Europe Needs Energy

 Is Europe being held to ransom by Trump and Putin?

Not long ago when Trump was mucking about with his Tariffs, I was of the mind that we, as in Europe, should just try stalling for a bit. 3 years later we would have a new President and we could start afresh with a sane human being as the head of the "Free world".

Trump has been a monumental disruptor on the world stage. I would take the view that currently he is more dangerous than the Russian Empire. Putin's current focus is not on world domination just dominating the bits he can reach...for now. 

Trump in the meanwhile has alienated his country from everyone who used to call them friends. He has pissed off all his allies bar none. Either buy trying to destabilise their economies with tariffs or by starting wars he cannot finish and getting antsy when no one rushes to join in. 

This is what you get when you treat your "Allies" in such ways. He is clearly bonkers. 

Currently the problem for Europe is that with a friend like the USA it is not in need of any enemies. Europe had to go to the US for its energy shortfall after edging out Russia. The USA has now embarked on a mission that could only lead to energy price hikes. I cannot believe that there wasn't one voice in the Trump administration that didn't tell him it would be so. Yet he piled in anyway. Thanks mate!

This leaves Europe at something of a crossroads. 

First a quick history lesson. Read any history books and you can see that since the fall of the Roman Empire all Europe has done is invade each other, migrate with careless abandon and persecute random groups but mostly the Jewish communities. Yes all of Europe has had a poke at Judaism. Never mind the 20th century, pogroms in the 19th century all the way back to Richard 1 (lionheart fame) who borrowed a heap of money from Jewish moneylenders so he could march on the holy land and then expelled them all from the country so that he didn't have to pay them back.

This all culminated in World War 2 and at the end of that those that had power to change these things decided that Europe was its own worst enemy and never shall it be powerful enough to send the world screaming into oblivion. The E.U. as it is now known was kind of set up to make sure no one got the upper hand politically on one of it's neighbours. All this peace has led to a good level of prosperity since 1945. 

Europe is currently finding that no matter who it chooses to be friends with, these friends just want Europe's money so that they can follow their own nefarious plans. So it is not unreasonable for Europe, therefore, to try and find ways of being more independent. On an energy front at least. Europe has oil and gas potential it can look to but Europe was kind of hoping to back away from fossil fuels. So it could take a retro grade step on the whole net zero thing and drill out some more "black gold"

I think this is kind of what Trump is hoping - largely so that American Oil companies can benefit.

Europe could get a whole lot more belligerant militarily. By forming some sort of gun boat diplomacy to help protect its supply lines. This is how the old European empires got built in the first place. So Trump is now pushing us back 200 years.

An alternative - long term at best, is to go hell for leather on sustainability. Apart from re invading the middle east and recreating the British Empire Europe is going to find itself at the sharp end of energy crises so it should look to distance itself from energy supplied from outside The EU. I am not in favour of re igniting our European oil and gas deposits. Much better we look to the long term future and remove our need for these resources. They will run short one day why not now?

Anti captalism post

SMASH THE MARKETS! 

I hope that caught your attention 

As I was walking the doggies this morning I was ruminating on the plight of the water utilities here in the UK.

Thatch sold them into private ownership in '80's or '90's. It was not without controversy. In my humble opinion it was not a sound choice. In my eyes the water utilites occupy that hallowed ground currently inhabited by the NHS (just hanging on) and the armed forces. An area where by no government can sit by and let private ownership and "markets" decide what level of service is appropriate etc. Although if we hadn't ditched the Conservatives when we did I believe Wagner mercenaries would soon of been putting boots on the ground in all sorts of places like the Falklands to Northern Ireland. Just think of all the pensions and NI contributions it would save!

I digress

Why shouldn't we have sold off the water companies? Well the water companies provide a solid healthcare function that is the basis of all life in the modern world. Access to clean water and safe disposal of nasty human effluent. It is such a basic human need - just go and search out countries where it is not universally available and see what you get. The provision of sound sanitation is so fundamental to civilisation it cannot be left in the hands of profiteers. At some point there is a compromise to be had. Where does a profit making company decide that profit or lack of outweighs the public need? At what point do they consider a service to be too costly? 

There is nothing to compromise on here. We need safe water. It should not be under discussion. Just get it seen to. 

The argument seemed to be that it is just a service like gas or telephone and a private company will do it better and cheaper so as to make a profit.

The lesson of Thames Water is that, whilst we were all sleeping, these companies got sold to all kinds of hedge and sovereign funds. These companies of which Thames was one, used their customer base as leverage on enormous loans that then could be paid out as dividends to these investors. Whilst the customer bore the brunt and paid the interest. 

