Site hosted by Build your free website today!

UBUNTU I am because of who we all are.
Supporting the 2012 Olympic Legacy—I WILL be positive and endeavour to maintain the Olympians' love of life and its challenges
MALALA—a statement of the failure of religion:
religion that fails to pro-actively promote the absolute equality of male and female is fundamentally immoral and unfit for decent society.
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26-28)
Diversity within unity and change over time is the reality of Creation. Peter Such, poet and writer (1943–)
Neither praise nor shoot the messenger: the message is all.


Peter Such

Peter Such

A view of Great Berkhamsted from Cooper's fields.

Peter Such lives in Great Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, England
Formerly working in printing and publishing Peter Such is currently an occasional writer on diverse issues, as the mood takes him.
He has regularly put his views to the test of public opinion, which is how he twice ended up as mayor of his home town.
 He also stood for The Referendum Party in the UK General Election of 1997.
Also on Twitter as Peewit2 (he doesn't take it seriously) and on Facebook as himself (Peter.Such.5)

Last published: SATURDAY 30th May 2015 13:00
MAY 2015
It was Labour and the Lib/Dems that denied us the political vote that turned commercial agreements on trade into political authoritarian diktat. As Churchill said "Trust the British people". Labour refused to do so and with the LibDems Labour STILL refuses to do so, hence our present mess.

We would have had a perfectly harmonious relationship with the EU had they done so, for the British people would have demanded the basic common sense that is our inherent nature before agreeing anything. Clearly neither Labour nor the Lib/Dems possess the necessary courage... or is that simply arrogance, or fear of contrary opinion due to their own uncertainties?

Saturday 30th May 2015 [morning post]
Review one, is FIFA properly structured? On the basis of one vote per entity one might answer “yes”, particularly since this seems biased towards those in need over-riding the more powerful, who might not wish them as much as they currently seem to gain.
            Is Blatter competent? Since there was only one opponent it would seem so, otherwise there would be several candidates, so it is obviously not a highly desired role or he is just good at it.
            Is FIFA competent? There does seem cause to question structure, relevance and control, for those who know what they are talking about. I am not a sports fan. On the other hand the press could simply have a lot of empty pages and airtime requiring something to fill their space. Are their interests relevant? Probably not. Certainly there have been arrests of some notable people but these are but arrests on charges yet to be presented in formal detail, let alone be tried by a jury and if so, whose jury in what country?
            Blatter does give the impression of being a complete idiot, the sort of front man trotted out at conferences to entertain the audience before the boss comes on stage oops, apparently he is the boss! No front man then, he delivers straight from the heart, no wonder he gels well with the downtrodden and general losers, they are rarely demanding or inquisitive, just gratefully accepting their lot which, under Blatter, seems to have gone down well.
Proving himself a complete idiot, Blatter did make a statement that he wasn’t responsible for things going wrong as he could not possibly have known about potential corruption. It is possible that judicial prudence demands silence but one would have expected him to have given an indication of the precautions he had ensured were in place to prevent such accusations. That would be competent management. Perhaps there is a misallocation of responsibilities at senior level and the front man should be entirely responsible for fronting while competent management manages with the competence of ability of which Blatter publicly acknowledges is not his forté.


Saturday 30th May 2015 [morning post]
Dying is not a crime. -Jack Kevorkian, pathologist, euthanasia activist, painter, author, and composer (26 May 1928-2011)
           Quite. If the body is but a container of biochemistry, controlled by a spirit on birth then the decision to leave is the spirit's not the body's! Biochemistry is indifferent of spiritual presence as evidenced by the few bodies I have observed in various sepulchres in Highgate, London. This was some half a century ago when the graveyard was in a more ruined state than I believe it is today, I have not visited for some time.
           In those days the sepulchres dug out of the hill were open to view, being blocked off by railed gates so the coffins, in varying states of collapse, could be seen exhibiting the extent of hair growth despite final administrations.
I raised the same issue with my GP’s practice nurse when I attended for an annual review, my test results indicating no more serious a level of discussion being required. For me, death is a complex issue and obviously one wants to be kept abreast of the latest local arrangements regarding final healthcare.
           While in a state of government uncertainty, local circumstances, as well as personal circumstances are continually changing. So might one’s attitude change, dependent upon one’s body’s biochemical state, affecting one’s state of mind either through conscious will or deteriorated biochemical state affecting mind or body.
          “Just give me the syringe and I’ll do the injection when I’m ready.” “We can’t do that!” “Yes, I know that and that presupposes I’m physically able anyway.”
           The situation is further complicated by the fact that I want things simple, straight forward and cost-effective but bequeathing a body away to science depends upon two doctors’ report of the state of the body before final acceptance. On top of which I am an organ donator and science will not accept a body minus anything, save corneas. As some parts of me could still be acceptable for someone else, I would not wish to deliberately deny someone an extra life span, just because the rest of me is of no use to me and I do not want money wasted on a funeral, although I suppose it would be mean not to fund a party.
          Jeffrey Spector is the latest in a lengthening line of people determined to end their lives in their own way and time. Usually this crisis arises when one is least able to control one’s world after a life-time of doing just that. This seems the most frustrating of all end of life scenarios, that loss of independence, especially when one’s mind is still competent to take part in what is going on around one. No one, accustomed to running their own lives (but not in so financially sound a state as to have been accustomed to having and still able to afford live-in staff) wants family friends or social workers (for whom fellow taxpayers are paying) running around after them. This must be addressed with rational objectivity and not cluttered with historical quasi-religious dogma.
          Lord Webber’s contribution is to confuse the issue. Precautions are always taken to ensure soundness of mind at the time of making the decision and the experience Lord Webber regales is a classic example where he quite rightly would not have been accepted in the first place, whereas Jeffrey Spector is a clear example of courageous decision-making. Further information is at “Dignity in Dying”.
           Perhaps we have been at peace too long and have lost the decisiveness about life and death that is an inevitable consequence of being at war. The Mediterranean tragedies are physically distant. Any sentiment towards the immigrants is confused with the wilfulness of the British Labour party (now too late admitting how wrong it was) to invade this country with the great unwashed of the EU (such is the impression we have been allowed to acquire) making us intrinsically negative about anyone under any excuse coming into this country at all. There are still people determined to take up much needed space with burials rather than opting for crematoria which, in their early days, where much frowned on. It is time we looked at death rationally and objectively and not necessarily denying religion.
           Let us take the assumption that there is a spirit that enters the body of a new life. Ignore the detail: from where; in what state; by whose decision/authority; through what difficulty of health or wellbeing it must struggle to make itself felt, heard and understood; let’s just accept that spirit exists and continues until such time as evidence of life no longer persists. Throughout that time that newly born entity persists in making itself heard and felt in society. Where is the logic in denying it control over its environment at the point of dying? It simply is not rational.

