“…Hush, don’t speak. When you spit your venom, keep it shut I hate it. When you hiss, and preach, about your new messiah ’cause your theories catch fire. I can’t find your silver lining. I don’t mean to judge. But when you read your speech, it’s tiring. Enough is enough…
Despite the perception that there is an effort to regenerate our political landscape, the United Kingdom continues to accumulate feelings of frustration. In the face of trends set out for all to see, the 2015 General Election took the pollsters by surprise.
Most political commentators advocate a compartmentalised analysis, which invariably dooms observers to picking away at issues forever. Daniel Rozman takes the post-election review to a different level. He delivers interpretations that allow for a holistic, proper and simplified understanding of recent events; after which you will never have to vote (apathetically) again.
More than that, this Election review presents five underlying stories that all pundits have overlooked – related to: a maddened Queen, Boris’ return, UKIP’s real contribution, fragile financial markets and Papal supervision.
There was one technical outcome concerning the recent election that counts more than any other, specifically, the Conservative Party gained a majority of five seats.
This election was many things, including a case study of dumb luck, and, more importantly, a snapshot of the unfolding power changes that are beyond the influence of Westminster, Buckingham Palace or the over-extended Scottish National Party.
For anyone who was involved on the ground level, or in punditry, there were many eye-catching anomalies in the results – plus some glaring problems with the voting process. Ranging from voter registration issues, voting spillages, and even claims of postal-vote rigging in the constituency of Bradford West.
If any of the vote was at all rigged, then the system has set itself to govern unilaterally without the need to appease the egos of more than one party organisation. But if the votes were counted truly, then the people have given tacit consent for a continuation of the status quo.
Some would claim that the Conservative Commons majority will embolden them. I would beg to differ. On the face of it, nothing has changed as far as the day-to-day Commons script is concerned. Indeed, although the Conservatives no longer need to allude to a Liberal Democrat crutch, in the House of Lords, Labour and the Lib Dems combined have more representatives than the Conservatives, which means that they can still filibuster and vote against all legislation except for that concerning finance.
In the chamber of the House of Lords, the remaining old boys know how to work the floor, much like judges know how to work a court room. There are some very specific rules, and appointments made in the name of (dubious) expertise (eg Alan Sugar) have caused a swell of ineffectual delegates who do not know how to play the specific language game.
Hence, the (Lords) retirement incentives that have been introduced in recent years. They have been met with a stark reluctance, and a drought of peers stepping aside. We are unlikely to see the dynamic in the House of Lords change much in the near term.
As a point information, the United Kingdom Independence Party have two peers, which does not including the influential hereditary peer Christopher Monckton – who no longer sits in the chamber. Meanwhile, the SNP have no representatives in the Lords.
The members of the House of Lords will never bask in the same sense of public approval that Members of Parliament do. ..It is always a queer curiosity to see winning MPs celebrating on stage in faux-surprise for the cameras, having already been informed of the count result behind the curtains..
I suppose we should feel happy for the elected, for they have sought to hear the voice of our polled opinion and we have given it them. The period between election announcement through to the day of swearing allegiance to the Queen is an elongated moment during which their thirst for external approval can be quenched.
It could be claimed that the, so called, pollsters stole the show because they hadn’t forecast the result that eventuated. Maybe this was due to incompetence on their part; or, maybe, it reflects the complaints of vote irregularities; or maybe that when it came down to it, voters changed their conviction – is this a scornful thing?
As the exit polls were presented, and subsequently supported by the results, a casual observer witnessed media at its obvious worst. Unfortunately, for hours on end, media’s forlorn ‘experts’ loaded the unfolding narrative with their personal un-composed shock. In this reflection of immaturity, media let slip a wonderful opportunity to interpret what these election affirmations, trends and individual messages all meant.
In England we have a glut of political journalists who have long forgotten the source premise of their profession’s function. On election night, one could scarcely see the message for the messengers. Much like other staid professions, political journalists have lost any sense of professional pride, and in its place – as if to goad – self-congratulate each other and assist in offering themselves a chance to try out the latest cliché bedded in shallow reflection. Staid is okay when referring to sipping a Port in the Carlton Club where the carpet exudes the aroma of boiled cabbage, but staid is not alright when there are politicians to be held accountable – which is, supposedly, the duty of journalists.
The likes of Nick Robinson and Andrew Marr looked antiquated against the backdrop of ‘unexpectedness.’ They are faces ready for retirement. It is no wonder that the general public feel distanced and struggle to engage with politics when the communications bridge is so weak. It is a shame that the majority of information and interpretation that voters receive derives from entitled, salary-enticed commentators. Maybe this has long been the case; even always been so? But it has never been more apparent. Nor has the opportunity for an opportunist to rise through the channel of public illiteracy so gaping.
For many, the election was a big event. Just over 30 million people chose to cast a vote – a turnout that took me aback …but then again, I misinterpreted the popular view of what a modern vote means.
There were several components to the national picture. The Conservatives had run the show for five years and without wavering employed an elementary, doctrinal one-line message throughout their campaign. It sat in-line with a commonly held perception that things weren’t so bad under their term.
The Liberal Democrats struggled to find their voice. The SNP were campaigning on the back of the Scottish ‘independence’ referendum, aspiring to snatch some seats. Meanwhile, Labour seemed to be polling well and many assumed that in spite of their reluctance to admit it, they would form a coalition government with the SNP. And, in spite of the laughable bias against UKIP from every media outlet, the individuality of Nigel Farage was gaining traction and support across the board.
The trend leading up to the election was that there was no trend. The polls were seemingly unchanged, tying the Conservatives and Labour. Radio debates centred around the potential viability of a minority government. Which begged the question: if the only parties with a clear message – differentiating from the incumbent government – were UKIP and the SNP, why would the electorate vote for a Labour twist? This seemed to be the elephant in the room question the mainstream media weren’t asking.
The opinion poll was elevated to king – cart before the horse. It is remarkable to think that journalist have come to rely upon opinion polls so much. Since when have elections, reporting and election strategies become so contrived? When did service to communities stop being a privilege? When the ability to serve was still revered, and an individual’s version of spoken truth was enough to carry sentiment?
Is there a way we can remedy this aspect of politics, specifically the way it is reported?
Currently, there isn’t a platform for journalistic standard to be compared, because there is a stylistic monopoly.
In late ’11 I was involved with a project codenamed ‘Wakonda.’ It proposed a news aggregation platform where monetised funds would be distributed to authors of articles most read and respected by readers – readers who got personalised feeds according to an algorithmic profiling mechanism (not a million miles from Spotify’s first principle).
Hence, an independent journalist operating in Palestine could be reimbursed handsomely for incisive reporting, whilst a writer at the Telegraph (for example) might be exposed for generated ‘no added value’ within the sphere of news consumption. In a word, the Wakonda proposal would democratise news reporting.
Wakonda would reward quality and perceptiveness, and keep journalists embedded in tanker institutions on their toes. Why did we mothball the project? Because Google threatened to steamroll any such proposal with their own equivalent… We didn’t think it would take so long for Google to launch their ‘threat.’ I suppose they are keeping their powder dry for they too have an interest in keeping the corporatised media ship steady.
I share this one example to illustrate the point that there exist innumerable ways in which to improve the standard of journalism. Journalism is a profession in dire straits, along with economics and archaeology…and, and, and…
The standard of politician’s has fallen considerably too. Cameron has presided in the office of prime minister for five years and yet is undistinguished. He faced a blunt Ed Miliband who still lacks a day’s maturity since being mediocre student activist. And Clegg – who in the near future will cease to be mentioned in political commentaries – was only ever a meagre caricature of Cameron.
