From a 2.25 to 4 trillion infrastructure plan how the economics can work. (Part 5)

We have to take control of Climate Change or it will increasingly control us.

It will do this at a tickle to exponential then vertical level unless we interject, which is easy to do. Temperatures only have to go up a few degrees for a few hours about 50 Degrees and the human body cannot cope with that. Yet, trees control rain, control temperature.

 If we don't take Climate change on in the way that is really ambitious, and a planned and broad way then it could be that in future people could in future commit crimes to get access to air conditioning. Yet this will cease to function effectively consistently. Essentially, every country is actually completely lost with Climate Change, without coherent action by all. It's a bit like that with the pandemic too.

One country that is very close indeed, one year away to be able to fully instigate "a template" model that other countries can then adapt, learn from and apply has been in  the past the UK, However with President Biden’s plan it could be the USA that could leap in front with this. This is due to the fact the UK has not fully used and properly applied Integrated Strategies in the past fully, when there has been the chance and opportunity to do this.

 Essentially, the system of the UK yet could still in theory produce the most effective answer to Climate change in the world, no matter which party gets voted in, if any of the Uk parties take a particular course of action. 

The UK, whichever party gets voted in, can do more for solving climate change than any group of scientists, any other climate change experts or organisation anywhere on the planet can, Why?

The reason that the UK has a vast advantage and is in fact the best aligned and prepared is that the most essential societal infrastructure is already in place, it's already known of by the public yet not in the correct way. If that 'civic infrastructure" is adapted and aligned to function coherently and correctly then the world will have its first full and verified answer to meeting the nemesis of humanity Climate Change full on and having the capacity and capability of being able to reverse it. Let me again broaden the context by asking this question. What is it that is causing Climate Change? The answer to that is groups of gases. However, forget scientific details for a moment, what man made actions are causing Climate Change? To answer that with a broad statement and looking at this from again the broadest perspective we can say more or less every action we take in our modern day world is adding in some way to the climate change.

So the usual answer is to think of environment friendly products as being the answer. However, any product unless you pick it out of your garden is a contributing component to Climate Change. Even if you pick something out of the garden you are reducing the greenhouses gas absorption in your garden by a tiny, tiny amount. So really in truth, there are almost no climate change benign products. There are though some such as products made of Cork, Agave and bamboo which encourages more planting of greenhouse absorbing trees and grasses or Hemp and Lime which absorbs more greenhouse gases by far than it requires to produce. But really it's a few products out of so many that are actually carob negative. Ie the use of these products is better than the non use of them.  So therefore, it's essential to create,promote and incorporate into trade as many of these carbon absorption benefit products. If every company considered how do we incorporate these into production or our offices then we progress massively. To some extent the car industry has already with natural fibers being a requirement in new cars. The natural fibers used are beneficial to the environment. Yet, the type of thinking to include these specialist resources needs to be more a part of the choices made by governments, consumers and companies.

However, it's not just considering products; it's all the actions of modern life. Even if they are on green electricity. There was still a manufacture cost. So usually within thirty seconds of us getting out of bed we have taken our first climate change contributing action of the day. Switching the kettle on for coffee or tea. The last we do usually ten seconds before bed, switching the light off. So it could be said that the only time we really are eco friendly is when we are not conscious. Whatever we do when we are conscious adds to the greenhouse effect. So we have to conclude here, almost everything we do contributes. We buy a green product and think we are doing something good, yet with transport, paperwork, packaging, then the taxes that are paid on that product and then how they are then used. Essentially, there is a very, very complex web of stimulus, what could be likened to an "integrated network" that produces what's termed in applied psychology a "double bind" situation.

All directions produce some or many aspects that add to the issue. With the use of electric batteries, recycled paper etc., there is both reducing the issue on one level, yet adding on another. So if the solutions are part of the perpetuation of the phenomenon itself could one not conclude that there is no answer to Climate Change. One could at the moment, but that is not true, there is an answer and a very provable answer. Part of that answer is doing all of those green or greener actions, yet that just being massively expanded upon and with more advanced consumer methodologies applied to expand the good actions that are already taken.. 