Friday 22nd May 2015 [after-noon post]
Damned well done ladies, damned well done!

At 20 years of age, the SNP's Mhairi Black is the UK's youngest elected MP since 1667.
The MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, who ousted shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander, found herself surrounded by Labour MPs on the green benches during the Speaker election. The politics student - who worked part-time in a chip shop before winning her seat - has been studying for her final exams in the House of Commons Library, she revealed in an ITV interview.kmo

Labour's acting leader Harriet Harman appointed herself to the unofficial title after pointing out she was the longest-serving female MP in the Commons. The MP for Camberwell and Peckham, first elected in 1982, made the comments during the Speaker's election exchanges, "to prevent us all from falling headlong into patriarchy" and promised "good parenting" along with Mr Kaufman. In just the same way the trades unions are determined to remain stuck in oudated views and bigotty, it is this assocaition that is destroying Labour. Their latest influence has just proved it.

Friday 22nd May 2015 [morning post]
“… So if you are quizzed by friends from other churches about your experience of the Spirit and start to wonder whether you are lacking something because you don't witness such extravagant special effects, rest assured that the Spirit is at work in what we do. Yes, it may come in the violent wind and the rush of fire, but it is just as much at work in the still, small voice of calm—whether we believe we are 'feeling' it or not.”
           So this week’s pastor concluded his invitation to Sunday Eucharist which brings me back to my thought yesterday. I was going to write that the Labour party is heading towards the same mistake religion has persistently made, that Creation is a static state, not a continual change over time. While my preferred church (entirely for practical reasons of attendance not necessarily for its approach, although the new incumbent does seem enterprising) does aspire to being challenging, enthusiastic and alive, too many religions are responsible for society’s general fear of change, denying the reality that change is an inherent fact of life.
           Secularism, in the form of the EU, is likewise frightened of change. The EU’s asinine acceptance of religion as being apart from everyday society, instead of being inclusive within it, perpetrates religious views of wilful denigration of female equality with the male. Hence the Church of Rome and Islam are allowed to proselytise their view of secondary class citizenship for women and persist with male domination over them. It is totally unacceptable

