Catchy Title

Does anyone else think that Labour are almost guaranteed to win the next election?

David Cameron and his travelling circus almost seemed a viable alternative.   Right up until the moment they started revealing their policies.

The latest of which is a promise to cut, cut, cut within days of coming to power.  What they fail to realise is that every cut that gets made will have a knock-on effect to services being purchased from the private sector.  Unemployment will rise, interest rates will fall, and we’ll be back into decline along with our Italian, German, and Spanish friends.

Where-as Labours policy seems rather more sensible to me.  Let the Government take the strain, wait until the country has it’s own momentum in the direction of growth (lets say a year – well, actually the boffins said ‘a year’ as that’s when they’ve forecast the economy will be strong enough), THEN cut the deficit over a very reasonable 4 years to a tune of 50%.

We seem to have a party that will say what it thinks people want to hear, wihtout actually using relevant data to inform themselves.  I want my economic policy decided by a trained economist, who is being fed with all the latest data and opinions from across the globe, to then create a steady, conservative approach to deficit reduction, growth, and job creation.  What I don’t want is a party lurching around, changing it’s policies based on Daily Mail headlines regarding the state of our finances.

Economies go into recession when people stop spending, so the very last thing we need is the Government to lead the charge.  Four years is ample time to clear the deficit in my book.

The only thing that worries me about a Labour win is the effort their ministers and think-tanks put into social engineering policies.  Things like raising the minimum price of alcohol; what a crock!  Government should concentrate on the big things.  Over the past 13 years Labour have succeeded in a lot of ‘big’ areas;  things like Independence to the Bank Of England, Stopping genocide in Kosovo, The Northern Ireland Peace Treaty, repealing Section 28, creating Civil Partnerships and equal rights for same-sex couples, leading the charge to whip off African Debt, the smoking ban creating the amazing entertainment space which is the O2 Arena and surrounding area (which is already making more money than it cost), the successful Olympic bid which is creating Billion of Pounds worth of regeneration to hundreds of acres of land across the country, and we have led the world on climate change, 3rd world debt, resolving the financial ‘crisis’ amongst other things.  But all of these things have been mired by other things like ASBO’s, and those crazy children’s savings account things!

I may update this later,  but it’s Valentine’s day and I have preparations to make for my Valentine!

What is the point of an Inquiry?   Surely, it is to inquire of people, to gather pieces of information that you don’t already possess.  To collate together all pieces of evidence in order to produce a well-informed, educated, commentary or judgement relating to a specific set of questions?

Apparently not.  It seems that the BBC, ITV, Sky, The Guardian, The Mail, The Sun, The Mirror, The Star, The Times, all of the protesters, columnists, bloggers, and stay-at-home Blair-haters have all received the MI5/MI6/CIA/FBI/FSB files, all of the Cabinet Minister’s reports, the Civil Service files, the Military dossiers, not to mention the satellite imagery and witness statements from on the ground in Iraq.

I wish I had signed up to receive these too.  I’m guessing that Mr John Chilcott is also feeling a little foolish, as he appears to have missed out on that mailshot also.  He, just like me, is having to wait until people give evidence to find out what happened.  He like me is having to read through published documents to establish the timeline and decision making process that led to the invasion of Iraq.  What fools we are.

But I suspect that I may be wrong.  That there has been no release of information.  My suspicion is that 95% of the media are using nothing more than the court of uninformed public opinion obtained from what I only hope is a very small percentage of ignorant dullards, on which to base their reports of the facts; rather than using the freely available facts themselves.

The Times report of Tony Blair’s appearance in front the Inquiry today was headlined ‘Unrepentant Blair says ‘I’d do it again‘ , followed by the tagline ‘Tony Blair branded a murderer and liar after ending his appearance before Iraq inquiry with a refusal to voice any regrets‘.   What they failed to do was report any of the factual answers to questions.  They did however report about how he ‘felt’ about it all.  It turns out that one person in the audience of the Inquiry was responsible for the ‘murderer and liar’ comment.  Yet reading the headline, my first assumption was that the Inquiry had made that determination.

What they failed to do, and what all media outlets have failed to do is ask us: ‘If you were in Tony Blair’s position, with same facts at your fingertips that Mr Blair had in 2003; would you have made the same decisions?’, and ‘if nothing had been done, and Saddam had refused for the umpteenth time to abide by UN resolutions and inspections, would the world, and would the region be a safer place now’.   The unfortunate reality is that 95% of the population absolutely would have done the same thing, if in the exact same position, and the even more unfortunate reality is that 94% of the population are too ignorant and uninformed to admit it.

The security situation of the entire world dramatically declined on September 11th 2001.  It has got no worse since 2003.  In fact less people have died per year in terrorist attacks around the world since 2004 than in the years 2001-2003.  I for one am happy to see that Iraq is holding it’s own trials and tribunals against those who committed mass atrocities against it’s own citizens and it’s neighbours in the country’s recent history.   These trials are being held in open court, with findings and evidence being published frequently.  This would never have happened under Saddam, and these people would have never seen justice.  They would have continued their life living in palaces, living off the income from the oil fields whilst the workers suffered, and those that were of a different religious order would be raped, tortured and murdered at the whim of a power-hungry fascist elite.