This is all Legal and above board. 

The problem is now that Thames Water (All the water companies have to comply but Thames is the one that hit the news) have to comply with new legislation about how waste is treated - the government would like them do have a go at sewage treatment for a bit - Thames cannot use its power of credit to offset the cost because they are already in it up to their necks. So they turned to their customers. Who were told that if you want us to carry out our statutory obligation to treat your sewage you are going to have to pay for it (again as it is included as part of your water charge already) and it is going to cost you dearly because we have got ourselves in hock up to our neck so that we can pay faceless financial types enormous dividends. 

At this point it might be pointed out to me that quite a lot of pension companies are involved in all this and it is helping pay for (Some ) peoples pensions. Does not exclude the fact that these companies have been bled to a point where they cannot use the tools at their disposal (borrowing money) to carry out their work. It has already been spent on people who have provided nothing in return.

Thames Water was ordered by OFWAT or the government to approach their investors and say " Can we have some of that free money back please?" they didn't get an overwhelming response!

So the Thames Water customers are going to end up paying a whole lot more for their essential service because Thames Water was more interested in making a profit for investers than actually doing the job it is supposed to do.

A m vccv xore compelling argument for a return to public ownership I cannot think of.

Public ownership is not a panacea to all the worlds problems. However the decision process is different. As a public service it would concern itself purely with doing its job. It may have to join a lengthy queue for funds and jostle with the likes of His Majesties finest plus the NHS but the outcome would be on the basis of need and not profit. 

The drive for privatisation was a reaction to the industrial relations or lack of from the 1970's. We live in a different world now. The NHS believe it or not gives good value. Not without problems but think of the world without it? 

Water companies could be the same.

The Infinite Universe of Possibilities (OR should the United Kingdom have stepped in in 1914)

 

History Undone

I have just watched a documentary on Youtube from the above titled channel. I find it very interesting but I am a sad git on these things. What took me here was, of course an accident. As is usual with the internet, websites tend to do a smash and grab on your attention and you alight on pages that you didn't intend at first. I was actually looking for the latest installment on a travel channel I follow and got a "click bait" article about a chap called Dominic Sandbrook. I watched a short interview on him and the title of this post cropped up. The interview was wide ranging thus he didn't expand or defend this stance. So I went in search of more information.

 This is where the History Undone channel came in. I found it interesting as I said before. The podcast talks about the factual events that led up to august 14th 1914 and also some personal viewpoints. 

 The point of the podcast though was a question as mentioned above. And this is where we enter the realm of the infinite universes of possibilities. This is where a fork in the road of history is met and a different path followed than that actually followed. the only part anyone can be sure of there after is that the original decision was not taken after that it obviously becomes guesswork and what the History Undone episode demonstrated was that there are a lot of variables at play. But one thing I have discerned over the years is that Historians love the sound of their own voice and often speak to us mere mortals as though we are less able to draw a conclusion of our own, that they and they alone not only hold all the information but also the best way of interpretating that data.  

Should we have entered WW1 when we did? Probably the 2million injured personnel and the 6% of the male population that were lost to the war, not to mention those that harbored PTSD (that only LSD fueled Vietnam veterans can truly compete with) might say no.

In my opinion, which counts for little in the scheme of things as does theirs, it was probably inevitable. Germany was on the rise and was probably a long term threat to the British Empire anyway. The Government of 1914 just thought they would get their revenge in first. The argument goes that Britain would of been in a stronger financial position at the end of what would of been a shortened war resulting in German victory. 

 All this may have been true but we would have ended up in a world with competing empires around the world. The Japanese would have still had a pop at the US at some stage. Britain and Germany would still have had to establish who was "in charge" and then the US would probably still wanted to dismantle the British Empire as it did in 1945 so that it could benefit from increased trade that befits the victor

But one thing that has not been mentioned was that were these Imperial Empires morally worth defending? Britain seemed to believe it was owed some debt of gratitude by its constituents. The British Empire was good for Britain. Not much more. Cheap materials were brought from the world and premium products were sold back to the Empire at premium prices. Not to mention the Imperial racist attitudes towards it's subjects?

 The true horror of World War1 was the way it was waged as much as it was that it took place at all. 

The benefit of hindsight.....

The podcast suggested that we had to get involved because the government had signed up to many "entente cordials"  across the world and if we didn't honour this one we might find them harder to form or enforce in the future. Our reputation was at stake. Not a good reason for war either but it was the world we were in at that moment. 

