The UK Turf War

Once again immigration is the topic of conversation for the UK, and as usual it hasn’t taken long for the UK press to revel in the delight of ‘scaremongering’ and ‘scapegoat’ rhetoric.

If the news is to be read literally though, it would be enough to frighten the pants off any level headed individual just going about their business; an influx of foreign workers stealing jobs and benefits, who plan to eventually take over the country for their own ends! Sounds sinister!

All of the talk, press and otherwise, does raise important questions though. Is this truth or merely scare tactics? Also, just how fair, equitable, free and humane does it all sound? It is immigration, but we are talking about people right and not merely cattle?

Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007, but now that the UK has had to lift its restrictions to their job market, fears have escalated, by what seems like over-night, to a boiling point.  Should the UK nation be afraid, is there about to be a turf war?

I was nosing around the net, wondering if all the hullabaloo was in fact worth the media frenzy. What I wanted to know was whether the people of the UK really gave a damn about who from the EU might or might not take up UK residency. It didn’t take too long to stumble upon something curious.

The below text has been copied from an actual on-line petition set out on the HM Government website. Its creator, a member of the UK public, along with 153,811 signatories, seemed to obviously feel that there indeed would be a mass of Romanian, and Bulgarian immigrants desperately making their way to the shores of the UK.

“In 2014 EU restrictions are set be removed, allowing nationals of Bulgaria and Romania ‘free movement’ to the UK. The move is similar to the one that granted access to around 600,000 Polish immigrants to enter Britain over recent years.

Despite Bulgaria and Romania joining the EU in 2005 (Savvy Senorita edit – it was 2007), restrictions were put on the number who could move to Britain. However, those restrictions will be abolished in 2014 (Savvy Senorita edit – I.E now).

Once the restrictions are lifted all new comers will entitled to claim benefits, housing, child, job seekers etc. There is currently an estimated 1.5 million people seeking work within the two countries

The impact will also put pressure on housing, infrastructure, schools, and heath care. All at a time the government are cutting pensions, jobs, public services and the armed forces.

I request the government suspends the easing on these restrictions” 

I then took a look at the newspapers. There were ample comments left upon The Daily Mail and Guardian’s websites; replies to the articles telling the world about how our MPs feel or fear about immigration. In one such article, (posted in the Guardian: link below), it was claimed that David Cameron believes that the immigration levels for Romanians and Bulgarians is now reasonable enough; the responses to this article however provided a somewhat different perspective;

“We need mass immigration as a pro business policy Cameron is completely wrong.

Think about the benefits, house prises rise make home owners wealthier and Britain can remain competitive by getting cheaper labour.

We live in an increasing globalised world and we in the EU have China to compete with. He couldn’t be more wrong.

In addition without immigration we would have to spend an exorbitant amount training our own feckless and work-shy, and the price of house keeping would rocket.

The EU must not allow him or his party to get away with such inflammatory comments”.

These quotes demonstrate two very different ideas about immigration, both of which are actual opinions held by people living in the UK.

OK, so I know there maybe those out there who feel that any level of immigration is too high, and others who think that the doors of a country ought be flung wide open (each to their own); but isn’t there a happy medium?

What I mean is, can’t we talk immigration without becoming so emotive? Can’t we leave all the scapegoating, racism and the overly P.C comments behind, and focus on what could be the real issues of immigration for the UK?

I want to ask the powers that be, and the people;

Can any country allow mass immigration? Does any country have the capacity to offer that? Is it economically viable? Could they offer employment, housing, services and support (et al) to everyone that comes to, and resides in the country?

Is immigration a one way street – the people from the poorest nations moving to the richer ones? Is immigration about making money for a country or spending money? Do we all really have freedom of movement? How many people would up-sticks and re-locate to another country? Is that even possible with the economy and the lack of job opportunities? Also, EU countries differ from the UK; different languages, educational requirements, alien benefit and health care systems which not every resident will have access to.

Why is the UK immigration fears/policies subject to mass interjection from other countries? Why has it become such a contentious subject? Every country has its own ideas regarding immigration, yet, I don’t see every country being asked to explain themselves. Is UK immigration a national or international issue? Whose country is it to govern, and make those decisions about immigration? Have the UK Government merely become some middle man in all of this, without the real power to decide what happens in their own country? More importantly, does anyone care what the public think and want?

Is the UK a ‘soft touch’ for the world? Is the UK being racist in its cautious approach to immigration?

