What Do You Think Today?

Post by **peter** » Wed Dec 25, 2024 7:17 am

Now there's where you're wrong Av.

Belief and faith have sustained many people through the worst possible situations that life can throw at them, and I seem to recall that there's even some kind of statistical evidence that people who believe live longer or are more happy or something, by virtue of it.

But no - I know what you mean and certainly agree that any help for me won't be coming in the form of God reaching down and tinkering with today's lottery draw on my behalf. (I've just instructed Mrs P to buy a ticket for today's draw on the strength of that conviction: well, it would be rude not to give the old fellah a chance, having made the statement.) But mysterious ways and all of that......

But what about Christianity?

It's a strange one. Numbers of people these days seem not to feel that it has much to offer them. Some will say it's because of what has been done by mankind in its name and I'd have to say they have a point. Others just feel (like Nietzsche, I suppose) that the teachings elevate passivity over the survival (and rise) of the fittest: that it is a teaching based on weakness that holds mankind back from achievement of his full potential (which for some reason can only be achieved if we do so by the domination of the weaker by the stronger). Yet others struggle with the miraculous aspects that seem to be incumbent with acceptance of the region.

I can't make any observations on the latter: I wasn't there. I'm told that these days a man can breastfeed and that "men have periods too!" Okay - whatever. Against this backdrop, the odd virgin birth and rising from the dead don't seem too much to ask. But that's by the by. It's all about the teachings for me. I have a sense that there probably was a historical character called Jesus (well, yes - but a historical character that actually was the guy we are talking about), and the miraculous stuff I'll leave for others. But taking the teachings (and I'd reckon that's what he would have wanted: certainly not for people to go around killing each other in his name) they don't seem too bad for me. (Mind you - as an aside, if looking back, he could see what a mess we've made of it, I wonder if he'd wish that he'd never have bothered.) They seem to be about being kind to each other and surely this has to be a good thing? Like, just from the point of everyone getting along and us all deriving collective benefit from it? It seems so obvious that one wonders why it took so long for somebody to come up with it, but maybe it was the novelty of the idea that gave it 'legs' at the time.

I can't say I fancy the idea of Nietzsche's world of nasty supermen much. I'm certainly not going to survive long in such a world, and I'd rather be in one where a little bit of helping thy neighbour and all that was more the order of the day (mind you - mine seem quite capable of helping themselves, but let that go). But no, on Christmas day it'd be churlish not to give the man himself the center stage and listen a bit to what he had to say.

So here we go. In a potted version, please have (drum roll.....)

The Top 10 Teachings of Jesus Christ

1. Forgiveness. (Really important this.) When you get screwed over by those you love - and it happens in life - remember your love for them and forgive. It is unconditional and goes a long way. Love will stretch a mile before it will tear an inch.

2. Love. Keep it there, always, in back of everything. No matter what you feel for anyone, anything, remember - underneath it all we're all fighting the same fight. Life ain't easy. Not for no-one.

3. Faith. You gotta believe in something. It's going to be a pretty dry old run if you don't see something beyond the horizon and believe that it might be there.

4. Mercy. Speaks for itself really. Remember the toad under the harrow: it's not to much to ask, to bend down and lift him out when you can now is it?

5. Be kind. Goes with the above really and we all benefit from it. But forget that - it's just nice isn't it? Makes the world better (and you get to feel warm and fuzzy).

6. Miracles. Well they might be different for you than they are for me, but they'll happen. In your life just as they do in mine. And the fact that we're here at all.....

7. Service. Be prepared to give and expect nothing in return now and again.

8. Be pure in heart. I'd see this as simply being human. Fail in life. Fail at everything by all means. With the single exception of being a human. Don't fail at that. There are many out there dressed in the robes of a human appearance who have lost their humanity. And I mean really. Don't be one of these truly damned individuals.

9. 'Do unto others......' You know the one. It makes absolute sense and needs no explanation.

10. Don't worry. It'll all come right in the end. It's all part of a Master Plan, so that's all right. And if it isn't - well that's alright too. (Actually - I'm not sure that's one of Jesus' teachings; I might have just slipped it in there to make up a round number. Oops.)

Anyway, that's Peter's Christmas message for you. The pope's got one. So's the king. And Kier Stamer (though he's actually on holiday in an undisclosed location, no doubt somewhere hot and luxurious and paid for by someone else. - he's had one too. So I want one as well, and there it was.

Post by **Avatar** » Wed Dec 25, 2024 9:19 am

Sadly, I fear you conflate the man with his followers, who tend to be rather less forgiving etc.

Christ, not much problem with.

Christians on the other hand (with some exceptions of course), not so much.

--A

Post by **peter** » Thu Dec 26, 2024 7:09 am

Yes Av.... I fear you are correct. Still - at least he tried.

Now, down to business.

A plane has crashed in kazakhstan and the Times immediately runs a story saying the Russians shot it down.

Could be I suppose, but the official explanation is bird strikes and I doubt that the Times journalist who penned the story has been any closer to the scene than his home office in order to verify the facts. It's a tale that chimes in with the 'Russia bad' propoganda that our government dishes out by the ladlefull on a weekly basis and hell, whose going to check it out to say either yea or nay.

Princess Kate is "An inspiration to all cancer patients" we are told by the Mail. A picture of the Princess, looking happy and frankly blooming as she greets the crowds, accompanies the headline, and one can only wish her the very best as she tackles her health issues under the uncomfortable glare of the nation's prying media.

But lecturing other cancer patients using her as an example is exactly the kind of crass patronising we'd expect from the paper. Do I really need to point out the difference in the levels of care that Kate will have recieved than that of the average cancer patient. The hours of waiting and limited time and resources that will be extended to them (when they eventually do attend their belated and repeatedly cancelled appointments), compared to that which will have been delivered to Kate in the very best clinics in the country. You'd have to be away with the birds to believe there'd be an ounce of similarity for a comparison to have any meaning. The facts are that she will live while a goodly number of them will likely die, and not because they couldn't have been saved. With minimal resources and overextended staffing, the cancer survival rates for NHS patients have been plummeting since the pandemic, just as was predicted they would. Just the effects of pretty much stopping NHS testing services for two years would have achieved this alone, but the starvation of the service of money since then has simply added to the rising death figures.

And don't make the mistake of believing nothing could be done about it. Our two-tier health service - private vs public - is deliberately weighed in private health care's favour by starvation of the public service of funds. How else are they going to push people into taking the option of private care? Not by providing the first class public service that we could be capable of, that's for sure. No. The attrition of the NHS by starvation of funds is quite deliberate with the ulterior motive of forcing people into private insurance policies and softening up the public for NHS privatisation or introduction of further private finance initiatives.

Remember that neoliberal Labour Party I was talking about above; this is part of it and Health Secretary Wes Streeting is balls deep in it.

So no. Don't hold Kate up as an inspiration to us. Hold her up as evidence of what is being denied to the rest of us.

Political number crunching guru Professor John Curtis is on the 'i' front page, which relates that in a combined 'poll of polls', Reform UK is now neck-a-neck with the Tories and Labour in a three horse race of popularity. Again I refer you to an earlier post of mine where I explain this. How could it be any other. The other two parties are joined at the hip in supporting a failed platform of neoliberal policy ideology that has left the average family seeing the gains of the post war era, of the 1960's to the 80's just slipping away, decade after decade. Nothing is getting better and hasn't for a very long time. And where else is there for people to go except the far-right? There is no effective left of centre alternative and they ain't impressed by the lib-dems. And Farage is at least articulating what people are feeling. So why would they not be looking to Reform as an alternative.

Times reports that some private schools are facing closure as a result of the imposition of vat on their school fees. Packages to save them are being sought the paper reports. Again, I'd say shut them all down. Either that or finance the state schools properly so they can compete in producing the very best educated youngsters that money can buy. By reducing staff-pupil ratios, improving facilities and engaging teachers in continuing professional development programmes in just the same way that the private schools enjoy. The state -private school divide is the means via which the establishment maintains its grip on our society and this will never change until the state education sector performs with parity with the private, or the latter is abolished. And stop any information on what school a kid attends from being visible on its university application forms: that'd help as well.

They may seem quaint and harmless, these apparent old-school relics of a bygone era, but in fact they underpin the continuation of the system that ensures that the same families have continued to dominate and order the direction of our society for hundreds of years. Public school, to Oxbridge, to Westminster. That's how it goes. Cut off the root and the head will die.

The Guardian has a piece on the "wild-west" environment of weight loss jabs.

Why the frick would you need a weight loss jab? Get on a diet and stick to it. If you diet, you'll loose weight. If you're too weak to stick to a diet and do so, get used to being fat (I'm in this group). I work with a girl who tells me her weight problem is hormonal - or to do with a medical condition she suffers. But no kidding, I watch her eat about 1000 calories worth of chocolate and crisps and fizzy drink every shift. I can't take her seriously. Myself, I have a majorly sweet tooth. I like cakes and biscuits. Recently I went on a diet. I cut them out and lost a stone and a half. I fell off the diet and have put some back on.

Problem is, I love my tea with sugar. I hate it without. People say, "You'll get used to it," but I don't. I simply don't like it not sweet. And it's important to me. I miss it badly as a prop of some kind in the morning. But I don't need a jab to sort this out. Not just to put money into big-pharma buying yet another product that we don't need, just because they want to see the profit graph going even higher (doesn't Ozempic cure Alzheimers now - wasn't that the last wheeze to get us onto it?). On yer bike, I say. On 2nd January I'm back on that diet and either I'll crack it or I won't. But frikkin jabs I don't need.

Post by **peter** » Fri Dec 27, 2024 8:08 am

I was amused the other day listening to BBC's Radio 3 - a classical music channel - to hear the presenter referring to something going on in Ukraine (re a music venue or something) and use the phrase, ".....the war in Ukraine....', only to immediately attempt to backtrack and reword her comment into "Russia's war in Ukraine", as BBC instructions had clearly told them all to do (even to the point of issuing said instructions to obscure radio channels).

Thus are we being subjected to manipulation and propoganda even in our cultural pass times and pursuits, just as we are in our news.

It's a bit of a loosing battle however, because more and more people seem aware that this war in Ukraine is just a pointless waste of human life that is serving no security purpose other than to make our situation the more precarious, every day it continues.

But the game goes on, and today it surrounds the disaster of the Embrarer 190 crash in Kazakhstan which killed some 38 people on Christmas Day, when it was downed during its flight between Baku and Grozny.

