basing of economies on the suffering of multitudes, the destruction (as in Iraq, Syria and Palestine) of their Cultures while preaching something other, war making, protection of boundaries, aggression tends to be more male than female. Perhaps it is admirable to celebrate difference but as lines become blurred that too needs to be acknowledged.

Those ‘Liberals’ who wished a different outcome to the US election the only alternative was of continued destabilisation of the ME. The previous President however well-intentioned continued almost like the previousone. It was done more covertly, but in the same direction.  The Democrats there, and the Blairites both merely dress up the unpalatable to make palatable like a sugar-coated pill perhaps naked reality could offer more – at present? Let us hope so.  

Mankind's Deterrents

26/01/2017

Blog 7 

Mankind’s Deterrents

The giving of blind faith is measured – using security of the Realm and bravado engender little confidence in present government. Good will can be fickle. The issue of the failed Trident missile in June last year around the same time as the Referendum and it’s concealment strike badly at this.

Theresa May reiterates her commitment to involve “the whole” the UK but with little explanation, a potential trade deal with US has not been explained as well as detail about Brexit: these three make heavy demand on public confidence plus now more serious -Trident.

Taking, only Trident renewal: the swiftness of the David Cameron’s resignation after the Brexit vote, the appointment of our PM and Government, many were still in shock when the renewal of Trident was discussed in Parliament, rather too promptly. It appears now that as the test on missile launch failed, by withholding this important information it is likely to have had effect on the outcome. Reasons given have not been convincing.

Our Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved from Foreign Secretary and prior Defence. He had previously proclaimed his support for Trident renewal suggesting the standing of Britain on the World stage depended upon it. Both America and Britain have depended upon it since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. A type of Power by the threat of destruction.

It does not apparently factor that by having the most powerful (or at least one of them). “deterrent” within the arsenal of biological and  chemical, it is an encouragement to others, in order to defend themselves, to have the same or some equivalent protection. It also needs to be factored, that the more “deterrents” there are, the more likely there is to be accident or serious incident. This perhaps could leave areas on the Planet unviable for habitation.

In the Climate changing more rapidly than scientists predicted and the type and location of the changes unpredictable i.e. whether due to the Arctic melting ice stressing ocean currents and creating an ice age, or extensive droughts, or flooding, or all: much of the Planet may become unpleasant or uninhabitable. Population increase has led to large conurbations possibly more vulnerable to sea rise.

The deterrent is massive with potential of vast contamination. It is always more costly than present estimate of £40bn and that is just on submarines. Is it as a deterrent more likely to be used when there appears not to be available a more measured and appropriate response?  One warhead has 7-8x the capacity of all the bombs which destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Each Trident II D5 missile can carry five warheads. One submarine can carry eight missiles. Each missile costs £17mn bought from the US. It becomes momentarily visible just what big business this is.

Perhaps a versatility of response which is more flexible would be prudent. Feet on the ground may provide help in crisis as well as defence? Britain and America continue to claim greatness in a World where cyber-attack possibly is now more of a threat. A threat possibly to the use of the West’s weapons themselves? Drop bombs may increase enemy resistance in the longer term: perhaps attention could be given to not creating so many enemies in the first place?

There is an opportunity as the new American President had suggested, working with Russia to deal with the instability in the ME. Apart from Extremism, Climate Change is also a common threat. Holding a Moratorium on a Global strategy for dealing with the legacy of Nuclear waste: tackling together the stresses on the Planet for the Planet and its inhabitants, could be some common issues?

 

                                                                                                                                

A Breakfast Dinner

Blog 6                                                                                                                     18/01/2017

A Breakfast Dinner

Age may teach a judgement from a more overall distant view, both in physical and time-dimensions, it can, I hope, give valuable judgement. It is often said we would have made an alternative decision, if we had known that, then.

More and more I find track record and an awareness of the outcome of what has happened in the past in similar circumstances an indicator of a likelihood of something similar. All depends on memory unless you are a scholar. Sadly, brief life offers a dimmer - just when potentially we may be getting an understanding!

With the use of some of the attributes mentioned plus a great respect for balance- these are my present offers on the phenomena of Brexit- a name with a connotation of a large breakfast related to a dog’s dinner!