Back to the present 

 So what does this teach us about our current world situation? History teaches nothing according to Henry Ford (or was that it is bunk?). Well in this podcast it was mentioned that the UK government had an opportunity to signal its intentions a month or two earlier that gave the German government reasonable grounds for doubt as to whether we would get involved. It was suggested that had we made our position more forcefully the Kaiser may not have gambled its future. So the lesson is never leave your intentions to be second guessed just in case some one calls your bluff

In today's world Russia appears intent on re drawing the map of Europe to its advantage in much the same way it (And Europe for that matter) used to do it in 1890's. I guess the lesson is make sure the Russians know what they are getting in to. I think they doubt European unity and strength. They are finding out the hard way. The Russian governments of almost all epochs appear to be quite happy to throw their subjects under the bus when it comes to political ambition. Which is something we must bear in mind 

 

 

 

 

 

The Immigration Fallacy

 

If the article you can read here in the the New Statesman is correct the majority of Saturdays marchers were only interested in preventing Illegal Immigration and the article suggests that these same people felt this was the only reason we are in the state we are in.

I dont know what axe the New Statesman has to grind. I have always thought it was pro Tory. However the report does seem to highlight how ill informed the Unite The Kingdom grouping are and how they are filled with fear and loathing. 

Even the title Unite The Kingdom irritates me. That their version of bigotry, xenophobia and plain old ignorance is some sort of rallying cry we should all join and participate. 

I have more respect for the blood sucking tick I pulled off my cat this morning than I do for the likes of so called Tommy Robinson (Not his real name) and Katy Hopkins. These two individuals have produced some of the most hateful propaganda and I would personally think twice before becoming aligned with anything they had or wanted to associated with.

The Phalacy is that you can lay the ills of this nation down to a simple reason. That a mature and complex economy (one of the top 7 in the world) that is so complex and nuanced can be thrown so badly out of kilter by a small number of immigrants (by small I mean relatively small, the current asylum seeker population is 0.15% of the total population of this country) The Home office needs to use its noodle a bit more in where it houses asylum seekers and be a little bit more politically aware of where they are being placed. Some areas are just too insular and small minded and placing them in that environment is just asking for trouble.

The issue I find most disturbing is how immigration has hit the nerve of these people. Of all the issues facing this country this is one of but many. The facts are that it is not even a significant financial or social issue. This is how the holocaust started. The National Socialists used the Jewish population to coalesce a national consensus behind it that allowed it to fundamentally change the nature of the German State and led to World War 2 that in turn led to Germany being bombed back into the stone age, a mass refugee problem, genocide and dehumanisation on an industrial and pityless scale the likes of which I don't think human kind has ever experienced. And yet here we are loading the gun again only this time it is black and Muslim immigration. Once again, as a nation we are being led down a path where a complex problem is being "Solved" by commentators using a vulnerable group of people who are in fact nothing to do with what is "wrong" with this country.

So what are the the bigger issues? In no particular order, Trump and his tariffs, Brexit fallout, Russia/Ukraine (our reliance on the former for cheap energy), an ageing population (and declining birthrate) that is living longer but in bad health, obesity (especially in children). That is just a start. None of these have immigration as their cause.

Patriotism - The last refuge of a scoundrel.

It will be a cold day in hell before I vote for the Reform party. The term I have heard is Snake Oil Salesman. The phrase has its roots in 19th-century America, when traveling salesmen would sell "snake oil" as a cure for all sorts of ailments. These "snake oil salesmen" were often portrayed as charlatans who would use flashy presentations and testimonials to sell their bogus products.

The reason it has surrounded The Reform party is that all the news headlines are about telling the nation they can change things they can't. Like immigration/asylum seekers. There is nothing The Reform party can do to stop this. The only way that the party can carry out that plan is to withdraw from the Geneva convention on refugees. Even Russia and China are signatories. Is that who we want to be? 

The logical way to deal with the asylum seekers is to improve the the situations in which they have come. There has been a massive civil war in Syria for the last 15 years and what wasn't in civil war was being destroyed by extremists. Then we have Gaza. 

It is very simple - if you want to get rid of asylum improve their situations so that they don't need to be refugees.

The Reform party are an archetypal populist party. They have found a few ideas that garner support but no one seems to have noticed that if you scratch the surface you find a party of self interest for the wealthy and big business it is no friend to the working population. 

It is of concern to me that the people who support Reform fervently are basing it on a single issue whose importance is only in their mind. There are many issues that need to be addressed in this country from the economy to national defense and Asylum seekers are actually quite a small issue. 