I observed yesterday that the immediate assumption by our media was that it must have been the Russians that brought it down, and this useful presumption has since been built on to give it, as it were, legs.

There's a big piece on today's FT front page that I'd like to look at in particular. It starts off,

Russian anti-aircraft fire could have caused a plane to crash in Kazakhstan...

Notice the 'could' here. Let's go on and see what evidence is presented to support this (because the pilot having a heart attack or being blown off by the stewardess, also equally 'could' have caused the crash).

The article goes on to give the details of the flight and the numbers of casualties etc, before noting that while Russia has said that bird strikes could have been responsible, Ukrainians and US experts have observed that Russian air-defence activity in the area was at the time operating over Grozny in response to a Ukrainian drone attack. The suggestion that some evidence of shrapnel strikes on the tail of the plane has been seen was also made (though I note no photographic evidence to this effect has been presented to back this up). A commentator from the US is noted as saying

If this is the case (ie that Russian air-defence fire was responsible) the incident would further underscore Moscow's recklessness since its invasion of Ukraine.

Well I'd argue that if Ukraine were flying attack drones towards Russian territory then Russia would have (in that favorite phrase of the UK media) every right to defend itself by whatever means necessary. It would be expected to do so. But let's read on. Next we have the suggestion by a Ukrainian official that it was the Russian responsibility to close the air-space around where it was using its air-defence missile system. "Russia was supposed to close the airspace over Grozny," he said, "but did not do so. The plane was damaged by the Russians (note the assumption here) and sent to Kazakhstan instead of making an emergency landing at Grozny and saving people's lives."

OK. Let's assume some truth in this. But who was flying the attack drones? And how much response time do you think Russian air-defence systems have in such situations? If mistakes were made, they were just that - mistakes. Russians died on that plane as well you know. Regional Caucus officials speaking to the FT have said that if the Russians were "going to use aircraft jamming equipment and defence systems" in the region, then they should have closed off the airspace." Again the assumption of Russian responsibility to close off the airspace (why not Ukrainian if they were flying drones over it), time factors being ignored, and now the introduction of the idea of the use of jamming systems. There is by accounts, evidence of GPS data failure over the Caucuses from the plane and this might indicate the use of such equipment, but equally there might be alternative explanations such as a failure at the plane's end. The Kazakhstan authorities charged with investigation of the crash have said that speculation into the cause of the crash prior to the findings of said inspection are unethical, and I agree with them. They specifically noted that blaming the crash on missile fire before this had been established was unethical, but this will, needless to say, not be a dissuasion to our propoganda industry.

And let's just remember. There are families in mourning. People have died. We owe it to them to show some respect and let the investigators do their work. This is not fit matter for the twisting into manipulative advantage and our leaderships and media should know it.

Post by **peter** » Sat Dec 28, 2024 4:58 am

Interesting spat between Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch over the formers recent claim that Reform's membership numbers have now passed those claimed by the Conservatives.

Kemi Badenoch had responded that her party's number crunchers had been watching their opponents claimed figures rising and had concluded that they (Reform) were spinning us a line. Farage responded saying that everyone knew that the claimed Conservative membership figure was bollocks and that he was fully prepared to submit his membership numbers for independent verification if the Conservatives were prepared to do the same.

Badenoch has not responded to this challenge, and as Farage knew full well that she would not, it was no great risk for him issue it in the first place. In addition, that he did so cannot therefore be taken as any kind of proof that his figures are kosher. It merely goes to show that both parties are equally mendacious and untrustworthy. That either of them could actually be possible future candidates (both in terms of the parties and the leaders themselves) for the government of this country should have us sweating at night. They are equal only in their badness. To cap his minor victory in pulling the rug out from under Badenoch, Farage has demanded an apology - about as futile a gesture as asking for the Conservative membership figures to be verified in the first place.

----0----

Meanwhile, Farage is appearing in today's press in another story - that of adding further comment on the possibility of Elon Musk making a significant donation to Reform UK in support of their election campaign for the next general election.

I note that his description of the figures involved had been moderated from "huge" down to "reasonable" and that he has said any donation would have to be within the limits as laid down by the law.. Perhaps Farage was afraid that the called for threats, subsequent to his initial comments, in terms of alterations to the laws surrounding donations, might actually have been carried out. If so he needn't have been. The one thing all the parties agree on is that nothing should be done to interfere with the freedom they have to take money from any source, however questionable, in order to fund their party activities. Why it is on this freedom that the entire system of patronage and mutual back-scratching rests. Without it, we might actually get governments that worked in our, the people's interest, rather than those who have already been bought and paid for long before they enter into power.

-----0-----

Not much in today's press about what is happening in Syria, and I'm guessing that this is because it is nothing good.

There was a bit of weakly reported stuff yesterday, that a nasty little scuffle had broken out between remnants of the supporters of Bashar Al-Assad (who apparently still hold out in pockets of resistance here and there) and the now controlling forces of HTS. Also something about revenge killings of members of the Alawite community from which Assad was drawn.

I'd suggest that things are likely going pear-shaped pretty quickly, and that it won't be long before the bearded jihadist that is now purportedly in charge starts showing his true colours. He'll have little choice even if this is not his inclination (though I'd imagine it probably is; Islamist fundamentalists show somewhat less tendency to be lured from their religious responsibilities by 'filthy Western lucre' than say your average tinpot dictator like Zelensky). There will be hardline Islamist elements within his own group watching his every move, and you can be sure that his continuance in position will be entirely dependent upon his meeting of their demands on his behaviour, both in terms of his treatment of their former adversaries in combat (ie no mercy in terms of retribution) and the wider population in general (strict observance of Islamic law).

-----0-----

And '2024 was the year of the cancer vaccine", or so tells us the Daily Express.

Never one to be slow in supporting the pharmaceutical industry (and in fairness, most of its readership is bordering on age-related senility so why would they be), the paper tells us that since the pandemic, research into beating that most prolific of killers has proceeded apace and is now reaching new unthought of heights.

Freely admitting that the research carried out during the pandemic, when so-called vaccines were rushed through trials, skipping by protocols that had proven indispensable over many decades, is behind this bonanza for the drug companies (for the public given the 'vaccines' - not so much), the Express is virtually bent over in a fit of ejaculatory joy at the prospect of it. Either the owners must have shares in big-pharma or they must be being paid a 'nice little earner' (remember Arthur Daly anyone?) for their trouble.

Well here's one clown who won't be benefiting from all that gene-therapy based tech, because he won't be going anywhere near the muthah! I'm done with people sticking needles into my arms containing god knows what, and that's a fact. I went through it during the shamdemic (against my better judgement) but no more. The Express's championing of it is proof positive enough for me that I'm making the right decision.

Post by **peter** » Sun Dec 29, 2024 5:26 am

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson was chief of staff to Colin Powell when he was Secretary of State. He's held a number of high level positions both within political and academic circles and has been interviewed by Stephen Sackur on the BBC's Hard Talk, a privilege reserved for those of high status in whatever fields they are drawn from.

Thus it would be fair to say that what he says should be listened to, and if not taken as gospel (and I don't for a moment suggest it should) then certainly given consideration.

And he says, with absolute certainty, that Israel is "digging its own grave" in the Middle East.

He says that within ten years Israel will have ceased to exist.

Strong stuff that wants some backing up, but he does so by citing what is going on in Gaza and saying that the star of the West is falling by virtue (amongst other things) of its support of the same, and it will thus not be able to protect Israel from its demise which it will, by letting Benjamin Netenyahu have free rein to pursue his atrocities, have brought upon itself.

The world is looking on, while the West sows the seeds of its own demise: It, the world, is attempting to pursue a future based on dialogue and trade which will see its ascendancy building, but which could just as easily be brought to ruin in nuclear holocaust if the forces arrayed against it in America are hawkish enough to take it there. There are those, say Wilkerson, who will stop at nothing, even to point of global destruction, to see the Western (think American) hegemony preserved. It's the Golda Meir strategy of being absolutely prepared to unleash nuclear war in preservation of your interests.

He is not optimistic that a path can be found through this, and is vocal in his expression of the foolishness of our ongoing and unequivocal support of Israel's actions in the Middle East.

Actually, that's not quite correct. Unlike Professor John Mearsheimer and Colonel Douglas Macgregor, he doesn't believe that it is the Israel lobby that is the tail wagging the American dog. On the contrary, he believes what is happening beyond Gaza, in the region is being driven by America - that it's all part of the longer term strategy of the US to control the region......and that it's suicidal. Were it not for Israel doing what it is doing in the Middle East, said Wilkerson, America would be there doing it instead. Trump, he said, has zero political understanding - zero - of the geopolitical situation he is inheriting and will only serve to make things worse. The idea that Syria will wrest any kind of stability or satisfactory outcome from the recent events and falling of the Assad regime is for the birds. It will deteriorate piecemeal into chaos over the coming years.

Not a happy outlook by any means, I'm the first to admit. As I say, it doesn't do to take anything in this situation as read at present - it's simply too unpredictable - but you have to take all the viewpoints seriously, the perilous nature of the circumstances demands it. And Wilkerson is a man who has earned the right to be listened to.

The YouTube post from which this material is drawn from is put up by the chanel Dialogue Works, and is entitled 'Israel is digging its own grave | Co. Larry Wilkerson and Jeffrey Sachs.' (It has the screen shot with the words 'Israel lost it!' on it.) Check it out. At least if you do, you'll be getting an alternative picture against which to judge the merits or otherwise, of the policies our governments are following.

Post by **peter** » Mon Dec 30, 2024 6:07 am

Kier Stamer has been waiting for years to be in the top job in the country - and now he's there he hasn't the first clue what to do.

Same with Rachel Reeves the Chancellor. And Wes Streeting the Health Secretary.

In fact Labour in power is exhibiting itself to be as devoid of ideas as to how to rescue our failing economy, our failing public services, our failing health, security, education, and everything about our downtrodden, depressed and futureless country, as anyone else with an interest in the matter.

Kemi Badenoch and her Conservative Party opposition have no idea. Neither does Nigel Farage despite all his bluster and blame (life in blighted Brexit Britain is always everyone else's fault, due to everyone else's failing, rather than anything he has had to do with the situation).