There still are occasional political heavyweights who understood the nuances of parliament and have the ear of resource decision makers. One such person is Ed Balls – a graduate of Oxford and Harvard (who was once insulted by Cameron in a remark that said more about him and the sheer callowness of the Commons than it did of Balls click here).
Ed Ball’s brother, Andrew, is the chief investment officer of PIMCO – the world’s largest fixed income investment firm, which manages $1.6 trillion (or the equivalent of 7 months UK Gross Production). Ed Balls has also been a regular attendee at the notoriously self-selecting Bilderberg meetings – whose security measures make presidential requirements seem meek in comparison. Somewhat embarrassingly, Balld struggled to get through security at last year’s meeting (click image below).
Perhaps the Copenhagen entry stumble was an omen for what was to come during this election. To my huge surprise, Ed Balls lost his seat and was displaced in what has been dubbed a ‘Portillo moment.’ With a Labour party now in disarray, Balls would have been the obvious candidate to claim leadership. Incidentally, my money (actual money) was on Balls to win the ’10 contest.
So, with Ed Balls exiting stage left, it seems that his wife, Yvette Copper, is set to take on the challenge. Coincidentally, Cooper is also a Harvard and Oxford graduate, and attended Balliol. Former PM Herbet Asquith once described fellow Balliol ‘men’ as possessing “the tranquil consciousness of an effortless superiority.” Notably, Balliol has produced two other PMs – Macmillan and Heath.
A further Balliol graduate, with whom I have experience interning, is Boris Johnson. I got the impression that this election was not quite what he expected either.
In spite of comparable education and ambition as Cameron, before the ’10 election he forsaked a senior cabinet role (possibly foreign secretary) in order to reign over his own jurisdiction. At the time it seemed like a huge risk because the Mayoral elections were precariously unpredictable – and he had to work for it, campaigning day and night [below: one of those campaign evenings – The Collection, Chelsea]
So why is Boris back in parliament now? Why has he taken on a dual role as Mayor and MP? And why is he not in Cameron’s cabinet? …And why has he been introducing himself to the US?
Since mid-’14 I have claimed that David Cameron’s days as PM are numbered. And to the surprise of many, before the election he stated that he won’t be standing for a third term as PM (assuming he would make a second). His admission only underscoring my assertion.
David Cameron has always been arrogantly complacent. In the run up to the ’10 election I saw his thirst for premiership dwindle. He was a regular speaker at a Conservative event called City Circle, where he addressed City workers on a platform of doing what was right for the ‘economy’ and insinuating that he would do what was right by them.
The final speech at a City Circle reception immediately before the ’10 election was so lacklustre it was almost insulting. I am not claiming that this crowd deserved a politician’s attention, but I did sense that at that point Cameron thought he was guaranteed to win the election, and comfortably – who would have thought otherwise, especially with the ’08 crisis still emblazoned on people’s awareness and an angry Mr Brown sulking in no. 10.
Cameron has done a lot to soften his image since those times. It is difficult to forget the stories of how poorly he treated his personal aides – throwing his briefing papers over his shoulder only to be picked up off of the floor by them. The brazenness of him and boy-George was much more apparent in the early days as party leaders. It was only a couple of weeks into their leadership that they spoke, by invitation, at the business school I attended at the time, and, although they had no reason to pay me attention, they made a point of making me aware of it (lol).
As we all know, Cameron missed the ’10 open goal and consequently had to bring onboard a number of Liberal Democrat MPs, not least the insufferable Vince Cable (the Adrian Chiles of frontline politics, and champion of A-level-level economics). This was embarrassing and put a number of Conservative noses out of joint, specifically those who had to make way for Lib Dems among their ranks.
It is true that many backbenchers don’t like Cameron, and not because of his policy direction but because of the way he carries himself in private. A man – or so word has it – with even less grace than Brown. Maybe means can amplify meanness. ..May time’s reflection soften him.
Then came the Scottish Referendum. In simple terms, Cameron sleep walked into the constitutional event, and, superficially at least, was bailed out by his chief pre-premiership foe, Gordon Brown.
We will never know how legitimate the final referendum count was. Given the scale of SNP vote in this general election, Scottish independence might have been what was cast. Needless to say, the result was never going to go Salmond’s way – and perhaps he didn’t deserve it because he knew full well that without a secession from the EU also, in practice Scotland would not have been any more independent than it currently is.
Behind the scenes, the lengths and efforts the civil service had to go to in order to ensure the ‘right’ outcome was considerable. This caused Cameron to be frowned upon further. Then, with incomprehensible audacity, Cameron let it be known that the Queen “purred” at the referendum result. It was audacious because the Queen is his sponsor! Besides, question marks were already being raised because he did precious little to build an energetic case for a ‘no’ vote.
Let’s be absolutely clear, ultimately it was the monarchy that refused the secession of Scotland from the UK. Furthermore, Buckingham Palace can scarcely contain its fury at so many peadophile stories being aired in the past year or so. Stories that lead directly to their front gates. Especially those concerning Prince Charles’ ‘marriage counsellor,’ Sir Jimmy Savile. The Palace is not impressed with how Cameron is dealing with it all. That is why hard-nosed Theresa May has been assigned the job of stonewalling all incriminating investigations. Her reward? Who knows. But every frontbencher seems to have a price.
Back to Scotland … 1) ‘Balmoral’ Castle 2) The Duke of Kent, Grand Master of the U.D.L.E. ‘Scottish’ Rite of Freemasonry 3) Duke of ‘Edinburgh’ …
What would Prince Philip have to say? Well, if he thought it was consequential, his most likely question would be, “Does Scottish Independence mean a reform of land ownership? Because at least 35% of Scotland is privately owned by aristocrat estates and trusts. And that’s before the Monarch’s statutory claim. Oh, didn’t you know? Yes, council tax used to be called ‘feudal aid.’
Now you might see why Cameron is out of favour and out of long-term power. I will reflect on this – and the repercussions that are already manifesting –later .
So if Cameron is out, who is in?
Last year William Hague, former Conservative Leader and Foreign Secretary, was moved into a holding role as Leader of the House of Commons. It was at this point that he announced he would be stepping away from Parliament at the election. But it was Hague who was primed to lead the Conservatives into this election if it had been deemed necessary – purely based on experiential qualification.
His special situations candidacy is ironic, because it was Hague who was charged to cover-up peadophile claims linked to Ted Heath, and former Thatcher aides (including those associated with 40 care homes in North Wales) in the 80s. Subsequently, having made his way to MP, he was specifically appointed Secretary of State for Wales at the time of the enquiry into the Wrexham abuses.
I’m not surprised to hear that Hague’s retirement ‘acquisition’ is a mid-Wales mansion. Again, many politicians have their price.
I met Hague only once, it was beside the opposition bench dispatch box in the House of Commons – he was giving a wheelchair-bound constituent a tour.
So somehow, mainly by dumb luck and keeping his gob shut when not rabbiting ‘Long term economic plan’ (Zzz) Cameron sealed a small majority victory. There are many scenarios in which a calamitous constitutional, political, or economic event might compromise his leadership – and I expect one to arise by the time this year is out. At which point, Boris, having already associated himself with the stoicism of Churchill, will keenly step into the breach with the endorsement of many of those whose will matters in the British establishment.
What do you reckon the SNP’s reaction to all of this would be? In the first instance, their record at this election was sensational. In Local Government they hold 33% of seats; the same proportion in European parliament seats. They hold 50% of the seats in the Scottish Parliament; and of the 59 Scottish seats available in the House of Commons they secured 95%!
