Britain won’t turn its back on Africa following Brexit (29.11.2016)

rsa-afraid

There is clearly a need in the aftermath of Brexit for there to be a degree of reassurance given to Africa that Brexit doesn’t mean that the United Kingdom is going to turn its back on Africa.

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia, November 29, 2016 -Brexit does not mean that the British government will turn its back on Africa, Lord Paul Boateng, a Member of the United Kingdom’s House of Lords said Monday.

Speaking at the first ever Africa Trade Forum which is being hosted by the Economic Commission for Africa and the African Union, Mr. Boateng said Brexit presents Africa and the UK with an opportunity to “put development at the heart of our trading relationship with Africa in a way frankly that it has not always been in relation to the EPAs, let’s be frank about it”.

“The UK recognizes that and we will seek every opportunity to minimize the disruption in our trading relationship and take every opportunity to seize this chance to re-fashion the relationship between the UK and Africa in terms of trade so intra-African trade becomes an opportunity which we can seize together,” he said.

Contributing to debate on Africa-E.U. Economic and Trade Cooperation and Brexit implications for Africa, Mr. Boateng assured participants, including African Ministers of Trade, Finance and Transportation as well as senior government officials, heads of Regional Economic Communities (RECs), African CEOs and executives, representatives of international development agencies, civil society and others, that trade relations between the UK and Africa will not be affected following Brexit.

“There is clearly a need in the aftermath of Brexit for there to be a degree of reassurance given to Africa that Brexit doesn’t mean that the United Kingdom is going to turn its back on Africa and I’m able to assure you that right across the political divide in the UK, in both Houses, Africa and the UK’s historic link with Africa remains central to our thinking,” he said.

“Yes there’s uncertainty at this time, that is inevitable, when such a momentous decision is made,” SAID Mr. Boateng.

“Yes there is a hazard always when you think about the scale of the task that lies ahead in terms of mapping out the future of the trading relationship between the UK and Africa but I think I can give the absolute assurance that we see this in the UK as an opportunity to be seized.”

He said he was concerned by the issue of infrastructure in most African countries. Mr. Boateng was born and brought up in the Gold Coast in Ghana.

“I am the grandson of cocoa and cassava farmers. My grandmother grew cassava, my grandfather grew cocoa and when I look at our village in Tafo in the eastern region of Ghana, two things strike me, first of all, that in the 1950s there was a direct rail link between Tafo, a heart of cocoa growing region and Takoradi, which at that time was our main port,” he told participants.

“That rail link no longer exists and that has had a damaging effect on agriculture in Ghana but Ghana is not alone in seeing the deterioration of its infrastructure so the United Kingdom recognizes the importance of infrastructure in terms of promoting intra-African trade.”

“The second matter which I can’t but help notice, he said, is that right next door to my grandmother’s farm was a West African Cocoa Research Institute and that was a major resource for West Africa in terms of agricultural support and extension and research at the highest level so it produced every year a handful of PhDs now sadly due to decades of neglect and the impact of the structural adjustment of the 70s and the 80s, that emphasis on higher education and the link between higher education, science, technology and innovation and agriculture simply went now we are seeking to revisit that but I would argue that that too is a very important part of our struggle in order to increase agricultural productivity of Africa.” 

“Without that we are going to be in difficulties but the good news is it seems to me that is changing and the UK and our department of international development is making its contribution to that,” Mr. Boateng said.

Participants will be in Addis Ababa for the week attending the first ever Africa Trade Week, a multi-stakeholder platform for the advancement of the Continental Free Trade Area (CFTA). And intra-African Trade.

Brexit: Labour has plans to counter the non-existence “Moving-On” plans of the Tories!

yougov-poll-on-voting-intentions-in-different-brexit-scenarios-790x395

Its days after and just two weeks after leaked Memo that said how little plans the Conservative Party or Tories Government had. So this report is a answer to that. Like the certain quote of the memo:

“The divisions within the Cabinet are between the three Brexiteers on one side and Philip Hammond/Greg Clark on the other side. The Prime Minister is rapidly acquiring the reputation of drawing in decisions and details to settle matters herself – which is unlikely to be sustainable. Overall, it appears best to judge who is winning the debate by assuming that the noisiest individuals have lost the intra-Government debate and are stirring up external supporters” (Sky News, 2016).

When the matter comes into the light like this; it’s fruitful to see that the major Opposition Party have now showed alternative path or at-least thought things through where they have propositions to a counter-party that doesn’t care for fulfilling their mandate and exercising the vote of the people.