Thursday 21st May 2015 [morning post]
It is all a matter of management. This morning the “little ships” are gathering at Ramsgate for their five yearly celebration of the early days of WWII when over 300,000 men were pulled off the beaches at Dunkirk. This was a time in that classic British way of doing things, responding to an emergency on the basis of sheer imagination and inherent initiative.
           By contrast, we learn that 5½ billion pounds a year is earned by property owners many of whom will not take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. They rent out properties at phenomenal rates without in any way making certain their properties are safe to live in let alone be healthy and hygienic.
           Such common little moneygrubbers are really no different from the Jihadists who disagree with anything and seemingly everything that is of value?  “Jihadist” seems to be a term one might reasonably apply to all religious nut cakes. An armed lot has just moved into Palmyra where an UNESCO World Heritage site is in danger of being obliterated by them. Is there a difference between them and Her Majesty’s government’s determination to make planning laws more simple in the UK, so that more properties can be thrust upon communities, contrary to the existing inhabitants’ wishes? Are these inhabitants being selfish and nymbyistic or is a halfway compromise between the two extremes being missed, due to the stratified compartmentalisation of legislation?
           Let’s throw in a wild card. Are the jihadists wrong? The UNESCO site is after all only old ruins. In the UK, governments tend to override appeals on the basis of planning law. Things are deliberately changed to moneygrubbing self-interest, rather than the recognition of established communities whose community is deliberately changed around them. What really is the difference? The UNESCO site was once a city, why then, should the jihadists not knock it down to build an entirely new city to meet modern required standards? If, however, they do not intend to build a new city, then there is no point in demolition. They are just being mindless hooligans, which most effectively proclaims precisely the state of their mentality and beliefs.
           I will turn to this God concept the jihadists espouse. I consider I have an open, questioning mind on concepts of God. On concepts of spiritual worth I am somewhat more opinionated, equating my experiences with biblically described personal experiences. Accepting that spirituality resides in most religions but basically religions do not fully explore that vast rambling reality, preferring to define and stratify into regimented definitions rather than “let it all hang out”. Then more people attune their thoughts to spiritual aspiration than to objective finality of nothingness.
           Demographics of atheism on Wikipedia demonstrate that “while
 atheists are in the minority in most countries, they are relatively common in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and in former and present communist states. It is difficult to determine actual atheist numbers. Furthermore, the conflation of terms such as atheist, agnostic, non-religious and non-theist add to confusion among poll data.
           A 2002 survey by, estimates that the proportion of the world's people who are "secular, non-religious, agnostics and atheists" at about 14%[24].
           A 2004 survey by the BBC in 10 countries showed the proportion of the population "who don't believe in God" varying between 0% (Nigeria) and 39% (UK), with an average close to 17% in the countries surveyed. About 8% of the respondents stated specifically that they consider themselves to be atheists.[1] 65% of those polled in a 2011 survey by the British Humanist Association answered “no” to the question “Are you religious?”[25].
           To me, “religion” is a narrowly defined aspect of spirituality, which is itself part of the vastness of philosophy. Look to the detail and see it in context. Religions vary in the wideness of their compass, the depth of their perception and fluidity of their thinking: far too constricting.
           So, what has today brought and what horizons have opened up for tomorrow?
In the Thomas Cook matter of two child deaths we have appalling human resource mismanagement. We have a combined mismanagement by both trades unions and management over this Bank Holiday weekend’s threatened strike, which is now supposedly cancelled but train time tables have been disrupted as well as people wishing to travel.
           We also learn that the trades unions are trying to gerrymander the Labour party’s leadership election. Yet it was a preferred trade union leader (Ed Miliband) who brought down the Labour party. Why? Because it now appears he thought his brother would modernise the party, which he didn’t want! Neither do many others within the party want relevance in the modern day, yet today it has been let known that Labour does not think Dave Cameron has gone far enough in demanding changes to the EU constitution… the very constitution to which Labour enthusiastically agreed!
           Perhaps the jihadist IS gang is right after all, let’s just blow everything up and not bother about anything! Let’s proclaim Allah is great, acknowledge we are his Creation and let him get off his backside and sort it! Sounds like a load of sense to me.
           It now appears that only £10 million was stolen from the Hatton Garden Safe Deposit. Ten people so far seem to have been involved. All that effort and only a million a piece? Clearly nowhere near worth it. How can people be so incredibly stupid? Beside such people jihadist IS people begin to look vaguely intelligent but then look to Arabia’s Nabati region. An empire was once centred there, astride the Frankincense route but the climate changed, the trade route changed and Nabati is as ruined as Palmyra, so what?

Wedne sday 20th May 2015 [morning post]
As Tuesday’s heading notes, I plough on regardless and I am now midweek. I had intended Watford, as previously described, but this morning the world has changed. All aches and pains have departed and I am actually fully functioning, almost as normal as I used to be. It seems (touching wood) that I am currently at the outer periphery of Sjögren problems. I was concerned about my teeth disintegrating but they seem to be holding up; my lung problems appear to be basic lymphoma, due to inflammation caused by Sjögren’s syndrome and I actually have a medical conclusion that my lung cancer was not caused by my cigar smoking, nor likewise my throat problems either.
            During the last few years I have met a diversity of people in various stages of compound problems and have cause to be very grateful for the minor (by comparison) problems my health continually causes me. Damned nuisances are simply damned nuisances, get on with them, too many have much more serious issues with which to contend.
            Hermes is now advising what has happened. The purpose of digital communication is to advise what will happen when. At the moment they don’t seem to have a clue. It looks like a three day delivery is going to be a four day delivery!

Tuesday 19th May 2015 [evening post]
Whatever problems presume to defy one’s progress there is always someone else having to dig a deeper furrow in heavier clay. My clay feet have suddenly acquired a new lightness and optimism rises beckoningly. I will back track to last Saturday when I decided I would share my experiences, initially here, then copying the entry to my Sjögren’s Syndrome page.
            I quote from my private health diary. “History: Friday night restless with a major ache in my right arm, upper and lower part above the elbow. No painkillers used at all for two days but always on the verge of needing them. That I did not go over the verge is primarily due to complete exhaustion, making the effort required for pain relief that night too demanding for the level of pain relief I felt I required.
Saturday I slept ok and thought I might make church but in fact on Sunday morning I felt too tired. Lightly tired all Sunday, then feeling all was okay. I slept Sunday night but aware of crippling ache in right hand, then in left hand thumb area. Both pains eased away during the day but I was obviously not in a fit state for doing anything physical so stayed in, coping with minor miscellaneous PC work as my mind could not concentrate because of the stress and general aches.”
            Monday I seemed fit enough to drive but not strong enough to mess around with the gardening bits and pieces I needed. In any case the weather was wet and miserable so I stayed in.
            Tuesday I am waiting for a delivery. Digitisation has just advised me of the intended arrival of my delivery over a period of an hour with over two hours of advance notice. Not bad. Regretfully, other items from another supplier have been confirmed as in transit but the hyperlink does not yet connect with the expected arrival time, although I was not expecting that until tomorrow anyway. In the mean time it has suddenly dawned on me that this is a confounded bank holiday weekend and I had better look into hotel arrangements… but first check, is the day confirmed? It is. Hotel booked and subject to experience this may prove to be a useful hotel for future reference.
            My health is now light with everyday easy normality and sufficient effort and alertness to be safe to drive should I wish to do so. This raises a debate, which continually exercises my mind: the interaction between tiredness and depression. Does either cause or affect the other? What is their interplay?
            [Interruption. Just as soup was reaching pouring heat DPD turn up! Offloading was simple and efficient, good. Unfortunately, Hermes is not so good. I am still not receiving acknowledgement my goods are in transit despite the supplier so advising such information is available.]
            I have now returned from a happy shop in Waitrose, having dropped into one of my banks and popped into the garden centre. Great Berkhamsted must be unique in having a major private garden centre in almost the centre of town! I hope I have made the right decision. What will result? I am fascinated with something I saw and somewhat jumbled in my mind as to what I want to do. Matters now depend upon my knowledge of Hermes’ potential encounter, as I need to go to the de Haag centre on Watford’s outskirts for a variety of other gardening incidentals, an odd choice for someone who does not have a garden but there is an odd patch of beaten up grass, due to inexpert relaying of ground dug up to attend to a water pipe—a pipe laid by builders who thought bending a plastic pipe round a stone where the pipe would throb as water coursed through, so wearing its sleeve against the sharp stone as to eventually cause a burst. I was thinking of adding another taller tub planted with a clematis to add a variation of height and a wider splash of colour spreading down and around.