The Japanese have a word that means ‘spirit of a name.’ Alex Salmond was innately Scottish, and could easily conjure imagery of Salmon fishing on Loch Morar, Faskally or Tay. While Nicola Sturgeon, provokes imagery of that bromidic fish found in the deep Eurasian sea – a fish known to be among the most primitive of all bony fish.
Where there was an element of romance in what Salmond embodied, there is a heavy does of Kinnock-esque opportunism in Sturgeon. We will see just how long she maintains pressure on Trident after BAE announces their retaining and reinvestment of the Govan shipyard, which resides within her MSP constituency boundaries. Is this well-dressed fish so out of her depth that the government (via BAE) already have the hook to reel her in? I think so. Has Sturgeon been neutralised within a fortnight, reduced to a ghost who will speak in mendacity? Only time will tell.
The SNP is, by any measure, an adolescent party – the very fact that their newly elected MPs took selfies at the government’s dispatch box before any other business, speaks volumes.
UKIP is an adolescent party too. For the sake of administration alone, thank goodness that UKIP didn’t win 60 seats because the Commons would have ground to a halt. Which begs the question, how is this system of government applicable in an age where we have enough information to decisively make our own decisions, whether it is schooling or health?
I heard a Labour spokesman claiming that the SNP support was an ‘externalisation.’ I would say that’s a poorly chosen verb. Isn’t voting for a representative, by definition, externalisation? Perhaps what the spokesman was trying to say was that the wave of support for the SNP was a comprehensive symptom of disenfranchisement?
Let’s take the 20 year old student who beat the shadow foreign secretaty Douglas Alexander to the seat in Paisley and Renfrewshire South. No matter how composed and good her individual prospects, hers were not votes for constituency representation (or in recognition that she’s the spitting image of Eminem). They were the lashing-out of a constituency that feels its being ignored.
Unfortunately for all those who voted for them, the notion that the SNP will be the ‘opposition’ and hold the Conservatives accountable is a fallacy. There is an implied check and balance within the government structure but quite frankly the Conservatives can do what they like for the time being – and they will.
The real matter at hand is not how we change electoral details but how we change the scenery altogether. It asks us to re-think government responsibility –and raises a first principle point: if we think that we deserve representation we must first demonstrate a degree of responsibility ourselves. For only in recognising responsibility can we hope to excel in a fast changing environment that is conducive to life and not just survival.
Why shouldn’t politics be personalised; why shouldn’t the best of a politician be there for people to see and take encouragement from? In so doing they would not have to waste energy defending themselves.
So many appraisals of public-facing individuals are undertaken based upon archetypes associated with their role. They have had to be archetypal appraisals because we have forgotten how to discern individual credibility, ability and even likability.
The political class has steralised the astute, threatening to discredit them by using the weaponised pejorative ‘political correctness’ to slander plausibility. Such subversions have caused us to be uncritical of the individuals whose decisions are cast indelibly on each citizen’s life.
Discerning a politician’s character is as important as their one line policy commitments, because it is the only way of possibly anticipating their capacity and likely approach in dealing with special situations that fall outside the remit of think-tank scripted plans.
Cameron, for example, whose character I have mentioned, is criticised within his own ranks as austere. He has endeavoured to create the image of a rounded persona, but inside his unresolved nature persists. If Cameron was a more resolved individual, he would be lifted to incisiveness, rather than occupying the realm of indistinctness.
Strength of character is a question I once challenged Labour deputy leadership hopefuls on during a special recording of Question Time in ’07. Suffering from a hangover, I pointed out that ‘deputy leader’ was a nice tag but whoever the title belonged to would have no influence over Gordon Brown – who had 10 years pent-up ambition that he was desperate to exert in stubbornness and not committee.
The Labour candidates shuffled uneasily and spent the remainder of the programme vying and bickering, in so doing patently showing no leadership presence. It was quite amusing actually (I’ve searched for a clip of it online but unfortunately couldn’t find one).
Blair is the only politician whose presence genuinely took me aback – such was the energetic power of his aura. It is not to be underestimated, and not to be misinterpreted either. Indeed, there is a huge degree of compassion that one must extend to a man who has allowed himself to be occupied by such an array of malevolent intentions.
In my lecture last summer I referred to the likes of Blair and stated that “It’ll be high time for those vessels, which played us off against each other, and kept us from ourselves, to head to the door – and we would have reason to pity them…Because the truth…because their role in this age, in this age of contradiction is the biggest parody.”
Labour were poor during this past election campaign. It makes me wonder why the likes of Russell Brand, of global notoriety, massacred his contrived reputation by aligning with Miliband. They looked like a right pair of fools. Let’s not forget that Brand nicked the rEVOLution branding for the cover of his politicised book from the campaign of libertarian Ron Paul – perhaps Brand spotted the logo while he was chasing the tail of the child-indoctrination queen Katy Perry? …The foe of authenticity is imitation, so take off your prayer beads and get back on stage at the Apollo, Russell.
Labour has represented socialism in the eye of many. We now live in a state of faux-capitalism that serves deeply entrenched special interests and is causing a bifurcation of social ranks – where a form of neo-serfdom, specifically forewarned by Hayek, is laid out in front of us. So one might argue that the socialist agenda has run its course.
There would be those who would argue against this assertion. But I would again suggest that it is important to look to the person, to the very heart of any individual that we look to, whether they be serving politiciasn or the authors of the concepts whose ideologies give façade and momentum to public policy.
This is not an ad hominem against Marx, because it is well documented that the man socialists revere was a destructive person, with no demonstrative interpersonal morals; and in spite of his ‘scientific socialism’ a fevered apocalyptic poet, fascinated with suicide and tragic pacts with the devil, writing, amongst other things, that “we are the apes of a cold god…I shall howl gigantic curses against mankind.” Marx, of course, wrote about finance and capital throughout his adult life but only knew two people who worked in industrial processes. One was his uncle, who founded the company that is now Philips electronics – and Marx consulted him ..once.
So what line of thinking can we seek confidence in? Not one of vindicating prejudices, that’s for sure. But rather a line of thinking that is investigative and willing to explore. The Norwegian DJ Kygo was in London recently, his conversation echoed a true sentiment “If it doesn’t challenge you, it won’t change you.”
Hence, if politics is not challenged at its very root it will not be changed at all.
Of all the party leaders given a platform before the election, Nigel Farage was the most original. Farage is not the most astute, not the most intelligent, nor the most charismatic politician, but he is the most sincere. Over the years – facing the gnashing, gingivitis riddled teeth of European bureaucracy – Farage has trained his persona to be strong enough in order to repeatedly call out corrupted characters that would steamroll Europe with subversive policies.
Farage respects his mandate, and respects the right to speak his version of truth. He has been, and will continue to be, the unambiguous leader of a party that quadrupled its popular vote, gaining (as near as makes no difference) 4 million votes this election – and the leader who was the single-handed face of the party claiming the third biggest vote.
Somewhat unexpectedly, he did not win the parliamentary seat he stood for – one of the anomalies I hinted at the beginning of this article. There were many constituencies that ran local elections alongside the general election, and the local council results invariably matched the colour of the elected MP. But not in Thanet South, where UKIP carried the council in a landslide but Farage lost out (?) On the ground, there were murmurings related to the unguarded ballot boxes, of ‘bumbling’ officials, and some saying that the count was a ‘farce’?
Incidentally, in the ’10 election Farage campaigned against Berk-ow in Buckingham, and was lucky to have escaped with his embodiment having been in a plane crash. In the 2015 election, Bercow’s constituency counted 1,300 (!!) spoilt ballot papers.