To put it bluntly, we're screwed. Up shit-creek without the proverbial paddle. The various commentating bodies - OBR, IFS, National Audit Office and Bank of England etc - all struggle to find something - anything - good to say about our prospects, but none of them can manage it. They universally recognise that nothing is going on in the economy that is going to balance even in the slightest the hit we took from Brexit, covid and the cost of living crisis. There are no deals in the offing, no sunlit uplands to look out towards, no future growth just around the corner.

In fact the economy is flatlining and recession looks ever more likely with every set of figures that is released. Everyone and his mother says that 2025 is going to be a bad year, and that the following years are likely to be even worse. And those are the optimistic ones. The others see us heading into third world territory, falling not just out of the G7, but into Zimbabwe territory in terms of our economic prospects (sorry Zimbabwe - haven't actually looked at where you are economically recently).

Stamer is going to build 250,000 houses during his term in office. How's he going to do it? Some 3000 small building firms have gone bust this year. There's no workers with the skills to do it, and no money to pay for it even if there were (or people with the money to buy them either). It's all bullshit. Wes Streeting is going to spend sums unlimited on brining the NHS back up to speed. But where these sums come from no-one has deemed yet to tell us. Certainly not from tax receipts - not with a flat economy in recession. And a recent assessment into his proposed reforms and spending plans revealed that they are so spread out in their time scale, that they won't begin to have any noticeable effect in improvement of the situation in his term of office. The truth is that the slick twat has had fourteen years in opposition to come up with a plan, and now he's gotten into office he hasn't got a fucking clue what to do.

And as for Reeves. She'd put any ostrich to shame with her head-in-the-sand act. If she goes any deeper into denial we won't even be able to see the soles of her feet. She's overseeing an economy that no inward investors are going to touch with a barge pole unless it's a tax-loss game or they're given it for a quid. Not a single clue what to do.

Stamer's labour is just that : labour with a small 'l'. There is no fire, no vision, no plan. There is absolutely no big ideas and no courage even to spend the way out of recession, Labour's go-to trick of old when all else failed.

So that has to be my advice. If we are now into the territory of modern monitory theory where printing cash doesn't have to result in inflationary meltdown if properly handled......then go for it. Show some backbone and get the presses printing. We've got excess capacity in the system - half the fucking workforce sitting on its arse and half the capital infrastructure doing shit to earn its keep. Get it fucking going. Punch the economy into motion in a New Deal style shove into motion. Spend on infrastructure renewal, house building, big projects. Get money out there and get the wheels in motion. Seriously - we've got jack shit to loose and everything to gain. If we are going Zimbabwe style on it, we'd as well do so in style. There comes a point where, when there is no prospect of recovery - when the obstacles are simply too great to surmount - that you simply have to throw your chips on the table and take a punt, land where they may. Corbyn would have had the courage for it: why haven't you?

Post by **peter** » Tue Dec 31, 2024 8:24 am

You may remember the Amsterdam night of violence following the Maccabi Tel Aviv vs Ajax football match.

You will no doubt remember how it was characterised as a night of antisemitic violence, reminiscent of the notorious 'Krystallnacht' of violence commited against German Jewery in 1938. That it was subsequently demonstrated to have been instigated in large part by the Israeli Maccabi fans themselves is less remembered. Fans who had rampaged through Amsterdam followingtheir loss to Ajax, burning Palestinian flags where they found them, chanting "Fuck the Palestinians" and smashing windows and beating at least one individual (Moroccan I believe) who they had pulled from a taxi. During the national anthem singing in the football stadium itself, they had rather sung, "They don't need schools in Gaza - there are no children left."

This disgraceful behaviour quickly became miraculously transformed by media coverage into an outburst of antisemitism directed against the fans, culminating in Benjamin Netenyahu sending a plane to 'rescue' his beleaguered and put-upon countrymen, amid copious news coverage entirely sympathetic to the Israeli fans, and condemning of any others who had lifted a finger against them.

Leading this distortion of the true facts within the UK media were both Sky News and the BBC. They showed UK politicians speaking out against the horror of antisemitism that had burst open on the streets of Amsterdam, and these were accompanied by footage of groups of individuals waving clubs and throwing stones, and of one group surrounding a fallen man who was being kicked as he lay.

It was discovered shortly thereafter that the footage used was, rather than being of rioters acting against the Maccabi supporters, actually that of the supporters themselves, up to and including that of the man being beaten (the taxi driver I refer to above). The female journalist who had taken the pictures issued a complaint against both the BBC and Sky for having used her footage without permission, and pointed out in clear terms that the footage showed not violence being perpetrated against the Maccabi fans, but by the fans themselves.

Most European news agencies who had similarly distorted the nature of the footage (because the twisting of the facts was widespread - not just in the UK) were quick to apologise for the wrong way in which the footage had been presented, but not the BBC. It, against the general trend, had held out, neither defending its usage of the footage out of context, nor admitting what it had done. It has finally however been forced to admit that it used this footage in a manner that suggested it was of violence being directed against Maccabi fans, not the fans themselves committing it, but rather than doing so on the programmes where it used the footage (viewed by millions) it has done so on an obscure page hidden away on its website, where it will be lucky to be seen by a few thousands. And while making this admission, it has neither apologised for its deception nor issued any correction on the true nature of the trouble that occurred on that night. Rather it has attempted to justify itself in respect of its using the footage totally out of context and set against a commentary that made it appear other than what it was, by saying that it was "trying to give a general impression of the atmosphere of the night."

That the admission will be of no value in repairing the damage done by such manipulation and distortion of the news is neither here nor there to the BBC. They are following the official line of support for anything Israel does, and this it would appear, goes even so far as to condone and cover up the behaviour of its football fans when they run amok in a foreign capital chanting racist slogans and beating up innocent bystanders.

Which brings me to the New Year's Honours list.

There are no circumstances under which I would accept an honour awarded by this or any government that would stand by Israel in the face of what it is doing in Gaza. I would consider it a stain on my honour to do so, a skid-mark on my character that I'd wear with shame for the rest of my life. We are going further of course than just giving vocal support to the mass killing of women, children and men in the occupied territories; we are supplying the intel needed for bombing missions, the parts needed to keep the planes in the air, military hardware such as we can. We are not just supportive, we are complicit. Knowingly, voluntarily and happily so in the worst crime against humanity of our age. Accept an honour from this lot? I wouldn't tread on it in the street.

Shame on anyone - anyone - who is prepared to go to the palace and bend the knee to accept anything handed out in recognition by this bunch. Wear it as a mark of shame, that we may all see you for your failure to take a stand and make a point when you had the chance. It is indifference such as yours that allows this terrible state of affairs to persist. Honour? Contempt more like.

Post by **peter** » Wed Jan 01, 2025 4:01 am

(Seriously needs editing forgrammer; I'll do it later - I'm too tired now.)

Looking forward to 2025 (in the directional rather than the optimistic sense) is always going to be a difficult thing due to the sheer unpredictability of so many aspects of our world.

Perhaps the greatest unknown is just what a second Trump presidency will mean for the world. On the geopolitical score, the man is by accounts an absolute ignoramus, and given the extreme fragility of our international relationships as we stand, the idea of him blundering around without a clue as to the consequences of any of his actions, be it in the Ukraine or the Middle East, must be a significant cause for concern. He might stop the war in Ukraine (and this from a simply humanitarian point of view would have to be desirable), but might counterbalance this by an equal and opposite destabilisation (yet further, if it is possible) in the latter. Would he be drawn into a war with Iran by Israel or the hawks within the US itself? Difficult to say. He's not an overtly warlike individual, preferring 'jaw, jaw' to 'war, war', but the pressures on him from various quarters might easily take the decision out of his hands, and render the question moot. It's absolutely a certainty that his presidency is unlikely to bring any resolution to the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza - other than of course that by the end of 2025 there may be none left in the territory.

In terms of the economy (both world and national), how far he will go in terms of application of his trade tariffs, and what he will do to support the dollar or otherwise, will be key to what 2025 brings. If he increases interest rates in support of propping up the dollar price, this could have terrific knock-on effects in poorer countries (by accounts) and thrust the broader world into sharp decline - a decline which every country in the world would feel. If on the other hand (and if I have it right) he doesn't act to support the dollar, then it will fall as the go-to currency of world trade and increase the status of the Chinese RMB as an alternative.

I've said enough above about the prospects for the UK in the forthcoming year for the need to repeat it here,but it's worth briefly considering what Kier Stamer's year is likely to look like.

By all accounts not very good. He's going to give a New Year adress to the people today, in which by accounts he's going to adress the general feeling of pessimism hanging over the nation. Expect more about difficult times in the short-term, followed by sunlit uplands further ahead. He'll understand our worries, but will always be there for us, building on the work he has already started. Granted I've had a sneak preview from today's press about what he'll say, but I could have predicted it anyway, I promise you. What else could he say, given the circumstances? But still, it's unlikely to do him much good. He's run out of road in truth, and his paucity of ideas, of vision, is apparent for all to see. There are hungry eyes, slick and complacent eyeing up his job (aren't there Wes?) and while they'd have him out in a flash given the chance, it's unlikely that they would have the parliamentary support to make a leadership attempt stick. So the likelihood is that Stamer will survive - just - and that Rayner and Streeting will just have to be patient a while longer.

In terms of the economy, well nothings happening to make things any better, and the news today that Ukraine will stop carrying Russian gas into Europe can only further increase upward pressure on energy costs already due to increase. So this will be a year for drawing up the bridges, for consolidation and getting our houses in order. How you squeeze growth out of this is a magic trick that I have no idea how to perform - and I don't believe Rachel Reeves does either. She'll keep saying she's working for the long term and will quietly be hoping for something to turn up (like WW3 or something).

Standards of living, disposable income, the national health (physical and mental), education standards, crime and our general happiness and sense of wellbeing.....well you don't need me to tell you. Just put the upward and downward arrows in where you think appropriate, and we'll move on.

And let's try to end on something - anything - that sounds at least a bit positive. (I'm flummoxed at the moment; I'll come back when I've thought of something and tell you how long it's taken me......)

Okay, it's five minutes later and this is going to be a bit contentious, but I think that some of the

worst

aspects of 'wokeness' are going to be reined in. I think there is evidence that people are beginning to loose patience with being told what they must think, what they must accept, and are growing weary with it. I hope that the backlash against the more silly things being pushed on us doesn't descend into beastliness, but there is a risk nevertheless. But by and large a small retreat into what used to be called 'common sense' might be a positive thing, as long as we don't return to some of the bad old days of prejudice and fear against that which we don't always understand. This might be a positive redressing of the balance we need as a society, but time will tell. And by and large I genuinely believe that people are at heart good. And I think, given a chance they can and will prove it. Difficult times can make people - well - difficult, but they can also bring out what is best in us. We have not (in my mind) been served well by our successive leaderships, and I think that people will turn inwards and begin to think and act more.....locally (for want of a better word). These clowns are not the be all and end all of our existence, and sometimes we just have to hunker down and sit things out. They won't like it, because they crave the attention of being made to feel important. But sometimes you just have to shrug your shoulders and say "meh". (Don't like that lazy word, but it seems to fit the bill for what I want to say.)

