World Alliance Party

Welcome to Punk Politics

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 15:00:00 +0000

~Punk Politics~

Anarchy IS "regarded as a political ideal." (Google definition)

"Anarchy is the condition of a society, entity, group of people or a single person which does not recognize authority. It originally meant leaderlessness, but in 1840, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted the term in his treatise What Is Property? to refer to a new political philosophy, anarchism, which advocates stateless societies based on voluntary associations."

~Wikipedia.

We believe anarchy and government go together nicely. As long as you are happy to have anarchistic views, and implement them through self-governance.

I believe in punk politics (and us punks pretty much own anarchy lol). And in my school of thought anarchistic government is achievable.

One world, one vote.

~World Alliance Party~

Government, traditionally is a bunch of over-uneducated toffs who implement laws and policies that help the rich by robbing the poor. (Even the Labour-run governments bowed before capitalism.)

I see a government of ordinary citizens. Running a country for the good of its people, not the good of the rich and bankers. With no official head of state, but a board of members with equal say.

A constitutional republic. With no monarch and no peers. (That includes the House of Lords.)

If it happens across the world it would help. But it could domino from country to country (hopefully starting right here in Britain with the World Alliance Party).

~The Struggle for Power~

Just because its never been done before, doesn't mean it can't be.

Punk Politics of the masses can work. Iceland did a similar thing. (Guardian Lessons from Iceland.)

~The People's Assembly~

A government of the people is a voluntary association. If you would rather, call it an assembly, instead of a government.

When the people call the shots, the Rich have to listen.

We believe that Government should pay, not the people. Currently government gets it money from stealing it, sorry taxing the people. But instead tax those with money (the rich, 1%) to help those with a lot less money (the poor, 99%).

Free can mean free, if the people aren't paying for it; but the state is.

The funding of renationalised industries and the removal of funding for defence will make funding for hospitals and medical research much more possible.

I'm simply stating that our policies are to house and feed EVERYONE. Don't you agree with housing everyone for free? Or free distribution of food to the masses? How about free medical care, glasses, dentistry, hospitals, etc?

In the end, the people will decide!

Ideal Global Government

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 11:00:00 +0000

~The Ideal of Global Government~

If there is a singular, world or global government, then it negates a need for war or strife.

No one county would hold the power to invade any other under the precepts of bringing about a peaceful solution to any given crisis.

A world citizen would be entitled to live anywhere in the world. However, the need to travel ~to emigrated to a place where life is better~ would become void. Life would be the same in America as in UK, China, Australia or Somalia.

Proportional Representation across all continents. Human Rights would still remain. Civil Liberties would still remain. The liberty to believe in your own chosen religion would remain too. That's democracy.

One world, one vote.

~Control of World Economy~

Inclusive Democracy is the equal distribution of economic power in the authority of the community. It involves the control and ownership of production in the economic sphere.

This is a case of direct democracy: It is a state-less, money-less, and market-less economy ~ which also exclude private accumulation of wealth, without sacrificing freedom of choice.

The real New World Order doesn't lay in the hands of the Haves of this world; the bankers, the industrialists, or big business; but those without a stake in the present ~ the current Have-nots.

The Haves like the status quo; so why would they change it?

Capitalism? The free-market is supposed to stabilise market forces, provide a strong economy, and help business compete against big business. However, the weak fall by the wayside, due to mass buying and price-setting by conglomerates. retailers cannot compete with High Street prices and internet retailers; so shops are emptying.

Banks have become corrupt and greedy, feeding off the masses and lining their own pockets to the detriment, even of shareholders. They have become unaccountable.

However, Governments needs consumers to keep the economy buoyant by continuing to buy more and more stuff ~ whether they can afford it or not. So, stop buying, stop borrowing money (or spending on credit cards) and the economy (finance) goes into meltdown. Markets crash. The rich become poor.

With welfare cuts across the board and unemployment rising under a tide of reforms, the disenfranchised are become more alienated. The disenfranchised, disenchanted, the disabled, and the despondent are all being crushed by the current economic climate.

~The Power Struggle~

Then who's in charge? If history is anything to go by, then crisis breeds revolution. And revolution doesn't come from those 'with the power', it emerges through the struggle of those 'without power'.

When the people call the shots, the Haves have to listen.

Evolution of social, political, educational and economic standards; a revolution of social change is in the air. It will sweep though the world like a breath of fresh air, and the people will be at the heart of it.

Choose to believe ... Choose to provide a stable future for your children's children ... Choose World Alliance Party for a 'real change'. The freedom, peace and security of the whole planet are at stake.

5 Steps To Global Government

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 22:20:00 +0000

The current climate of Austerity makes the overwhelming need for a Global Government even more drastic then it ever has. I hate the fact that good people are being harassed and harangued by nation-states that insist its for our own good. This is clearly wrong.

The published goals of the World Aliance Party is global government, a global bank and a one world order where all lives are equal. This might be a tall order, but so was democracy.

There are 5 steps in achieving our first goal: A Global Government. And I'm going to let you into a little secret... They're achievable in our life times.

So what, I hear you ask are these steps? Simplicity in itself.

Step 1: A global alliance of all countries on the planet.

This first step is by far the most difficult to achieve, as those with power will not relinquish it easily.
But there are ways to create an alliance of like-minded individuals that lobby all governments at the same time, until this is achieved by any means necessary.

I personally would rather use the 'carrot' than the 'stick,' but revolution is not always an easy taskmaster.

I will rather fight for a future that has decency and justice at its helm, than allow the masses to be trodden under the jackboot of oppression. Which is where we currently find ourselves - under this austerity drive.

Step 2: Mutual agreements to choose the global leaders.

Now I know what you're going to say, won't it be just another dictatorship? And my answer is no. The provisions that will be put into place will make it impossible for the global leaders to dictate to the masses.