So what is the real answer to Climate Change?

The equivalent of a dot.com boom needs to be induced in terms of investment into all and every climate answers and innovations, coupled with the vast replanting of foliage.

We are at the transportable phone level of innovation and need to get to the Smart phone equivalent as quickly as possible. That requires huge amounts of money, yet without disrupting human development and in a way that is expedient and fast. 2. In order to do this requires creating an adaption to how we do all actions from the moment we get up to the moment we go to bed that go from being simply a part of the problem to being a part of the problem and the answer at the simultaneously. In terms of the dot com boom technology each year was doubling in its capacity, halving in its size.The exponential improvements from The Spectrum until the I-Pad. That is not only required, it's totally feasible. How? Before explaining that I have to provide another analogy. Meeting the Climate Change Emergency requires having the mindset where we are prepared to take a course of action, yet knowing and hoping that a better process will be discovered to improve upon what we are doing. Like The Horse and Cart to the Car to the Tesla car. This is exactly what just happened to me. i have been teaching the use of hemp and lime in construction at a renewable energy project in Spain for 14 years. However Bill Gates is now funding a project that removes the greenhouse gases from concrete. So allowing for and encouraging the improvement of what we are doing is part of the process.  

That process can be achieved in three ways. 1. Inducing "The Green Industrial Revolution" in one country. 2. The Ballot box. 3. Explaining what happened in the UK politics where many of the mechanisms for inducing "The Green investment dot com boom" in the UK got used and copied by Prime Minister's and MP's copied into much of the content of UK politics, yet in a way that was either partly correct or incorrect. However, the fact that these aspects are already established as known concepts in the UK could mean that the UK is the best placed country to re-organise these and create an economic model that can create the green dot com boom required in order to facilitate the vertical uptake of all green answers and provide and induce the technological green improvements and technologies that are required. This year alone an inventor has found a way to use salt water to create batteries and there is the cement innovation. I have just been researching all the main Asian cities to see where their innovation is. Some of it is excellent and far ahead of Europe.

Yet Asia as a whole in many countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia are now millions upon millions of motor scooters, unlike two decades ago filling up very rapidly expanding cities. Beijing does too, however a very high uptake of electric vehicles, the most in the world. So, the way to go is to alter a system, any system in any country to create vast new funds for climate technologies and then extrapolate. 

There is a way to combine much or all of this knowledge in the Uk and re-instigate the models though this time fully, correctly and with the ongoing new information obtained applied also so the work is even more effective. Another option is a fresh start using the original content and seeing the Uk as being a trial location and getting the full model even better being able to use all of what has happened as content to be able to learn from. The USA infrastructure plan, I believe is an excellent vehicle for applying all of this knowledge and findings together.

The massive factor that has proven to prevent, stop and work counter to effective climate action? The right to peaceful protest.

For effective climate action there has to be effectively a silent agreement by the government, the public, the third sector and the people that that is what all of society is aligning too.

 When there is a non-alignment by any of these sectors then other sectors push back against effective climate action. This is what we can learn from observing the Yellow Vest protests in France. President Macron had been the most outspoken and effective international leader with climate change, however French people in France saw that social conditions, costs and taxes were becoming too high for people to be able to continue to have a good life and therefore they pushed back against everything including the proposed climate change action.

People put their own wellbeing as being central to effective action for climate. If the system is seemingly opposed to the people and yet the system is asking, wanting, demanding more effective climate action the people tend to push back against all of that together.

Whilst healthy democracy does require protest to be allowed and is a part of a healthy democracy.

Human Rights laws go back to The Magna Carta, written and signed in the UK one thousand years ago. The document that was the first Human Rights document in the Western world. Today the progress, all progress of that document is under threat with new laws proposed to stop protest. Whilst stopping protest is a pre requisite to creating a totalitarian regime. The last time this occurred in Western Europe was in 1930’s Germany where protest was not allowed.