Is the UK Government trying to appease everyone, and pleasing no-one at the same time? Is immigration a way of making amends for a shady past history as ‘colonial conquerors’, do they feel guilty?

Has the UK given up on its people – do they invest enough in what resources and talent they already have? Why would the country require an extra work-force from abroad, when the UK already has those who are in need of training/re-training, educating, employment, self-employment, good wages and steady/secure jobs? In fact, can the UK Government deal with the issues/changes and problems the country already has? Are they actually taking on too much responsibility by accepting more people they won’t be able to ‘do right by’?

Will there be a mass exodus from one country to another? Will the Romanians and Bulgarians swamp the UK, and take over the country? Why do people live in fear of immigrants stripping the country bare? Immigration is nothing new for the UK; it has always been multi-cultural and accepted people from far and wide, why then is the country now so angst ridden?

Is immigration a good business and economic policy? Is it investment and profit? Is it more people claiming benefits and abusing the system, sending money back to their families in Romania or Bulgaria? Is it escalation of crime? Is is merely public cynicism and distrust? Is it greed and shady dealings? Is it appeasement or enlightenment?

I personally feel the UK cannot close the doors to immigration, but there are certain discrepancies with how the UK handles the subject. I don’t doubt that UK immigration and policies per se are being vetoed or strangled by the EU. I question though, who benefits from all the upper echelons (in the UK and EU), wrangling amongst themselves because of their own agendas? Well, it isn’t the people they are supposed to represent and that is for certain.

I believe immigration has become a convenient red herring in many ways, an issue placed before the public to distract from the real issues on the table, the real failure of those in charge.

With or without immigration, the UK still has serious issues; how is the Government going to convince the UK public that they can do what they say they will? When all the scapegoating and smoke screens have gone, what is left? A Government who doesn’t really know what they really stand for, and which way to turn in any crisis without squabbling like children.

I wonder, when there is nothing to fight over, what remains to fight for?

I will leave you with a quote (another reply) to that article in The Guardian (I mentioned earlier in this post: link below);            

“The UK is not concentrating on “job building” it is penny wise and pound foolish, driving wages down to a minimum base and sitting complacently on a million unemployed and millions under-employed. We have so many things that need replacing and repairing, upgrading and restoring here, but the governments we have seem happy to suck up to businesses who cream profits off-shore and let the citizens scrabble around in the mire for part-time low paid work.

We have work that needs doing, but lack the courage to invest in our people to improve the quality of life for everyone”.

Check out the article at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/27/cameron-romania-bulgaria-immigration-reasonable

Spanish Anti-Abortion Move

Out with the old and in with the new? Well, not for Spain.

An abortion policy that really ought to have been condemned to the history books is soon to be revived, if Spain’s ‘Popular Party’ have their way.

The Socialism of the previous Government is the antithesis of the Popular Party. There is no room for what was. The right wing ruling machine have opted for a ‘clean’ slate’, well, if you consider corruption in economic dealings and social injustice per se, a clean slate.

Apparently, Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy has drawn his inspiration for tougher abortion laws from the Catholic Church. He is happy to publicly allay himself with the moral and ethical ‘standards’ of this religion. Well, just like in religion, adopting double standards never hurt the cause; just those following it.

So, the plan is to reinstate an outdated abortion law which keeps the religious elements appeased (70% of Spainish claim to be Catholic). The law will state that abortion will be deemed acceptable, only, in cases of rape (Spainish law is also outdated concerning this too), and if the Mother or child will suffer severe health risks.

However, laying stake to such a high moral ground seems perculiar, especially upon knowing the sexualisation within Spanish culture. Sexually transmitted infections are on the increase, affairs are common place, prostitution is ignored, couples are extremely intimate in public places, sex and nudity advertises everything, oh, and women dress scantily clad. Spanish culture is hardly demure and reserved.

So, what can such a restricted abortion law achieve?!

Seems to me as though Spain is a country with conflicting morals; two and two doesn’t necessarily make four.

To make the serious issue of abortion, the rights and freedoms of women worse, Pro-Life organisations have become involved in the mix too. 250,000 plus supporters have protested and petitioned.

One such protester, Ana Maria Llera de la Torre, spokeswoman for Adevida-Jaen Pro-Life Association told the press proudly that her organisation agreed with the Governments proposals to tighten abortion laws. She said in a recently interview; “We want to say yes to life, say yes to the birth of a son”. Ummm, how interesting. Perhaps then, Ms. Torre and her archaic attitude, would be far more sympathetic, and extend the offer of an abortion to those expectant Mothers carrying a girl child?