Yet in spite of all these inconsistencies, Farage marches on with a degree of subservience. Perhaps he recognises that you must be in the game in order to play it. And his willingness to play must be commended. His resolve in holding the European parliament somewhat to account, over all these years, could not have been mustered by many professions and even fewer politicians – no wonder the guy is exhausted.
What is quite apparent, to me at least, is that a referendum vote concerning the UK membership of the EU will not be a simple in or out vote. And without Farage in the House of Commons, the likelihood of such a plain vote is weakened further still. The chances of this referendum occurring at all are less likely than the newspapers would have us believe – mainly due to the economic inevitabilities that will be rearing their heads, resulting in a sense of displaced urgency, perhaps pushing a referendum vote off the agenda.
In regard to this general election, I believe that UKIP failed itself. As an aspirational party, its manifesto needed to be more developed, better argued and water-tight – it wasn’t. There are only a handful of serious UKIP politicians within its ranks. I wonder how many of those were sat down pouring over the manifesto days at a time? I didn’t see the residue of Daniel Hannan’s intellect in the manifesto, for instance. The manifesto wasn’t incisive enough and didn’t imply exhaustive consideration as to how policy recalibrations would be undertaken – i.e. making it so precise that there would be no need for interpretation.
UKIP also suffered from the breadth of constituency candidates it entered. Yes, only by being represented in the vote were they able to demonstrate their nationwide support, but it came at a cost. At times, some of their lower calibre candidates compromised the message of their campaign. There is a case to be made that if UKIP had concentrated on high calibre candidates and strong personalities they would have gained seats.
And yet, the swings toward UKIP were undeniably breathtaking. They scored 118 second place finishes. This demonstrates the resilience of (their) truth in the face of mainstream media dismissal. [At times I have thought that UKIP might even undergo a rebranding with the intention of softening their position within media’s fixed perception] What if those 118 second place candidates, assuming their belief in their party, had concentrated their resourcefulness into a dozen seats? 10 parliamentary-standard members working on each target seat with a vision to pierce the Commons bubble.
Perhaps UKIP’s appeal would never have reached a critical mass because they had been pulled down to one issue – immigration. A topic whose main opponent is the paralysis of political correctness, and holds the rational mind hostage. Indeed, there’s just one last hate speech to be dealt with by the kleptocrats, truth. Maybe UKIP ought to have reminded the UK of its arguments for distancing itself from the EU, for it is under these arguments that they have sailed to political notoriety.
If there was a person brave enough to assess the relationship of politics and sustainable truth, that person might claim that the staid rhetoric of representing the working class, small businesses, NHS etc is redundant and only the lack of all else sustains it. Now ought to be the time for truth. Truth that goes to the core of the faceless state, behind which so much malevolence had been hidden. A malevolence that imposes itself in unseen emotions but is exacerbated by the tricks of state interventions. And in our agony we ask for even more intervention and the immediate stimulus quickly runs its course and the grip of the unseen toughens.
Let’s take the current Home Secretary for instance. In her role she has overseen the stalling of investigations into horrendous, industrial scale, child abuse cases linked to Leon Brittan and other well know politicians. Politicians are quick to point out inconsistencies and waste etc But what about the immediate trauma they themselves cause onto others, directly or in their denial of just investigation. As I have mentioned, one can judge an administrator’s mindset by the tone of their dealings, by how they treat those around them, and how they treat those who have been made vulnerable because of an innocence brutally taken away from them. There are conduits who would fall so low as to disrespect themselves and destroy the vibrancy of the vulnerable, how could we expect the deeds of those who defend these conduits to be anything but egotistical?
And justice? Well the government’s recently created Ministry of Justice is headed by the Lord Chancellor (who is appointed by the Queen on advice of the prime minister) – and to be given to Michael Gove. Based upon this appointment we can expect a widening disparity of justice. Gove is a Hague-esque personality, if a little less presentable. Gove will take on the Lord Chancellor role once held by Thomas More, a memory rekindled by the dramatic adaptation Wolf Hall where More is played by Mark Rylance. I would sooner have Mark Rylance – a modest but acutely ‘living’ man – justice secretary than the gash Gove.
There is a psychological enigma that stems from the middle ages – that the common man is willing to bleed his potential so long as there is an explanation, any explanation whatsoever – even if not true or accurate. So long as the corrupting lie is delivered by a personality. The personalisation of a lie somehow makes it tolerable.
The state would act as if those whom it is governing cannot think for themselves. But I would hasten to observe that those who believe others cannot think are precisely the ones who are incapable of original thought.
A little part of ourselves is represented in every single person in the world. Hence, our innate posture is to trust. We trust unless we are told to be untrusting – typically by the state, and sometimes our peers. Moreover, this false-association of trust seems to impregnate our minds more effectively when it is projected into our home, a place where a person feels most comfortable. The television is a one-way communication. Anything that is viewed on a television cannot be informed by the counter-participation of a viewer, hence, its message has more potential to be totalitarian than any other means of indoctrination other than shock-therapy.
Perhaps this is why Theresa May’s plans to introduce ‘counter-extremism powers’ that ‘vet’ British broadcasters’ programmes before transmission. A plan that the culture secretary, Sajid Javid, described as a threat to freedom of speech because it would mean that the watchdog would become a censor (just as we see in countries of media oppression). I do not expect Javid to be culture secretary for much longer because of this dissent.
Characters like Teresa May are only singled out because they allow themselves to be. She is but an archetypes of a kind of politician any sane individual would not wish to be represented by, much less meet – which I did in ’03.
The previous year I suggested to Iain Duncan Smith that her leopard-print shoes, and the flashy clothes worn by some other party members, were distracting commentators from his effort in the Commons. The following week he issued the chief whip with dress-code instructions – May was not happy. I am not saying that a note dropped off in his parliamentary office by a 15 year old piqued IDS’s nervousness, but these days we do know of his weak credentials, and that clutching at straws tended to be what he chose first, not last. It is safe to assume that IDS will continue to do what he is told in his role as Work and Pensions Secretary.
May, who is sharper than IDS, definitely belongs to a destructive breed of politician. Her hair reminds me of the droog depicted in a Clockwork Orange, a movie portraying a state that used behavioural modification techniques on delinquents.
Let’s remember that on one hand she is putting pressure on police numbers, and the other ramping up domestic surveillance, and iris scanning technology, amongst other things. And all the while she can’t adequately define what an extremist is when presenting her counter-terrorism bills. What exactly does she mean when she says her strategy is to “combat people seeking to divide us?”
In Paris, there are now plans for 7,000 troops to permanently patrol the streets following the ‘Charlie Hebdo Shooting.’ What is the experiential cost of the 7,000 black-clad ‘troops,’ let alone the cost of anxiety imposed on a population of 2.2m?? How does this human liability sit on the emotional balance sheet of this ancient City? If one considers these costs, one might come to realise that there is no logic, no rational, no realism; no idealism; only subervsion of potentials.
The same might be pointed out by the government’s intention to pull out of the International Bill of Human Rights. Great, so if the government has decided that it wants to create its own bill and renationalise the judicial supremacy, perhaps it can illustrate the inherent weakness of the UN bill so that other countries can learn and benefit in kind. And perhaps let’s pull out of other less meaningful accords too?
If the UK government’s desire to withdraw from the Human Rights bill is sincere, it might be because it has caught wind of Saudi Arabia’s intention to lead the Human Rights Council (no, seriously it wants to). If they get the chair, I am afraid to say, it will only undermine the credibility of institutional protection of human rights.
Besides, it seems we need most protection from the state anyway. And it is only a matter of time before the government asks for more protection from protesters.