Theresa May, was voted into the Parliament to be MP and not a PM. Therefore she might forget how to get the popular vote and get consensus. Here is one set of ideas and suggestions to how to make amends of the Brexit. This is worth listening to and also reading to get ideas of how to fix the problems of the European Union and the United Kingdom. Take a look!

Infrastructure Policy:

“So what should be done? Brexit offers British policy-makers the opportunity to step back and examine the future direction of infrastructure and housing policy. The Autumn Statement should be used signal a change in direction towards an economic strategy which uses infrastructure and housing policy as a tool to boost growth and productivity in regions that have suffered a lack of investment” (Moving On, P: 12, 2016). “Ignore this problem and it is clear that unity in our divided country will be even further away. Accept the challenge, take steps to rebalance investment, and the United Kingdom has half a chance at sticking together“ (Moving On, P: 14, 2016).

Working Policy:

“First, he should do all that he can to stimulate investment in innovation. Coming up with new ideas, products and services which the rest of the world wants to buy is the best way we can remain internationally competitive post Brexit without seeking to pursue an alternative strategy, advocated by those on the Right, of making our labour markets ever more flexible and embarking on a race to the bottom on people’s terms and conditions of work. Innovation will also help improve UK productivity which is 18% below the G7 average, the largest gap since 1991 when the ONS started collecting such data” (Moving On, P: 19, 2016). “Limited digital connectivity is one of the biggest barriers to business and Ofcom estimates that 1 in 5 small business premises will still not be able to access superfast broadband without further action from government. The Universal Service Obligation – which sets a target of all homes having 10MB per second speeds by 2020 is nowhere near ambitious enough – a more ambitious target and timeframe for delivery should be set if Britain is to be at the forefront of the fourth industrial revolution” (Moving on, P: 22, 2016). “The biggest boost he could provide is by declaring that the Government’s goal during the Brexit negotiations is to continue with the UK’s membership – not just access to – the European Single Market, as I set out in my speech to the Centre for Progressive Capitalism last month” (Moving on, P: 24, 2016).

Skills/Education:

“The National Audit Office for instance has recommended that the Department of Education should set out the planned overall impact of its apprenticeships policy on productivity and growth, along with short-term key performance indicators to measure the programme’s success. The Government must also adequately fund welfare-to-work in the Autumn Statement, get a grip on inclusive regional growth and ensure that welfare-to-work helps those in areas with high unemployment and not just those who find it easiest to get back into work. As the Science and Technology Select Committee has said, the Government should now publish its Digital Strategy policy without further delay and include goals for developing better basic digital skills and increasing digital apprenticeships as well as providing a framework through which the private sector can more readily collaborate with communities and local authorities to raise digital skills in local SMEs” (Moving On, P: 30, 2016).

Welfare:

“The ‘digital skills gap’ meanwhile has been estimated as costing the economy £63 billion a year in lost additional GDP. Also holding us back from the high tech economy of the future is the lack of new engineering and technology recruits meeting employers’ expectations. We are also facing an engineering ‘retirement cliff’ with the average engineer currently in their fifties.18 According to the Engineering UK 2016 report, engineering employers have the potential to generate an additional £27 billion per year from 2022 but only if we can meet the forecasted demand for 257 000 new engineering vacancies.19 And these are exactly the type of professions we need to build our industries and export to the world after we leave the European Union” (Moving On, P: 28, 2016).

Welfare II:

“Firstly, he must reverse cuts to Universal Credit (UC) and restore confidence after the programme’s chaotic introduction so it genuinely provides an incentive to work. Secondly, the Chancellor has to do more to help parents join or re-join the workforce and give every child the best start in life. We should move towards a system of universal free childcare for all working parents of pre-school children, starting with free childcare for all two year olds” (…) “There is also a worrying picture on pay progression too. Universal Credit was intended to help workers move onto higher pay levels, as well as get a job in the first place. But as the Resolution Foundation has said “implementation realities scuppered the ambition of the design”. The likely result is that UC will leave an increasing number of workers stuck on the minimum wage when they should be looking to earn more” (Moving On, P: 32-34, 2016).