Such nonsensical attacks on rights, and more specifically rights of women, at this moment in time make sense; consider the economic troubles in Spain. A Government needs to be seen attempting to appease the electorate, so what better way than stamping on the vulnerable. These type of drastic and alienating policy changes are seemingly the only ones this Government is capable of making. They are reactionary, and to be honest not worth the paper it will be written upon. When so much needs to be done, abortion (for or against) is not an issue which will keep the country poor for years to come.

Priorities, por favor!

What’s So Civil About War Anyway?

Just one word, war.

OK, not yet, but the potential of such an act should be enough to warn other countries; stay the hell away. Haven’t there been enough incidents to prove this type of ‘civil’ war gets no one anywhere, this type of war drags on, kills hundreds of thousands and costs the same amount in money too.

Ample previous experience surely proves to U.S and UK governments how this war will end, badly.

Syria, will be such a war, given the chance. There will be no real or swift resolution to their problems. It would be another war neither the UK nor U.S have any business being involved with.

Why must the UK feel they have to become embroiled in such ‘fights’? Perhaps because the U.S ask them to be? Where are the rest of the world in such situations? Oh yes, staying out of it because they are sensible enough to realise they haven’t the resources, and they aren’t some super human power capable of healing the world.

I do wonder though, if the U.S or UK were having such problems (like Syria), would other countries also be so eager to rush in and help, to solve, and heal the problems? I think not.

Again, can the problems of the world be solved, and solved well enough by merely playing the war game, no.

These wars are about ego, pride, heritage, history, religion, money. These are men’s wars.

What does concern me is that so far Syria has had no qualms in killing their own people in vile and despicable ways. I wonder then what ‘joys’ will await the troops, and countries, who dare to become involved in Syrian ‘civil war’.

The only clear answer then to avoid such wasted efforts and human carnage; leave Syria to their war. Now is not the time to become part of yet another middle eastern power struggle.

Nothing is worth becoming tied up with, and into, yet another pointless ‘civil war’.

This Is Controversial

Controversially the UK is once again defending their rights to control their own boarders against mounting pressure to conform to the wishes of the EU.

This time the EU are arguing that the UK have no right to limit the rights of Romanian and Bulgarian citizens who wish to go to the UK to; work, to be housed, to have access to education, benefits and health care services.

Under EU law the UK is obliged to restrict its restrictions on immigration; the doors of the UK should not have to be prized open by all who wish to go and live there.

However there are restrictions currently in place; 29 million Romanian and Bulgarian workers have not been granted free access to live and work within the UK. These restrictions are due to expire in 2014, and now the renewal of this immigration policy is under debate; should controls against these workers wanting to go to the UK be continued or scraped??

Well, the UK Government, and a portion of the public aren’t so sure they should open the doors to the UK that wide, quite so soon. PR campaigns are even being considered by the UK Government to dissuade people from wanting to go to the UK to live and work.

There is a fear that millions of migrant workers will flood into the UK, this has prompted deep concerns for the country.

However, this is not a new argument though. It is one that has been raging in many formats since the beginning of the EU and even before that. It seems that the UK have always been rebuked for their ‘closed’ attitude toward welcoming foreign workers. Yet, since history was first documented people have come to live in the UK as migrant workers; in essence it is nothing new for the UK.

So what makes this situation different?

What is the truth behind all these restrictions, and why is it that people want to see them continue???

Why are the UK Government, and a portion of the UK public against opening the ‘flood gates’ (so to speak) to the whole of the EU???

Well immigration is, as always, a complex topic littered with speculation. The speculation concerns the exact numbers of immigrant workers who will decide to come to the UK. People wonder what this influx of immigration will bring about for the UK; how will it affect the economy and society at this moment in time.

There is a fear too; that the UK will flounder as a consequence of mass immigration. A fear that also expressing concerns over large scale immigration from one country to another would result in condemnation, and misinterpretation.

With David Cameron talking about a referendum relating to how the UK public view the UK’s future in the EU; it is perhaps quite pertinent that these new immigration arguments correspond with claims over EU manipulation and control.

Everyone is wondering just how far the UK are willing to push their individual idea about immigration. Will stand alone or merely just concede to what the EU want in the end?