When the ‘war’ first started a majority of the commentators to this post-war world were not standing on the rooftop crying ‘shame! foul!’.  Most of them were with public opinion, which was a sense of ‘something needs to be done, but we’re not entirely convinced that war is the way to go, however Saddam is making a mockery of the UN, and if this works as it should the actual ‘war’ should be over very soon’.  The silent majority were happy to support our troops and see where it went, as were the commentators.   But since the war, the slow and bloody rebuilding effort has caused a sway of ‘I-told-you-so’s’ from the people who in reality told us nothing of the sort.  They created a very hefty bandwagon on which there appeared to be enough room for everyone to jump.

Opinions are useless in all walks of life unless they are informed ones.  Informed by either a collection of accurate facts, or in the absence of facts, a healthy dose of experience in the field, and history of the situation at hand.  The British public and the media have neither.  They were not subject to the briefings, the reports, the intelligence gathering, and back-room talks; let alone the ‘tipped-winks, unnaturally prolonged hand-shakes coupled with a brief stare, and quiet maneuvering’ that has been a part of international diplomacy for thousands of years.  They were not, never will be, and most definitely shouldn’t be aware of all of the information gathered and where that information came from.

So the people that stand outside the QE2 Conference centre holding up the ‘Bliar’ banners, need to sit back for a moment.  They need to think about what information they have that the Chilcot Inquiry don’t. They should come forward and say what meetings they are aware of that contradict Tony Blair’s testimony.  They need to explain to the people that have yet to make up their mind, why they think that Tony Blair is a murderer, why they feel the coalition that went to Iraq had no business being there.   Why only a minority of Iraqi citizens feel the need to move around blowing things up yet the rest seem happy to create life, jobs and government, whilst the protesters share the same sentiment to the ‘war’ as the minority.  They need to explain why they say the only reason we went to war was money and oil,  yet the amount of oil being imported to the UK and the US in 2003-2008 is on average 44% lower than it was in the years up to 2003.  The oil price is not set by the UK or the US, and the income for the oil being extracted in Iraq is shared between the companies extracting it, and the Iraqi government.   The military operation has cost billions, and will continue to cost billions more.   There has been no financial incentive.   The US military is currently using thousands of troops, and many more engineers to upgrade the oil infrastructure in Iraq, and to ensure the security of it’s workers.  They are not getting paid for this task, and the only benefits are to the Iraqi Government, the people of Iraq, and the companies that work there.

Those people I referred to earlier who appeared to already be in possession of information that eludes the rest of us; the protesters, the media etc., they have already made up their minds.  They are baying for blood. Shouting words like ‘Justice! Murderer!’  Some feel that capital punishment should return for Blair and the like. They shout about an open trial by jury, and the ‘inevitable whitewash’ if the Inquiry was to rule ‘no foul’.  Yet how fair could the trial be, if to all of these people, ANY verdict other than ‘Blair is guilty, and the War was unfounded’ is deemed incorrect.  In reality there is already a trial occurring.  There is a panel of several learned men and women, weighing evidence and ‘judging’ the participants.   The only reason that this isn’t good enough for some, is that the panel was undecided on the outcome at the start, is looking to learn things that were unknown to them before, and wish to be fair and open-minded.  The only trial that would suit the placard holders would have to be made up of people who had their opinions of guilt/innocence registered before the commencement of the Inquiry.

The protesters need to get on with their lives, and start helping others.  If they have the time to stand outside buildings shouting outright lies on a weekday, then they have time to go out into the world, learning how it really works, and helping those that truly need help.  They are spiteful, mean-spirited, and two-faced.

As for the media.  A return to factual reporting, allowing the people to make informed decisions, and leaving the bias, the manipulation, and bare-faced hypocrisy behind would benefit society far more than the current model, yet perhaps wouldn’t be so profitable.

I welcome any comments to this blog, and I look forward to debating with those who may hold a different view.

Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google‘s search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.

In an interview with Sky News Australia, the mogul said that newspapers in his media empire – including the Sun, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – would consider blocking Google entirely once they had enacted plans to charge people for reading their stories on the web.

At least someone in the audience likes him....maybe a little too much.

I know the story is a couple of days old now, but it is such a good’n’ I feel the need to commit something to writing so that I to may basque in the glory of I-WAS-RIGHT-AND-HE-WAS-SO-VERY-WRONG that will inevitably come in the near future.