Championing Key Sector:

Because Brexit austerity could last beyond a conventional economic cycle, it will require fundamental policy change and supply-side efforts to counteract. Take, for example, the risks now hanging over the financial services sector – which represents 12% of our economic output, nearly two million jobs in the UK and which generates £67billion of revenues for the public purse. It’s not simply a case of having an ‘industrial strategy’ to play to this core comparative advantage for the UK. We will need to negotiate long term access to EU markets where a whole series of product lines face the prospect of being banned and outlawed. Should this turn out to be the case, and the cluster of specialisms in UK financial centres erode with core competences like clearing relocating to Frankfurt or to New York, then we lose a vital skills infrastructure as well as year by year corporation and income tax revenues” (Moving On, P: 38, 2016).

“So we should test the Autumn Statement for whether it counteracts the looming Brexit austerity and whether it can deliver access and opportunities for sectors under threat, like financial services. Yes, there are reforms still needed to many of the tax regimes in which the financial services sector operate. Some lucrative practices need loopholes closing – for instance in the taxation of financial spread betting or old Osborne legacies such as the wasteful ‘shares for rights’ dodge that is rife for abuse” (Moving On, P: 2016).

This here shows the proofs that the Labour Party can have things that works for the nation, if they get people to believe it, but the simplistic dogma of the Tories is sold to the commoners like coke and cheddar cheese, while the Labour Party message is a rock to hit your head instead of being served feasible to the public. Therefore the Labour has to change their ways of sending their message and make sense to the ones blinded by the PM May and her deceptive tone of arrogance from White Hall. Peace.

Reference:

Alison McGovern MP, Chuka Umunna MP, Shabana Mahmood MP, Rachel Reeves MP & Chris Leslie MP – ‘Moving on – A Labour approach to the post-Brexit economy’ (November 2016)

Sky News – ‘Leaked memo shows Government’s lack of Brexit plans’ (15.11.2016) link: http://news.sky.com/story/leaked-memo-shows-governments-lack-of-brexit-plans-10658063/revision/1479197701

Opinion: Leaked Memo shows that PM May and her Cabinet has a true disregard for the Brexit!

may-on-brexit

There are some days that just have to grow upon you, as the news we’re coming on the matter, Davis Davis, the Member of Parliament who was named and appointed to be the Brexit Minister of Davis Michael Davis. As long as you have loudmouth Foreign Secretary for the United Kingdom Boris Johnson, another Brexiteer who hasn’t delivered anything that matter on the Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty or anything else.

So the Conservative Party under Prime Minister Theresa May has a Cabinet that doesn’t even consider the Brexit vote and the public wish to leave the European Union. Something the backbenchers of the Conservative Party didn’t fight for anyway. Except for the ones who renegaded against the than PM David Cameron.

So the months has gone, and September there we’re even reports that Brexit Minister Davis Davis we’re living the life of lavish MP, but not acting upon the election that offered him the job in the government.

So he has been a ghost and undetermined person. As shown with the words of the leaked memo yesterday: “The divisions within the Cabinet are between the three Brexiteers on one side and Philip Hammond/Greg Clark on the other side. The Prime Minister is rapidly acquiring the reputation of drawing in decisions and details to settle matters herself – which is unlikely to be sustainable. Overall, it appears best to judge who is winning the debate by assuming that the noisiest individuals have lost the intra-Government debate and are stirring up external supporters” (SkyNews, 2016).

2016_36-brexiteers-webr

The PM May has to sort out her house and make sure the dishes is washed inside the kitchen before the food is served. Brexiteers hasn’t seemed to pushed hard if the dishes are just staying dirty and not worked on. And the PM May doesn’t seem interested in change the state of affairs, because she want to steer the ship herself without listening to the cabinet, that will be a good leader, but a selfish one it seem.

“Individual Departments have been busily developing their projects to implement Brexit, resulting in well over 500 projects, which are beyond the capacity and capability of Government to execute quickly. One Department estimates that it needs a 40% increase in staff to cope with its Brexit projects. In other words, every Department has developed a “bottom up” plan of what the impact of Brexit could be – and its plan to cope with the “worst case”. Although necessary, this falls considerably short of having a “Government plan for Brexit” because it has no prioritisation and no link to the overall negotiation strategy” (SkyNews, 2016).

So there is no distinctive negotiation strategy for the Brexit, as the Prime Minister Theresa May already proven to be selfish and wanting to take the decisions on her own, instead of listening to the ones she has appointed for her cabinet. This proves the little value the PM has in her own as she doesn’t care for listening to Secretary for Brexit Davis or anybody else.

brexit-united-kingdom-uk-and-european-union-eu-export-and-import-total

Departments are struggling to come up to speed on the potential Brexit effects on industry. This is due to starting from a relatively low base of insight and also due to fragmentation – Treasury “owning” financial services, DH-BEIS both covering life sciences, DCMS for telecoms, BEIS most other industries, DIT building parallel capability focused on trade etc” (SkyNews, 2016).