So, we are now getting to the point of the real controversy; racism.

A word so often applied when immigration is discussed, and likely to be labelled upon anyone raising their voices against unregulated immigration.

Yet, race or being prejudiced against people isn’t necessarily the reason the UK are voicing opposition towards immigration. It isn’t immigration they are against per se, but the unrestricted version of this, one without controls. At the end of the day we are all subject to controls when we travel or go to live in another country; none of us are completely free to wander as we wish. So, removing controls or being told to remove the controls could be seen as unknown territory. There is always a chance that with any proposed changes to any policies, there will be unseen consequences or outcomes. In reaction to change these unknown elements are thought through thoroughly and discussed, before anything new is ever implemented.

Is this reaction racism at play, or merely politics – manoeuvring to achieve the best deal? 

Racism regarding UK immigration controls cannot be fully proven, unless you are willing to consider the rhetoric of any UK National party; which I AM NOT GOING TO, AS THEY TALK ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

The UK might be be criticised as a country selfishly looking after its own business or interests, by denying loosening its immigration controls. The UK could be seen as ignoring the needs and rights of other EU countries and their people. Yet, there are fears in the UK that with added pressures to take more migrant workers, the UK economy will crash into obscurity, and financial ruin will follow.

How can such a tiny island stay afloat?

The UK is currently suffering cuts to its health, education and public service budgets (including the police force and teachers). The economy isn’t flush; there are hundreds of thousands homeless upon the streets, 3 million people are unemployed and more being made redundant weekly it seems; people are basically struggling to pay their way and put food on the table. In fact figures show that as long ago as 2008/2009 13.5 million people were actually living below the low income threshold – which is under £300 a week (according to poverty.org.uk).

In truth the UK doesn’t have endless resources, available land for new homes, and unlimited access to services, plenty of money or jobs for everyone. It doesn’t have enough of those things for the citizens it already has. The UK needs improving for sure, and overloading it with more weight it cannot carry won’t help.

So why would anyone want to come to an already struggling country to work and live?

If people want to leave their own countries en masse in favour of any other EU country, then surely the issue is with their country of origin??? Surely that should be addressed by the EU, as there must be something fundamentally amiss in that country? Something which is failing their citizens, and forcing them to feel they have to leave to seek a better life elsewhere in the EU?

Should the UK or any other country feel obliged to take in immigrant workers from other EU countries???

Is it the UK or any other countries responsibility to do so?????

Might seem controversial to ask these questions, and yet, this is what people are saying behind closed doors. 

I don’t claim to have any of the answers – have you?

The UK has plenty of issues that need to be addressed, so, I ask again; what can the UK offer to any people from any other country, when it has so many issues of its own?

If people leave their home countries in search of a better life, that is fine and totally expected; but what better life do people expect to find in the UK?? What freedoms, incentives and privileges do other countries think the UK has to offer them that their country of origin doesn’t??

Resettling in any country where people can gain access to public services, jobs, a benefit system, a criminal prosecution service, to education, to better housing and to health care; has to be a good thing and appealing. The UK like many EU countries has all of these on offer for its citizens.

BUT,  not every country does, or if they do, these services aren’t always to the same standard as they might be in the UK.

So maybe it is these things that offers hope to people who wish to go to the UK to live??

Yet, now maybe not the best time to move anywhere within the EU, as things aren’t as good in every country as perhaps they once were. Consequently, many countries it maybe considering their own needs first, and not considering allowing more people into their countries. At this moment in time, in this economic climate, surely that is quite normal, sensible and healthy?!

Perhaps it is a case of sustain and redevelop what you already have??? Don’t gamble and don’t risk any more  or face upsetting the fine balance and making things worse for those already living in the country???

Caution around immigration is not only on the UK’s mind, so to see the UK as the enemy on this is unfair.

Other countries have far more stringent immigration policies than the UK, yet, they are not deemed to be doing anything wrong. These countries also consider their own interests, business and economy first and foremost; yet, they aren’t being called selfish and being reprimanded for not helping.

Perhaps now is not the right time to consider being lax over immigration??????????

Yet, no country could deny the benefits they have received from this either, and no one should feel they can’t re-locate to em-better their lives.

So, to sum up then; immigration has always been an issue. It is controversial topic and a tough policy to get right. It is on every countries mind, and in every countries interest to allow and also to ‘vet’. Yet, now it is ever more becoming a thorn in countries and Governments sides – to do is to be damned and to not do is to be damned.