Effectively preventing their being an open narrative in society is unwise, it’s always resisted. Whilst improved talks, dialogue and protest is what has a general tendency to create and improve peace. The opposite tends to cause the opposite effect. When people’s rights are restricted especially when it’s unjustified, then the alignment of people and society to be able to achieve a common objective and purpose is lost. Whilst there has been an interplay between the human rights issues of the UK and the USA for most of the history of the USA. In fact the Laws of Abolition in the UK affected the political landscape in the USA so much so that this went on to create the divisions that led up to the civil war in the USA. Then the civil rights movement and protests in the USA then influenced the politics of the UK and Europe.

The civil rights movement in the USA helped influence the Anti-Apartheid movement in the UK that then led to policy changes in South Africa. The pressure to end the Vietnam war was both in the USA and Europe. Therefore, if there is a law for the first time in British history to wrongfully stop protest. Not only does that go against the narrative of The Conservative Party, the first UK political Party ever founded on the basis of an improvement of Human Rights. The year after the disbanding of the anti-human rights Whigs Party. It goes against Labour, Labour being a party founded also on the Rights of People and the Protest. It goes against the ethical direction of The Liberal Democrat Party too, a party founded on representing a complete cross section of political opinion including what is termed ‘radical opinion’. The policy goes against the reasoning and the rationale of two world wars. Both were to defend the rights of all the British people to freedom and independence from a non-democratic regime. It goes against the principles of the USA even this millennium to increase freedom and democracy to other parts of the world. If there is a law in the UK to stop and prevent protest, then that is taking away the Human Rights. This will be seen by many to be unacceptable and it will position the people and the government in opposition, due to the fact particularly that the three main political parties in the UK will have gone directly against and in opposition to their most central and important founding principles. This effectively makes mainstream politics in the UK of lesser standards than other countries. This will cause the end of all trust and belief in their really being a political class.

The political class effectively writing out the rights of every other ‘class’ in the UK. When any small group of people say to a very large group of people that you do not have the same human rights as us, this results and creates entrenched opposition to that, without a doubt and without exception. It’s the same in any country and in any scenario. The protests against this bill, if it passes will completely discount the UK from being able to take a legitimate stand Internationally on a great many issues it’s done in previous decades. In terms of the issue of Climate change. The only effective way to solve that issue is via increased cooperation and that can only begin and be with rights maintained. So the UK effectively by introducing this bill will make itself in the eyes of the world irrelevant in terms of the issue of climate change and completely irrelevant in any human rights related issue. 

Not only that, it will sow the seeds of disharmony that will influence and affect many other countries too. If the Human Rights of the people in the country that was the founding cornerstone of freedom from Serfdom 1000 years ago are no longer safe then the question will be asked everywhere, are anyone’s human rights in any country really safe?

It was this ‘inner question’ in American’s, where there were two narratives running that was the real cause of the invasion of the Capital building. The belief in many people that the USA they loved, supported and were fully patriotic too since birth was being or had been sabotaged by an unfair and incorrect election. 

So what occurred in the USA was the collective belief in many that their own human rights were being reduced. When it comes to this issue it is a survival issue and therefore, people do act in ways they normally would never do so. If the UK lawmakers do not make the comparison in time to realizing that by limiting the rights to protest they are going even a step further than the USA was perceived by many as going. Whilst the USA perception was certainly a debatable issue and wider debate could have quelled that. I see there again being a similarity in the UK. I have not heard interviewed many people protesting against the ‘kill the bill’ protests being interviewed on the television or radio. 