It looks like Ed made the grade! lol His post-election application to join the police, and battle anti-Tory government protestors included a showreel (click on him to see it). ..Even his balaclava can’t hide the embarrassments of his hubristic stone monument.
I mocked his brother, David, for suggesting that Russia should join the EU – this was at the time of him being Foreign Secretary. David Miliband’s proposal seemed preposterous, but now I have a (slightly) higher political opinion of him. He at least saw that there was a choice for Russia – as much as they were a long way down the road in formatting relationships with China, Kazakhstan, India etc.
In a changing world where China is pro-Germany and pro-Russia, Britain is being priced-out and has much less of a financial say and may have benefitted if Russia was sympathetic to the EU. Alas, the EU’s brand of centralised socialism was too much for the Soviet Putin. This is crucial, because going into this autumn and onward we will witness more events-driven changes than ever before. As I have been telling clients, we are witnessing ‘peak London.’
In spite of their destructiveness (Ed, May et al), the system in which they move appeases them. Perhaps it is because they do not speak of the unspoken stratum of society.
Once the elections are complete, a leader who believes he (/she) can muster the support of the majority of the House must seek approval from the ruling monarch before a government can be assembled. This approval is a requirement, and not just a charming bow. That is why, I am afraid to say, going to the polls is just that. It is a polling of sentiment, not a binding covenant.
The general election it is a process that makes the monarch’s ‘prime minister’ easier to choose. A person selected directly by the monarch would make the people feel as disenfranchised as they are. But legitimacy comes from Queen. That’s why the elections are called ‘going to the polls.’ Polling is the means of getting a sense of sentiment.
It is the case that some people’s approval is worth more than others, and in the specific case of the election, the Queen’s approval is worth more than 35 millions vote.
In Russia (for instance) you have Putin as presidential head of state, and Medvedev is his prime minister. In the UK we have the Queen as supreme ruler (state and church), Cameron is her prime minister and Welby her arch-bishop.
It was interesting to note that on election night, Peter Mandelson understood the constitutional implications of what was unfolding better than the others, including the journalists. His, correct, assertion was that anyone can approach the Queen to form a government so long as she believes he can lead the House of Common(er)s.
A while ago, a Daily Mail reporter said “Now…if you can’t get a job as a pianist in a brothel, you become a royal reporter.” By saying so he revealed the ruler’s editorial masterstroke – the monarchy, and specifically their relationship with government, would never be properly represented in the media.
Thereby, millions have a reduced notion of the UK owner’s involvement in the country’s most important decision making; and allows the masses (supported by peer plausible deniability) to conceive a joyous ideal of what the royal family is and flock to the Mall like loyal servants from time to time.
This has been a masterstroke of the highest order. The monarchy’s ‘limited executive authority’ means that the ‘people’ can create rules to govern themselves, while the most important decision (not least constitutional) will always be penned or vetoed by the supreme ruler. Royal Assent is the mechanism by which the British monarchy maintains rule over Commonwealth nations. It’s brilliant in its absolute dominance.
In the world there are only three places with ‘elected’ monarchies, one is the Holy Sea, where the office of head of state was preserved with similar means of misdirection. For a long period the Holy Roman emperor ran ‘primes inter pares’ (first among equals) with the Roman Catholic monarch – who ruled Supreme after the last Holy Roman emperor (Francis II) was run aground by Napoleon (Catholic) in 1806. After that Francis the II founded the Austrian Empire, as Francis I. [The Holy Roman Empire stemmed from the Byzantine Empire, which stemmed from the Roman Empire]
However, something remarkably significant happened in this 2015 general election.
As I have already mentioned, I was surprised at the turnout. That the eligible voters turned out in comparable numbers as last time, and the time before, and the time before that. They would only do so because they thought that their opinion would count toward the governance of the country.
And yet, the biggest story was that in spite of voting, the opposition to the government – historically deemed to sit across the floor of the commons, is now outside the House of Commons. UKIP is the opposition party whilst the Labour party is disintegrating. In spite of 4 million votes, the United Kingdom Independence party has but one representative in the chamber.
Whether or not voters realise it, the energy of 4 millions people’s concerted choice – informed by a lifetime of experience and emotions – sits outside the House of Commons. It has been the most discrediting outcome for the system of government possible. It is impossible to shy away from this indictment, for this is a symbolic declaration that cannot be managed by spin doctors. It is a statement, which declares that even those who are willing to vote have their energy deflected.
Herein lies Farage’s ‘subservience’ weakness. The gentleman doth protest too little.
Farage is a proud and outspoken monarchist, and in being so he will not be able to effectively deliver the messages that have underscored his political career. He could alert the people not only of the encroachment of the EU (a symptom of one man wanting to control another) but the trick played upon the UK’s perception of politics i.e. that there are those who (comfortably) limit the people’s potential already. However, Farage’s admiration for the Queen is a prejudice that mitigates against this opportunity.
I am not claiming that it is for Farage to alert the people to ideological frauds – if truth was to be found in a name alone, then that difficult privilege would be attributable to the ‘Liberal Democrats.’ What I am saying is that Farage would feel less exhausted if he knew why banging his head against a wall was in common with the feeling of exasperated abstainers and 4 million of his own supporters live with.
If Farage respects the imposed legitimacy of the monarch, maybe it is time for him to step aside as his limitations have been identified by a higher will.
This, too, exposes why there aren’t higher caliber people in politics. Because national considerations and all implications of administration would not be in their hands at all. Administration is run by the processional Whitehall monster. Think tanks generate the policies, and powers are determined by counsel. So really all that’s left on the table is narcissistic presentation – step up Bercow, you know you want to.
It is ‘traditional’ for the elected Speaker of the House to be dragged against his will to his chair. As is the case of almost all of traditions, we have forgotten why. At one time, the chosen Speaker got dragged from the benches and into the chair because of their reluctance to take on an uncomfortable responsibility. Today a gnome, weathered by insecurity, mockingly imitates the walk of speakers of old – speakers who at one time had gravitas and presence.
The cynical (modern definition) would spit: does this even matter? And I would say, that people cling onto the familiar, and gawp at election buzz rather than spending some time familiarising themselves with the nature of the people seeking their approval.
And why does this familiarity matter? Well, because people make it matter. Those who consume newspapers, news programmes and who would care to have an opinion on politics, policy and government are projecting their own thoughts, their confidence; their future hope and expectations of representation on a body that cannot carry this flame – what’s more, this body doesn’t (truly) seek to.
It is a hideous sight to behold, when people seem to choose what party they like in the same way they would a pair of trainers Adidas, Nike or Reebok. And again we arrive at our familiar charge, politics is perception not performance. Whilst debate is reduced to (negligible) relative performance, votes will be cast on the perception of durability, and the Tories have demonstrated their monopoly on durability over the centuries.
I sympathise with the public who don’t know how to navigate through the corridors of politics, just as I do the gleeful MPs – even some of the more experienced ones, but especially the SNP MPs.
Last month I heard that the Palace of Westminster is due for a £5bn redevelopment in order to treat rotting walls…
Perhaps Douglas Carswell’s refusal to take £650k pa public funding (on behalf of UKIP) demonstrates a willingness to be true to the values parliamentarians ought to stands for – even at the cost of upsetting UKIP staffers, who now have to leave their unfunded jobs. Individuals who ought to have better contributed to their party’s election strategy?
For what it is worth, in the summer of ’07 I met Douglas Carswell and found him to be a man with tangible integrity and some vision. Subsequently I paid attention to his Commons performances and he seemed to be a true outspoken backbencher and refused to turn a blind eye to hypocrisy. This has been demonstrated by his recent funding stand, and further illustrated by a proposal he made to reform banking legislation (which you can see by clicking on the image below).