So what are the options????

OPINIONS PLEASE!!!!!!!!!

I was just wondering what you think about immigration????

Has any country got immigration policy right????

Can there ever be a balance achieved???

Is it wrong and selfish to limit immigration???

Are the UK xenophobic????  

Alternatively; is the UK in control their own country, or is it the EU in control?

Why can’t the UK call its own shots??  

Why does the EU insist in ‘putting their fingers’ in the UK’s pie?? Reprimanding the UK for looking after itself, just exactly like other EU countries do.

YOU TELL ME……………….

Check out links below from UK media for further reading on this topic:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9835068/50000-children-overseas-getting-child-benefit-and-tax-credit-Treasury-admits.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/romanian-beggars-flooding-london-7675625.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8707490/Gang-of-Romanian-gipsy-squatters-targeted-several-houses.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/more-women-forced-into-slavery-after-change-to-immigration-law-8478998.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9840059/Why-Poles-love-coming-to-Britain.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom_since_1922

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_in_the_United_Kingdom

Why Talk Politics??

 

Does this resonate with anyone else???

 

 

What The Wealthy Want

Recession? You Need Free Market Principles.

The many strands of recession

This post comes as a direct response to a ‘conversation’ I had with another person regarding recession, current economic climate and political solutions to Government debt and failings.

My intention is not to appear biased in favour of UK political preferences or experiences. I just want to raise the topics that were initially put to me, and answer with my thought on them. So, here is the basis of the initial conversation:

‘Free Market Principles (*description located at the bottom of the post) will save the US from falling into the same problems as Europe and the UK now face’.

I have been wondering just how many of these principles, and in what measure, are actually already adopted in countries all over the globe? Could it be that countries already going through recession ignored these principles and therefore floundered? Could these principles alone be the answer to and solution for future recessions? Are a set of inflexible principles capable of such a feat? Are reasons for recession so ‘cut and dry’?

Well, the person who argued the merits of Free Market Principles used certain failings as a measuring tool to highlight what had brought about recession; unemployment, Government debt, taxing the rich, ‘big Government’ as opposed to limited Government, and the over reliance on grand scale public welfare or social welfare policies classed as the ‘Nanny State’.

Now there are issues which can be debated.

Those of you, who may read my blog, you might be already familiar with my take on the UK Government and welfare system – NHS and state benefits. See below for further links:
Poverty In The UK
The UK Welfare State
The Declining Health Of The NHS

These systems are not perfect, and I will be the first to admit that, but like anything there is more to the issues than may initially appear. That is why no issues which any country or Government face at the moment can be so easily deemed a failure or because of recession. The background information for that failure should be first discussed first.

Let me also add, no country is perfect and neither are ANY Governments. There are many mistakes made, and many issues then created as a result of bad policies or decisions.

On to my thoughts:

I am not going to break down exactly how Free Market Principles apply or should apply. As I mentioned earlier I want to see behind the reasons for failures, to talk about the ‘tools’ used as a measure of failure.

Government Debt:

Initially I question the sweeping generalisation of Government debt as a simple cause for recession. Some nations like the UK for example have had to have debt to survive 2 world wars. Without debt the country would never have scraped through such detrimental hardships brought about by the wars.

Factors that lead to any Government debt are a ‘chicken and an egg’ scenario; many issues, like those the UK faced in the war eras have been running on since that time without being fixed. Deep flaws in policies and decisions have occurred as Government has grown and changed its form over the years. The welfare State for example has its very origins in the aftermath of the 2nd World War, and since then it has out grown its initial remit, but this change has never been fully represented in the entity it has now become (I will discuss this later). Hence, issues linking to failure.

In most countries there will be hidden issues, plastered over cracks that once recession hits them, they become highlighted and exasperated; these cracks then become huge holes, for example issues with unemployment. These issues may have been left lingering until a recession hits; when a country or Government is under the most scrutiny, then the issues have to be seen to be dealt with, then they gain attention.

Factors for unemployment do include going through a recession:

Yes, but other factors can lead to the final breaking point. Rapid changes in technology, disability, changes in business, changes in supply and demand, attitude towards employers, willingness to work, immigration, climate change, migration, perception of employees, employee values, discriminating factors in the place of work (may include discrimination on the basis of age, class, ethnicity, colour and race) and ability to look for employment all effect the figures initially before any recession begins.