Another one of the nonsense that the Departments are not focused or working together to know the effects of an actual leaves the European Union and the trading with the Member States of the EU. How the Departments are effected by Brexit that should be checked and made sure by the Ministers and through the back-channels to make sure the Industry are getting a good as possible place with their trade. Instead of finding out the real potential of the industrial production and the needed changes that might be there after the actual Brexit.

“Industry has two unpleasant realisations – first, that the Government’s priority remains its political survival, not the economy – second, that there will be no clear economic-Brexit strategy any time soon because it is being developed on a case-by-case basis as specific decisions are forced on Government” (SkyNews, 2016).

So another statement showing the disgraceful attempt of silencing internal movement of the Brexit; they didn’t show any clear economic-Brexit strategy, but the decisions are not made as there is apparently no will for the Cabinet and Conservative Party Government and the PM May. That shows the disrespect the Government that been made after the PM David Cameron showed grace and stepped down. Because he had no real plan to leave the Union he had cooperated so well with during his years in Cabinet and in Parliament.

Peace.

Reference:

Sky News – ‘Leaked memo shows Government’s lack of Brexit plans’ (15.11.2016) link: http://news.sky.com/story/leaked-memo-shows-governments-lack-of-brexit-plans-10658063/revision/1479197701

Opinion: A failed rebellion from the Labour MPs as the Members votes to keep Jeremy Corbyn!

labour-ballot-2016

The United Kingdom politics seems to have changed a lot since the Brexit Election. Theresa May thinks she the second coming to the Queen and tries to the Iron Lady while triumphant acts like a winner; even if she just inherited the honourable Prime Minister government and traded seats to loyalist for her. Well, other news has been the disgraceful and despicable attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and his allies in the Labour Party. The Main Opposition party that has been under fire for their activity and nativity under the Brexit campaign; that has backfired on the central leadership and ended is disarray in the socialist party.

There we’re very few MPs in Public who we’re behind Jeremy Corbyn like Kate Osamor and few other rare Members of Parliament that we’re silent through the storm after the Brexit.

This happens as the knowledge of the rebel MPs who fled the ship and wanted to axe their leader without any concern of how recently he was elected. These we’re the likes of Peter Kyle, Emma Lewell-Buck, Peter Glass, Chris Evans, Heidi Alexander, Steve Reed, Lucy Powell, Ruth Smeeth, David Wayne, Chris Bryant, Ian Murray, Jess Phillips, Andy Slaughter, Lillian Greenwood and Angela Eagle. All of these MPs wrote letters resigning from the Shadow Cabinet and later worked to do what they could to marginalize their leader. They even had a vote in Parliament where they Opposition voted no-confidence in Corbyn.

In a big party as Labour there would be natural that their more than one major wing. In the Labour Party of United Kingdom, you have the Blairites, the once that you cannot spot the difference between if they are Liberal-Democrats (Lib-Dem) or Conservative Party (Tories) as they acts are the same, but hints of collective consideration when they need too. Than you have the Right-Wing socialist and Labour Unionist that is core bases of the Party. These two wings are the ones that have fought for control of the party. The Legacy of Tony Blair and his New Labour is hunting the Party like a vindictive disease that it cannot kill off. Instead the internal squabbles strengthen the Theresa May government and her brash tone towards the world. While the looking non-member possible voter feels that Labour Party is not the first choice because they cannot control themselves.

There been enough scandals and wrong methods from the leadership under Corbyn. But he has been a backbencher and not a key player until late. The once behind him and the core leadership should have backed him and given him better advice and made sure that certain Anti-Semite slurs wouldn’t be associated with the party and some of the MPs who are loyal to Corbyn. As much as Corbyn should have used a stronger force in the Brexit campaign to gain momentum for what he believed in at that junction. But let’s be clear, the coup d’état that the Shadow Cabinet Ministers are not how to run a party; it is how to ruin a party. Some of these should just flee the Labour Party; ask for forgiveness in their role of disfranchising the Unions and Members of the Party. Or be noble and find a new home. The rebel MPs should beg for forgiveness for weakening the party and their causes. This has wasted time and efforts for the cost of Labour.

labour-right-in-racist-attack

The Corbyn Administration better use the time wisely and enter a method of sending their message and making sure programs offered the public can be sold and understood in Brighton and in Swindon.