Remember the quote about how few men, choose however powerful, can stand the indifference of a boy without feeling stung by it - well that's what I mean. Treat these charlatans and mountebanks with the indifference, the contempt, they deserve. Sooner or later they'll give up and go away. We can always order our own lives to slip between the warps and wefts others would weave around us - the limits of intrusion that the powerful would introduce into our lives can always be worked around, mitigated, if you apply yourself to it - micromanaging has its limits, even for entities as big as the state. It's what you do for yourselves, your family and neighbours that makes your life what it is. Remember that and have a

Happy New Year!

Post by **peter** » Thu Jan 02, 2025 7:46 am

Turnout at the 2024 UK election was 60%.

Around 33% of that figure voted Labour. That's about 20 people out of every hundred or say 20% of the public eligible to vote.

Today the Guardian runs a front page headline saying that the low turnout is becoming a threat to the legitimacy of elections.

Well you don't say!

The problem is even worse if you break the figures down by things such as educational attainment or income, with as large as 11% differences (in favour of the higher end of the groups) being seen. This means that those most deeply affected by the results of elections are the ones who have least representation in our polity. They are the ones who have least, for whom the conditions of life are hardest, and who are thus disproportionately effected by the decisions that are made in Westminster - decisions about things like schooling and health and financial support of the poorest.

But who are we kidding. When the gap between the two leading political parties is so narrow that in policy terms they are virtually indistinguishable, and when the system is geared so that such a huge disparity in votes cast per MP elected exists (Reform MPs had to get ten times the number of votes per MP elected than Labour) then representation of any kind becomes a sham affair at best anyway. Add to that the lobby and political donations systems that control our politics and you are so far away from 'by the people, of the people, for the people' that it barely exists. So if these are the terms in which we couch legitimacy, then it has long ago left the building.

The Institute for Public Policy Research, who have produced the work upon which the Guardian story reports, feel that a "tipping point" is being reached where said legitimacy is at risk, "because the majority do not take part." I'd say the legitimacy is lost long before that, if the parties involved in elections are not bound to be truthful to those who's votes they solicit, if they have no intention of honouring the pledges they make and can be demonstrably shown to have misled those upon who's votes they now sit in power as a result of. And if the rules under which they operate once elected into power (either as representatives or in their greater roles in the executive) are such that their actions, their decisions, their votes, can be bought - what then of legitimacy.

Any legitimacy we have in the UK is of the cod variety and it has been for a long time. Stories like that in this morning's Guardian are couched to hide that, to give the illusion of legitimacy where none exists. I'm not nieve enough to believe that we should have government by referendum or anything: but a thorough tightening of the rules pertaining to lobbying, political donations (and these two are joined at the hip), accountability for what is said in election campaigning, together with a good dose of electoral reform, would go a long way towards fixing the problem.

But let's not kid ourselves; for all their previous pronouncements in terms of proportional representation, their claims to have the people's backs, to be the
Party of change, this latest manifestation of the Labour Party is going to do nothing to alter the status quo. They have all done far too well by the system as it stands and why would they kill the goose that lays the golden egg? The Guardian knows it, we know it, it's a waste of time even talking about it.

-----0-----

What a terrible thing to have to mark a New Year with, the cruel images coming out of New Orleans in the wake of the IS inspired terrorist attack on Bourbon Street.

I know it's silly, but I feel a particular effect of this by virtue of having been to those streets, having visited those bars, rubbed shoulders with those celebrants, as they partied in that most iconic of locations at that most iconic of times.

We are all lessened by this, all effected and brought low. The French Quater will recover, will bounce back, but it won't forget. That's what it does. It party's, it casts light on all of life's woes and lives on the throw of a dice, the spin of a coin. But best of all it remembers. Not one of those lost will ever be forgotten. Not by their families, not by their friends and country, and certainly not by the Street.

Post by **peter** » Fri Jan 03, 2025 6:37 am

As it becomes increasingly clear that the perpetrator of the New Orleans horror attack on Bourbon Street was a radicalised Islamist with sympathies, if not direct associations with ISIS (an ISIS flag was affixed to the pickup he used in his attack), I cannot help but think that at some point, someone in the commentariat has to make the observation about the..... incongruity......of our position, re our now support of an (at least) ISIS leaning leader in Syria, when followers of the group are committing such acts of violence against us on our own soil.

No-one as far as I'm aware has as yet pointed this out, and given the embarrassment it would likely cause our administrations and the client nature of our journalism, I'm not particularly suprised, but I thankfully am not constrained by such 'loyalties' and so I say, "C'mon you lot. Explain why you have funded, aided and supported the phoenix like reappearance of this group (albeit in a sanitised and airbrushed form), such that their supporters now feel emboldened enough to restart their murderous campaigns of anti-Western terrorism on our shores once again.

I suspect we won't see much lauding of the virtues of that new Syrian bearded monster on our screens in the next few days and weeks; on the contrary, I suspect he'll be kept pretty out of sight for the coming days and weeks, and his new 'liberal' (painted) regime in that country quietly forgotten until the New Orleans attack has faded from the spotlight a bit.

Now I wonder why that would be?

-----0-----

I'm just reading in yesterday's papers (I'm catching up, damn you!) that Kier Stamer has come up with a cunning plan to hinder those nasty people smugglers, or at least the connections they have that live as residents on our shores. (I wasn't aware that they had many connections on our side of the English Channel - I thought these poor people they smuggled were shoved into their flimsy boats and then sent off on their own following their departure from Calais or wherever it is they set off from, but perhaps Kier knows better.)

But anyways, he's apparently going to introduce 'restrictions', such that these individuals are not allowed to use the internet or to leave the country, in order to hamper their activities.

Of course (we were informed by yesterday's Times) the changes to the legislation will be framed to include a broader sweep of individuals rather than just people smugglers - think drug smugglers, terrorist suspects, money launderers, firearms offenders etc - in fact pretty much anyone that the security services or state wants to include.

Not surprising that an authoritarian leaning individual like Stamer would find a reason to introduce such draconian and sweeping legislation, but even I'm suprised to see him doing it so quickly. Still, with newly released figures showing the sharp rise in people being smuggled onto our shores, it would be silly to waste the opportunity to put such nasty figures to at least some good use, and achieve something that would be difficult to justify at any other time thereby.

There has been a little kickback in parliament by a few MPs, but not much. Most of them - and our media - don't seem that bothered by it. For us, the public, it's just a little salami-slice of freedoms being cut away. "If you're doing nothing wrong you'll have nothing to fear," they'll say - the go-to response for every would-be dictatorship throughout history as they tightened the noose around their populations. You'd be nieve in the extreme to think that there won't be 'mission creep' in the use of such legislation, but funnily enough our media don't seem to have spotted the dangers.

Again (as above, so below) I wonder why that would be?

(Incidentally, the Times yesterday ran a tiny piece saying that the stopping of gas flowing through Ukraine was already pushing up European energy costs that would likely feed through to domestic price rises in the UK. I'd pointed this out earlier so perhaps someone from the Times reads my 'blog' on this site - or perhaps again the media doesn't want to focus a spotlight on a subject that could raise difficult questions such as why are we supporting actions in Europe that impact so badly on the British public at home?)

-----0-----

Megan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex is to host a new cooking show on Netflix. I wasn't aware she was a chef of renown in her former career, but perhaps I'm mistaken. She certainly could never have been described as an actress.

(Now now Peter - don't be beastly to the poor mite.)

-----0-----

Interesting to read that ex Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg is to leave Meta just as Donald Trump gets ready for his second term as POTUS. C

leg is not a fan of Trump, having been instrumental in his barring from Facebook some years ago, a ban now lifted but from which Trump apparently still smarts.

One could see how Clegg's presence might be an embarrassment to his boss Mark Zuckerberg, as the latter attempts to cosy up to Trump in order to gain a bit of political leverage in the forthcoming years. He's apparently springing for Trump's inaugural bash and has been seen dining at Mar-a-Lago. He clearly doesn't want Elon Musk to have all the running when it comes to bending the reputedly easily influenced Trumpian ear. (Of the billionaires, by the billionaires, for the billionaires, one might say.)

Still, I don't suppose Clegg is to worried to be taking forced retirement: he's apparently been earning in excess of ten million pounds a year since he took up with Zuckerberg, so I dare say he won't be feeling the pinch too much. Nice work if you can get it.

Post by **peter** » Sat Jan 04, 2025 6:51 am

Geopolitics is the first subject on any thinking person's list as we enter 2025 and it can be broken down into four basic areas.

The European front. The Asian front. The Middle East. Africa.

The key thing is going to be not blowing ourselves to kingdom come with the (what?) 12,000 or so nuclear weapons that are shared out across the world - but this is looking increasingly difficult given the low level of communication that exists, particularly between Russia and America, compared to that of former times. People forget that it was only the direct communication between Kennedy and Khruschev that prevented the Cuban Missile Crisis from seeing the world into nuclear oblivion, and that close contact was way above anything that pertains now. So perhaps this is the first thing Donald Trump can bring to the table of geopolitics - a rapproachment of relations between the American and Russian leaderships, or at least a resumption of communications.

On the Ukrainian (European) front, Zelensky is making overtures to Trump (realpolitics baby - realpolitics) because, like it or not, he's got to deal with him. Trump has said he won't see Ukraine left high and dry, but that European countries must step up their contribution to providing them with material support. Putin and Trump are not yet in personal communication over Ukraine and Zelensky's approaches can be seen as his attempts to steal the march on the Russian leader, and get his points in first. The problem is that Zelensky's plans for terms under which the Ukrainian conflict should end will simply not be acceptable to Vladimir Putin. He just ain't going to accept a Ukraine that is a member of Nato - even if it is couched in terms of a future joining way in the distance. It's existential for Russia in his eyes and he won't buy it (even if the Russian polity and people would, which they won't).