Taxation is never a favourable topic:

Raising taxes is not especially popular either, and when the wealthy of the country are going to be effected, then that is seen as damn right outrageous. I will bring in France here: French Prime Minister has said there will be a 75% tax rate for people earning more than 1m Euros.

Now I don’t necessarily agree with the tax level France is opting for, but people should be taxed according to what they earn. Wealthier people shouldn’t have a free pass just because they bring ‘wealth’ into the country, because so does everyone who works and contributes to the economy of the country. It is merely that the wealthy have more money to be taxed or contribute to a country with, but they are part of the country too. The ordinary working person is affected more by fluctuations in tax during recession; on their salary and goods, and it is them who are generally Struggling To Make Ends Meet

Perhaps France opted for this tax increase for the wealthy as they didn’t wish to impose harsh cuts on public services that would affect the whole country. Look at the UK and the ‘Geddes Axe’; recommended slashing government spending in precisely the way today’s believers in ‘expansionary austerity’ recommend in time of rescission. Did it work for the UK in the 1920’s, no and consequently this spiralled UK’s debt levels. Pre First World War debt levels weren’t attained again until 1990. So cutting Government public spending isn’t always the answer.

Public services are a drain in times of recession though:

Well they have been a drain for years and why, well there are complex reasons. Let me concentrate on the UK’s NHS. This system has evolved over the years; peoples changing lifestyles, higher populations, larger catchment areas, more diagnoses of illnesses before unrecognised, Doctors running National Health and Private surgeries which clash, not enough medical staff, privatisation of the 1980’s, rising wages, Primary Care Trusts and the amount of ‘pen pushing’ bureaucrats hampering Government money being spent where it needs to be. In the UK ‘big Government’ as opposed to the limited version is not to blame for the failings, but rather that Government hasn’t enough of a hold and control over proceedings. They haven’t a clue what is going, and therefore the whole system has become lax, un-scrutinized and out of control. It is a lack of grasping the changes and implementing a policy that reflects this that causes the trouble, not recession.

The NHS is not perfect, but again neither is for example the US system, and the US isn’t in a recession like the UK. People in the US can’t afford insurance (30 million of them to be precise). So, how can limited Government eradicate any of these issues for any country?

OK let’s talk about who likes Free Market Principles.

Well, the conservatives who claim to have a profound love of them have no use for them; professing fealty to the markets is only a rhetorical strategy. Some would say they favour policies that distort the market in such a way that income and wealth flows to those at the top, but given that most people who cast votes in elections are not among that rarefied few, they have no desire to defend those policies on their merits. So, do they have a place in a society where the majority struggle to live??

But big Government ruins the countries wealth:

I feel a Government needs to know what is going on in their country, not be blind to it (I argue they are blind enough). It is a Governments duty to ensure its citizens when in need, receive help in the form of public services. They are there to respond to needs or why else do we elect them? What is the need for Government per se if they have no role in the country they govern?

I think everyone should be ensured they have a slice of the cake in the 21st century, even if it is a small slice, better than starving to death under the premise of ‘we can’t intervene we are a limited Government’.

People should not be allowed to flounder and disappear just like dust under a carpet; just because they aren’t a member of the ‘select committee’ (the wealthy) in society.

Boom and bust is worse under principles advocating intervention:

Well maybe, but then under a limited Government where there is no intervention is anything truly invested in; anything other than protecting and encouraging wealth? Pursuit of wealth above public needs can be detrimental to a flourishing society, as it reflects and encourages only a certain percentage of people and people’s lives. Not everyone can be wealthy, not everyone’s lives run smoothly.
I for one don’t want a return to a Dickensian way of life, I think I prefer intervention.

*Free Market Principles:
Individual Rights, Limited Government, Equal Justice Under Law, Spontaneous Order, Private Ownership, Subsidiary and the Golden Rule of honesty. Yet I am not going to focus on whether or not these principles, word for word, do impact and can solve recession. Instead I am going to think about reasons

Sling Your Hook UN

Could this be the Internet of the future?

What typifies freedom of speech? The internet maybe, perhaps so but all that could change under proposals to reform the Information and Communications Treaty of 1998 by the UN.

Gary Shapiro, president of the US’s Consumer Electronics Association, told the BBC;
“Many countries are used to getting revenue from telephone calls, and those telephone calls have gone away in favour of various internet-based video services which don’t produce revenue for them.”