Certainly the rebel MPs are the key losers today, but also the party because of the internal destruction and maladministration that has led to this effort. The Labour Party can become vital if their principals are in order and if the leadership are true to their balanced message. In a big party as Labour if there weren’t fractions, we as followers of them should be worried. Than there would an authoritarian leader who demands what the rest of the party should think and have on their mind.

If the Corbyn Administration doesn’t handle the rebels, then the friction between them will continue until next election. Even if the Theresa May Cabinet postpones the Article 50 into oblivion as she really wants to and just having a Brexit Minister and having boy-scout Boris Johnson proud-cocking around Europe to ask for forgiveness for his previous insults of the past. Even with all this in mind Corby and his loyal leadership around him has to consolidate and get a clear message, while handling the men and woman who did what they could to oust him. They tried to have both MP Angela Eagle and MP Owen Smith instead of him. The reaction of the matter is now clear as the Members wish to have Jeremy Corbyn longer staying with the helmet.

Certain tabloids and media houses should ask mercy to Corbyn for their attitude and stinking press of slur of ignorance and fixation on getting him axed. Like they wanted to destabilize the party in the wish to strengthen May Government! It isn’t just me who see that clear vindictive attitude of British press towards Corbyn? It was factory made press of banality and obstructive behaviour that we’re out of this world. The only one getting as much bad press, but deservingly so is Donald Trump and he speaks venom; that is not the ways of Corbyn.

observer-khan-corbyn

Let’s be clear, if the Labour Party wants to be serious contender and become a Party of the People again. Then they have to consolidate and retaliate with fierce precision against the rebels while giving them limited options. MP Owen Smith can now go back to his constituency and try to win over with this lobbyist smile and “make this election the most important in the party history”.

If Labour want to reign again, then they have to go internally and fix, amend and show progress of stature and credible socialist message that can bring belief of a better future for workers, households and industry. Not only trading the Blairites for getting voters now. Corbyn, congratulation on your second victory in Inner-Party Election; now it is time to work! Peace.  

Margallo Continues personal obsession with Gibraltar (31.08.2016)

Gibraltar 31.08.2016 P1Gibraltar 31.08.2016 P2

Opinion: PM May cannot play second fiddle with Brexit; She cannot carry dissidents in her own Union; While drinking tea on the continent!

EU UK Flags

Let it be clear the race for leaving the European Union will not be an easy on for the United Kingdom and their noblest of men. They need to be calm, steady and hope that none of the other in their Union abandoned the ship called the UK. If they do so… it is not a United Kingdom, but British Isles. And that is a downer being the PM when the mainland got chopped in half and 300 year old Union went bonkers.

Not only Nicola Sturgeon in the SNP that doesn’t want to be disfranchised from the European Union and its graces; as the Scottish people are people who export their trade of either salmon, oil or something else. Not only getting Trident in their backyard as the defence with nuclear weapons happens to be there… I am sure Theresa May doesn’t want a backhanded slap and feel snubbed by a fellow British politician. Since Sturgeon has her loyalty in Glasgow and Edinburgh, not in the City of London, therefore the struggle for PM May to understand that she doesn’t get votes from Norfolk or Suffolk, but from Scottish constituency.

Gerry Adams

The same issue she has with the Republic of Ireland and their leadership as they don’t want to leave other Irish people behind, as the Northern Ireland and their leader Gerry Adams is not interested in losing the greener pastures of EU, than being even more controlled by London. So that him speaking of possibility of leaving UK, is even more worrying of PM May as she doesn’t only has disregard from Edinburgh, but now from Belfast as they are courted by Dublin and get into the European Union by unification of the Irish people and the whole Irish island. From a split and divide island into one united Irish Republic, something that must boggle the post-colonial British and minds of Boris Johnson.

It is so weird to see Boris Johnson trying to have tact and bravado after disgracing the British public and addressing fellow human beings wrong on the African Continent and disregarding the European Union, but he is not the only partner in softening the relationship with the world. As PM May also appointed Brexit Minister David Davis. David Davis must work slowly nowadays as the Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, gives ability for a country to disembark from the European Union as the Membership. So as long as that is put on the back-burner and trying to negotiate with fellow allies. The UK PM May have not a lesser hard road, as she cannot bully her own as she done with Jeremy Corbyn; while trying to win sympathy around the island.