The structure of government will be that of levels; the higher up the level the less power to wield.
At the top will be a trio of figureheads -the world leaders - three insures democracy.
Below them are the nation-state leaders, who are in turn, voted into office by the masses - but only for three years t a time, and only once.
After that they make up the next layer of global government: the ex-leaders (similar to current British MPs) the representatives of the people.
At the bottom, are those with the real power (the power of the vote), the masses. One vote each.

Every single adult (currently over 18 years of age) will have their say on everything from energy production, to how their society is run, maintained and policed.

Step 3: The creation of a global bank.

As of the creation of a global government, there will be no more privately owned banks.

Debt will be excised.
Credit agencies will no longer exist.
All money will be distributed through a singular global bank that is part of the global government.

Work will be how money is distributed. With no financial difference between the masses and the global leaders. This should create a fairer living wage for the entire globe.

Step 4: A complete restructuring of work and living standards across the entire globe.

Homes for those who cannot afford their own, will be provided by the world living organisation, part of the global government.

Every able adult on the planet will be in full employment.
Even the stay-at-home mothers or fathers (who will be paid to bring-up their children to the age of 9) then they will be expected to return to the workplace.
Until their compulsory retirement at 55.

Children will be home-schooled until 9, and then attend centres of education until they are 19.
Home-schooling will be through computers and begin at the age of 5.

To encourage couples to act responsibly, all contraceptives will be provided freely to all adults and minors from the age of 13.
Sexual education will be mandatory.

Step 5: World peace and a stable society with economic and ethical values.

Under these structures, the world will witness an end to war, racial hatred, immigration and poverty.

This is how it ought to be. How human society should have evolved. free from tyranny and despots. A society of mutual understanding, without greed and corruption.

The Future Is Yours

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Sat, 06 Jun 2015 21:35:00 +0000

As a youth I was probably the most arrogant person you could meet.

I was a Conservative in the 80s (not a card-carrying-one I might add), but I believed the guff that Saint Margaret T proclaimed with all the relish and zest of a Young Tory Entrepreneur.

I believed the stuff about the unions trying to run the country (via Labour), and I even accepted the stuff about the Conservatives having the answers to the economy problems of the 80s.

My love affair with Tory politics came to ahead in the 90s when I woke up to the mess they had left behind them. And with the revelation of my own naivety, I lost faith in the Tory party totally. I underwent a change; doing a 180 degree turnabout from what I used to be.

I’m better now - lol

(At least, I’m a little less obsessive about some things than I used to be.) But politics certainly isn't one of them.

Now I'm a bit of a politico on the side, and a real news junkie. As an ex-bankrupt -and ex-company director - and now an underpaid, under-employed, overlooked and underappreciated cleaner-upper of other people's mess- I understand and appreciate politics from both sides of the fence. And as a pagan (cyberpunk) my views are often radical, and frequently controversial... I think of myself as a political guru and freedom of speech advocate; a sort of wunderkind, who loves to show-off any chance he can. (And blogging gives me that chance on a full-time basis.)

I decided on the 10th of September, twelve days before my 47th Birthday, that I’d like to be an MP.

The Thing Is:
I’m a punkI’m neither a Labour man, nor a Cons (any more), and the Lib Dems have been shown to be a traitor to there own policies; so they are all out. I have more faith in the fringe parties – like the Greens - but the fanatics don’t interest me in the slightest (UKIP, BNP, SNP, etc).

My Own Party:
The (British) Social Media Party was born with the realization that in a world where social media transcends borders, that it would be understood what the (B)SMP would stand for. Instead people thought it was connected to all the other social media outlets - but didn't quite get that it was, in fact, a political party.

Short Hiatus:
So, after a short break to regather my determination. (I'm a stubborn sod at times.) A re-branding was in order.

World Alliance Party:
The World Alliance Party took over. Also incorporating the belief I have, that a one world government is not only sensible, but vital in the struggle for democracy. Our charter (Mission Statement) clearly points the way forward.

The Struggle is Real

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:01:00 +0000

The Struggle Is Real

In a former life I was Conservative voter. (I know shame on me.) Now, that seems very unlikely, but it was the 80's ('greed is good') mentality.

However, my former-self has an annoying habit of popping up at the most inappropriate moments. Often when I'm feeling old and cranky. As a nearly 50-year-old, I seem to get more and more of them.

My latest annoyance is all these austerity cuts:

Breadline Britain: Photo credits Orb Dark

Do those in power believe Breadline Britain is a thing of the past? Do we not have food banks in all British cities these days? Have they learned so little in the last few months, of their vote-winning spree, about the average electorate?

Or do they choose to ignore us? (Now they have our vote - it's sod the lot of them time!) It definitely feels like a 'stuff the electorate vibe'.

I'd like to say that, if Labour, or the Lib Dems (or even the racist/not-really-racist Ukip) had gotten power any of them might have done something to relieve the Austerity; but the truth is none would.

They all seem to have an except-it-and-shut-up view of benefit Britain. Its the silent (unless you live near them) majority that can be ignored.

Fat Cats fund political parties, not the average Joe who works two jobs just to put bread on the table and shoes on his or her kids feet.

We the people of Britain (and most of the civilised world) are under-paid, overworked and under-appreciated by our employers. We have become a commodity. Shelf life one year! Replaceable at will. Recycled or dumped on the scrapheap.

Those in work can't afford to change jobs (if there were any with decent hour - over 23 would be nice) due to debt encouraged by banks, credit cards, pay-day loan services, and sharks. And Bankrupt Britain's not far away. (As one of the many thousands now bankrupt, I can tell you it's not a solution to debt problems - its another restriction to a happy and productive future.)