The issue of human rights is an issue that the British people feel very strongly about. Strongly enough 1000 years ago to go up against the government of King John. Strongly enough to overturn the hundreds of year slavery resulting in abolition. To create a society wide movement for the emancipation of women. To create political parties that threw out the ideas of old for the new. Strongly enough to create a trend out of previously unknown soul music in Wigan, the Northern Soul Scene that helped also pave the way towards civil rights. Strongly enough to help overturn Apartheid in South Africa, Strongly enough to engage 1% of the entire population in a single protest against the war in Iraq.Strongly enough for the countryside marches and all the protests that have come since. Enough for more and more people to realize that conflicts in the world were wrong for so many reasons and that peace was viable, possible and made real

The protests which have been called ‘kill the bill’ I believe may not stop, but instead their influence could increase unless the pressure valve that created them is turned down by not only scrapping the bill but delivering the best ever speeches in justifying why exactly this bill was turned down. Why and how political protest in the UK is vital and essential, how and why this has created the best advancements and improvements in the country and how and why the protests that emerged from the UK for the past one thousand years have created results that have lived on lasted and created improvements for not only millions of people worldwide but billions of people worldwide. Protests are only a real challenge to a government that is not playing by its own rules. When there is duplicity occurring that is seemingly unresolvable. The British people are proud of a history of balanced protest. Protest that has been sometimes heard and sometimes not, but repeatedly politics has been frequently improved by their being the dynamic of protest in the country.

Human Rights are as integral to the British people as almost any other aspect of life in this country. Any government that does not understand that is going to face opposition that goes beyond the ballot. For the simple reason the British people are far more politically interested than a one year vote.  Any opposition parties not acknowledging this fully are not representing the true nature nor the will of the people or even anything close to it. If people cannot verbalize their thoughts in the pub, cannot feel like they influence politics in the street and feel like they are being only told a fraction of the truth in the media. If additionally they are feeling Brexit was a very big error and they are unable to express any of this. These feeling are simply not just going to turn into oh well lets watch Antiques Roadshow this evening. There is a palpable energy of wanting progress, change and improvements and this is not in opposition to the government this is energy the government can be harnessing and using to benefit the country.

 The changes in lifestyle the disappointments of ambitions put aside, the lack of a sense of a good future is something that requires listening too and working within. Not trying to thwart complaints in society of. To not do so the country creates a type of collective depression, anxiety, fear and a whole lot of other emotions that people will not know how to deal with or contain.

These times are hard enough anyway and adding pressure to an already highly pressured situation is foolish, unnecessary and counterproductive. A UK outside of the UK in terms of its time proven ideals is a UK that is separate from the mainland of the EU na din contrast with itself. If people are also separate from each other by laws due to Covid-19 and due to new protest laws then I cannot see a good way forward for the country simply a country where there are differences in perspective that are not only due to class but also due to generational differences, and so many other reasons simply create a gulf between politicians and people.

With the consideration that there have in recent years been protests by many sectors of society including the heroes of the NHS. There has in many ways been a botched approaches to the pandemic, and successes too I have to add and yet that alternative information of natural supplements not being widely considered or in the press and yet is quite widely known of due to the fact that the British people have a very long standing interest in natural medicine in any case.

The Bill to reduce and restrict protest is the single most misguided bill ever presented and at a time when it could not be worse and when there is the least faith in MP’s, Ministers not just recent years but decades.  In the context of even Boris Johnsons father speaking at a protest and David Cameron’s mother previously doing the same in opposition to Austerity measures. The people protesting are a complete cross section of society that all want to see a better Britain.

In the context of the fact that Integrated Strategies which have helped answer so many International issues, never being even heard or discussed in the UK press. In the context of knowing just how risky it is for any country to control their press. Knowing too that the British people are generally polite, accommodating and friendly. They generally will be tolerant to others and will seek the higher ground in a great many situations, yet also knowing that when the British people dig their heals in over issues of human rights they always have and always will. This bill is the single most misguided bill presented. This will simply put the administration of the country in direct opposition to a significant amount of the people. The usual left and right divisions will simply no longer be there. I worry about the outcome of any bill being passed which seeks to limit and stop protest.

This particularly at a time when there are more divisions in British society than ever before due to Brexit, where the Brexit Britain is not turning out to be about ‘taking back control’ from Europe. It’s seemingly about a small group of MP’s trying to ‘take back control’ over human rights from the British people for the first time ever.