There are 100,000 current asylum seekers. In a population of 70 million they reperesent less than 0.15% of the current population of this country. A man who was spouting at me last week was claiming it cost us the taxpayer £6 million pounds a day. It might do but that is small beer when you consider that the NHS burns that in wages in 15 minutes. Never mind the armed forces, the police, courts and criminal justice system. The list goes on. 

This country has bigger fish to fry. But my compatriots have focused on what is economically a small problem for this country. A physically small fraction of our population, certainly not at the heart of a crime wave. But based on this they are happy to pass the reins of power to a right wing party who want to see their own constituents rights eroded and empower our wealthy and entitled classes.

More concerning to me is that this is being exposed now on some social media posts. It is becoming common place that the media highlight the party's hypocrisy but it is falling on deaf ears 

Flags of our Fathers

 The Problem with Flags

There is a current trend here in the UK for the clandestine attachment of Union Jacks and the cross of St George flags on various public facilities - lamp posts mostly. I am getting lazy so I asked Gemini to write a 500 word rebuttal on the flag flying epidemic. Its not bad to be honest and although I didn't actually write it I agree with all its content. I think the last paragraph is the most interesting as this agenda is being driven by a political party whose only interest is self promotion and the gathering of power. A party who seek division and drive the wedge further in rather than trying to find a solution that would bring us all together. 

The Perils of Prescriptive Patriotism: A Rebuttal to Flag-Placing in the UK

The recent surge in flag-placing events across the United Kingdom is often framed as an uncomplicated expression of national pride. Proponents argue that the widespread display of the Union Flag or the Cross of St. George is a unifying act of patriotism, a simple and visible celebration of shared identity. However, this perspective overlooks the complex and often divisive symbolism of these emblems. Far from fostering a sense of cohesion, the aggressive and performative placement of flags risks alienating significant portions of the population, co-opts national symbols for partisan ends, and distracts from the more substantive acts required to build a genuinely unified society.

While the Union Flag is a historical symbol of the United Kingdom, its meaning is not, and has never been, universally benign. For many citizens, particularly those from a multicultural background or with ancestral ties to former colonies, the flag evokes a history of empire, colonialism, and conflict. The aggressive display of the flag can therefore feel less like an invitation to national unity and more like a territorial claim that excludes them. It is illogical to insist on a single, uniform symbol as a source of unity when that symbol carries a history of oppression for a large number of people it is meant to represent. An inclusive patriotism must be one that acknowledges a nuanced history, rather than one that forces a single, contested narrative through ubiquitous display.

Furthermore, the flag-placing movement has been widely and demonstrably co-opted for political purposes, particularly by groups with anti-immigrant and far-right agendas. When a national symbol becomes a staple of protests against asylum seekers or a signifier of a narrow political ideology, its meaning is warped. True patriotism is not the exclusive domain of any one political faction. It should be a commitment to the civic and democratic values of a nation, expressed through acts of community engagement, robust debate, and a shared responsibility for the well-being of all citizens. To equate patriotism with the physical act of flying a flag, especially one promoted by divisive figures, is to diminish the very concept of national loyalty to a mere political prop.

Finally, an overemphasis on symbolic gestures like flag-placing can distract from the real and pressing challenges facing the country. A healthy, unified nation is not defined by how many flags are flown from its lamp posts, but by the strength of its public services, the fairness of its economy, and the level of social cohesion in its communities. Focusing energy and resources on this contentious debate allows governments and the public to sidestep more difficult conversations about poverty, inequality, and institutional failures. The most powerful rebuttal to a divided nation is not a flag, but a tangible commitment to creating a better future for every single person within its borders.

Like I said not bad, not bad at all.

Women's rights

As a man, it is difficult to comment on women's rights issues. Many of these issues e.g. right to abortions will physically not affect a man directly. His fertility rights are not affected. A driving force behind feminism is that women's rights are inalienable and not in the gift of men to agree or disagree to. They just are.

For the record I agree with this principle. I say this not to validate the view but to give some idea of where my sympathies lie.

So I start this piece in trepidation  lest I overstep my boundaries 

Whilst the recent judgement does provide clarity from a legal viewpoint, I do feel for the trans population. All they are trying to be is normal and they will be discriminated against by the very people they hope to/have become

 

However I am more interested about what this does for feminism. If feminism is about equality one interpretation is that For Women Scotland do not see themselves as equals but in some sense special

 Has this harmed feminism in the long run? By claiming a reserved status and all the benefits that go with it are they, inadvertently, falling  into a trap where by they have proclaim that they are not equal at all?