With the broader view with time and space it is only by comparison can we judge if one road may be of benefit over another. Often it is the secondary consequences of action which become the predominant issue, rather than the issue itself. It usually is over simplification just to grab an idea with conviction.

It is a sadness that I observe the phenomena of the divide. Binary is the order of the day as are computers. Today a better attribute is that individually we have our own ideas and minds, nuances of difference abound. Binary political Parties now are confused.

There is a choice to ignore different views, and Politicians to grasp their old friend ‘dogma’, just where did that land us in the past? Or, another trick may be to regain control/respect through the public being afraid, so gather support that way. Another ploy is all have a common enemy. If there are no common thoughts among us bring in a country or leader to hate. At least it helps to point all in a common direction. Is this not now wearing a little thin and becoming transparent?

The other potential controller is a significant down turn in the economy. At this time many are vulnerable when there is so much debt. The question is, is Brexit going to be successful. The Government faction leading are telling us it is as with UKIP.

Perhaps in Mrs May’s speech she tried to simplify our exit to avoid delay. Delay and uncertainty being bad for the economy, is this almost inevitable? If it is: at which stage would it be best to happen? Leaving the EU to sort out its own burdensome bureaucracy rather than this country employ droves of civil servants may be helpful? If indeed that is possible.

Perhaps magically the European Union could fly into the air and the pieces land in a more pleasing fashion with a movement to less, looser ties and a more overall agreement relating to immigration.

The chances of an effective independent immigration policy in Britain are not great. Successive governments have promised to control it for decades unsuccessfully. There are sounds from other EU countries that they too wish some control. The chances of agreed policies with these or/and the EU would I believe have a better opportunity of success and be less costly.

Usually, it does not make good sense to fall out with neighbours. Usually also, imbued with dogma and bravado may muster public enthusiasm temporarily, but when/if an economic downturn kicks in: it could well be great regret, rather than bravado for supporters of Brexit.

Starting negotiation with a new American President supporting Britain could well be treated with suspicion and mar good deals. The trade agreement TTIP with Europe has not been approved. Getting an agreement even through the back door could be favourable for the Americans. It needs to be remembered that the EU is a competitor.

Is this deal good for Britain? Does it involve GM crops and more pesticides and the sale of fracking equipment? American debt is enormous and dependant at present on the sale of armaments. The number of fines issued to foreign firms increases, barely a week goes by without one. Any trade agreement with them could increase our vulnerability.

Britain could jump out of a frying pan into a furnace. Another worrying factor is control of immigration and Brexit, is by trying to implement one in this present climate influenced by UKIP, could this lead to more racist attacks and bias: apart from making the Country more unpleasant? If this does not bother Brexiteers then unrest costs money- another down for the Economy.

Another alarming factor: is with the possibility of economic slowdown this could herald more deregulation. We have already in very recent memory been down this road. One would have hoped all would remember.

The good news is that our PM will not go ahead if ‘Leaving’ is worse than staying in, or rather more damaging. That was my understanding of her words. I just hope that this realization does not happen too late. My understanding says it could be.

 

Dysfunction and Brexit!

BLOG 5 15/12/2016


Many presume- those of political orientation, if they don’t like one side the other must be right or correct! Another example of binary thinking!

Criticism of one faction will designate you as being a member of the other. This binary process of right to left, then left to right, is and has been an expensive unproductive process. That is for most -other than for the political party favoured at the time, and their friends!

As each side has become entrenched, it appears, at this time, each has become more extreme. I have often visualised this as two people looking through a drain pipe! One looks up and believes they should have it all and the other looks down! At present “the worker party” who cares for all the down-trodden and blames the greedy business people points in clear direction to more and more strikes!

The other, more a Right faction of the Tories nostalgically looks back to the ‘greatness’ of Britain. It appears expediency is the name of the game. With a long line of the ruling class they have little need to question anything, their track record being to divide and rule. If others are at each other’s throats- they have little challenge to their own lofty position.

Sadly neither group serves the Country. I am not alone in being somewhere in the middle. Aware and unbiased most people recognise it is necessary to have business and commerce to make the Country thrive. They also see a caring society which keeps poverty at arms-length is good for the people and good for a civilised country. (I like to think so?)