Those on benefits are even portrayed on TV as lower than dog-shit. No-hopers without the will to work or the gumption to think their way out of the poverty trap. I've been on benefit, and unless you are supper skilled at milking the system (and its designed against it), then you are on bare minimum to a workhouse horse.

The reality of this country is not that it isn't working ... (Its that those in employment are crushed and those looking for employment are ignored.) It can't work!

There's no real infrastructure any more. Where are the jobs of the past? Manual labour has become a dirty word. (Technology rules.) But still, someone has to mine coal, someone has to work steel, someone has to fix the railway, the roads, build houses. Where are these jobs?

Apprenticeships? Where!

There are more people with degrees than there are jobs for them. They are over-qualified before they have any experience.

That doesn't mean there should be less smart people ... on the contrary. They just don't have the work-smarts that employment delivers. A degree alone won't get you a job any more. Employers are looking for life skills too. (And a great Facebook / Twitter / Google+ /Instagram showing isn't proof of life skills - whatever your followers think.)

Social media is great. (If you don't know what Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Instagram can do for you -or you're not in these virtual communities- then your a dinosaur who's out of the loop.)

Social Media Revolution @ YouTube

As I said, social media is 'now'; but if you can't interact with 'real people in the real world' too, then your pretty screwed.

In short the changes on the one hand may be good for reaching out to the world, but on the other hand, the broadband costs are debt-defying. (You might be on the breadline, but life without the net is unprecedented. Unbelievable. And unthinkable.)

More of our lives these days are lived on-line than in the traditional pub. (But when was the last time you saw someone over 30 on-line on a soap opera??)

Lets get Britain working once more!

(End of Rant.)

Privatise Great Britain

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:00:00 +0000

Do They Intend to Privatise Great Britain?

21st century Britain is quietly been sold-off, part-by-part, to the private sector and no one seems to have noticed. Except you’re truly of course.

The problem of having public assets (or state-run ownership) is they are rich for the picking by the private sector. They are cash-cows, perfect for breaking apart and asset stripping.

pic: 80s British Gas Privatisation Advert

Deregulation

This concept of deregulating public-owned companies was first put forward by the Tories in the late 70s and early 80s. When British Telecom, Water, British Gas and electricity giants N-power were all privatized. Along with British Rail and about half a dozen others. (Visit the Guardian's Comment is free for more about privatization during the 80s.)¹

pic: The famous 1986 'Tell Sid' British
Gas Privatization campaign.

Now we have the slow but steady breaking down of the NHS, the Police, the probation service, and all aspects of the welfare state. The government seem obligated to deregulate the whole of Britain.

Devolved Government

Now we have the devolution of Ireland and Wales (with their own parliament ~like Scotland~ PLC Britain could almost be a reality.

The Forgotten State

The Nanny state will turn into the forgotten state. Then PLC Britain will be as ripe for takeover as the public owned companies are currently. And just like the post-privatised state-run organisations, PLC Britain will inevitably be run into the ground as a loss for all British Tax payers.

PLC Britain won't be a utopia. Just ask the workers from any privatised company. There will be uncertainty and injustice which far outweighs those of present British justice.

Outsourcing

The new buzzword for privatization by the backdoor is 'outsourcing'. Whenever you see this word in the press connected to public owned companies, they're craftily making it easier to sell-off the public sector!

Great Country

If you want to see policing by the likes of G4S, and a government run like one of Lord Sugar's companies, and the NHS sponsored by Glaxo or Bupa, then keep supporting the present coalition. Or if like myself, you want a return to a Great Britain then vote out the deregulators of our once Great country.

You have been warned!

Thank you for your time and your patience, here's hoping this article has had an impact on your thinking.

Thank you.
CyberPunk65

Whats World Government

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Tue, 27 May 2014 16:28:00 +0000

What's World Government Anyway?

I intend to share what I've read about world/ global government, what I've learn on the subject, and what I believe one should be.

I'll also show how having just one government would change everything for humanity.

Firstly, What Is A Global Government?

Currently, we don't have anything like a global or world government:

"'World government' refers to the idea of all humankind united under one common political authority."

~World Government @ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

To put it in a nutshell. Its the globalisation of politics ~ without borders.

Wikipedia World Government has this to say: "Currently there is no worldwide military, executive, legislature, judiciary, or constitution with jurisdiction over the entire planet."

That slightly changes things, doesn't it! A body with jurisdiction over an entire planet?

Wouldn't World Government Be The Global Police?

Some believe so. There are many conspiracy theories connected to the globalization of government. All stating similar stuff:

"The common theme in conspiracy theories ... is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government ..."

- NWO Conspiracies @ Wikipedia.com

Besides, isn't that the job of the U.N. ~ to police the world?

Why The U.N. Isn't A Blueprint For Global Government

Some people believe that the United Nations would a blueprint. (In 1945 many saw the U.N. as the basis for a global government. But the Cold War changed thinking.)

pic: United Nations Office at Geneva

"The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights."

~UN at a Glance @ United Nations website

"The United Nations," Wikipedia's World Government page adds, "is limited to a mostly advisory role, and its stated purpose is to foster cooperation between existing national governments rather than exert authority over them."

Does that rules out the United Nations then? To my mind, the U.N. doesn't even come close. Peacekeeping, obviously, but not with any real 'teeth'. They don't, currently, have the strength or agenda to be the foundations of a world government.

So, if not the U.N., then what?

Global Government Doesn't Necessarily Mean Authoritarian Rule

Some people believe a geopolitics and global government is just a route to an authoritarian rule by the powerful elite. (1984's Big Brother in stealth mode?)

Get real. There are so many conspiracies relating to the New World Order that these people would have to live to a thousand years each to achieve even half what they are rumoured to have put into place.