Sadiq Khan

The PM May might been a hard an stubborn Minister in the PM Cameron’s cabinet, but as PM she should be careful as the Scottish and Northern Irish counterparts that has another play might not give in to the treats of London. The Treats of London lost their value when they accepted to willingly while getting free-trade and open borders with the Schengen-Treaty. While she has not even tried to discuss with new Mayor of London Sadiq Khan who wants more autonomy from the United Kingdom as they voted like Northern Ireland and Scotland. Secondly City of London, the business and bank trading is based with investors from abroad and with more closed borders. With more closed border equals less investors who aren’t really welcome since they are foreigners now and not as welcomed as before. They rather invest in Madrid or Paris instead of London.

The mind-set of sweet-talking of future plans with Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Francois Hollande can speak for themselves. But having a PM trip around Europe to be smiling and looking like she takes it seriously, while downplaying the terms of Article 50; seems more like play for the façade than actual actions to honour the pledge of the British Referendum vote of 2016.

Stansted to the World

The business that went down right after the Vote have come back, but the corporations and such are in worry of the signs of the future. What will bring and how long with the negotiations and how far the taxations will, the exports and the limitations be between United Kingdom and the European Union. Certainly, the problems are coming as even Michael O’Leary of Ryanair have today said he would less flights from Standsted (London Airport) to Europe in relation to the Brexit. Even if the Bank of England agents said to the Guardian yesterday that they had resumed to ‘Business as Usual’. The reality is that for a time being there will be limbo between the vacuum of being an EU Member State and becoming maybe part of the European Economic Community or the European Free Trade Association. With this they will maybe secure more their borders, but the trade-off will not be cheap.

The reason I say so is that European Parliament that have been under fire from Nigel Farage and UKIP. An all the other nationalists in Europe as they want to see France, Netherlands and other nations also out of the Union; still with that in mind EU Commissioner Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg might become more diplomatic and act more of statesman. Since the Brexit blunder and the promised leave the Union the acts from him as been measly and worrying.

If the clause of possible leaves we’re only made in the Lisbon Treaty to be there as fulfilled agreement; then the Lisbon Treaty we’re a compromised to fit the bill of the Member State without seriously considering anybody actually would leave. To be frank: if you have a clause in an agreement, than one party who agreed to ratify the agreement, might eventually use and write upon it to the collective. That is what will happen when the UK initiate the Article 50. Than the negotiations are there to retract the place in Parliament, Commission and all the forums of the European Union; as they will be an outsider.

Theresa-May-Nicola-Sturgeon-600x400

PM May better act upon the vote and not be too proud and giant politician that she has acted as in recent week or so. As she trying to disenfranchise Labour Corby and the backbenchers, while trying to silence the wish for a another Scottish Referendum against the will of Holyrod; the real will of Northern Ireland and their Irish people as the Dublin government trying to reunite the lost brothers on the island.

I got nothing against Theresa May, but her ways are more in the spotlight and her actions will be described by pundits like me, if she likes it or not. I will never forgive her for appointing Boris “Doughnut” Johnson as Foreign Secretary in her cabinet. To show humility for the campaigners for the Brexit; if not it was to go and punch Michael Gove for his dagger against the opportunity for Prime Minister Johnson, which would be even more worrying for Europe and for the United Kingdom. The Northern Irish and Scottish would suffer in his reign, as he has the baboon traits and not noble statesman over him.

With this there are only one thing too, not sweet talk, but actually act and prove to business and people that being outside European Union goes well. I am not a fan of European Union, but I don’t like lying to the public for political gain by smooching princes and parliamentarians on the continent. The reality is that the Article 50 better be a focus and making sure a real team of negotiation are ready to make agreement between British and rest of Europe. Peace.

The ironies of Socialism versus Neo-Liberalism; why I believe in a Keynesian approach instead of the Socialism or the Neo-Liberalism

Socialism churchill

Well, it is about that time, I make mockery of two statues of civilization and ideas that rules the world while not hoping the blindly followers of either comes to attack my person, my thoughts or my widely allegation on the parts. Both of the political views and framework have made a difference and is the reason why we have societies like we have today.

The main parts of socialism is that there is policies and regulations that fit for social and bigger government who cares for the citizens, like subsidized health-care, schools, university, transport and local government. Through taxes and higher fees on produce as the socialism need funding for the ability to make the government organizations and government programs. The Government need more taxes to able to serve the public with what they expect through the socialistic view, while the taxes are set-up in a way that the ones with more income is generating more revenue is supposed to pay more tax; than the ones that are paid less.