The bill Carswell proposed was one that would give depositors ownership over their bank deposits (which is, believe it or not, currently not the case). The need for this was highlighted in autumn ’08. It seems to me that ’08 was a primer for a day of reckoning. Carswell is a man who is versed in monetary implications and the mechanics of capital flows, and hence a asset in the Commons, especially after a prolonged election campaign where no systemic financial recalibration were tabled.
In a UK, where the tax payer is regulated to lassitude, we hear that Cameron will seize illegal workers’ wages (so that they can claim benefits?) – I wonder how many hundreds of individuals will be embroiled in the scouting, identification, policing, and judiciary of this plan? We can assume that the money markets (the king of the ‘standard of living’ castle) is regulated similarly? No.
I mentioned earlier that Andrew Balls (Ed’s brother) is global chief investment office of Pimco ($1.6tr AUM). Pimco manages both sovereign and corporate bonds. The total value of the corporate bond market it $7.7tr (or 3x UK GDP). So how many employees do you reckon the US’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have monitoring the corporate bond market? Give it your wildest guess…go on. It matters because Cameron will employ hundreds to enforce the seizure of illegal workers’ wages.
The SEC (according to the luxury goods funded newspaper Financial Times) has half an employee looking over the corporate bond market i.e. one person spends half their time on it. Could there be a more potent example of misplaced priorities? The government is horrendous at regulating, but if it must, at least it should regulate that which underpins the framework in which its citizens pour their energy – money and money markets. Governments should do so without stuffing banks with idiotic compliance officers that drive out market-making talent.
Who invests in corporate bonds? In large extent real money does (e.g. pension funds). If I say ‘real market’ you might think that there are other markets that are not real money. Well, the hypothecation of markets that real money invest in are called derivatives. Derivatives are not regulated, because:
1) They have been the means by which investments banks have generated most of their profits since the merger of merchant and commercial banks – initiated by Thatcher and Reagan and subsequently stoked by Clinton and Blair who poured a container-load of petrol on the fire (abolition of of Glass-Steagall).
2) Derivatives have complex counter-party interdependence and so they are impossible to value in isolation, let alone in bundles
3) Derivatives utterly dwaf the size of bond markets
4) Many bundles of multi-trillion derivatives now sit off balance sheet on countries’ financial inventory books, thanks to the shift of ‘bad assets’ off of private balance sheets post-Lehman. Lehman’s derivate exposure was not born by the industry ‘bailed-out’ because it would have been too big for them to absorb. Indeed, it was so bad that it was split between nations (UK, Germany, US…), which has subsequently bound these countries into supporting Zero Interest Rate Policies (Zirp) across the board. The countries that have a normal base interest rate are the few that didn’t buy into this time bomb, notably Russia.
Governments and central banks have been forced to decree policies that inverted every basic law of economics in order to generate enough short term cash flow for the operations of banks to continue, and to service their own short term maturities (ie paying back the principal on a loans). This is because if the countries didn’t, large sections of business and society would face insolvency and illiquid and so go bankrupt. In the case that mass bankruptcies do happen, it is worth remembering that bankruptcy is not the destruction of wealth, only the transfer of it.
So, when I see junior public-sector staff on the streets with tacky boards and slogan t-shirts protesting at ‘austerity’ I have to turn away because their disgruntledness is akin to a fishing boat apprentice demanding a raise whilst the ship’s captain is wondering where all the fish have gone, only to realise they’ve been sucked back in the undercurrent of a cataclysmic tsunami.
In the meantime, you can thank derivatives for your £30 per month iPhone with technology inconceivable a generation ago; thank derivatives for allowing the monetary base inflation that rubbed off on your house so that you could remortgage and visit awe-inspiring Orlando (lol), or prune the furnishings of your house to perfection. Thank derivatives for an Audi performance estate that does 0-60 in 3.7 sec (Testarossa sprinted in 5.3sec) and can be bought on finance with only a £12k deposit.
These are all impressive trinkets, and the inviting froth of an almighty disempowering magic trick that has truncated all future economic prosperity into a twenty year time-window (scarcely enough time to think of what we would actually like) and it will climax in the tightening of the economic. The liability imposed by the derivatives web is monumental and can only be interpreted with hope if you relate to an idea of bifurcating spiritual realms. If you don’t, what is left is simply beyond digestion.
We are unlikely to bask in a deflationary recalibration. I believe that the systemic weight will be so all-encompassing that what liabilities will be recalibrated into a new form of currency [I go into detail in my economic outlook reports]. This systemic risk is the primary reason behind domestic surveillance and the militarisation of the police. What May is spearheading was initiated under the Blair regime.
In the wake of the 2015 election, the chair of the police federation, Steve White, admitted that this is the end of policing by consent, and we are soon to enter a more violent style of policing.
Be sure of this. The guys you saw celebrating at the declaration constituency results, and who you see in your newspapers poncing (true to the word), have little to do with the greater mechanics of what is unfolding. Their plausible deniability allows for great crimes to be committed, one of the greatest humane crimes (defrauding of 99% of human labour) has unfurled with no opposition. It is quite staggering!
So you see, even if Douglas had passed his bill enforcing depositor ownership of money, it would have been but a drop in the ocean. Do you see how detached politics is from the mechanisms that govern our reality? I hope you do.
The value of money has been flogged, flogged, flogged post-08. Zirp, unsterilised quantitative easing and the low velocity of money has allowed the Conservative government to sleep walk through the last five years. Whilst Zirp represents the abandonment of economic fundamentals – and has removed capital formation incentives, bank capitalisation and authentic price discovery – it has amputated people’s respect of money too.
It has been said that any corruptor of anything is where the money is. So what happens when money loses value and loses respect? If something is unvalued it won’t be protected. Has politics lost intrinsic value and respect too? If it has, then the shift of power to outside the walls of Westminster might be as I suggest – and that is why the propaganda is more intense and more naked.
Is the people’s power ultimately submissive like Farage? After all, to tyrannically corrupt a system of people all you have to do is punish and overload it. The vulgarity of what goes on without our explicit consent is less and less visible. We are blinded by our illiteracy of situations and this is being used against us as these very situations unfold unthreatened, and fast. Distressing situations are always without closure. Just as vulgar poetry has no closure, so it is with institutional personalities who morph into predatory, parasitical and aggressive personalities; sympathetic to corrupting the kernel of all beingness.
We might not stop and recognise it, but where there is a willingness for death, suffering and decay there is the Distortion. Few will recognise just what a nightmare this world is, there is a majority that will ignore it or side with it. For the remaining, life is uncomfortable but not disempowering. Straining to the point of letting go will, involve a crisis of existential angst for a truth-seeker, but this episode is usually indicative of an imminent resurrection.
My local MP is a an outspoken backbencher who is set apart from others for revering the kernel of life, conception. Above is an image of me (white shirt) applauding her in ’08 — meanwhile the Oxford University Conservative Association table could only muster misogynistic jeers.
Nadine Dorries retained her seat in this election with a 15k majority. And although she was the standout candidate in the constituency I did not vote for her. I did not vote in the election at all.
You might assume I didn’t vote because of a reluctance to further energise a compromised electoral system and had disdain for the least substantive national campaigning I have seen — where politicians repeatedly underestimated the public’s ability to digest information. And a campaign where the likes of Cameron mocked the public with the laziest of four word slogans ‘Long-term economic plan.’