Thursday 14th May 2015 [morning post]
Tuesday was a ‘switched out’ day. Car was in garage and I chose to drive it there and spend a sunny midday wandering Aylesbury, discovering so much of which I had been unaware driving through in a car. Walking does make one see with new eyes.

Prince Charles’ Spider
In no particular order, just observations on recent news. The fuss and palaver over a spider’s letters shows again the ineptitude of Labour. Common sense would have ensured they were never liable for publication. That they became available in the expensive way they did shows Tory stupidity. One does not follow a previous government’s fight without good reason and there was no good reason to fight publication of these letters. Charles is only the heir apparent, not yet restricted in the way his mother is. He is involved. The Royal Family (technically specifically the monarch) is there to be consulted, to advise and to warn. It is quite fit and proper that he should be involved and the surrounding secrecy is no different than a civil service function of any department.

Could be straight down the line "new boy"; could be political nous as astute as those political animals already long in the tooth. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. In my view, we've got the Cameron option. As far as I am concerned that is what it was all about and why twenty years back I stood for The Referendum Party. Labour decided to demonstrate its utter contempt for the British people: rightly, the British people have now shown their contempt for Labour. Even Labour itself is beginning to realise how wrong it was... that may be an advance, we have yet to learn.

It is correct that matters should be reviewed objectively, bearing ALL aspects of the BBC together. The annual cost to the individual taxpayer is too high. However, typical of a British institution the BBC bears a uniqueness, which must not be destroyed.

Human Rights
The failure from the first of the EU's Human Rights Act is that it fails to define and insist on upholding personal accountability and responsibility. Then and ONLY then do we start talking about individual rights! Even religion believes in that even if most of the rest of religion is just so much pie in the sky!
            Is it down to the EU that a child’s party costume is defined as a toy and not an article for clothing? Standard British common sense tells you it requires to meet clothing safety regulations not regulations designed for a toy, which can be dropped or thrown in an emergency. That responsibility lies initially with the designer and manufacture (or importer), only secondarily with a national government when common sense has failed to be employed. So much of British common sense has been thrown out of the window since Labour brought the EU into running our country!
           Blackmail has never been a human right but it is willfully employed by criminals and incompetents to purloin money and to place blame for their inadequacies at other peoples’ doors. While we, as a country are not always right, we are currently the best of the bunch and our runners-up derive from our example. Solve the problem at source. No point in mending a burst water main half a mile down the road without first turning the tap off at source.
          Theresa May is quite right in conducting emergency rescue but ensuring illegals do not gain unfair advantage over the law abiding is the responsibility of government.   


Monday 11th May 2015 [morning post]
I bought a new car four years ago (well, it was new to me). It was deep island blue. Suddenly my road seemed filled with cars of varying shades of blue. I have just changed my car again, this time to a silver colour. I came across a truly gold coloured car in the town car park, which was tastefully different but generally speaking there seems to be an inordinate number of silver cars all over the place! Am I conscious of silver, so that colour stands out or is it simply the new “in” colour, like my island blue car four years ago?

Head Rules the Heart
Now that we have a reasonable level of “open house” stability, Cameron has been handed a full house of cards with which to be judiciously adventurous. Now the heart moves to guide responsibility.
            A Labour voter voted with her head--Tory and feels nervous at her decision! I agree. Cameron, here's your chance to move with the people responsibly and sensibly but necessarily so. Only with stability can courageous change be implemented wisely.