So with the big-government and grander government policies comes the address of the public will and citizens loses power, but that for the price of cheaper health-care, schooling and other government institutions. That stops the higher prices and free-market pricing of health care that lets major parts of the society might even be able to pay for the needed operations. So the reasoning and hateful measurement against big-government is wrong in some parts as the people are stronger when we work together and divide the expenditure on the whole society; instead of billing the whole ordeals on the single individual.

free market

Neo-Liberalism is not as straight forward as this is supposed to be measurement to weaken the state, make it liberal and little. Give more power to person instead of the government and give more choices to the citizens of the given country. The issue is that Neo-Liberalism has come with certain ideas and prospects. For instance the New Public Management (NPM) is a Neo-Liberalistic idea. NPM have given the societies and the government who added these policies more watchmen and ombudsmen then before. They have given the power away from the departments and created institutions under the departments with specialist and experts that sets the standard and gives advice to the department. While the departments still need manpower, so need also the lower-expert-institutions. So you have two fronts with specialist working the same field and advising each other. So before NPM most of the experts and brains where at the Department and Local Government that worked with a given subject or the project that needed a specialist; thanks to NPM they have become self-serving and not cut down the amount of bureaucracies have become fluent. As much as the wish for the NPM as parts of the Neo-Liberalism idea, it hasn’t created less government, but more and longer away from the decision making.

The Neo-Liberalism of free-market and starch corporate control have not given added freedom to the consumer. As the markets are controlled by less and less owners and stakeholders; the corporate power have become stronger, but more centralized in conglomerates that issues the policies and secure the profits. The riches of the corporations and the borderlines agreements are built for the corporations not for the welfare for the citizens. The original businesses we’re built for single projects or for fixed procurement that the state and citizens needed like building roads and bridges. Not gaining profits that sky-rocket and then moves away the tax-money into tax-havens. That is the Neo-liberalism ways of economies. In a way the movement of money should happen without government interference or taxation.

The Neo-Liberalism brought also an idea that was worse than the NPM. That was the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) under the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). SAP was made in the 1980s to liberate the subsidized agriculture, health-care and other public institutions as government got great loans through the funding of IMF and WB. So they released the governments and free-market ideas that killed the Co-Op’s in the countries that was already lots of them. They had commissions and centralized crop sales through Co-Ops that served the farmers, either they produces cocoa, coffee or tea. This was a standard of fixing training, production and prices to influx together a stronger unity. The ironies of this is that the IMF and WB gave this order through SAP to Low-Developed Countries while the countries that funded this had Co-Ops in agriculture themselves and still have to this day. So with the SAP they made the inside trading before the export more intricate and gave “supposed” more power to the farmer. Instead they became more reluctant and needed more to be careful to whom they offered their crops to. As the traders from capital who went up-country could fix prices and lie about the values to earn more on the trade to export. So the farmer would not get a given price on the world-market because there we’re less voices giving the farmer a hand in the trade of their cash-crops and their goods that they we’re not consuming themselves. So the SAP agreement stalled the government institutions and weakens them together with the trading experience on the ground. The structures we’re given big loans for building up trade-networks and export facilities while dismantling the structures that secured and fueled the industry and agriculture. As the Agriculture and Industry should not get subsidized, but get funding through free-market ideal and that killed the initial funding as the cheaper production came from abroad instead of making it locally. Therefore it is more normal to Chinese, Egypt and Brazilian products than own local products in the supermarkets of Uganda, for instance. Even meat, juice and toilet-paper are imported than produced in the country. That is because of the SAP and the Neo-Liberalism ideas.