But I didn’t vote because I felt let down. Here was a woman who tried to stand up to Cameron, who I have seen first-hand to be a no nonsense kind of lady, and who I have walked alongside. But when I visited her website I read that she had defeated the plans for an incinerator in the constituency. Naturally, this was positive news, but when I went to look for news stories related to her ‘triumph’ I found that her claim was a play on words and at best she had stalled the programme. What’s more, there were now plans for a gas power station next to the incinerator site.
Maybe this post was written and submitted by a Constituency agent lacking poise? Either way, the spin was dishonest. And, given the demonstrative strength of her constituency support, utterly unnecessary. So how could I vote for Nadine? Even her voting in the last parliamentary cycle betrayed the guiding principles that she once held dear.
We do not have to agree with everyone on values and principles. But one’s values do determine what we strive for. To arrive at values we must consider, discern and recongise. And hence if we are to ask this of politicians, we must demonstrate and hold this point of perspective ourselves.
It might be stating the obvious, but politicians have little to be falsely modest about. I believe that Cameron and Conservative Campaign HQ can be quite embarrassed by their complacent tone. Watching the indulgent smugness of Cameron after the election was like seeing a dog lick its genitals.
It is said that 2 minutes on a mobile phone is enough to entrain a brain for 2 hours. I would suggest that 2 days of election rhetoric is enough to entrain a populous for two months. I believe that the Conservatives can do what they like for two months and be without reproach — especially whilst Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are rudderless.
Students will always have their student debt to remember Nick Clegg by. But one service that the Liberal Democrats did do us was to oppose the Communications and Data Bill (‘snooper charter’). The Lib Dems refused to back it in the last parliament and we can assume that the Conservatives will push it through when current legislation expires next year.
I wonder if the period to the end of July-15 is the timeframe Cameron has to earn his deferred payments, scheduled to be redeemed after he is deposed as prime minister (which I claimed nearer the beginning of this report). Although he had two weeks in which to ask the Queen to form a government, he asked her on VE day. There is no denying that Cameron is in a rush — suggesting that he’s worried that his executive power is going to be taken away.
In an era where Obama has obliterated all executive order records, Cameron is off the the races. He and Osborne have appointed the former head of Goldman Sachs’ asset management division, Jim O’Neill, to head the newly created post ‘Commercial Secretary at the Treasury.’ His remit is to turn the ‘north into a powerhouse.’
How has O’Neill slotted into this position? Well he’s claimed that the we have seen 5% lower growth because of chronic under investment. He is an economist of sorts, yet doesn’t see that Zirp is the killer and that it ought to be the role of government to preserve conditions under which investment can be created and not for government to reallocate capital.
And so how is Cameron loading up his deferred payments, Osborne pretending to do something, and O’Neill tempted to accept a seemingly poisoned challis? Fracking of course!
Within a week of the election the fracking application process has been cut from 6 to 2 weeks. Fracking companies are reapplying across northern provinces — right where O’Neill has been asked to ‘re-industrialise.’
This will be the legacy of Cameron, a fake man who has gladly accepted the label of being a ‘compassionate liberal.’ It is a rouse. The contemporary interpretation of liberalism is the inversion of its original meaning. Today extreme liberalism means catching up with Sweden, whose government want to use taxes to bring Islamic State fighters back, integrate them into there population and give them tax aid. How well do Sweden’s combat vetrans get treated, you might ask. Well, they don’t even get offered jobs.
Where is the freewill? For freewill is the basis of Liberalism. Where is the permission to seize property (money) to be used in order to force individuals of high conviction to return from dessert territories iand be intergrated with Volvo-driving blondes of an Alpine state?
This extreme liberalism story doesn’t stop there. Sweden wants to offer psychological help these Islamic State soldiers to overcome their trauma. If only these do-gooders had a glimpse into the karmic wheel of God’s ultimate design; or recognise that between lives your actions are laid bare before your higher-self which recognises the imposition and pain you’ve cause. Ultimately we judge our own actions and punish ourselves consciously or not.
Let’s not encourage a state that is blinded by distortion’s false compassion.
What is this Swedish story? This is, at best it is a warning to us all. At worst, a sign of the degradation which May would have us submit to.
I say, Remember Who You Are.
Sod Hollyoaks, turn away from the BBC, stop drinking aspartame-laced pop and stuffing your faces with Great British Bake Off-style cup cakes and get real!
This is not Dostoyevsky realism; this is not Mike Leigh realism. Those were literary and cinematic messengers. This is the realism that can only be integrated and absolved by light. Return to your higher self.
You will face the trials of cognitive dissonance, and extestential angst, but these are nothing compared to a purgatory without end.
When you see life, your subconscious will kick in and you will sense that governments have been infiltrated with those carrying mental disorders. You see, they do not wish to limit your potential so that they can reign in an abundant wealth. They seek to limit your potential because they cannot bear to see others rise up to the life-challenge of responsibility and realise their potential — this is the hardest task for it involves accepting your weakness and having the humility to once again recieve a love that you long ago rejected and in doing so have reason to respect yourself.
So why does the framed photograph of a valium addict adorn the mantelpieces of country piles throughout the land? How does a traumatised vessel seduce the influential…or does he…is he simply told to swing from the chandelier of power?
Boy George is about to oversee the implementation of a financial transactions tax — the means by which the precariously positioned (i.e. endemically insolvent) UK financial system will fold in on itself. It is a system that currently places the common depositor so low on its list of priorities that it charges them to deposit money. Indeed, while there is Zirp, banks lose money in servicing their depositor base. Which made it all the more difficult for Douglas Carswell to get any momentum behind his failed bill.
So how have banks made their money? By speculating in formidable complexity. And when they do — when liabilities mature and the cash runs out — they turn to the State to nationalise financial instruments so toxic that even leading industry experts can’t fully untangle and appropriate accounting values. The rationale for such lack of valuations is that there is no longer a need for proper accounting standards since the entire model of our economy is to expand the monetary base at a rate faster than the ‘growth’ numbers. This is, in a traditional interpretation, a ponzi scheme.
What is more, since ’09 the Western financial industry has been reporting financial results based upon ‘model accounting’ rather than ‘mark-to-market,’ which was the standard that endured for decade before. In so doing, accounting standard have prolonged the day of reckoning. That is to say, banks can claim to have assets valued at whatever level they deem, whether or not that price can be realised in the open market.
The open market, what a quaint notion. Today more than 90pc+ of all trades are algorithmic. Trading volumes are at historic lows, and volatility has been too. Star traders are leaving investment banks for the lack of stimulation and (relative) renumeration. And what awaits us next will be politicians making cash illegal in order to ‘end boom and bust.’ This will be the ultimate enslavement, and will make the root chakra-shackling fear imposed by debt seem like relative bliss.
At the very top I said that there was one technical outcome of the 2015 election that counted more than all others, that the Conservatives won a majority. I stand by that priority. They gained a majority in spite of the fact that 76% of voting age Britons didn’t vote for Conservative representation.
Some might find be an encouraging commonality in considering that 76% of the population lack a Conservative-bias. Within that 76% there will be a range of convictions.
Somewhere in this spectrum will be a solid portion of eligible voters who feel scandalised by all political leadership on offer. There are those who say that election processes themselves can’t change fast enough. I have even heard an argument outlining the merits of crowd funded candidates.
The case I would make is that this 2015 general election produced a result that is a symptom of a wider phenomena. It has indicated, unequivocally, that this system of representation is done. That its energetic charter is finished. The people who don’t already, will soon have every reason to know that they are disenfranchised and in being, see that they can only remove their support from the system.