“So they are looking to recover it and they are trying to put a charge on incoming internet access. So if you have a website which is very popular worldwide you would have to pay to get access to them – we think that is wrong”.

“We think the value of the internet is that it is available to everyone for free without international barriers.”

Google agree and are imploring people to sign their petition against such possible moves. After all who would benefit from curtailing any avenue of free speech, well, the very Governments who profess to adhere to such policies of course. These Governments are the ones who will decide the fate of the free and open internet, not you the user.

In fact any agreed new powers could authorise any Government to cut internet access, block sites and content; in effect censoring what their people can publish on-line and access.

Are you ready to say goodbye to your favourite sites? Maybe including this one?

Below is the link to Google’s on-line petition:

Take Action Google’s Petition

Another Day Another Strike

‘Se Vende’ or For Sale – pertinent sign to denote how staff feel about proposals

Regional Government in Madrid performed an unexpected back track on their plans to reform the structure and function of La Princesa hospital in the capital.

On October 31, regional Popular Party (PP) premier Ignacio González announced that the pioneering research hospital, which has stood for more than 150 years, would be turned into a specialist centre for the treatment of over 75’s only.

This was a shock, considering La Princesa is my local hospital. Also upon visiting there I couldn’t quite believe how busy the place was; it is not as though the services it provides the community aren’t sorely needed. Without treating adults of all ages, where else would the patients go? Surely another hospital couldn’t cope with stresses and strains of extra people to attend to, not to mention to services that would be lost to the community if La Princesa was made ‘redundant’ of its current functions.

The reason for La Princesa’s importance in my local area is that it offers the community 40 specialist treatments, which include; brain surgery, facial reconstruction surgery, and thoracic and cardiac treatments. Also, the population it serves exceeds a quarter of a million (just within its catchment area).

La Princesa is an important piece of the public service jigsaw. A large ‘player’ to try and maim without backlash.

This Government has proposed health cuts previously, and they didn’t go down well with the populace either; so what were they thinking? Well, they they haven’t been obviously as it seems a panicked move to quickly ‘save money’. A false economy in the long run though, with more people unemployed, less health care, more illness and strained services; kind of like cutting of your nose to spite your face.

If the Government had listened at all to the messages of the previous strikes and protests, they would have realised and taken seriously how their electorate felt about such cuts. Yet, they haven’t. So, on the 16th November I was out and about in the evening, and managed to witness another massive protest carried out by the staff and patients of La Princesa. It was moving to watch.

The people were obviously frightened that the hospital would close; losing the services it provides and lose staff. Health care is a vital public services, and public services in any recession are essential for the life blood of the country and the Government. To meddle without good cause will create havoc in the community, and soon make any political party unfavourable. It seems ridiculous to merely chop away in such a careless fashion at a service much required.

Crying for La Princesa

There has even been a petition gained of over 200,000 signatures, one signatory was Madrid’s Mayor Ana Botella. Showing how far the discontent reaches with Government proposals.

From the retaliation of the community, and the hospital staff, PP representatives of the Madrid region’s health department met with The Hospital Workers’ Committee. Funnily enough after this there was a backtrack on the original scheme to curtail La Princesa’s range of services. A concord was reached that the hospital will retain its current status, and continue to treat adults of all ages, and the teaching and investigation it performs too.

Labour unions however remain sceptical and continue to accuse the regional government of acquiescing to private businesses. Allowing private companies free rein to manage the hospitals, although the buildings are being constructed with public money.

These fears have credence as premier Ignacio González proposals already highlight; administration of six recently built hospitals will be soon tendered out to the private sector. More saving money, yes, that and more cuts to the budget. Planned healthcare spending in the region for next year has been cut by seven percent (which is roughly 45% of the budget for health for next year). So this is indeed another attempt to save money, and repay Spanish debt; but at a cost to health and well-being.

Though there has been a Government opinion ‘turn around’ on La Princesa, protests will continue. The people want this ‘turn around’ to be presented formally and documented in writing.

Does that denote a severe lack of distrust for this ‘Popular Party’ Government (ironic name)? Yes, I think so. I suppose their track record already supersedes their words.

If you like my post, just SHARE it 🙂

Copy Right Notice:
© Bex Houghagen and The Savvy Senorita, 2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Bex Houghagen and The Savvy Senorita with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Poverty In The UK

Child poverty on the increase in the UK

‘Family breakdown, drug addiction, debt and education results are among the factors that could be used to measure child poverty in future, UK Government ministers say’ BBC News.