And on Trump's side, Zelensky will push that the Russians must not be seen to have gained by their actions in invading Ukraine, and so either territorial return or agreement for this in the future must be part of the deal to achieve peace. Again, Putin is not going to grant this. That territory has been bought with Russian blood. Ukraine's folly in being courted by the West and swallowing their advances must be paid for, and that territory is the price. So no territorial return.

Thus are Zelensky's terms a chicken that won't fight. And Trump will face his own domestic pressures to keep Ukraine from falling. Geopolitical hawks in the US, determined to maintain the faltering American hegemony in the world, will not be happy at the idea of a Russian victory due to a change of American policy. This would be a knock to their pride, and would increase the pace of loss of prestige of the US in the wider world (never mind that many of them are balls deep in the armaments business and an end to the war means a sharp reduction in their portfolio profitabilities).

So in summary, it looks that despite any desires on Trump's part, he's going to face an uphill struggle to get his way on ending the war in Ukraine. Could the European front step in to replace US supplies to Ukraine - not really. We simply don't have the hardware or the productive capacity to do so. Trump has said that he's opposed to the agreement that Biden gave for Ukraine to fire US made missiles inside Russia, so presumably that will stop (and poodle Stamer will follow suit). This at least reduces the threat of an escalation into nuclear exchange (a bit), but the situation remains volatile. The language of the military class in both the USA and UK is that of preparations for war, and it's possible that the Russian-Chinese-Iranian front in the world is hearing this and taking it seriously. I mean seriously enough to actually be preparing for large-scale major power confrontation themselves. It's ironic that it is US/Western foreign policy that is driving these traditional enemies together into a united front. Without our bellicose belligerence, these countries would have nothing in common, nothing to push them together. We are creating the very enemy that we keep talking about by our own actions. Talking it into existence. Ridiculous.

(I'll continue this in another post 'dreckly'. (There's a good solid Cornish word you might never have heard before.

)

Post by **peter** » Sat Jan 04, 2025 8:17 am

Pivoting to the Middle East as the world's other major 'hot-spot', we ask where in hell is that going, and the question answers itself. Somewhere in Hell.

Starting with Bibi Netenyahu, we see him entering into 2025 feeling emboldened and pretty happy with himself. He's taking control of the Kneset, having got rid of Gallant (and another main opponent who's name I forget), and his popularity with the people is on a high (the significant opposition to him notwithstanding) as a result of his seeming successes in Lebanon and Syria. Sure, he didn't defeat Hezbollah militarily, but starving them of their Iranian support via the route through Syria effectively neuters them anyway. He's secured more territory towards his Greater Israel project and is on the way to clearing Gaza of Palestinians and (more to the point) getting away with it. Syria will descend into chaos but what the hell - he's got the territory, he's destroyed any arms and munitions stocks that could be turned against Israel and the newly installed Syrian leadership is for the time being at least, onside.

Trump is going to throw his weight behind Israel and will go even more easily on the country in terms of whatever atrocities they elect to commit, than even the Biden crew did. This again empowers Netenyahu to complete the job in Gaza and the West Bank, again to his benefit in terms of his domestic popularity and aims of avoiding paying for his criminal activities as currently being addressed in the Israeli courts. His arrest warrants from the ICC and the accusations of genocide against Israel in the ICJ, Netenyahu gives not a fight about. Trump has no respect for the international rules based order,so why should he. He's free to go to the USA and that's the only place he'd choose to visit outside Israel.

None of this looks good for the Palestinian cause which is effectively dead in the water. Alongside the people themselves if they don't pull up their skirts and run. The greater Arab world is not going to come to their aid; the client states of the USA - think the Saudis, Emirates, Jordan and Egypt - will make noises, but will do nothing. Turkey will be the same. It'll swear blind on the Palestinian cause, but will stand by and watch as they are cleansed, killed uprooted and displaced, and will keep supplying Israel with fuel and energy to pursue its murderous activities. As for the rest of the world, they'll be divided into the Western camps that will continue to turn a blind eye to the desperate straits of the Palestinians while maintaining their support for Israel, and the global south who will genuinely feel for the Palestinian plight, but will be impotent to do anything about it.

Which leaves Iran. Iran will want to continue to aid the Palestinians by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, but how is it to do so? Besides, it will have troubles enough of its own. It knows that it is the only remaining country on the notorious 'list of seven' who has not seen its government overthrown by American/Israeli interference (covert or overt), and it will know that Israel in particular is gunning for it. Russia might be prepared to come to its aid if it is threatened, but it's not a given. Russia after all, has problems of its own. And China? The Chinese would no doubt like to help, but are not going to risk sparking World War 3 in doing so. (Over Taiwan, maybe, but not Iran.)

So Iran will find itself alone and facing down the hungry stares of Israel and the hawks in the US. So what will it do? Answer - it'll build that nuclear bomb it is so close to achieving as quickly as it possibly can (think weeks or months at the longest). Israel will want to neutralise this threat as quickly as possible, so will be looking to make strikes on Iranian nuclear facilties ASAP. For this it'll need bunker busting bombs which Trump will have to supply (together with American air support). But will he want to do this? It's not in his kind of playbook to instigate conflict and he'll be reluctant to play ball in anything like this. But Israeli money sits behind his presidency and there will be huge domestic pressure for him to capitulate. So it doesn't look good for Iran. Against this backdrop, the plight of the Palestinians will take a backseat - and the Israeli killing machine will grind ever onwards. Bomb, flatten, clear, rebuild and settle. This will be the order of the day in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and probably even Lebanon eventually. And Jordan and Egypt had better look out as well. Think another USA in the Middle East in the future, with Israel's name stamped on it? It's not so far fetched as you might think.

But coming back to the present, the Middle East will take the front seat as the major conflict in the world, just as Ukraine is (possibly) dialled back. If things go as Israel would like, things will start to move there pretty rapidly. With Iran neutralised this would give Israel free rein to pursue its interests in the region, in synch with the Arab client states that will prove no problem. Chances are that Russia and China will sit this out - but it's not guaranteed. Armageddon could actually occur in, well, Armageddon - literally. Now there's a thought for the biblically minded amongst you.

Post by **peter** » Sat Jan 04, 2025 9:12 am

Now for the Asian front which I freely admit I know squat about.

Taiwan would have to be the major potential flash point. China has a historical claim to the territory but the Taiwanese want their independence. (At least, some of them do.) America, just for devilment as much as anything else, supports this claim for independence, and is prone to tickling up the Taiwanese when it can by sending over American politicians to stir things up. The Americans are intent on blockading the Chinese in China, pretty much as they are the Russians in Russia. To this end they maintain military outposts all over the Pacific and South China seas, and in Japan etc. The Chinese haven't been as passive about this as the Russians, and have actively pushed back against it, by establishment of military outposts of their own. There's been a constant propoganda offensive in Western media to convince us that the Chinese are the 'yellow peril' of old (am I still allowed to say that? No offence meant to the Chinese I promise you). I don't know if the same kind of childish tactics are used in China itself against the West, but I somehow doubt it.

But the Chinese are nothing if not clever. They know quite well that they have the ability to whip the West into a cocked hat economically and that there is simply no need to engage in unnecessary destructive wars in order to see the spread of sinification around the globe - for China to project power in a way that the West has in the centuries leading up to the present. They are the keystone of the ever more effectual Bricks movement that is growing apace as we speak. The economic powerhouse that the Chinese represent is something that the West has no answer to, except in military form, and it is this that makes our current situation so volatile.

Bricks is, as I say, growing in numbers by the day and already has half the worlds population under its belt. This is literally terrifying to the West and America in particular, who see the very real possibility that the US dollar will loose its exhaulted position (together with all the privilege this brings) of being the exchange currency of the world. Trump is in a bind. Chinese imports are swamping the US, killing domestic production and competitiveness at a stroke. He has to adress this trade deficit and has decided to do so by the imposition of aggressive trade tariffs on imported goods. But this causes the dollar to rise, because when anything threatens world trade, money flocks into the dollar pushing up its value. This makes it easier to buy imported goods and this in turn offsets any benefits gained by the imposition of tariffs in the first place. So the question for Trump is how to stem Chinese imports and keep the dollar price low at the same time (to make American exports cheaper). The idea that the dollar could loose its place as the world currency of choice is anathema to Trump just as it is to all other American politicians and economists, but the rise of Bricks and the American trade deficit/dollar value balancing act (and the various ongoing wars that the West is tied up in) could really see the Chinese Yuan replace it as the currency of choice. And you watch the Chinese go if it does.

And there are those in America who would take this world right to the edge of destruction to avoid this. All of which makes 2025 a pretty frikkin dangerous time to be around.

As for Africa and India and the global south. They are just waiting and slowly getting beyond the colonialism that has held them back for so many years. The number of countries entering Brics is increasing almost by the day and 'the rest of the world' really seems to be seeing a time beyond that which the West rules the roost and makes the running for everyone else (choose whether they like it or not). China are helping them in this and even Russia seems to be on board for a change in the way that the world works, the way things are done.

In conclusion, it seems to me that it is the West that is stuck in a historical rut - determined to look back to an age of 'glory' where it said, "Jump!", and the world said, "How high?" The rest of the world seems ready to move on, to make things go forward rather than back. I believe that they are correct. It's trade and cooperation that will drive us forward as a species, will help us meet the very real challenges we collectively face as a single entity called humanity. All these wars and all this killing has done us no good - is doing us no good.

I just wish that our movers and shakers could get this.

Post by **peter** » Sun Jan 05, 2025 7:21 am

As per usual, whenever we have a cold snap in the UK, the media makes full use of it in order to fill up column inches or program minutes with easy to churn out material. It's the equivalent of switching on autopilot - the producers can just slip into repetition mode of a well practiced routine of stories.

What else is going on.

Some poor guy who was mowed down in New Orleans turns out to have been the stepson of Alexandra Pettifer, better known as Tiggy Legge-Bourke, the former nanny of the King's two sons (well, let that rest) and no stranger to a bit of controversy herself.

It was interesting that in the reportage of this on last night's BBC news, the killed guy got about 30 seconds and then his stepmother about 5 minutes of deep explanation who she was. The reason of course is salacious. She was rumored to be looking after more than the King's sons by the media of the day (during the turbulent times of his marriage to Diana Princess of Wales), a bit of gossip that the BBC didn't include in its roundup, but clearly lay in back of the attention they gave her. Ah well - we're a pruriant lot, us British, and no more so than when it comes to the private lives of our royals. Can't blame the BBC for riding on the back of this for a few minutes I suppose. Still seems a pity for the poor fellow lost in the attack though. He should have been the story here, but lost out to his once comely stepmother. But that's life.