The fact is that the UK is running counter to both the cultural norms of both the USA and Europe, founded on the principles also of Freedom, Liberty, Fraternity and the right to Happiness, a part of that being the right to peaceful protest. There is worldwide solidarity towards the right to peaceful protest. That solidarity is in almost every country and for those that it’s not a central value the loss of the United Kingdom as a free country based upon Human Rights is a step backwards from everyone’s sense of freedom, every countries sense of balance and certainty. So if the law is passed then it’s highly likely that the people of the UK would look towards other countries to pressure the government of the UK. The government of the UK would effectively be putting the BBC out of a job as the BBC maintains its own sense of fairplay based upon what are perceived as British sensibilities. A government taking away the right to protest is everything other than logical and if anything this simply brings up more issues of hypocrisy.

The former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has cited that ‘The UK could become a failed state’. This view of his, which although controversial to the level where if voiced at any other time would have been dismissed as absurd, at this time was not actually publically contradicted by anyone in politics. Add to that policies sending warships to France.

I believe that successive governments in the UK have consistently made mistakes, massive mistakes. I do not believe there are many more mistakes that can be made before Gordon Browns statement could actually materialize. Supplies to the UK now are worse than they have ever been since the 1940’s. Many suppliers are talking  about how their unable to get supplies. Whilst this maybe in part due to the stricken tanker in the Suez Canal, Brexit and the pandemic have clearly affected this. People sense of loss of control in their lives to anything and everything requires reassurance, not more discipline. 

The underlying problem with the UK is the fact that the vast majority of opinion by the public is simply not represented or discussed in the press. Whilst the law makers are making laws to curb protest the media are not in opposition to this. They are not even properly reporting this from both sides or any side other than the governments line. Where are the headlines that read ‘ Reducing the right to protest, first time in years?’ Good job there were not these laws one hundred or so years ago or women would not be able to vote today, in which case Margaret Thatcher would have never been able to be in politics, let alone be Prime Minister.  The fact is there was progress and that progress should not be celebrated and not ignored and legislated against.

The media by not fully reporting on these issues that people do really care about enough to go out and protest about are actually simply putting themselves out of a job. If protest is not permitted then the media are writing anything in opposition to the government are they not seemingly sowing the seeds of discord and disharmony? Will that reduce the media to simply publishing trivia? 

If protest is reduced, stopped and prevented then surely maintaining free speech in the press is next.  Then we get on to the so considered ‘desirable’ citizens and the ‘non-desirable citizens’ then the ‘non-desirable citizens’ need to wear a badge identifying them. There is a very slippery slope towards fascism that occurs by even talking about the limiting of protest without their being adequate representation questioning this.

The British people defeated fascism, the lack of free speach, the lack or being able to protest,  and that is the national narrative to the people that live on this island. We kept our freedom by being resourceful, strong and wise and resisting fascism and the domination of people by powers that did not like freedom. We used resourcefulness and even our sense of humour in defense of the country. This is how we have been free and how we helped other countries to become free to improve their lives, have economies to have genuine education and real opportunities.

The reality is that there have been so many advancements from the UK these are what people in other countries want to see and what they appreciate about the UK. Its progressive mindset combined with tradition. It’s unique. To take away protest is to limit innovation and actually the appeal of the UK as a country.

The politicians even having this bill proposed are simply confirming the case that they are in discord with the thinking of people that due to this they too are actually themselves the cause of the instability in the UK. The truth is that there has been more issues over football matches than protest in recent decades, yet the banning of football would certainly be never considered.  I would say that there is a far greater likelihood of people from what have been traditionally opposing political beliefs in terms of the public actually building bridges and being united in opposition to this Bill than there is the chance that people will just simply accept that they no longer have the right to protest.

The fact is that when people that are either on the right or the left of politics have a belief strong enough that their rights are under threat they believe they have no other option other than to stand up and protect them. In the context of the UK it’s a question of whether or not there is the ongoing right to be able to protest. If there is not then I do not see how the people of the UK will ever again trust a single word the government or opposition parties to the government that vote to have this bill.