We are blindly approaching a commitment to Brexit, although its significance has not been realised. It is probably the most important “decision” if we can call it that, to have faced the country since our commitment to WW2.

The present Right wing faction of the Tories is reactionary. These people believe in ruling Britain, their treatment of the Scottish Government illustrates this attitude. These are the same people who have created mayhem and bloodshed throughout the world! Look at the Partition of India- the bloodshed, look at Israel, apartheid and continued friction/wars in the Middle East.

Look at the Labour party, or part of it. We have extremes within both Parties calling the shots -not representative groups. They are so extreme they are counter-productive for the Country? One wants strikes (or more money for workers -at whatever cost) and has embedded itself within the Public Sector to promote itself : it is unclear what the Right intend as they are less than candid in longer term view.

But it is clear that the Country is dysfunctional. Although the Government may assess what is a problem and what needs to be done- they appear totally unable to implement. This is, I believe due to Mr Brown embedding the Labour Party within the Public Sector when they spent tax payers money on reassessing job descriptions within that sector: it meant placing themselves in there too! Some, I believe are afraid of that Party and afraid of losing their jobs and afraid perhaps of the unions.

It has been expedient for the Labour party to prove just how uncaring the Tories are! Whatever cuts there are, by creating the greatest disruption, and inconvenience to the Public, they can then blame the Tories.

These are merely some differences creating dysfunction. We face the dogma of the Paper Article 50 being signed in March and no one knows or quite frankly seems to care (no one in the prospective parties). The Government wishes to appear decisive- whatever the cost to the rest of us, and the Labour (both factions within, find it expedient for their Party) to go along with it!

Is the significance of the occasion somewhat being slighted? There are so many different points of view in our Country: this may be seen as a threat by some of the Right. After Brexit we may be obliged for the economy to develop much closer ties with America. There is already talk of a trade deal, Is America better for us that Europe? America is preparing for war in Asia by the already installed military bases around China. Continual War and production of armaments economically favours a few and requires greater amounts in spending on “security” at the cost of Freedom and free speech. The NSA has full access to our emails if not everything else. Why it requires storing everything from all of us means perhaps anyone not agreeing with their system can be singled out – potentially?

The track record for British firms in the US is unfavourable, with endless expensive legal battles, which usually always conclude with them winning and large pay-outs from our side. BP is an example, Halliburton built the base of the rig in the Gulf, many of the individual claims made against BP were proven bogus but were still sustained? Standards of food and quality of life are something many British aspire to on the Continent: whereas American standards differ.

Sympathy with having a large bomb to give this Country standing have already been expressed. Is this really what people want? Sadly significant issues are rarely aired publicly.

Repetition of news not put in context distorts the picture. Experimentation in Canada by a Scottish doctor, using tapes and repetition, experimented with this idea: it apparently works, if people are told something enough times, they start believing it! The Oscar Awards and the BBC seem to have embraced the idea with gusto!

It is not clear when that paper is signed in March: what will happen. It appears clear the cost of everything will go up. It is likely some of those who voted for Brexit will change their minds. Whether it is possible to renegade on that agreement is unclear. It is more than likely people will want a General Election. This probably will be too late. It will delay and be indecisive for business and all Markets and make a Brexit even more damaging.

I believe smaller Parties voicing different opinion with close ties to their constituents and a form of proportional representation would serve the country better. Where MP’s vote according their consciences and constituents, rather than what their polarized party wants: would help this Country move forward.

Parties working together with common interest rather than polarising each other with continued jousting/quibbling/shouting/pointing in the Commons most people, I think- are extremely tired of.
A General Election before Article 50 would help to unify by giving voice and re-instate democracy: expressing a new awareness within the country and help all to move forward. Common interest requires nurturing rather than division.

My view is whether for or against “Brexit” this is secondary and a distraction- the issue is – is the implementation of a Brexit worse than staying in Europe and negotiating with our neighbours? We now live in a more Global world which is an opportunity?

Labour, Labour, Labour....