Saturday 9th May 2015 [late after-noon post]
In The Independent Clegg is quoted: “Liberalism… is not faring well against the politics of fear. Years of remorseless economic and social hardship following the crash in 2008 and the grinding insecurities of globalisation have led people to reach for new certainties—the politics of identity, of nationalism, of us versus them is now on the rise… the fear of Scottish nationalism… has strengthened English conservatism.”
What utter codswallop. I had no idea by how much the Liberals had so obviously lost the plot. The Lib/Dems have never understood by how much the EU insults our intelligence on an almost every day basis.
           Funded by the trades unions, who have never understood basic economics, Labour has always been the socialists’ paradise of triumphant ideological supremacy, firmly rooted in complete ineptitude and funded solely by the richness of their dreams, bolstered by the property theft of selling off the family silver (sorry, gold) and liquidating assets to provide the annual revenue their management is in capable of providing through efficient trade.
           The fundamental error was Labour’s refusal to ask the British people if they wanted a bunch of fools, as daft (perhaps dafter) than they were, to run our country, because that way we would not realise, until too late, just how incompetent Labour actually were. That is the issue that is drawing us back on ourselves because Labour (and the Lib/Dems) deliberately denuded us of all that made us who we were, not only in our own eyes but in the world’s eyes as well.
            There is nothing negative about the SNP. This is the Scots, having cleared away (for now) the issue of independence, they have come on stream full ahead to make up for all the time they have lost through Westminster’s (primarily the period under Labour) wilful dismissal of Scotland’s needs.
           It is the same spirit that England is showing in its refusal to be bogged down by pettifogging irrelevances in which the EU is determined to smother everyone who dares to think for themselves, just like the Catholic Church’s teaching, which in reality is authoritarian indoctrination. On that issue the secular EU bows in subservience to religions’ dogma (for Islam is equally guilty). On that issue religion may be exempt from the requirements of objective rationality—what utter twaddle!
           It is not that England is holding back but that like the Scots, perhaps galvanised by the Scots, the English are saying “enough is enough”, let’s get properly moving doing things. Disappointingly too late Clegg showed a dawning awareness of what it is all about, he intimated he could be supportive of a Tory referendum on Europe. Both of them (Clegg and Miliband) are blaming others for their parties’ error of judgment. Too late, this archaic socialist twaddle both parties burble they now realise is old hat way out of its time.
          Mr Clegg, the EU has never been liberal. Mr Miliband, Russia proved that socialism does not work years ago when the Berlin wall came down. Time we got moving, creating wealth, reducing debt to a manageable size that we can afford and is no longer a burden and through our creation of wealth dispense in proportion to those who need, not only in this United Kingdom but to the wider world which is what our future generations are going to have to address.

Saturday 9th May 2015 [morning post]
A Personal View
Scotland is not a problem it is simply the inevitable result of time moving forward, the social fabric of encapsulated souls developing along their way. The referendum on independence was a necessary step one. Step two was a whole-hearted support of the Scottish people for their historical values, not a further cry for independence, the extra votes were due to the re-assurance of no independence threat”!
           Great potential is in Cameron’s hands for all of us to take part and share the potential riches. In my view, Salmond is a disaster in waiting in Westminster. Now that Cameron is his own master, within reason, he can talk face to face with Sturgeon. She’s a hard-headed woman but I’m guessing a rational one. Both persons were shouting electoral rhetoric. Both are capable of down-to-earth practical politics when quietly together. I’m guessing the Queen wanted to see Cameron as much as Cameron wanted to see her on Friday. They will have discussed how far to handle the Scottish question.
            Rational conversation is going to be the key of the next term of government. Scotland is comparatively easy at this first stage. The problem is the EU. If a substantial number of EU countries determine federalism then there is no question that we must come out and come out cleanly and clearly enjoying only trading agreements, which is what the British people originally voted for and were then bounced by Labour into a wider commitment on which we, the people, were never asked, such was Labour’s pig-headed arrogance, backed by tacit support of the Liberal/Democrats. We must now deal with the EU in an open, rational manner. It may be that Labour’s pre-agreements have totally eroded the ground for true renegotiation and ‘out’ is the only option, rather than a two-tier arrangement, which must include some folding back of previous agreements. That will be Labour’s fault, backed by an archaic trade unionism that like the Roman Catholic Church refuses to acknowledge Life’s realities of forward progression.
           Although I have always regarded the Liberal/Democrats as a wishy-washy lot their political demise was undeserved and unjustified but inevitable. The inevitability is again due to Labour’s “Dear EU please walk all over us” attitude, coupled with the Conservative’s loss of Margaret Thatcher whose absence left the Tories completely spineless. It is the result of Labour’s attitude that the EU question was never properly addressed by the British people, while the loss of Margaret Thatcher caused the Tories to fudge The Referendum Party issue, allowing the question to simmer until now, souring worldwide relationships and causing the turmoil, dissension and stagnation within the UK that has resulted in UKIP, the quite separate but effectively a follow-on from The Referendum Party. It is always best to meet difficult situations head on at the first opportunity. The Referendum Party was the advance warning the intellectual elite chose to toffee-nose . . . hence UKIP.
           The Lib/Dems grabbed the opportunity to gain experience of modern government, which will still stand them in good stead. They may have lost MPs but they have the collective experience for new potentials coming through. Their misfortune was UKIP and the reality of Cameron’s guarantee for a referendum sinking in, coupled with the potential mayhem the Scots could have caused with a weak Miliband led Labour.
            In negotiations with the SNP the EU question has got to be discussed, likewise the Scottish question with the EU, both questions are interdependent. Could the UK have a foot in both camps while remaining a complete borderless UK within but with controlled borders outside the whole UK? Canada and the US have the longest undefended border in the world between totally different countries, although both former British colonies and one still a member of the British Commonwealth. Something along those lines need to be pre-discussed in the event of us having a split opinion on EU membership.


 Friday 8th May 2015 [after-noon post]
There is a time and place for rules and regulations but more often the every day time and place requires Flexibility, Adaptability and Malleability, something Europe simply does not understand. It is Great Britain that retained its empire, turning it into a Commonwealth of worldwide nations while all other European empires lost their empires and were often defeated by the British. We know what we are doing in these islands and across the world, we cannot allow that acquired sense from diverse and extensive experience to be lost to the world through the puerile intransigencies of silly little people interested solely in boasting their personal egos. This is the time for the rendering of service.