News that Joe Biden is planning (with the approval of House and Senate committees) a further 8 billion dollars shipments of arms to Israel, under the guise of it's 'right to defend itself'.

Okay, things could go hot with Iran at any point in the near future (especially if Netenyahu gets his way), but there is absolutely no avoiding the fact that a goodly proportion of what is sent will be used to continue the levelling operation in Gaza, with its bloody harvest of ever-increasing human casualties.

Donald Trump is aware of the 'bad press' coming out in respect of what Israel is doing and has told Netenyahu to "finish the job" in Gaza with all haste. He hasn't specified what finishing the job actually entails, but I think we can guess and say with a good deal of certainty that it doesn't bode well for the 2 million Palestinian inhabitants of the strip, 90 percent of whom are already displaced. The last thing Trump wants to be dealing with is a lot of criticism for continuing to supply Israel with arms in the face of their ongoing murderous onslaught on the Palestinian civilians of Gaza: he wants the thing done quickly (whatever 'the thing' is) and works on the basis of, if you're going to do something bad, do it quickly and get it behind you. The public have short memories and will soon move on to other concerns, especially if those other things are more effecting in their own lives than the bad stuff happening ten thousand miles away.

The Sunday Times tells us that Nato chiefs are going to tell Kier Stamer that he has to up our spending on air defence because it currently has more holes than a Union Street hooker's fish-net stockings. Apparently everyone and his mother wants to be chucking ballistic missiles and whatnot towards us - our energy infrastructure and the like - and we can't currently do shit about it. Even the Houthis can reach us if they get a ballistic missile, says the report.

Well yes - but so could the plate lipped women of Papua New Guinea come to that. But perhaps the more pertinent question would be why all these people might want to take a pop at us. Coz it's not like we're going round the world throwing our weight around, or supplying arms and support to countries that have sweet f a to do with us or anything is it? Of course the generals and bods of the Nato higher ranks all have no interest in upping the money spent on arms or anything - not when the companies that it is spent in offer nice little post-army jobs to slip into. Not when the people involved in this dirty industry all have shares in the companies involved - shares that jump in value every time the government announces that it intends to spend more money on arms and defence etc. Of course the only fly in the ointment is that the government hasn't got a pot to piss in when it comes to spare money. But somehow (in fairness) there's always money to spend on arms. On killing people a long way away. Much more important than keeping pensioners warm here at home. Or spending on social care or whatever.

In a great YouTube post called Can Wes Streeting Think, Richard J Murphy puts our Health Secretary on the grill and compares his performance to Labour heroes of old - in particular Keynes, Beveridge, Attlee and Bevan - and asks, "Why is it that these guys could, in a short period of time, put the entire economic policy of the post war consensus together, the solid foundations of the welfare state, and build a free at the point of care health service, when Streeting is incapable of even coming up with an idea for how to deal with our crisis in social care, without asking for someone else to do the work for him."

Streeting has announced a commission to look into social care, to report in mid 2028, less than a year before Labour has to return to the electorate, at which point it is highly likely it will be chucked out of office anyway. And it's not as if no studies have been carried out before. The Andrew Dilnut report, commissioned by the Tories, came up with some reasonable suggestions (including a cap on costs to any given family for social care expenses), but Labour want none of it. The reason is that it will cost the government money, and there is none. So Streeting has commissioned a new study, with the stipulation that whatever it comes up with, must cost nothing.

He, says Murphy, has had fourteen years to adress this question, but has done nothing. He hasn't a clue. While Keynes and Beveridge, Attlee and Bevan were ready to hit the ground running, Streeting has done squat. He's the definition of the incompetent politician, and absolutely epitomises the low quality of the people we now see populating the corridors of power in Westminster. In the aftermath of WW2, a crisis that makes the Conservative legacy that Labour keep falling back on look like a Noddy's picnic, these politicians of old stepped into the breech and created a new Britain from which every one of us has benefited from then to this very day.

And now we have Streeting and his ilk. No ideas, no work done to get ready for the job they knew was coming, and no ability to think, to plan, to prepare. What in God's name has gone wrong, asks Murphy? Where is all the talent going? Or does it simply no longer exist? Why do the quality individuals in our society simply not want to get into politics? This is a question we desperately need to answer. If we can't find people to run our country with ideas on how to deal with the multitude of challenges we face, then we are screwed. Thanks Richard for this post. You guys at the Mile End Economists group are at least asking the right questions.

Post by **peter** » Mon Jan 06, 2025 8:00 am

Hmm...

Elon Musk's latest intervention into UK politics demonstrates as clearly as could be possible, that he understands nothing about the UK or what goes on in it.

He has called for Farage to be replaced as Reform UK leader, because the latter did not echo his support for the imprisoned far-right activist Tommy Robinson. He clearly doesn't get that to do so would be political suicide for Farage. That it would be to throw away every advantage that Farage has gotten of late, riding high as he is following his securing some fifteen percent of the national vote in the last election.

Robinson is so toxic a brand in the UK mindset, being seen as little more than a Mosely style blackshirt thug, that to be associated with him would be to drive away hundreds of thousands, millions of ex Conservative voters who now swell the Reform ranks, back into the arms of the Tories. Musk clearly doesn't understand this - that Farage's acceptance into the mainstream of British political discourse - hangs by a thread. Farage might just as well put on the regulation shirt and grow the little mustache, as become associated with Tommy Robinson's extremist form of political thinking. The UK establishment would be just waiting for such a mistake - any tiny misjudged sentence or photograph in the wrong place - to eat Farage for breakfast. There will be a huge body of establishment figures who will not want to see Reform interfere with the cosy two-party monopoly of UK politics, and will be absolutely ready to shift into Corbyn like tactics to bring down what they see as a fat Farage shaped fly, in their political ointment.

Besides, what Musk said is clearly wrong. It would be stupid to believe that any other individual could have done for Reform what Farage's spectacular and staged re-entry into the Party leadership position did during the last election. There is simply no other figure (Musk seems to have landed on some obscure Reform MP that no-one's heard of) with the visibility who could do it. There's 30p Lee I suppose - but he's more a figure of fun than anything else. He hasn't the gravitas for the position. And poor Richard Tyce, relegated to Farage's poodle by the latters calmly moving hin to one side during said election campaign, well he certainly can't return. No-one was listening to him when he was leader and they wouldn't now. No; Farage has something about him - that magic as a draw - that few politicians can muster. Boris Johnson had it, and Farage has it to. When they appear on stage or in front of a camera, people always wait to hear what they will say. It'll be fun, it'll be cutting - and in Farage's case it'll often be a simple reflection of what they think themselves.

So okay. We can take this story for what it's worth. A falling out between Farage and Musk over this toxic Tommy Robinson character. We can understand that the establishment, via the media, will use its value for getting a wedge between Farage and the mainstream political discourse in this country, in an attempt to lever him back out onto the fringes of political commentary (ie to remove him from the board or at least neutralise him). Or we could go even further, and suggest that there might be something even deeper in all of this. Because the Farage-Musk association has proven somewhat toxic to Farage even of itself. People (and this is being stoked by the media for all they are worth) don't like the idea of American billionaires interfering in our politics. They have watched what Musk has done in the USA and swallowed it (it's fun to watch him capering about like a child on stage in another country) but here? No thank you Mr Musk. This is the UK and we deal with our own politics over here.

Could it be - just could it - that Farage and Musk have spotted this problem and have decided to neutralise it early on? I don't think so, but it is just possible. There's been something of a political backlash at the prospect of Musk financing the major bid for power that Reform/Farage are going to make in the next election (where they will attempt to either oust one of the two main UK parties or join them as a third force) - even talk of changing the laws on political donations, although Stamer has said this isn't happening. Could it be that Musk and Farage are staging this little spat to damp down the fires that their earlier publicity seems to have started? As I say, I don't think so, but it's still worth a thought.

-----0-----

Which brings me onto a related topic (because it's all tied in together) which is why the spat has developed in the first place.

Musk as I say, has been outspoken in support of this Robinson character who I know little about, but is clearly a pretty nasty piece of work. He's in prison for repeating false claims online against a Muslim teenager, a crime which earned him 18 months for contempt of court.

Robinson is an avid anti-Muslim activist with a history of championing the far-right groups that exist in this country. He appears at rallies using violent inflammatory language against the Muslim population within this country, but is recognised as being the iconic figurehead to which all the various groups will turn for solidarity. Musk knows this and has called for Robinson's release, claiming his imprisonment is a violation of his rights to freedom of speech - freedoms which he (Musk) says are under serious threat from the Stamer government, with whom he has been trading insults for a goodly while.

I have to be careful here, because I haven't been following this story to closely (other stories on the geopolitical situation have been 'hogging my attention'), but Musk and Stamer seem to have developed a real dislike for each other and the former clearly thinks the UK is in deep trouble with this authoritarian regime at the helm.

Now I don't know about the Robinson situation, other than that it seems to me that you shouldn't be able to go around defaming an innocent person's character without paying the price for it. (As to the veracity or otherwise of what Robinson had been claiming, I can't say - I know nothing about whatever it was he was claiming - but, assuming the judge who imprisoned him has the measure of it, as a general principle, it seems to me that you shouldn't be able to go around slandering innocent people with impunity. This isn't within my definition of what freedom of speech is, and I'm suprised that it would seemingly fall within Musk's. So maybe he knows something that I don't. Perhaps he feels that whatever it was that landed Robinson in jail (in terms of the claims he was making) was sufficiently questionable, that he shouldn't be there. I'm taking the position that the judge knew what he was doing, and in these circumstances the penalty imposed on Robinson was a fair one. But equally I'm not so blind as to believe that someone who is as much a thorn in the establishment side as Robinson, could not find himself banged up for a trumped up charge that the police or courts have contrived to bring against him.

And having witnessed what was done re the jailing of people who posted on social media following the Southport murders and subsequent rioting (in which some of the sentences were clearly questionable) I do agree with Musk that the authoritarian Stamer does represent a threat to freedom of speech in this country. I'm just not sure (through lack of knowledge rather than judgement) that the Robinson case is an example of it.

Now okay (and again, I'm stepping here into territory I don't know much about, because I simply haven't been following it), all the above being said, we now have to move into the territory of the grooming gangs scandal, and the inquiry that isn't going to be held. (Jeez - this is all getting complicated.)