This glorious day has a 80% chance of arriving in one of two ways:

1. Because his advisors (who MUST be better at running a company than Rupert, otherwise News Corp would no longer be trading) have managed to convince the old crone that he may as well start giving away free anthrax samples with every newspaper for all the good blocking his sites from search engines will do.

or

2. The guy would have stamped his feet enough that News Corp actually go through with his ‘evil’ plan (no, I don’t ACTUALLY think his plan is evil….it just sounded good), that traffic to his sites drops dramatically, he fails to reach existing visit targets for advertisers and loses gazillions of dollars, and the lack of traffic/negative press deter future advertisers from his sites.

So why only 80% chance you ask?  Well…..he’s not a spring chicken any more.  I’m just sayin’!  Even I won’t gloat over the body of a dead man.  I wish him many more happy years,  cause I REALLY, REALLY want to gloat.

So, I must tell you now that I am actually a large customer of Mr Murdoch (no, I’m not fat, I meant financially).  That is, not a small sum of money leaves my account each month in exchange for a Sky+ HD Multiroom subscription.  I also pay for all the TV packages, the Movies and the Sports, the telephone line, telephone calls, and broadband.  I also work away from home a lot, so having access to SKY Player to watch movies and current TV is a real bonus.

I find that technically, the service is sound.  It very rarely goes wrong.  Financially, it is a good deal.  If I were to piece together the same package from separate providers it would cost much more.  Other than Virgin of course, but cable isn’t available in the area for that apartment.   However, the customer service, the engineers, the call centres, and the billing system sucks.  It is a close 2nd for suckiness behind BT.  But, if the technology itself never goes wrong, then I should never have to speak with them.  I will continue to keep my fingers crossed, but if it was to start breaking down and I actually had to start dealing with these people (the people that took 4 hours and 6 phone conversations to understand that I wanted to upgrade to HD), then I would most certainly go elsewhere.  I’m lucky enough to be in a position where my time is more valuable than money, and if Sky start stealing that, then I really would get mad (with steam out of the ears and everything).

My point being that I and I’m sure most other consumers are savvy.  We weigh up what we want, we estimate what we think something is worth.  We will sometimes pay a little more than something is worth, but we will weigh up the benefits of having that item or service against how much it will dent our pockets (the only exception to this general rule of thumb is drugs;  drugs put a whole new spin on ‘reasoned’ analysis, so we’ll quietly ignore THOSE purchases for now). Oh, and by the way, DON’T DO DRUGS!!   So, back to my point; if I get a better, more comprehensive, FREE news/tabloid service from many other companies, there is no way in heck that I’ll be paying any extra for it.

I downloaded a new Sky Mobile App on the iPhone yesterday.  Wow! Does this mean I get the same functionality of SKY Player on my iPhone??  No. Does it mean I get the SKY news channel coupled with a few Sports Channels? Yes; I feel I’m starting to lose you. So I get this free because I’m a SKY customer, already paying for this content with a full SKY subscription? No. What the F%*k?  So how much is it? £6 per month. £6 a month to access something I can already access on my laptop, PC, or at home at no extra cost? Yes. That blows! Yes, yes Mr Stakounis, it does indeed…blow.

The app will most certainly be useful for all those Premierball, ship thing match fans who don’t have a Sky subscription, and I’m sure it’ll make Murdoch a few more quids to line his coffin with, however I resent being asked to pay for the same thing twice.  Just like I resent being asked for money to access something which others are providing for free.

Even before the internet I got all my news from Reuters. I ‘browse’ Reuters for news, if I overhear a snipet or want to lookup a news story, I will Google it, and I will usually pick a selection of sites to read about the subject.  Once on those sites, I almost always start clicking links in the sidebar to other potentially interesting content, whether it be commercial or not.  I have asked a few friends and colleagues whether this is normal surfing behavior (because lets face it, I’m not to know what is normal), and shock of all shocks, a unanimous “yeah, we’re with you Rich, that’s exactly how we ‘do’ the internet too”.  So, I believe that when Mr M said that “readers who randomly reach a page via an internet search hold little value to advertisers.”, he was talking from a point of very little understanding of his readership, the internet, or the modern e-marketplace.  Thank goodness for News Corp that they employ intelligent people to, you know, actually RUN the company.  But as far as pretty-boy, air-headed, company poster-boys go; I don’t rate him.  He doesn’t turn me on to the company, doesn’t turn me on (perish the thought), and doesn’t make me want to buy anything.  In fact every time he speaks in public I feel kinda dirty.

I used to buy the Times on an occasional Sunday morning and spend the day reading at a street cafe in London, just to pass the time, but I have never bought a tabloid, I don’t care for gutter journalism, I like to keep my ‘news’ completely separate from my ‘editorials, opinions, and commentaries’, and I certainly will not be paying anymore money the Sky/News Corp or Mr M in any guise unless absolutely necessary.  My Sky subscription has increased by 25% in 2 years as it is.

The plain truth is, that Murdoch has too much influence on the social and political leanings of his press, his opinions and ideals are separated by a whole world’s worth of space from mine, and I simply won’t pay to be fed it, unless it is done with reason, education, information, and intelligence.

Related articles.

[polldaddy poll=2245361]