Over the past thousands of years, the 'powerful elite' have not been close to making a centralized governing body ~ not even with all the so called theories that conspiracy nuts can dream up. (That, alone, kind-of, invalidates almost all the theories abound.)

Does That Mean There Won't Be A Single World Government?

Of course not. The world is slowly moving towards centralization. It's as inevitable as world peace. Like everything else, the centralising of government makes perfect sense in an ideal world...

"It is obvious that no difficulty in the way of world government can match the danger of a world without it."

~Albert Einstein

That's a daunting damnation of a future peace; if it has no foundation without globalization.

But, Who Would Want It?

Since the Roman and Plato, great thinkers have dreamt of geopolitics (and a one world government). After WW2, in 1945, for a brief blip these thoughts rose again, before being blighted by the arrival of the Cold War.

pic: Cold War

The Renaissance in geopolitics came about in 1999 during the World Trade Organization protests, when it became obvious that geopolitics was back on the global agenda. This time it never went away. With some pundits believing that the EU was a 'small global government' (or at least, the precursor to one).

With the current economic crisis and political instability rife, there has never been a better (more conducive) time to engage in congress about a united world.

Does Anyone Really Know What To Expect?

It's difficult to say with any clarity. But the obvious precepts for globalized government and its endeavors have to be manifested as:

To pursue global integration by addressing issues of poverty, inequality and global injustice

To met basic needs of moral obligations of the masses — nourishing food, adequate shelter, and good health care

To assume strong duties of justice to all in the human community

To promote the rights/ protection of the worlds population from the machinations of social and political struggle by 'sovereign nations'

To create mutually observed rules and binding global laws

To push democracy above and beyond national boundaries

To remove boundary lines drawn around national communities

To set the rules of international trade for most of the world’s countries

To pass fair judgments on terms of co-operation and contribution between 'sovereign states'

To avoid a perpetual state the brink of am world and/or civil war

To create a 'union of mutual restraint' to help prevent/tackle global/financial anarchy

To confront issues such as climate change

Anything less would be to lose credibility as a humanitarian push for positive change in the world.

When Could Global Government Come Into Fruition?

There are some that believe it can never be achieved. While others give distances from 200 to 800 years in the future.

However, there has to be a way to move things a head at a quicker pace.

How, Then, Can We Achieve This In Our Lifetimes?

This is the question. To achieved the improbable (note, not the impossible, as some may think) we need the world to stop squabbling and come together in a common accord. If this isn't against terrorism, it would undoubtedly be induced by a global disaster.

pic: Human Unity

But must we wait for millions or even billions to die in some freak accident of nature, or at the hands of clumsy or vindictive individuals? Shouldn't common sense dictate better than fate?

If the world needs anything, it needs stability. And a world government would provide both global stability and world peace.

In Conclusion:

Even though we don't have any foundations in place for a global or world government ~with a worldwide military, executive, legislature, judiciary, or constitution for a jurisdiction over the entire planet~ it is coming, some day. And again, it is unlikely to be formed off the back of the U.N. or E.U.

Whatever the conspiracy theorists might rumour, there is no current move to "an authoritarian world government." However, to insure that this is not the route to an authoritarian rule by the powerful elite. Humanity as a whole needs to back a move towards centralization of power, with precepts in place to unify the globe and bring about peace on a world scale.
To paraphrase the words of Albert Einstein: Create one world, or face the prospect of having no world at all. He is not the only great thinker to promote geopolitics, to raise it to the forefront of a global agenda.
The moral obligations of the 'haves' to the 'have-nots' has never been stronger. In a world of financial mayhem (where profit margins overrule humanitarianism), there appears to be a desperation for congress into issues of poverty, inequality and the matters of global injustice.
Plans to counter injustice and deprivation cannot be left to fate or the distant future. (Global disaster will be the future toll, if not.)
To achieved this Leviathan, we must forge through the birth-pangs towards a realisation of global accord. The whole world needs stability.
World War 2 was the war to end all wars, but where is the peace it guaranteed? Do we have to have a Third World War to guarantee world peace?

Thank you for your time and your patience, here's hoping this article has had an impact on your thinking. But here's something extra to take away, just in case: The world must have a central governmental body to provide both global stability and world peace. Everything else has be global roulette with the livers of billions.

Thank you.

CyberPunk65

WAP Launches

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Sat, 08 Feb 2014 18:51:00 +0000

The centre party relaunched to challenge historically elite political parties

Relaunched and Rebranding the (British) Social Media Party as WAP (World Alliance Party).

The website, that shut down last January, is returning from internet limbo ~but as WAP~ is hoping to reconnect with its users and revive its fortunes.

"We're happy that we've returned under our improved charter," Cyberpunk65, their political leader said yesterday. "Now we need to maximise this opportunity to build our party congress."

The decision to relaunch itself as an open, multi-faith party is more than a challenge, it's a promise to change modern politics completely.

So welcome to the WAP - WORLD, Alliance Party ~ we welcome all.

Check for our constantly updating info.

Thank you

Who's Afraid of A World Government?

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:47:00 +0000

"...not so long ago the idea of world government had greater influence in the United States. Amid the enormous destruction unleashed by World Wars I and II, American Presidents successfully championed the establishment of the League of Nations and, later, the United Nations as instruments to curb the narrow nationalism that traditionally had led to war."

- Dr. Lawrence S. Wittner

A Modern Utopia by H.G. Wells

Given the obvious failures of mainstream political figures and the weakness of the United Nations at present, the whole 'One World Government' thing seems decades away. Still, people seem scared by the entire concept.

Early in October, 1945, twenty renown Americans (including physicist Albert Einstein) called for a "Federal Constitution of the World." The concept became that of transforming the United Nations into a world government. Many national organizations endorsed this idea.