BLOG 3 https://twitter.com/heatherframed10.30am-12.30pm 23/09/2016




Today the Labour Party continues to haggle and argue about rules, processes and their Party, their Party. Apparently oblivious to what appears an almost rudderless country without a generally known vision. Months have gone by, absorbed they are Labour, Labour, Labour indicating to many people the importance of the Party is all important and the Country, if  mentioned- a mere backdrop.
After their Party, as has been mentioned the next priority is the Tory Party. The evil, selfish, hated Tories. Over the last few weeks the actual mention of Tory has gained new emphasis, a new accent almost expletive.
When I was becoming a little aware of Politics in the 60’s and 70’s it became apparent much more energy was dissipated by the Country stepping horizontally from Left to Right and back again than any movement forward. Often each would make changes sometimes in boundaries, education, names of offices, different priorities- and apart from effort, and work of the change: there was the cost of the changes . If advantageous it would be worthwhile.
My observation tells me and I have seen this at local level: that when you have only two Parties their contacts, the machinery of function remain in place. It appears to me we have had the effect of an Animal Farm but as a dichotomy?
When Mr Blair ran the Labour Party it felt to me that perhaps you did not need a Party with a powerful leader? If the followers re-iterate the same, vote the same and all the rest: what is the point?
Recently one wonders if Mr Cameron erred about having a Referendum purely to appease the problems within his own Party? At local level time and time again I saw policies manoeuvred for the benefit of their own. Casting a shadow too on the opposing group appeared a worthwhile endeavour.
The Labour Party appears more concerned with electability than having any Plan. The more it argues within itself the more destructive it is being perceived.
For an outsider, it is impossible to see how anti-nuclear/socialist can be reconciled with New Labour who tells us they moved on with Tony Blair and many of which have middle-class incomes and do very well.
It seems perhaps they would do better accepting this and splitting: voting together on the issues they agree with, but accepting their differences? Generally smaller Parties could be a possible way forward where MP’s would need to be more in tune with constituency feeling and needs, and vote accordingly also with conscience, rather than what the Party tells them?
I am unable to grasp why the Labour Party cannot see their main potential threat is the Right which is UKIP. It is they in the Referendum who took a swathe of Northern England, which were Labour heartlands?  The vision and the emotion UKIP are displaying are further Right than any Conservative government?
This is merely my opinion.

Waverley Blows-

Flying the Scotsman up the Waverley line TODAY....my poem about its opening last year.


Waverley Blows

Bright windows lit my early life when Auntie took me on the train.
Faded pictures in compartments promised exotic places –
I had never been. Aunt dressed in tweeds clad laced-up shoes
and smelt “Lily of the Valley”!

Engine puffed and heaved up Whitrope- our quest to see Tattoo.
Meanwhile: stirring up his brew, and preparing further up the line
to close the level crossing gates and lock by lever
which he clutched in hand, another yet to change the points.

For Billy Macleod the signal man did it almost every day.
People used to say he had a home from home!
His signal box had carpet strips and family lived close by.

When not at his small cottage he tended Lavatera, Lavender
Pansies and Chrysanths in borders at the station – such a fine display!
“Oh what a pretty station,” passengers passing - could not help but say!

When Billy was not at work his mind was never far away.
 If out with his two children often he would murmur
 “It’s the ten past four, as Barking Bill the engine rounded corner
 up the hill with roar and children jumping up and down
 sang loudly in top voice “There she blows, Billy - there she blows!”

In Edinburgh Aunt was disappointed with tickets she was sold.
So far away our draughty turret: the drummers and the pipers
appeared as tartan dots: but not marred by disappointment
she took me later to a shop to choose a Scottish tartan to have a kilt made up!
Bright window needed on my childhood mind made possible
only from Carlisle by the Waverley Line!

Made shut we know in 69 but Billy tended station borders-
though no train ever passed. His demise was in 1982.
Four generations in his wake and still some living close at hand.

Right now we know soon Macleods will be singing
and loudly on 6th September 2015 - when line re-opens
with a new beginning – as they chant and with singing –
 “There she blows, Billy, there she blows!”



H. Bolton

Consuming greed?

Greed consumes people, not the other way round................... your thoughts?
Did Mrs Thatcher and +Tony Blair enable the genii out of the bottle?
Capitalism can work well if greed is used as a power, like driving a waterwheel- but it has to be harnessed  and the benefit to be shared by society?
The horse started running out of control, bit between teeth and harness dangling, under Mrs Thatcher's premiership and gained momentum with +Tony Blair?
We now have to look very hard to find anyone not tainted by greed?