Tuesday, 26 January 2010

BNP Health Policy?

I found this blog and thought it interesting:


I added a comment:

"Your blog is correct Ami. It is important to understand that the whole workings of the NHS has to be considered when costs and ideology is involved. But the fact is that sound bites with no real meaning or truth for that matter, have always been used by political parties, such as John Major's "Back to Basics" and Tony Blair's "Zero Tolerance..." rhetoric.

Most people do not want to know how politicians are going to do something they just want them to say they are going to do something. If they are saying what the joe public thinks is true - that immigrant workers are stealing our jobs, that too much money is spent on aid to third world countries, that the gay agenda is destroying the way of the family and those religious (especially fundamental Christian) related organisations who will not accept such agendas, and that it would be good to "replace 100,000 NHS bureaucrats with doctors, nurses and dentists”, ( I come from a background of working for the NHS and found the sheer pettiness of the bureaucracy regarding bureaucratic power struggles and inadequate and business profit modelled management a detriment to both patient care and reshaping of the health service), then people will vote for the political party that espouses such things.

If political parties and other organisations want to combat nationalism, I think it is important to remember that though the main tenor of the BNP ideology is fascist, it's their rhetoric of nationalism that the people relate to, which is what the BNP means to most of their party members and those who voted for them in the EU elections of 2009, they are not all fascists in the true sense of the meaning of the word fascist, then they have to take up the rhetoric used and offer an answer that is meaningful to that rhetoric.

Nick Griffin and his followers are unlikely to look up and read about how and where the government spends it's money. Not many other ordinary people will bother to do so either. Thus political rhetoric to combat the BNP has to be to the point and simple. I have yet to see anything like that from the other political parties though the Lib Dems did a pretty good job in their NEWS  (For Your Local Community) newssheet I received in January of this year 2010 (Brighton & Hove Lib.Dems)".  

Comments always welcome!

Monday, 25 January 2010

Disaster and Tragedy

Help support Haiti as it has suffered the worst earthquake in history. This impoverished country was shaken to is core and left bereft of the necessities of government and social institutions with many of Haiti’s prominent people dead. Though the UN has send in troops and aid supplies are trying to be sent Haiti is in a dire  predicament and needs both aid and physical support. In times like these the human race shows that it does care and can achieve so much for a country in need.

My hope is that the money and aid collected for Haiti actually gets to those in need! So often the case the aid money is creamed off by unscrupulous government officials and businessmen to feather their own nests. It has and does happen.

Thinking about countries that are always in need of aid (disasters not withstanding) the question has to be asked why? A continuing crises is no longer a crises, it is a permanent thing. If those countries are to be helped then the socio-political system has to be looked at. A corrupt system should not be kept in power by aid. I know we cannot interfere in those counties political institutions but if we cannot get our financial aid to the right people then we are wasting our money and supporting a corrupt regime who is living off our handouts to the detriment of their people. The argument that the people will suffer if we don’t give aid is only applicable if the aid gets to them in the first place. If it does not and has not then what is the difference to them if we give or not? Just asking

Thursday, 7 January 2010

Happy New Year 2010

Happy New Year to one and all – regardless of race, colour, religion – or not religious as the case may be - gender or sexual orientation, and whatever age you maybe. What do you hope for this year? Before we look at that question take a look at this link, just for a thought and a reflection, then do with the information as you will: http://evangelicalarminians.org/The-Arminian-vs.-Calvinist-Recall-Notice

I think that most people would want an end to the war(s) that abound around the world. Trouble is the cause of those wars are not resolved or are irresolvable because an ideology is opposite to what we in the west are 'fighting’ for. We are, for instance trying to impose or enable democratic progress to be implemented in areas where democracy is secondary to indoctrination. A whole new set of doctrinal presuppositions have to be understood, and they can be if those in charge wish for it to be so. If those in charge can stop blaming ‘the others’ for their problem and look for ways and means to build and care for their country – not just for themselves and their elect few, but for their fellow, and different opinionated, countrymen, and women. Growth and development has to override the mantra of ‘death to all who do not believe what I believe’. There will always be those of different opinions or beliefs. Try to show by example rather than by the bomb or the bullet – you might be amazed at what happens.

It would be good also if we in the west understood that our actions have an effect on other countries. From slave labour, sex-trafficking, arms and new technological supplies, industrial and financial misdemeanours to dumping chemical, toxic, white goods and IT items on less developed, and or less protected countries. I once read an economics book, one of many I have to say, in case you think I’ve only read one economics book!, that explained the why and then…nothing. Well any body can do that and be right, more or less, in their assumption. The real intelligent thing an economist could do would be to suggests solutions to the so called economic problems. Perhaps 2010 will bring about not just the reasons for why it happens, that in itself is most useful, but as to what remedies there are – and there are remedies, we just might not like them though! For instance, and please forgive the nature of this suggestion, but stay with me here. In the case of the rise of AIDS in the African and Asian countries: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/world-aids-day-warning-on-heterosexual-transmission-20091201-k3z2.html. & http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/world-aids-day-warning-on-heterosexual-transmission-20091201-k3z2.html Behaviour is the first remedy. Prevention, always is better than cure. But there you have the first ideological problem. Cultural difference to behaviour. If missionaries failed to get the word of God through the message of belief and transformation – their first goal it seems, rightly or wrongly, was to say all you folks should adapt to my way and that's that. No acknowledgement that some of the other cultural ways might actually have been beneficial. Ignorance and intolerance and bigoted behaviour on their part yes indeed, but some did learn from that. Some how we have to make a clear message that some actions will result in death, disease, hunger, poverty and war. That of course is the hardest part. Because there are many people who feel that other cultures should be left alone, to live the way they want – regardless of the outcome. But those same people also say we must help them. Indeed we must. But they must also be helped to help themselves. The question I shall impose upon you till my next blog is this: At what point do we start to help those to help themselves, and at what point is part of the helping them to help themselves considered to be imposing our will, or our westernised way of being, upon those who we feel fit to help?

A Happy New Year to you all - SHALOM