Within the old walls of a palace positioned along the Thames, men who would envisage masquerading in stoicism rummage their reserves of archetypal nostalgia before deploying belated efforts to instil ‘reforms.’ “Steady as she goes” is their mantra. They second-guess their spoken words because they believe trustworthiness is based upon the superficial.
And yet they are serving roles in this time of ineluctably important interregnum.
It is the time that we realise all wars ever waged — whether on countries or our own citizen — can be reduced to a single idea: that people should be controlled. This is the greatest lie.
Wars perpetuated by governments are beyond count, and can only be differentiated by their relative severity; for all disputes are a war on human potential – the oppressive overtones encroach from foreign policy through to our kitchen tables, and the moods we carry.
Sections of the electorate might plead ignorance and hopelessness in equal measure, because this is the reaction of fearfulness. A person in fear has little faith in themselves, or else their faith would dissolve the fear. If one hasn’t the faith in themselves, why would they have faith in a peer…and herein lies the trick. The trick’s ally is the show (i.e. media projection), it is crafted imagery and the backdrop of grandeur. Our fear displaces the faith we were handed at birth. This faith is first the responsibility of the parents and then the maturing individual.
Too often, if the parents haven’t already done so, the individual will throw their faith (in themself) in the direction of the most conceited and disingenuous adminstrators of limitation (i.e. government). Faith is a binder, where it is placed there it will attach. In knowing this, one must be careful where they put their faith. If you put your faith in a politician, get to know them. Do all you can to ensure that they deserve your precious faith. You might find that your life-inspiring faith is best represented by you.
Lest we forget that the governments (we ‘elected’) have created the very specific toxic condition in which the Islamic State has flourished in decadent anger. And the Islamic State is the foodstuff of a fear that will cause further infringement of beautiful possibilities within our own country. Perhaps this dynamic hasn’t been obvious, and that is partly due to a broken media system. Media ought to be there to help us INTEGRATE information, but it is sadly letting us down.
Be sure that there are aspects of truth everywhere. We should be encouraged to gather these glints of truth, and know that truth complements truth. Truth captures and captivates your attention in longevity. In the first instance truth can be uncomfortable, and this discomfort takes energy to process — in these cases it can be treated akin to training. But you will be willing to train, for the feats it will allow you to achieve will be prolific and expansive. Most importantly, truth captures your imagination because imagination charges with emotion and emotion gets things done!
This is why our emotions have been used against us, why our emotions are distracted by design. It is why our emotions are laid ineffective whilst subplots scheme. When our emotional body is clear then the intellect will be put in its rightful place (subservient to the heart) and in being there distill what is unfolding around, and what our tacit political consent is associating with.
At the moment, the UK’s relationship with the US has broken down. Did you know? Perhaps not. It is because the UK decided to be one of the founder signatories of China’s AIIB bank, which is a financial institution designed to operate in a post-dollar reserve currency world, and to supersede the IMF and World Bank.
I mentioned important monarchies that stem from long ago. Did you know that besides the spiritual seat of the Vatican, and the financial seat of the City of London, there is a third seat which representing military prowess — Washington DC. And that in Washington DC there is Capitol Hill, which was named in imitation of the Roman Empire’s seat of government — Capitoline Hill. Caesar officiated upon the Senate ‘up on the hill.’ Incidentally, senate is the root word of theatre.
Did you know that the Roman Catholic Church Pope Francis (direct office lineage of the Holy Roman Emperor) will address Congress (i.e. the House of Representatives and the Senate) on the 24th September 2015 on Capitol Hill?
Pope Francis will be completing a full circle back to Emperor Francis II in a ceremony designed by the occult dominion of religion, finance and military to declare their (probably not your!) vision of New Jer-Usa-Lem. Did you know??
No real human can be resigned to defeatism, because in being so inclined, they are quite directly resigned (don’t confuse resigned with reconciled) to leaving an embittered world behind for their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. What kind of human would wish that?
And yet in our resistance of defeatism, we are lacking a ideology of actionable faith. And hence we toil in undistilled ideology of maintaining big government, which continues rolling over large contracts with civil engineering, pharmacerutical, and arms & surveliance companies. And teasing the public with insulting partial truths, instilling a sense choicelessness. So our streets decay instep with our uncritical minds, as the broader world is changing at a phenomenal pace.
First, value yourself. Do not be goaded by distraction posing as liberalism. Second, distill truth — you will know truth because it doesn’t need rhetoric to buffet its elevation, and it complements itself. The old sphere is fighting the new. One will pass through the other because the age of bifurcation wishes to renew.
Some of my youth was spent with this ‘golden-generation’ of senior Conservative politicians. It was an experience I invited and was inviting. Perhaps I learnt something of these men’s character, but it took me a great deal more to appreciate the nuances of institutional cooperation and the subservience of all at the behest of the mechanics of a financial and military world that answers to forces lurking in the shadows.
I affirm that a conscious interpretation of the world amounts to ‘spiritual’ interpretation. It is the means by which the unseen becomes seen. By reengaging sensitivities one will not overindulge in distraction and begin to put right was is wrong.
Our intellects have adopted many bad habits. One is a position that as a society we need a big government to direct our every move. The premise of this fallacy is that without the faceless state there would be ‘chaos.’ I would beg to differ.
‘Self-organising chaos’ is the very way the natural Universe governs itself. It abides by the rhythmical cycles of life and ultimately it can’t impose itself more than the balance of harmony allows, because otherwise it would destroy the very eco-systems that supports it. To put this in the context of human society, if the ability to express empathy on an individual basis is removed (because of impoverishment, fear and embitterment) then regimes of self-certified control will destroy the ecosystem, you.
I believe that we are at the point of choosing pulverisation or regeneration, and that a cross-roads of millennial consequence is upon us.
So be mindful. Let’s not confuse ‘self-organising chaos’ with the irresponsible, reckless and destructive louts who selfishly labeled themselves anarchist in the ’70s. And let us not confuse ‘self-organising chaos’ with tyranny, for tyranny is the self-aware distortion that pushes us further away from our original state of authentic individual identity.
Chaos is a cousin of freedom, and freedom respect individual decision. Hence, if a person does wrong to a group, that person will face the consequence of ostracism. Yes, this is a basic example, but look at it the other way. If a person does something good to a group, they will earn respect. In so going their opportunity to develop empathic intelligence will be stimulated. Our empathetic intelligence is pretty much flat-lining instep with politicians.
This is directly related to the human struggle between truth and lies. Currently it is not so much of a struggle, because lies are overruling all. One might say this is because the government hasn’t provided us with what Thomas Aquinas called the raison d’être of government: the opportunity for (divine) contemplation. Instead the state grows at the expense of those it claims to serve, and those citizens, us, are embroiled in its web.
Here we find the inherent problem with all political parties. A lack of coherent ideology. An ideology is a vision. But much like perfection, ideology is an elusive destination.
However, ideology inspires, supports; it galvanises, and it is the trust which guarantees an experientially rich life journey.
There was once an American Basketball coach (of all professions!), called John Wooden. John once remarked that:
“You can’t live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you.”
Consider, dream and act. Our enacted reality can only be that which you allow yourself to conceive. I understand that for an individual embroiled in the web, a dream is an imagining difficult to hold onto because whilst we live alongside one another, one individual’s dream cannot manifest instantly for it would impose on another’s. This is what is called a ‘spiritual’ journey.
For those denial addicts who choose not to create a beautiful dream, please feel free to take this grommet out of your ear and…
…La la, la la la la la na na na na na
La la na na, la la la la la na na na na na
La la na na, la la la la la na na na na na
La la na na, la la la la la na na na na na…”