However, by the time that the Cold war became the Hot war (in Korea) the whole idea had cooled enough for the movement to stall. So that in the United States what remains today of the world government movement is comprised largely of Citizens for Global Solutions.

Terms like 'utopian ideal' have been handed down by historical commentators of the twentieth century. In this concern, utopian means an idea far-off or generations away - not beyond imaging or far-reaching - but never an empty delusion incapable of guiding political activism.

However, there are still a few who find the notion simply more than intriguing. For those of us who long for a world state and a world government to be established, there is no doubt in purpose minds that it has to come to fruition eventually...

So, who's afraid of a world government?

Not I! And not any organization I'm willing to become part of either.

(Brit) SocialMedia: Alliance of Labour, UKIP and Occupy Members Attempt to Reform City of London

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:00:00 +0000

"Ahead of elections this month to the City of London Corporation, an unlikely political alliance is pressing for radical reform and greater accountability from an institution where many ancient traditions continue to hold sway"

From Guardian Feeds »

(Brit) SocialMedia: Brussels plot

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 06:00:00 +0000

SHAMEFUL MEPs are already plotting to torpedo the historic EU budget cut.

The Euro politicians want a secret ballot on the issue so they can vote for a rise anonymously and escape their national leaders’ fury.

Tories warned the sinister plot, unveiled yesterday by the MEPs’ German president Martin Schulz, would “almost certainly” succeed...

« Read the Rest @ The Sun »

History of Global Banking Crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 22:45:00 +0000

Global Banking Crisis,

A Brief History...

The current global banking crisis began with an escalation in foreclosure rates among homeowners during 2006–2007, leading to a critical juncture in August 2008.

The way that the nation's mortgage markets are structured mean that a decline in the housing market hits other things: home builders, real estate, home supply, retail outlets, money markets, hedge funds (held by large institutional investors), and foreign banks. All of which increase the risk of a nationwide recession.

By 2007-2008 we were in the worst financial emergency since 1930s Great Depression. Large fiscal institutions were threatened by financial breakdown; then bailed out by national governments. Causing a downturn in the world's stock markets.

The backwash resulted in troubles in the housing market - leading to foreclosures and evictions - with lengthened and increased unemployment.

"The crisis played a significant role in the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of US dollars, and a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global recession and contributing to the European sovereign-debt crisis."

Financial crisis of 2007–2008 @ Wikipedia »

The global credit crisis nearly destroyed the world's banking systems.

"Could the current financial crisis have been predicted from historians knowledge of past down turns and depressions globally?

Dr David Chambers, University Lecturer in Finance and Deputy Director of the School’s Master of Finance programme, thinks so.

An analysis of what happened in the crash of the 1930s may prove a good way to predict how long it may take us to get out of the current financial difficulties.

Structural problems, Dr Chambers says, need to be faced up to before a recovery is likely, and there could well be a few false dawns along that road to recovery.

Lessons From History by Dr David Chambers

(Brit) SocialMedia: 'U-turn' over scrapping of GCSEs

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 08:47:00 +0000

Planned switch from GCSEs to Baccalaureate in England 'abandoned'

Plans to scrap GCSEs in key subjects in England and replace them with English Baccalaureate Certificates are being abandoned by the government.

The reversal was announced by the education secretary in the Commons, alongside curriculum changes.

Michael Gove said plans for the new exams had been "a bridge too far".

« Read the Rest @ BBC News »

See also: « Michael Gove: Labour think poor children should stick to their station »

A Reinvention of British Politics

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 19:02:00 +0000

« Reblogged from: ProjectGetElected »

All I see around me is heartache and pain. Idiots and morons.

Does anyone care?

When I was a lad we cared. We cared about music and girls... we cared about politics and fashion... we cared about life and death... we cared about freedom and justice... we simply cared.

There was a reason why we cared; we had a pride in our nation. We had pride because this was a great nation. Great Britain. Not because we ruled other countries (which Britain was infamous for in the past), but because British citizens were outstanding. We had great politicians, great painters, great photographers, great designers, great entrepreneurs, great industrialists, a great banking system, and a great respect for the monarchy.

Today... No one cares.

We don't care about the environment. (At least, most of us don't.) There are a few overbearing pop stars (like Sting) that bleat on about saving the planet while schlepping from continent to continent in their own private jets (using fossil fuel and emitting CO2 gasses like mad). Other than these wannabees, no one 'really' cares.

We don't care about our over-populated world. We have children younger, and live longer. Teen can't spell condoms (let alone use them). We have the likes of Jeremy Kyle blaring on about sticking 'something on the end of it' and making a living from talking to these horny juveniles - as though they care; they don't. Neither do we. (What's it matter to the average Britain if some snotty-nosed brat is the father, or the other five possibles? I ask you, do you care? Really?)

We don't care about education. The sodding degenerates that pretend to be students don't really care about education either. (They just want to drink cheep larger and loaf about, saying pretentious crap like 'in my opinion' - then quoting some facile entry in an outdated tome, they haven't even bothered to read properly. "In my opinion, Einstein got it right when he said, Go Go!" All Bollocks. Total crap.) They don't have the experience to have an opinion; what does someone know that's just got out of nappies? (Bugger all.)

We don't even care about politics either. (Or the country wouldn't have voted in a load of Tory twits and wet wallies from the Lib Dems. Nick Clegg promised to be better than he's being, and the country swallowed it! If we were fishes we'd be wrapped in paper and smothered in salt and vinegar.

This was once a great nation.

Now we're a third-world nation, with too many children living in poverty and squalor. Half the country's unemployed, most of the rest's under-employed and under-paid.

What's this world coming too?

With all this, its not surprising that Britain is no longer 'Great'. Most people don’t care. Britain isn't a place of tolerance and pluralism, its a hive of prejudice from the head to its underbelly.

The problem is … I care!