Friday 8th May 2015 [midmorning post]
Ed Balls pays the price for five years of negativity in which he has never faced the realities of life, our country’s ability to bear its costs and making those costs relevant.

Failing Again!
The trades unions still haven’t got it! It is believed it was the trades unions that wanted Ed Miliband rather than his brother. Whether or not the other brother would have been a better bet what is certain is that trades unions’ intervention is a ride to disaster. The nation has known that for some time but Labour seem not yet to have grasped the facts of life.


Thursday 7th May 2015 [morning post]
Think of the significance of your vote in your constituency and the effect your constituency might have on the collective whole. This is no time for flights of fleeting fancy. Accept only the past convention of three parties and vote accordingly.

Wednesday 6th May 2015 [after-noon post]
In most elections I love the screaming nut cakes of The Monster Raving Loony Parties. It is an ego boost for the failed actors who never had a hope in hell’s chance of making serious theatre. It shows a touch of arrogance that we in the UK can be so self-assured about democracy and the people’s control over parliament that we can be so carelessly nonchalant about something people still earnestly die to gain.
            This is an election where we must discipline ourselves not to be so careless. This is the election that will lay the groundwork for the election that follows, hopefully only in five years time and not sooner because we will not be ready. This is the pre-election for the election that will drastically alter the fabric of the entire country for a very long time ahead. That is the revolution that prudence now will mould into a world-admired evolution then. 
            Who has the Churchillian stature for the task? No one. It requires at least two people. Cameron, the most experienced man of the moment and ideally Clegg, or at second best, his party’s influence. The Tories can be too headstrong on their own. Nicola Sturgeon may have the qualities but at the moment her election rhetoric gives no hint of the true woman behind the shouting. The ideal after Clegg is simply impossible: Miliband. Unless a truly national government could be achieved but then, who would lead? We must also remember that outside Scotland, Alex Salmond runs the SNP... or would he, alone or under Sturgeon’s reins? In my view, even if only a figurehead, which I don’t think he could ever be, Salmond would not make a credible leader in Westminster. The future can only be Tory led but requiring a strong Lib/Dem support to keep them sensible. This is where the Lib/Dem supporters have shown their true uselessness, they have run away when their party was at last showing its worth.
            The day to day tasks must be “Steady as she goes”, so the real tasks of the next government, which are to prepare the way for a following government, can be concentrated upon by those with the proven experience: to reshape the United Kingdom.
            Europe must be hit head on with a tightly scheduled timetable. Will it seriously attempt to be rational so that the UK does not have to abandon its membership? That is one referendum. The altered constitution of the UK [and I’m unhappy about written constitutions, so the minimal writing necessary] will require a second referendum. I think it unlikely that second referendum could include a consideration of alternative means of voting. That may well need its own referendum.
            I do not think it reasonable to have all referendums at one time. Presumably the voting system is referendum one. Then follows the reconstitution of the kingdom(s). This should include devolution to the shires and beyond as well as the relationships of the various kingdoms with one another, including raising taxes for revenue expenditure from revenue income. Then, we look at Europe, which by then should have had sufficient time to show serious intent to be realistic. or by default make a clear statement that we should have nothing more to do with it politically. Commerce has never been the argument.
            Cold, rational thought is needed at this election; there is no place for our usual arrogant, cavalier, also-ran, party-time claptrap. There may be a place for a Green but not “the Greens”. Northern Ireland should be for the Union while Wales could go Welsh while still respecting Unionistic views and the Scots, well they have hardly ceased speaking about Scotland! In my view, SNP support is understandable and the rise in its support has nothing to do with independence, it is for Scotland and Scotland within the Union. Should independence raise its head again it will be because we have all failed. Now, let’s get on.

Wednesday 8th May 2015 [morning post]
From a part of the country that is divided over religion we have the most extraordinary purportedly moral decision: it is to be illegal to pay for sex! This is even more irresponsible than the Catholic doctrine that one must not use contraceptives! One cannot have sex, save self-indulgence, without paying for it!
            While women are treated more equally than once was the case, marriage costs money. If one does not wish to marry then at least there is the cost of a bunch of roses, when one hopes the thorns will not end up between the sheets, if not the restaurant bill for dinner. Sex has always cost, if only in time and effort. Is the purpose of this new law to further advance digital finance, so ultimately to save the country the cost of coinage, or an early advance against tax dodgers? Will it become illegal to pay for taxis? Or is it to return sex to being a pleasure in which only the rich may indulge, with sufficient funds to afford a second home for a mistress? Since when have we become so over censurious about the basic principles of supply and demand of trade that creates money to pay taxes?