One of the bones that Robinson and the far-right often gnaw upon is the scandal of the grooming gangs that apparently operated in North of the UK back in the (what) late 90's. The town of Rotherham is that most closely associated with it, and it is claimed that organised gangs of Muslim men (mainly Pakistani I believe) preyed upon young white schoolgirls, luring them with drugs and alcohol into relationships in which they were abused, often by multiple offenders, in a clearly illegal manner. If I have it correctly, some of these offenders were caught and committed for their offences, but serious questions remain unanswered as to why the claims of the victims went unlistened to for so long, before the police were prepared to intervene.

The claim is that the girls were just treated like scum that weren't worth listening to: that they had no doubt brought whatever had happened to them on themselves, and were only to blame themselves, for whatever had befallen them. I think the suggestion of Robinson (who is keenly involved in this topic in some way), is that the reason that the whole story has been largely ignored by successive governments, is that an inquiry would bring into sharp focus the ethnicity of the perpetrators of these crimes, and fuel the anti-Muslim sentiments that already simmer away amongst the general population. Well he might be correct in this, but for whatever reason the Stamer government (and government minister for housing and communities Jess Philips seems to be in amongst the decision somewhere) has decided not to hold an inquiry into the scandal.

Given what happened after the Southport murders, I suppose that it might seem a good idea not to throw fuel on the fire of the simmering Islamophobia within the country, but if there are victims of the abuse committed back in the 90's still uncompensated for their sufferings, or who were not listened to or treated with the serious attention they deserved when making their allegations, then surely they have a right to be heard via such an inquiry as well? It's a difficult dilemma for the government and I do see why they would want to be very careful not to make an already bad situation worse - but right is right, irrespective of the views of these far right extremists who would choose to exploit such information as an inquiry might throw up, to support their hate-filled views on the Muslim and immigrant communities.

I've tried as far as I'm able (and as far as my memory serves me) to put the main features of this story into place. It's complex, and ties together the Farage-Musk elements with the Musk-Stamer spats, it brings in the far-right and the historical scandals of the Northern grooming gangs (who I once saw ex BNP Party leader Nick Griffin torn appart on Chanel Four for suggesting the existence of) and ties in to questions of free speech and Islamophobia in our country today. It's going to be an important driver of news and views in the days ahead, and will be a divisive issue wherever it is talked about. So like it or not (if I'm going to pretend to be a conveyer of the things that are of import in our country) I'm going to have to adress it. The Musk-Stamer-Farage story is going to be dominant and has a long way to run. The ride is going to be bumpy so strap in.

Post by **peter** » Tue Jan 07, 2025 5:55 am

Everything has got to be so extreme these days.

Even Prime Minister Stamer is resorting to hyperbolic language, by describe anyone calling for an inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal as "jumping on the far-right bandwagon" in order to gain personal/political advantage.

It's true, the far-right has long been using this terrible set of occurrences in its attempts to whip up inter-community tensions and stir up Islamophobia in the country, but there are solid reasons behind which some may feel that a further inquiry into the matter is necessary, and the PM does the victims a disservice by sweeping them aside with such broad brush and exaggerated comments.

I've no doubt that Stamer did the best he could as Director of Public Prosecutions to bring those involved in these terrible crimes to book, and it's certainly true that inquiries at the local level have been held into the circumstances behind the crimes. But clearly many of the victims do not feel that the facts behind this scandal - why their complaints were not listened to by the authorities when they reported them, why prosecutions were not proceeded with, why perpetrators remained unpunished etc - have been as yet brought into the cold light of day, and their opinions in this surely have weight.

I don't necessarily say that a further inquiry should be carried out into this matter, but I think that to dismiss calls for such as "jumping on the far-right bandwagon" is to make light of a situation that would be far better served by providing a reasoned argument as to why such an inquiry would serve no useful purpose.

-----0-----

Smokers and the obese are to be "sent to the back of the NHS queue", under government plans to effect root-and-branch changes to the way the service functions, according to this morning's Telegraph.

Well there's no suprise there really. Because in truth, they pretty much already are. It's the doctors go-to response in just about anything you go to see them for ("Well, you need to give up smoking") which, while quite possibly true, doesn't actually need a five year medical training to be pretty obvious. Just telling people to "give up smoking" might sound good,but it fails to take into account the myriad reasons why people smoke - the positive effects (they feel) it introduces into their lives and without which they would struggle to cope. And sure - you might be able to cope with life's stresses and whatnot without feeling the need to fire up a cigarette, by rather going out and running a marathon each morning.....but that's you! Me, I'm different. Okay - you're better...bully for you.

But (back on track) it's just another way of putting the onus on people for their illness, their debilitating conditions, back on people themselves. They can dress it up by saying that it's done for the purposes of getting better results postoperative wise etc, but the truth is it's just another way to justify holding up elective surgery dates so as to artificially shorten waiting lists. "Oh, you're not ready for surgery yet Mr Smith. Just shed another stone and a half and then come back." Half the people spoken to will never qualify for their surgeries under such a regime.

And of course, it's the poorest in our society that are the ones who will be most impacted. They tend to be the ones who are most overweight, who smoke the most. And that's because they live the most stressful lives constantly on the verge of teetering over into catastrophe. Bills that can't be paid, debts that can't be met, demands that become too much to cope with (try getting your kids to school in driving rain a mile away each day without the luxury of a car to jump into). Life is harder at the bottom and so you balance it with food, with chocolate, with booze and fags. And then sleek Wes Streeting, who knows as much about being unable to cope as I do about macrame, tells you, "You can't get your operation because you're too fat, too unhealthy, too ugly, too poor!" Here's something for you to chew on Wes. It's a lump of fatty fucking gristle - the kind of shit that goes into cheap low quality food - the stuff that poor people have to eat because it's all they can afford.

So yes. This is just the kind of divisive bollocks idea that I'd expect from this shower. No ideas. No clue. Just rinse and repeat of all the old crap we've been being fed for decades.

Because here's the truth. We've been so sold on idea that "the private sector will do it better," that we fail to see what is before our very eyes. It doesn't. It hasn't. It's failed. We've been selling out the best of our country, our utilities and services, for decades on the basis of that idea and everything the private sector has touched it has turned to shit. But Stamer and Streeting are still on the same old pony, flogging an extra mile out of it. Only yesterday Stamer was saying in relation to the health service that he wasn't "going to be tied by the binds of ideology" when it comes to the provision of services. He'd not be afraid to introduce the private sector in where he thought they could add weight to the service. Wrong, wrong, wrong! How much evidence do they frikkin need! The driving force behind the private sector is profit and things like health and roads and education and energy provision simply don't lend themselves to this model. They always suffer because the money that these things demand is constantly put in is instead always given to the shareholders. We know it, we can see it, we have the evidence of the last 40 years staring at us in the face. And yet our politicians - even our Labour politicians - will not acknowledge it. They persist in spinning us the line that the private sector will do better. Either they're on drugs or we're on drugs because the palpable bollocks of this idea is staring us in the face every day.

What more can I say. What more can I say.

Post by **peter** » Wed Jan 08, 2025 6:29 am

There isn't much point in rounding on Mark Zuckerberg for his announcement to rein in the use of fact checking programmes on his social media platform Meta - the world entered a 'post-truth' state long before Donald Trump used X to help him gain office for his second term as President, and some of the biggest culprits in issuing in the bending and distortion of facts to suit their own purposes are the very states that are now whining about the media platforms themselves.

And the legacy media is absolutely no better. The BBC, with its much vaunted 'verify' service, is about as reliable as Trump himself when it comes to presentation of fact without spin, distortion, context stripping or downright falsification. The press - well what do I need to say about them except that they are as reliable as the politicians whose rubbish they parrot on a daily basis. Nowhere can be trusted for straight reportage these days (with one notable exception - me) so there isn't much point in pointing the finger at Meta and X about their content.

Besides, at what point did these platforms ever sell themselves as arbiters of the truth? They are little more than giant public noticeboards that offer a service for the posting of opinion; anybody who goes to them looking for truth or facts should frankly not be allowed outside the house without wearing a set of reins. People themselves should be responsible for what they post, and if they post ill-advisedly, then they should be held to account for it, either by being publicly called out for posting lies or bollocks, or if they defame someone, by the laws that exist for the punishment of such actions. But not by the people who operate the sites. It's no more their responsibility than it is the producers of the paper upon which the lies often told in books are printed. It's up to people themselves, the users, to police the content, and if they feel an egregiously bad posting has been entered, then to call it out, approach the police, or seek legal redress for the offence (if there has been one) commited.

This is my opinion. Kevin's Watch cannot be held accountable for it.

-----0-----

Now what's all this nonsense Donald Trump is spouting about taking over Greenland and the Panama Canal? Is he reining in or did he just feel like flexing his pre-presidential muscles a bit, while indulging in a bit of mischievous press baiting at the same time. Anybody who takes this stuff seriously doesn't understand the man or is so nieve in terms of their ability to judge a person's character that they have no right to be listening to political news at all. It's just distraction and disruption. Trump is trying to take a leaf out of Musk's playbook: in fact they're both probably trying to impress each other in their current mutual adoration. Ahh - the sweet pangs of first love!

And Canada? We know that the nazi clapping leader Justin Trudeau has finally hit the skids and had to resign (not many tears spitting the big C over that announcement I'd guess), so maybe now was just the time Trump thought that he could 'pitch a deal'. But if this is the art of the deal, it's more like a chimpanzee painting. Again, it's just Trump making waves for the fun of it (somebody get him a couple of hookers and a rubber-sheet won't you) and [bad expression given my last parentheses, but] taking the piss. Still at least the lies and bollocks of today's press has a trumpian fun edge to it. You've got to see the old BBC taking it seriously over on their website to believe it. They are seemingly incapable of realising when their dinkle is being donged, their plonker pulled, their pecker .....something else beginning with p. I bet even Vlad the Mad is chuckling into his cornflakes this morning reading this.

It's not for real guys, it's a joke. Watch my lips - it's just Trump fucking with you.

-----0-----

And talking of Musk, the British media is all getting so het up about what he is saying that it's almost crazy watching it.

"Never seen the like!", roared James O'brien. "Such interference in another country's political system: smearing Jess Philips and calling her (I'm not repeating it)".

It's ridiculous. Musk isn't achieving anything except reinforcement of the notion that he's a child playing at sandcastles (or more aptly kicking them over like a little no-neck bully) with his evermore outrageous commentary and accusations about the UK and our politicians.