I care about human rights, and civil liberties. I care about freedom of speech and the political climate. I care about education and child poverty. I care about immigration, intolerance and prejudice. I care about the unemployed, the unemployable and the under-paid under-employed. I care about businesses, finance, banks and bankruptcy. I even care about British and European politics, and political lies and deception. I care enough to want to change things …

A reinvention of British politics.

It has become time for a reinvention of British politics; a reform of Parliament. I am not a defender of the status quo. Neither am I a rebel, just for the sake of it. (Even though I'm a punk, I'm a Parliamentarian at heart.) The present structure and formation of Parliament is an obstacle to the reform of that Parliament, and its government.

As Nick Clegg stated at the 2009 Lib Dem party conference (in Bournemouth) the "choice before people is the choice between fake, phoney change from David Cameron's Conservatives, and real change..." (He then offered the Lib Dems as that change; but, as hindsight has proved, they are more of the same.) So now it is time for a change - every nook and cranny of the British political system must be reformed.

"I will build a reputation for being honest and straightforward. I am a socialist by upbringing, a mediator by instinct and a realist by temperament."

(British) Social Media Party

The (British) Social Media Party are the true "progressives" in UK politics.

It's time for the people to retake power. We don't want change, we demand it!

This is Project Get Elected. Put A Punk in Parliament and change British politics forever...

(Brit) SocialMedia: MoD Overspends Equipment Budget By £6.5bn

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:13:00 +0000

The Ministry of Defence has overspent its equipment budget by £6.5bn and some of its major orders are likely to be delivered 39 years late.

The 16 most costly projects should have taken 159 years to deliver between them and cost a total of £56.5bn ... But the National Audit Office (NAO), in its latest report into the MoD's spending, reveals they are now set to take a total of 195 years and cost £61.1bn.

« Read the Rest @ Sky News »

This is typical of how British Government spends. Leaving a deficit which the poorest in society have to fund through benefit cuts.

The Olympics was a drain on resources and now the MoD overspend resources. Leaving us cash-strapped Britain.

Still proud to be British??

See also: « Why The Nuclear Deterrent Has Had Its Day »

Project Get Elected (2)

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:40:00 +0000

« Blogged from: ProjectGetElected »

Intro:

The initial decision...

Two weeks before my 47th Birthday I decided I'd like to be an MP. But things are not always as they seem...

Is politics on the decline?

In 1945 72.8% of the electorate voted in the General Election - by 2001 that had dropped to just 59.4% - but in the last General Election, of 2010, only 65.1% of electorate bothered to turn out. (Figures from http://www.ukpolitical.info/ Turnout45.htm and exclude votes deliberately or accidentally spoiled.)

UK Political Info (2012)
Image: ukpolitical info

This general decline in political interest is caused by an apathy in the general electorate of the United Kingdom. The reason is, people are not engaging with political parties any longer. As the Guardian warned in a recent article (of 06/07/2012) British Democracy is in "long-term terminal decline... and disillusioned citizens [have] stop[ped] voting". We feel let down by the sleaze and the lies and want (even expect) more...

A state of mind can't easily be changed

As I said, things are not always as they seem. We all say "I'm too old to change now" or "its too late for me". But it isn't, you know. While ever your alive, it's never too late!

So I made a decision to change things!

The thing is, I'm a punk. I may have blue hair, but I'm no young Conservative. I'm a working man, but Labour isn't my colours either. I'm a socialist and democrat, but I'm no Liberal Democrat. Neither the Greens nor UKIP appeal, and the fanatics (BNP, SNP, etc) don't interest me in the slightest.

So what's a punk supposed to do?

Taking a stand

At first, it was one of those throw-away ideas. You know, the sort that we have from time to time; when we think "Ooh, that seems like a good idea". And that's usually as far as it goes. We make a random decision to do something, that disappears just as quickly as it comes.

But it didn't go. It lingered on, and on, and on.

By morning, the 10th of September 2012, it was clear in my mind - a need, an urge, a must...

When, if not now?

It had to be now ... or never!

So I sat down and decided to form my own party: the (British) Social Media Party was born.

But who sets off on a journey without first deciding where they are going to end up? I had one place in mind, and that was Westminster. I decided I'd become A Punk in Parliament.

Project Get Elected

As I set off down this road to Westminster I decided to document my life experiences here and on several of my blogs:

Project Get Elected is an integral part of that process. If not my actual road map, it shall become my compass - pointing me in the right direction.

i-thorts' i-Views: Is it in society's interest to keep drugs and prostitution illegal?

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:11:00 +0000

Reblogged from i-thorts' i-Views.

Should Drugs & Prostitution

Be Illegal?

That's the question that any politician should ask; but not many ever do.

The law of this land is drugs are bad keep away from them (but alcohol and tobacco is okay so long as tax is being paid on them) and prostitution is immoral therefore bad; so both are equally illegal.

The thing is 'immoral' isn't the same as dangerous and 'bad' isn't the same as harmful.

Anything taken to excess is 'bad for you' - from sugar and fat to alcohol and cigarettes - but that doesn't necessarily stop their sale to the public.

Is it immoral to sell ones body for money? It's worst to sell it to feed a drug habit (for something that could be anything masquerading as the 'real deal').

Drugs and prostitution go hand-in-hand and feed each other.

Statue to honor the sex workers of the world. March 2007, Amsterdam.

Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s proves that if something is forbidden it takes on a coolness to some; an irresistability one found say. One that lures in the young and the foolhardy. And by making a commodity (alcohol, drugs or prostitution) illegal it makes that product even more profitable.

Desirable and profitable are the two words that make any business-man or -woman sit-up and take notice. But when you add illegal to this mix the business goes underground and the gangster takes over.