zero-hour-contracts

Another important factor of the Neo-Liberalism idea is the abolishing ideas of Workers Unions and trying to ban them. As the Free-Market should fix the pay for the worker and the business it should fix it. That is why there been less strikes and less new Unions in our day. The reason why Unions in our time is important and the socialist idea of them is that the riches of the corporations; does not seem to trickle down to the citizens; it only left back to the stakeholders and owner, not to society or the workers that works for the rich corporations. Settling this is not easy. During the Reagan and Thatcher era tried to kill of the unions for their meddling and dissolve them so to actually centralize power. Instead this killing of mining-unions and other unions in the United Kingdom have weaken the industry and the ability of workers to fix pay while the corporations come with contracts that are good for business, but not good for steady income for proper work. The recent years of cover-ups in Sports Direct that is owned by Newcastle United Mike Ashley that offers their workforce lots of “Zero-Hour Contract”. Zero Hours Contracts work in the way that the employer has more people under their wings without paying extra for them. The Contract gives not benefits or sick-leave. As the Employee is paid by the hours and amount of time they work for the employer and nothing else. So all the benefits is added to the business and none for the worker, who has to fight and bend-over to add hours as the pool of willing workers are there. Even if the Zero-Contracts are bad, the non-Union and not-allowed to unionize work-force cannot go together and fight for their benefits and rights. As the Employer can continue to use and get new workers without having to stand-by them. Sports Direct is just an example of it, there are more business who uses this model and creates massive profits as they don’t have to offer needed benefits or health-care programs to the employees. As Wall-Mart have had low-hourly pay and no health-care benefit while letting their employees sign-up to government funded programs for health-care so that the Wall-Mart employees get little paid and at the same time uses food-stamps and Medicaid instead of Wall-Mart having health-Care benefits. So the business saves the money for salaries and also save the benefits of their employees; this is something you can thank the beautiful neo-liberal ideas.

The difference with the neo-liberalistic ideal of work is that the employee would give sufficient pay and have a contract that benefits the company and the workers. As they would have social responsibility for their workers as they have health benefits through the standard with standard payments of salaries together with state fueled community health care. The Neo-Liberal is that personal pay of the health-care instead of tax-payers money. So the health-care will be opened to the once who can have insurance or ability to pay for it. Instead of funded through the tax-payers pockets as solidarity between all citizens as in the socialist idea. That cannot be seen as a problem for a liberal person, to bring solidarity and also a structured health-care that everybody pays their fees into and when needed pay a small personal fee to get access, instead of footing the whole bill on their own.

Text ZHC SportDirect

Let me finish this up with the ideals that are ironic on the matter.

  • Smaller Government under NPM has actually made more Ombudsmen and Expert Organizations. Meaning that the Government didn’t become smaller, just longer away from the Department to the Experts and the Ombudsmen that the Government want to control
  • The SAP in Neo-Liberalistic method didn’t bring wealth to the countries it was applied to. The Farmers, the government institutions got weaken, while the loans got higher and less development as the Free-Market got the resources, but without control of the Co-Ops or other ways of maintaining support of citizens. The economies became more fragile as a result of the Neo-Liberal SAP then under the Co-Ops with the control of selling cash-crops and so on.
  • The Free-Market idea of Neo-Liberalism while destroying Labor-Unions to secure more government control of the market. While deteriorating the labors ability and therefore opening for the “Zero-Hour” Contracts that gives all the advantages to the corporations and none to the employee who only get security for the hourly work and nothing else for the employee. That would not happen with stronger unions and government who could enforce the rules for corporations.

All of these is ideals against each other I myself is not a clear socialist, even if I am raised on socialist country in a social-economic balance system. I myself is a clear Keyenist in the way that I believe in free-market and free-society to an extent. That extent is that the governments automatically bails out the necessary institutions and have a hand into the banks and other needed businesses of a society. That the workers are secured and fixed through strong barriers so that the market is made sure that the governments, and also facilitate the marker for the corporations. So that the market will have input from the government as the eruptions is inevitable and needs a structure to control it.

keynes

This three main components are basic:

  • Aggregate demand is influenced by many economic decisions—public and private.
  • Prices, and especially wages, respond slowly to changes in supply and demand, resulting in periodic shortages and surpluses, especially of labor.
  • Changes in aggregate demand, whether anticipated or unanticipated, have their greatest short-run effect on real output and employment, not on prices. Keynesians believe that, because prices are somewhat rigid, fluctuations in any component of spending—consumption, investment, or government expenditures—cause output to change. If government spending increases, for example, and all other spending components remain constant, then output will increase.

So with that in mind you understand why I am in between of the socialist and the free-market neo-liberalism as the Keynesian ideas that are more subtle and securing society as the mixed of government control and free-market gives sustainable societies. Not only full freedom without security for other than the corporations which is the main mantra of the Neo-Liberalism as the individual freedom usually get used by the legal person the corporations and not coined will by the persons themselves as the belief is under the ideology of liberal ideas. Instead of having total control of the state in the Communism, and strong big-government with socialism; but the Keynesian sees it in middle of that and have a free-market with control of the wages and workers by the government. That gives a steady economy and also a greater stability in the values of inflation and stronger value of the person instead of being a commodity as resources in the free-market thinking of the neo-liberalism that have deteriorated the markets and only winner is the corporations; not the fellow human beings. Peace.