Tuesday 5th May 2015 [After-noon post]
No time for pyrotechnics but cool, calm, collected thinking. Whatever rational or scientific argument secularists may offer, a greater number of people hold to a religious opinion on the nature of government than hold secularist sway.
            To collect a working majority one must first aim for a broad, moral platform that respects the diversity of religious opinion, recognising that such diversity acknowledges religion itself still sees too much of the world through a glass darkly and not yet fully face-to-face.
            What all religions have in common is an expectation that an adherent makes the most of the opportunities God/Chance has bestowed upon them at birth; that they recognise they have a place in society for which they are accountable and through which they have a responsibility to themselves and to their family, as a member of the collective whole for which they, in proportion, bear responsibility.
            In the same way that a vehicle driver has responsibility to ensure they are fit and competent to drive, so too must voters determine their accountability for voting and thereby exercise it. Such a statement implies a duty to spoil a ballot paper rather than simply decline to vote. There is, therefore, an argument for making voting compulsory. I disagree. In some ways, disinclination to be involved can be more of a barometer of the lack of inclusivity in society than spoilt ballot papers. Currently, statistics indicate a lot of voters are thinking seriously and deeply about the issues the next government will be facing. Taking into account the recent Scottish referendum it is quite clear this United Kingdom is experiencing a major sea change. The separation of church and state; of legislation and its enforcement; the whole, wrapped in a cloak of proven historical reality distinct from, yet wholly a part of, the transient mood of the people, whilst having the authority to define and firm such mood into a constitutional change for the future is a uniqueness few other nations can hope to emulate.
            There is no cause for over-excitement but there is cause for serious deliberation and acceptance by all of us of our individual and joint responsibilities. This is not a time to change but it is a time for change, a change that requires judicious and serious contemplation for the long term.
            First, the immediate present: we are at where we are. We know that financial investment can only be carried through if there are the funds to provide for it, or we have the means to afford the interest charged on funds borrowed and its paying off. Both require income and income can only be derived from sales of product. Products can only be sold at the price the market will accept and it is the market that determines the wages that can be paid for the productivity of employment required. Any government must face the world as it is, regardless of the desires and intentions expressed in its manifesto. Every government must face its responsibilities as world affairs decree.
            So a brief world view. The migrants crossing the Mediterranean are the responsibility of the governments that failed to meet the requirements of those fleeing their countries. Religion is the root cause and in all circumstances it is not only wilful abuse of their respective religions’ underlying principles but also the wilfulness of proper interpretation of those principles with the passage of time, which changing reality they have resolutely ignored.
           Accountability can be laid at all our doors but that brings us back to not making the mistakes that religions have persistently made, failing to recognise the inevitability of change that time brings. It is the nature of governments to see only their own self-interest—re-election, not the inevitability of change and their duty to aid their electorate to be prepared for and successfully manage those changes: namely, to render service to the people, not to thrust their ideology as the only view. 
           On the wider sea, a squandering of resource on maintaining a nuclear deterrent, in the face of the appalling conditions in which too much of humanity is forced to live would be treacherous, were it not for the reality that a deterrent is necessary until we can achieve multi-lateral agreement to dispense with nuclear armaments. That requires a United Nations of all nations and a global authority. First steps first.
          Nearer this election’s immediately relevant targets is the need to trade profitably. From profit and wages that do not over-price the product but enable a sufficiently comfortable living as to be able to contribute to the nation through taxes. Only through income from successfully trading can we afford the luxuries (and compared with too many in the world what we take as standard and “right” are exquisite luxuries) such as the National Health Service, across the board for all healthy living standards and conditions, not just what we can currently (not) afford.
           This is where Labour’s concept of a mansion tax is nonsense. It is yet another statement of Labour’s inability to understand basic finance. Current costs need to be met from current income. Mansion taxes are a tax on fixed assets regardless of the occupants’ inability to raise additional income from fixed pensions. If adjusted to only newly acquired properties that is a different ball game but reduces the immediacy of tax take.
           On the same principle, the rating taxation must change to again acquaint with income: it is for the annual income of the local council. So rates must be replaced with a local income tax, best handled by central government but dispersed according to council area in conjunction with downward devolution away from Whitehall.
           Entirely due to the Labour party’s arrogance we had no referendum on the authority of the EU to run this country instead of ourselves. Scotland wanted independence from the UK but also wanted subservience to Europe. This contradiction is entirely a Labour offshoot.
My personal guess is that the SNP’s authority comes from the Scots’ determination to have their way: independence from Whitehall but within the United Kingdom. If that follows, cries for Scottish “real” independence will fade.
           What if we do have the referendum Labour wilfully failed to give us and we neither get the rational EU we would have achieved had the British people, as a whole, been asked in the first place and this time we decide to leave? May be Scotland would be content, if truly independent within the UK: maybe not. Labour has again messed up in its inability to understand the real nature of government, seeing ahead the consequential result of today’s situation.
           In short, the country best equipped to handle diversity in its manifold presentations is brought abruptly to its frequent historical reality. It has failed to equip for what must be done—and that is once more down to Labour. Labour’s first failing is to understand the immediacy of the moment: its second failing is in not seeing the long-term view.
           This is the election when we must sacrifice our love of diversity but must knuckle under to the mundaneness of cold logic and hard-headed reality. We do not have the resource to take on a risk too far. As I said, right at the beginning of this election on this web, this is the time for the same government and a policy of “Steady as she goes!”
           Then, we can have the breathing space we need to plan the government that follows on. That is what this election is about.
           With a stable, assured and proven government we can address the collective whole of the UK and how the independent parts may better relate to one another and the collective whole in a modern manner. That re-assessment should also take into account our relationship with the Commonwealth. That has to be a part of our re-assessment of the EU. Thus assured of ourselves we can better handle our relationship to the EU, while endeavouring to bring some degree of rationality to that singular irrational entity, which is what would have been achieved, had the British people as a whole been involved from the first, something the Labour party resolutely determined would not happen, hence our present mess and indecision.   
           So, cutting to the chase, this is not a time to vote for what you want and play around with new, or more exciting or controversial ideas. This is the time to vote for your country as a collective whole. See your constituency in the context of national government. Wipe away the second rate, also-ran parties and they are the ones who can only say what they don’t want: “We must not let the Tories back in”.
           That is precisely what the country needs; what Europe needs; what the world needs: the government that brought us safely through the last five years and will give us the stability to thoroughly preoccupy ourselves with making these nations fit for the twenty-first century, where again they might lead as they are so used to doing. From the soundness of simplicity, only three parties to consider, we can then have the confidence to change everything.  