This reality check comes after the findings of The Institute for Fiscal Studies released their two year projection for how child poverty in the UK will rise by 400,000.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith responded by saying that the current income-based method of measuring poverty is too simple, therefore new indicators have to be agreed upon to measure this thoroughly.

Wow, is all I can say; and it took a UK Government how long exactly to realise that the measures relied upon to indicate poverty were failing? Where have they been hiding all these decades? Oh, of course, behind the curtain of their lives of privilege. Doesn’t this highlight just how out of touch these ‘leaders’ are with their own electorate?

Salary alone means nothing to poverty indicators; nothing is so ‘cut and dry’. I have mentioned this before; Poverty In The 21st Century

People can be working full time, and still drop below the poverty line because of; general household bills, unemployment, benefit reliance, family breakdown, increase in food prices, increase in travel prices and fuel, debt, house repayments, childcare, how large the family is, so on and so on.

At the moment a child in the UK is considered to be living in poverty if the household income is £251 per week or less. This then equates to 2.3 million children living in poverty. Now considering that as a fact which stands alone, too many children are in poverty; but now add that to the other indicators above, which are currently not being included in the poverty measures. Now I’d say that 2.3 million is looking severely under estimated as a figure; so low in fact I doubt any Government would like to consider the reality of the poverty that blights the UK!

All in all it is a nice figure to dwell upon, considering the UK is supposed to be a ‘developed’ country, wealthy and upwardly mobile! Seems to me that propaganda has never been so alive and well in Politics. It is just a question of whose faith Government ministers are trying to maintain; their electorates or their own?

Children in Poverty

Many decisions have been criticised as increasing child poverty, but one factor has been blamed as highly significant; freezing child benefit. The Labour Party have now warned that by 2020 the UK would return to “sky-high levels of child poverty” unless the Government made changes to this and other areas. Yet, with or without child benefit people would be poor. Child benefit is hardly enough to compensate for dire wages, high levels of debt, rising living costs and all the other things that make a person/family poor!!!!! Benefits are not the answer to the root of the problems.

So, I wonder what has finally brought the issue of poverty to the table of plenty. Well, the Labour Party’s ‘picking’ at the current Conservative/Liberal Democrat Government no doubt has provided some encouragement. Shadow Employment minister Stephen Timms has been also blowing the trumpet of his own Labour Party Government; reminding the electorate of what a mistake they made in not re-electing them, laugh out loud!

Mr Timms has said that there had been a; “Big reduction of over a million in the number of children below the poverty line” when Labour held Government, and since the new Government gained power; “that number is now going up”.

Yet, what has any Government really done to improve the people’s lives? What one policy really has impacted on decreasing poverty in all its formats; from homelessness to child poverty? Answer, nothing substantial. They are good at bickering amongst themselves, blaming one another and scoring points; but facing the facts and dealing with then once in power, well, that is another story altogether! It doesn’t matter what Government is in power, things don’t significantly change for the people.
The major changes which are now creating significant impacts in policies, and reflecting poorly upon the UK Government is the economic crisis and austerity measures. Who knew this could be a positive thing?! This ‘series of unfortunate events’ has been a real kick in their rear; yet, people are still suffering, and not even the economic crisis has motivated the Government enough, well, yet anyway.
What will it take to make the Government change things??? How dire must it become for people, their people??

OK, so the Government has plans to carry out a consultation to consider what other factors need to be included to measure poverty. Yet, this is merely more time and money wasted, while people still live in poverty!

Even ‘The Child Poverty Action Group’ have raised concerns over this consultation, and proposed additions to the current salary measurement. They have questioned whether further indicators to mark poverty would only make defining it too broad and non specific (we all know the Government don’t deal with complicated very well). This too broad and non specific could only grant a free pass to any Government; they would then not be held accountable for any failings which could occur in this area. It would then be merely life in general to blame, not Government polices and taxation. A Government can’t interfere with life, the ‘free market’, capitalism or whatever else they can use as an excuse.

Anyway, while the Government bicker and decide to decide, poverty continues as it always has. A grim reminder that life isn’t all peaches and cream.

If you like my post please share it 🙂

Copy Right Notice:
© Bex Houghagen and The Savvy Senorita, 2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Bex Houghagen and The Savvy Senorita with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.