Crime and profit are bed-fellows. If the is a profit to be made the criminal faternity will find a way. That's how so many young and venerable women are dragged into a life of forced-prostitution - and kept there by an induction of drug addiction.

Legalize drugs and that half the battle solved. Legalize prostitution too and that most of it solved.

At what cost, I hear you state. That's simple. Make the sale of drugs a licenced affair (like alcohol and cigarettes). Prohibit their sale to minors and tax them in the same way.

Make prostitution a job. Tax their earning and make it licenced to easy prosecution of offenders. Get the girls off the streets and into safer environments with health and safety regulations in the same way that any service industry would have in place.

A plumber wouldn't ply his/her trade from a streets corner, so why should a prostitute? Safety for any venerable individual is paramount these days. So why do we have this antiquated attitude to the sex-trade.

Morality doesn't come into selling cigarettes and alcohol, so why should it be used to justify outlawing prostitution!

Drugs are freely sold from businesses 24-7. We just call them beer, wine, spirits, cider, cigarettes, and tobacco. Is there that much difference between someone legally addicted to painkillers and someone with an illegal recreational drug habit? Why this duel standard exists is taxation.

Tax all drugs for recreational and tax prostitute's earnings and make both legal; that removes the dilemma and reduces crime overnight.

i-Politics: More Austerity For Britain

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 13:36:00 +0000

reblogged from i-thorts' i-Politics

An Extra Of Austerity

Foreseen For Britain

Alongside the statement on Wednesday, the Chancellor's Autumn Statement on Wednesday, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR - the independent fiscal watchdog) are set to tell George Osborne that the Government's efforts to reduce borrowing are in danger.

The OBR are expected to warn this week that the Chancellor looks set to miss his target for bringing down Britain's debt mountain; raising the prospect of more austerity measures.

Unless the Chancellor puts forward further hardship measures, Economists - alarmed by just how difficult it seems for the debt-ratio to begin decreasing in the foretold timescale of 2014-15 and 2015-16 (which Mr Osborne set to reduce GDP) - warn that Mr Osborne's goal for reductions to the gross domestic product were totally underestimated. This means the Chancellor's duel debt-reducing targets are more at risk because of the low growth-estimates and their knock-on impact on the Treasury's revenues.

"When the OBR was established in 2010 I said that the evidence of its success would come when a Chancellor of the Exchequer wished it had never been set up. I think that moment is approaching..."

Sir Alan Budd, chairman of the interim OBR, Sunday Telegraph 02/12/12

As if things aren't bad enough! The outcome being an extra year of hardship is foreseen for British citizens .

Theory of Disproportionate Borrowing

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:08:00 +0000

I do believe there would be revolution if the people of this great nation understood our banking and monetary system. Some individuals even believe there is a secret cabal of Banks working against the best interests of people of the world.

« From:- Credit Crisis or Banking Conspiracy? »

« Reblogged from : Philosophy page »

Theory of

Disproportionate

Borrowing:

The redistribution of consumer wealth increases consumer spending which boosts the economy (often not by manufacturing), causing importation of mass goods -which, in turn, increases the country's debt, thereby causing more inflation; thus, goods rise in price. This price hike means that consumers need to boost earnings or borrow to cover this increase. This cycles on and on until something stops it.

There are two ways to tackle this problem:

A downturns in the country's economy is usually a short-lived problem that stems from a lack of demand. The (John Maynard Keynes - Labour style) solution is a simple but radical one: Involving a short-termed boost in the Government's public spending. (Once the economy returns to a state of buoyancy, the government reclaims its budget deficit by increasing taxes and reducing public spending once more.)

John Maynard Keynes
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is known as the "demand management policy." It's when the economy slumps and public spending goes up. Then, when trade is booming once again, the government spends little or nothing.

The other method, is to do as the Conservatives have always done (this is the Adam Smith method). Cuts across the board, hitting welfare, unemployment, and the NHS. Hoping this halt in spending balances out the lack of demand enough to kick-start the economy once more.

Profile of Adam Smith
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Both in the past have worked well; however, there are also problems with both economic solutions: These only work well in the short-term and create as many problems as they solve.

The main problem though is one of demand. If there is no current demand, surely it stands to reason that a false boost through an increase in public spending is the economic equivalent of putting a plaster on a knife wound.

It won't work.

Cutting spending only makes life harder, putting a further strain on general consumer spending and the economy in in particular.

So what is the solution?

That's the difficulty. Without demand there isn't much that anyone can do.

Demand is the only real issue here.

Credit Crisis or Banking Conspiracy?

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 00:48:00 +0000

A follow up article to:
« The Banks In Crisis - A World Bank is in Order »

Last week I said: "Some believe that the double-dip resession was the calculation of the banking fraternity to 'shear-off' money from the public. That the planned sudden shortage of money was designed to effect money markets across the word; that it was engineered to put people into debt. Thereby, obliging countless millions (who have nothing) to those who have the supply of money - banks and money funds. Surfdom by the backdoor, as it were."

I do believe there would be revolution if the people of this great nation understood our banking and monetary system. Some individuals even believe there is a secret cabal of Banks working against the best interests of people of the world.

In Britain at the moment there is a triple-dip scenario (this is the third recession of the credit crisis here). When, on 14/11/12 the Bank of England warned growth might not get back to pre-crisis levels until mid 2015. GDP (economic output) might only rise by 1% next year. Even so, there are still no prospects for the jobless millions.

Back in June, Robert Zoellick, the outgoing head of the World Bank Group, warned the G20 summit that Europe ran the risk of sparking a 'Lehman-style' global crisis - especially for developing nations - for whom consequences might be quite dire.

(The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 proved to be the trigger for the deepest slump in the global economy since the 1930s. One we seem incapable of shaking free of.