Monday 4th May 2015 [After-noon post]
First, we have religion’s lack of confidence in it’s own beliefs. I write primarily from a Christian, English Protestant perspective [nowadays more simply defined as Anglicanism, a term which includes the Episcopal Church in America] but historically religion’s purpose was a male device to render authority, initially gained through physical dominance, over a society gradually becoming more complex and requiring the structured demarcations of basic management disciplines, while supporting the ego of society’s then dominant personalities.
           The concept of “God” derives from the standard technique of devolving responsibility to an undefined ‘authority’, so deflecting challenge and accountability from the actual powerbase and establishing that powerbase’s ‘authority’ as being beyond argument. Essentially, this is the purpose of the Old Testament, derived from the Jewish tradition of The Torah.
           With the modern emphasis on inclusivity, a modern umbrella term is “the Abrahamic religions”, being Judaism (2%), Christianity (33%), and Islam(18%). Arguably there then follows the nonreligious (16%), Hinduism (16%), Buddhism (6%). I give no reference to authority for the percentages as this article is a general comment and not all sources agree on either class definition or their percentages.
           The New Testament of the Christian Bible is Christ’s life and teachings, establishing Christianity as “the” religion, as Christ is the only prophet ever claiming to be the Son of God, the Creator of all things.
           Islam’s holy book is the Qur’an, the written word of God as revealed verbally to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel over a period of 23 years. Muslims regard the Qur’an as the most important miracle of Muhammad, one of the proofs to his being a prophet and the culmination of a series of divine messages that started with the messages revealed to Adam and ending with Muhammad.
           That Moslems consider the Qur’an to be the only revealed book that has been protected by God from distortion or corruption, it is somewhat unfortunate that linguistic translations have caused so much controversy. However, such controversy over so “authoritative a single source” [that does not actually mean what it says] is a good way to lead to the next world authority on religion, Hinduism.
           Hinduism has no single founder, no single scripture and no commonly agreed set of teachings. In my view Hinduism is more related to the wider field of philosophy rather than the more narrow confines of religion.
           Then I come to Buddhism. Buddhism is a nontheistic religion that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha. According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha lived and taught in the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE. He is recognised by Buddhists as an awakened or enlightened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end their suffering through the elimination of ignorance and craving. Buddhists believe that this is accomplished through direct understanding, the perception of dependent origination and the Four Noble Truths. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is the attainment of the sublime state of Nirvana, by practising the Noble Eightfold Path.
           Now I come to the linking: scientific study of a small selection of people divided     between meditators and nonmeditators has confirmed:
           • Meditation can beneficially change the inner workings and circuitry of the brain, better known as “Neuroplasticity”.
           • The happier parts of the brain (prefrontal cortex) were far more active.
           • Their brains tend to “re-organise”, which means they feel a sense of “oneness” with the world around them.
           • The brainwave patterns of the Buddhist monks were far more powerful, implying a higher level of external & internal thought.
           • Their brains had enhanced focus, memory, learning, consciousness, and “neural coordination”.
           • The monks had no anxiety, depression, addiction or anything of the sort.
           • And this is just the tip of the iceberg, the benefits of meditation are limitless…
           In short, the Buddhist monks’ brains were physically and functionally superior to those without meditation experience. Researchers believe that meditation changes the brain in the same way exercise changes the body.
         The relevance of the religions I have chosen is their significant numeracy within the world population; their historical effect upon the western world’s cultural development; their prominence in today’s world culture.
         It is significant that those of religious persuasion still outnumber those who hold “no truck” with religious opinion. More over, we have some scientific opinion upon the exercise of the mind and the physical exercise of the body and I am intending a scientific interaction between spirituality and physical reality: human health is a major part of the UK’s political debate, as is defence, education and the nature of society. This is an election in which we need to see the wider picture while carefully noting the balance of the various parts and the rate and nature of the changes taking part in our society.
         More anon!




The general conclusion appears to be that we need to increase taxes on those who can afford to pay and NOT reduce the cost of aiding those in need.

That would seem to include a proper provision for our military needs and ensuring extra taxation to meet revenue costs derived from taxpayers' REVENUE income.

Boundary clarification. How many seats and what preferred size of constituency population?

Proportional representation. Which system?

House of Lords? Should it be elected or appointed and upon what classification? Originally based on the realities of the day: Spiritual; Legal; Defence; land ownership; hereditary entitlement.

Today? Spiritual but across the faiths (define), including pure secularism/humanitarianism (all appointed/elected by their respective churches); Legal, as is; Political (variable by proven worth, such as past ministers or retired professional senior civil servants and limited party nominations); representatives of Capital, Financial Services, Labour (all either retired or active, appointed or elected by their respective accredited bodies); Education (ditto precedents stated); Health (ditto); Other?

The whole reviewable by a statutory committee reporting with recommendations to parliament on a ten yearly basis to cover relevance of classifications in the then current world. Modus operandi as at present.