He goes on about free-speech, but clearly doesn't himself understand the difference between free speech used responsibly, and that used immoderately simply to insult and offend. He rants about Britain's lack of it, then demonstrates the very reasons that those who would curb it can use as justification as to why they should. Jess Philips is out there this very morning simpering about how she feels 'threatened' as a result of his postings. James O'brien says he's influencing people in a country who he has no right to be interfering in at all.

Rubbish. He's not influencing anyone. Those who agree with him, that the UK is an unfree country bordering on a police state will still agree with him. Those who love Kier Stamer and think that the sun shines out of his arse won't. No-one will charge their opinion because of anything Musk says, and the more outrageous his commentary becomes, the more he demonstrates that he hasn't either the maturity, understanding or intelligence to be involving himself in such matters. He should stick to screwing up businesses and cooking up outlandish ideas about going to Mars. Being the world's richest man seems to have happened by accident to this clown, but he will loose it. He'll end up with nothing, or punting himself out on daytime tv on cooking shows to earn a dollar. Either that or in disgrace over something he's done - you mark my words. Or in a lunatic asylum. Both he and Trump have similar backgrounds insofar as they had rich parents and have built house of cards fortunes that always teeter on the verge of ruin. They are only ever one jenga brick away from collapse and Robert Maxwell style ignominy. Musk will certainly come to a bad end: Trump most likely as well. But the only influence Musk can have in the UK is via his money. And it don't look as though Farage is getting any of it any time soon.

And lastly, speaking of which, Farage is playing his rift with Musk perfectly.

He's said that he's sticking to his principles and refusing to endorse Musk's support of Tommy Robinson. He said that if it costs him the Musk donation to Reform, then so be it - it would pay dividends in the future. He's absolutely right. He's cementing his position as a more centrist politician and eschewing the extremes. And everyone knows that power is always won in the UK from the centre. He needs nutcase spouting Musk like a second arse hole if he's serious about winning power. The truth is he's manoeuvring to out-flank Kemi Badenoch by taking Reform closer to the centre ground of British politics than the Conservatives. This, for those of us with eyes to see, is the first sign - real sign - that Farage is seriously pursuing the top job.

Your man is on maneuvers to get to being the main opposition to Labour in the next election, and from that springboard into the role of Prime Minister of the UK. Add that is a frightening thought. It's absolutely time for the left - the proper social democratic left, not the sham left of Stamer's neoliberal Labour government - to get its act together. Otherwise Farage is going to pull it off.

Post by **peter** » Wed Jan 08, 2025 8:52 am

Gaming this out (from my last section above) the more I think about this, the more I smell a rat.

This is either a very clever plan cooked up between Farage and Musk - or it is Farage alone making very clever use of what on the face of it was presented as a damaging blow to Farage's prospects, by his sudden and unexpectedly being turned on by the billionaire Musk, and told that he wasn't fit to be Reform leader.

Let's look at it.

Everything had appeared to be going swimmingly. The pair were seen together at Mar-a-Lago, virtually arm-in-arm, and there was talk of Musk bankrolling Reform for their next bid for political power in the 2029 general election.

This caused a big reaction from the establishment commentariat: calls for the laws on political donations to be altered such that Musk could not interfere with our electoral process, and use his money to influence the political processes within our country. Then suddenly Musk starts commenting on the imprisonment of the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, causing Reform leader Nigel Farage to make posts saying that on this issue, Musk and himself would have to disagree. Farage was clear that he did not support Tommy Robinson, and wanted nothing to do with him and his ideas.

Musk then out of the blue, rounds on Farage calling for his removal as Reform UK leader. Farage then responds with the comments, "Wll - this is a suprise!", continuing that he has great respect for Musk but won't compromise on his own principles and is sticking to his guns over Robinson.

I don't know, but this seems all a bit contrived to me.

In one fell swoop, Farage has scotched any criticism that he is in Musk's pocket, and has simultaneously projected himself as being distanced from the far-right - a more centrist politician, and far more in the British mainstream way of thinking and public acceptance thereby.

It's well understood that Kemi Badenoch is the most right wing leader that has ever led the post war Conservative Party. In fact she's quite possibly closer to Tommy Robinson in her thinking than she is to say, that of her former leaders of Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak. Thus it isn't such a jump for Farage to present himself as less right wing than Badenoch, and thus secure the more moderate centrist Conservative vote in the process.

As I've said, this is the place from which elections are won, and is much to be desired for a political hopeful like Farage. He couldn't have asked for a better 'horse' to vault over into that desired central position than that which his public spat with Musk has afforded him. If it's genuine (the spat) then the political capital it has afforded him is of far greater value than any donation he might have lost from a Musk donation. If it's a contrivance between Musk and himself, then Farage will still get his donation when, a few years down the line, the time is ripe.

As I say, I don't know whether the situation has been planned by Musk and Farage, but I would not put it past them. It's all a bit too.....serviceable......in Farage's interests if you get my drift. It's fifty fifty on whether it's cooked up or whether it's just Farage being really canny in his opportunistic use of a nasty political turn,and I wouldn't like to predict which is the case.

Either way, it looks like Farage comes out in a better position than he was in prior to the affair and that is,to me, a cause for concern. He's Stamer with knobs on. He absolutely understands that what you do to obtain power and what you do when you achieve it can be two totally unrelated things. He's more right wing than anything Kemi Badenoch could ever dream of - though no, perhaps that's not fair. He's an absolute dyed-in-the-wool believer in the freedom of the markets. There would barely be a state under a Farage administration, and he'd undo the services of the welfare state in the blink of an eye. Under a Farage administration the post war consensus would be gone. Totally. It'd be private profit and support yourself or die. And tens of thousands would. And Farage would wield the whip to whatever degree necessary in order to achieve this. Of this I have little doubt. He's a used car salesman at heart. He'll say anything and everything to make the sale, but what you'd get would be anyone's guess.

That's enough for today. I'm outa here!

Post by **peter** » Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:46 am

What's in the papers today.

Lots of wildfire stuff on the catastrophe in L.A. Makes for great imagery in the printed media and the film pieces on last night's news were astounding, but of course behind this is tragedy for thousands of households and individuals whose homes have been wrecked. I can't think of how I could live with this and my heart bleeds for them.

And while I'm on tragedies, the earthquake in Tibet, centered on the town of Shigatse, was also awful to see. I've been there en route from Lhasa to Kathmandu, and have fond memories of the place. God's speed to the lost and may your recovery be fast to the living.

The UK economy - not looking good - is the focus of a number of papers, who tell us that the cost of UK borrowing, through the roof since Rachel Reeves' budget in which she hammered business with increased NI contribution costs, is higher than it's been since the 2008 financial crash. Higher even than following Truss's disastrous mini-budget, which saw the end of her premiership within 40 days of taking office. The problem seems to be that the markets simply don't believe that Reeves is going to produce the growth upon which her entire economic plan is built. They think she'll be forced to either push up taxes (against a promise not to) or impose even more cuts on government spending - in other words a return to austerity. The result of this is that the yield on ten year bonds is skyrocketing and government borrowing costs are going through the roof. The fiscal headroom of around billion pounds that Reeves was said to have at her disposal is rumored to be swallowed up by this - a circumstance denied by the treasury yesterday in an almost desperate attempt to get the situation under control, but no-one actually believes them.

This could signal the end of Reeves, who is strident in her insistence that her self-imposed fiscal rules of only borrowing for investment purposes and not day-to-day spending will be adhered to (ala a Kwasi Kwarteng style fall), and it won't do much good for Stamer's chances of surviving the year either. Talk of the economy heading towards stagflation is heard, and you'd have to be optimistic to an almost swivel-eyed level to think that things are either going well or are under control. This story is going to build.

Now I'm very interested in not a headline, but a tiny little pointer to an inside piece in today's 'i' paper. It reads, "Science: Has covid broken our immune system?"

I'm interested because it seems to imply that our immune systems might indeed be showing signs of some kind of ongoing problems (I've had a 'revolving cold' for months now, and I've spoken to other people with similar experiences), and this is the first (sort of) acknowledgement I've seen of it in any newspaper. Secondly I'm interested, not just because I think it might be true (that our immune systems might be not working up to speed), but also because I wonder if the use of improperly trialed new technology in 'vaccine' development and subsequent deployment, might not also be playing its part.

I'm convinced that viruses were changing long before covid emerged - there just seemed to be a difference in the way that colds were effecting us, we didn't seem to be shaking them off as well as previously - but it definitely got worse after the pandemic.

Numbers of things could be involved here - increased population figures above a given population density threshold, viral mutation towards better ways of circumventing the immune system (and combinations of these two), global traffic increases and temperature rises.....all kinds of things - but I'm damn sure that using untested gene modification technology as a substitute for traditional vaccine development methodology will not have helped and could quite possibly have been catastrophic. Who knows, we could have set the tipping point of our failure against the viral threats, with which we had been in balance for thousands of years, in motion ourselves with our precipitate actions in dealing with covid. We might already have signed our own death warrant as a species. But let's assume not and keep a little perspective, but at least acknowledge that we need to have a good look at what is going on: what is happening with our immune systems, how viruses are changing and what part we might have played in this. And most of all, we need to be open about it. Honest. I don't believe anything was done out of malice, out of bad intentions, in our dealings with the covid situation. Bad decisions were made indeed, but not because of some conspiracy laden rubbish that spreads in the hinter-regions of the internet. Just out of simple panic, of not knowing what was right and the following of bad advice from people who flew too high on borrowed wings. So let's get to the bottom of it and see where we are. How about that?

The Express tells us (front page), "It's bindingly obvious we need a care plan."

They're right, but can I just remind them that Jeremy Corbyn had one. A state run care service akin to the NHS, publicly funded and paid for by an income levied insurance plan ala the NI contribution. A pound or two a week to deal with the entire problem and return care from 'cradle to grave' in the way that the welfare state first envisioned.

And finally I'm glad that the force of nature that is Brian Blessed is finally getting the recognition he deserves by being adopted as the Daily Star's sort of unofficial mascot. I saw the shouting actor playing Pepone in the tv adaption of The Little World of Don Camillo and have liked him ever since. I particularly liked his advice on dealing with a yeti attack, gleaned one would imagine, from his experiences as a mountaineer in the Himalayas. It was relatively simple and struck a common sense nerve with me. "Run!"