"...prepare for the uncertainty coming out of the eurozone and the wider financial markets" Zoellick told G20 back in June. "Uncertainty in markets is now starting to increase costs for developing countries. The ripple effects are making everybody's life harder."

World Bank President, Robert B. Zoellick

During 2012 high-income country growth is expected to increase by 1.4%; while, growth in developing country is expected to slow to a measly 5.3%. (According to an update in the Bank's June 2012 Global Economic Prospects, the global economy is expected to increase by 2.5% by the end of 2012 and up to 3% during 2013.)

Zoellick said he was concerned that the prolonged crisis was starting to lead to pressures for protectionism and economic nationalism. (Since the financial crisis began, in 2008, the World Bank Group has committed more than $280 billion to its members.)

I feel he was right and that things can only get worse before thet get better.

"Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit; and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again..."
- Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1940.

If there is a world conspiracy of Banks to keep poor-people poor and themselves rich, it would seem to be working.

Banks in Crisis - A World Bank Is In Order

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:55:00 +0000

Some believe that the double-dip recession was the calculation of the banking fraternity to 'shear-off' money from the public. That the planned sudden shortage of money was designed to effect money markets across the word; that it was engineered to put people into debt. Thereby, obliging countless millions (who have nothing) to those who have the supply of money - banks and money funds Serfdom by the back-door, as it were.

If this is so, then what of the banking crisis? More money manipulation? I hazard to think not.

Banking District (Photo credit: bsterling)

Decisions taken by administrative bodies, and their appointed delegates, and civil organizations, all employing a variety of methods, none of which give their customers an opportunity to vote "yes" or "no" for the outcome.

Bankers think they own the earth. Our plan is to take it away from them. The power to create money and control credit should be in the hands of the people; in the hands of a world government run to help the people, not harm them. I want nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in public hands, nothing less than the economy of the whole world.

Who's Afraid of World Government? (Photo credit: Truthout.org)

The power of the internet is so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that it encompasses everything. This world conspiracy of social media has been steadily growing. This conspiracy plays a definite recognizable role in most peoples' lives; and it will become the mainspring of every political movement during the 21st century. At last this extraordinary wellspring from the underworld of the geek has gripped the world's people by their hair and become the undisputed master of commerce. The growth of social media has made it possible to centralize the of world's economic control for the direct benefit of the people and not all current economic groups.

A world financial system dominated by the political system of each country but with a centralized head. Credit controlled by one fund, so everyone has the same chances.

Education Is At It's Best When It Is Free...

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:58:00 +0000

I believe there's only one thing that matters in this world: Education. Education. Education.

Cyberpunk65

And education is at its best when it is free... and publicly provided to all.

It is so vital in preparing the youth of all nations... in the foundation of a liberty-loving people with an interest in free world government... that higher education is also free to ALL.

World Education Logo

(As hackers and geeks are fond of pointing out: All information should be 'freely available to all' - and that should include the best education attainable.)

Geek Circuit Polaroid

"There needs to be a focus on the creation of a world of democracy, peace and prosperity for all. For the welfare of the whole world and the new world order."

From The New World Order - A Revolution »

Why Do We A Need Global Government?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 22:48:00 +0000

Many prominent world leaders have called for a one world government.

The published goal of the (British) Social Media Party is a one world government.

The Commission believes that world events, since the creation of the United Nations in 1945, combined with advances in technology, the information revolution, and the now-global awareness of impending environmental catastrophe, create a climate in which the people of the world will recognize the need for, and the benefits of, global governance...

There is no historic model for the system here proposed, nor is there any method by which the governed may decide whether or not they wish to be governed by such a system...
- The Commission for Global Governance
Our Global Neighborhood »

The State will look after you "for your best interests," as they say.
The United Nations is currently trying to establish a framework for the international criminal court to deal with 'environmental crimes' and 'crimes against humanity'.

International Criminal Court (ICC) logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Private ownership and management of property is not to the benefit of the human psyche. We get in debt, we worry, we become obsessed, we suffer. We are all about to feel the full force of this debt - the number of bankruptcies are rising - businesses closing everywhere.

"A world government can intervene militarily in the internal affairs of any nation when it disapproves of their activities. "
- Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary General

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We have to seize the opportunity of a long-held promise of diverse nations drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind. This can only come about under a global government.

So, why do we need a global government? Because the nation-states aren't working.

If they were, we wouldn't need one!

Labour Calls for £7.20 an Hour 'Living Wage'

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 22:01:00 +0000

Reblogged from The Writing's on the Wall: i-Politics:

Ed and David Miliband have put their political rivalry aside to work on plans for millions of workers to be paid a “living wage” of at least £7.20 an hour - Read More @ Telegraph »

i-thorts' i-Politics: Welfare Cuts? - Not In Our Back Yard!

noreply@blogger.com (Rae Burz) — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:29:00 +0000

Reblogged from The Writing's on the Wall: i-Politics:

BBC reported (Child benefit 'nimbys' accused) that Middle-classes are fuming at the thought of losing some (or all) child-benefit one parent is earning from £50,000 to £60,000 and over. (Families of three children could loose £4,000.)

This comes after poorer couples (working under 24 hour a week between them) lost up to £100 week (£5,200 a year) in working tax from this April ... and no one battered an eye or even seemed to report it. These are families on minimum wage, earning under £6,000.

The under-employed loose nearly 50% their income and no one cares. But when the Middle-classes suffer less than a 10% cut in theirs, the Treasury Minister, David Gauke, says that his own family will "just have to cope" with the proposed cut in child benefit "like the rest of the country".

David Gauke, using Tax Calculator app (Photo credit: HM Revenue & Customs)

Am I living in an alternative reality?

Will the rich be on their soapbox next; complaining about losing winter fuel payment for their stately-home or that they've lost their over-60s free bus pass?