If there are attempts to move Western societal norms and freedoms more towards a controlled big brother state and that is removing of human rights, whilst lambasting other countries on human rights issues then there will be so much opposition to that, just in the same way that it’s not feasible to have any form of coherent and coordinated approach to climate change society wide if there is an International war. There is no chance to have the coherence required for effectively solving climate change either, if there is the limiting of rights in the Western world. ASEAN countries have recently all stood up for the rights to protest in Mynamar, yet the UK is talking of limiting protests? In the Uk does try and do this, then the UK will not only be asymmetric to the values of the USA and Europe but much of Asia too.

For those of us that are less than 65 years old all we know of from the entire history of our lives is of the ongoing effort towards upholding the rights of people and speaking out against the rights of others being also lost due to wars.

If the UK is to try and push through this bill to reduce human rights  laws to protest, then the UK is directly standing in the way of the social and environmental progress in the Western and Eastern world. The UK is setting itself apart from other western countries by creating policies that by their nature put MP’s in direct contrast to the people.

The Parliament, from the French word to Parle, is being used as a tool to stop and prevent the Parle of the people. What I can say is the most effective way for the UK to be the modern, reaching out country to the rest of the world, to be a country that is independent and is continued to be so highly respected Internationally is to align itself with the Best of British values and that is fairplay not fear based control systems due to the government feeling it’s not competent or in tune enough to deal with the scale of issues the country has in an effective way.

By seeking to serendipitously reduce and remove the freedom and rights of people by this Bill the UK I believe is positioning itself into the weakest position any Western country has put itself in and it’s fully against not only all of its own interests Internationally and against the interests of its own people. The fact is the people have been kept inside for the best part of two years. To add further restrictions for people to be able to express themselves in a rational and even therapeutic way through protest is against all the norms of other countries and sociologically regressive. If the UK tries to stop protest, then the question asking in the minds of people in France, Italy, USA, Germany, Holland, Belgium and everywhere else how protected are out rights? The question has to be asked if the UK limited Human Rights how exactly would the governments of the EU respond to this? How would the people of the EU respond to this? Would they do nothing and just say well that’s the UK and they are different?

The consideration by some would be that the real result of the policies to deal effectively with the pandemic in the UK has sowed only fear and paranoia of accountability by those in positions of power and therefore there is the chance of UK politics continuing into a lose-lose paradigm.  Europe as a whole would feel uncomfortable having a development in opposition to human rights laws within the European continent.

The European Union through all of the Brexit discussions have been consistently maintaining the line that the EU wants rights protected in the UK. Whilst Brexit and the changing of trade is one issue that many may have had a differing view on clearly five years ago. The consideration of rights being lost is something entirely different and if Brexit was simply a planned course of events brought about to take the rights away from the British people then the UK is setting itself up for failure.

The fastest and most effective way to create an even greater disharmony in the UK is to bring in this Bill. The best way to get everyone on side is to not only reject the bill but to fervently oppose the bill. Even if the bill is opposed so much by its own author there would be a vast gain in credibility achieved, not lost. The idea that a leader of any country can propose something that when properly considered is wrong and not in the interest of the country is one side. That creates opposition, but to be against the bill itself no matter how that argument is framed would certainly win praise and support from all.

 The country has cabin fever to some extent and whilst this may seem like an abstract idea, there is truth in this, getting out more is essential and yet how to do that is also essential in keeping back the pandemic.

A Bill that would be thrown out, or laughed out of the Parliament in any other country certainly in Europe and in most of the countries in the world is the best course of action to take in this scenario. There is simply just far too much British history associated with freedom and the right to protest and just because this is not taught in schools fully does not mean that it’s not known. It’s known and felt by the British people.

However, if this Bill is passed then I believe it’s really no laughing matter at all either in the UK or as a knock on effect in other countries either.  It would create a national and global shock and could even create boycotts against the UK considering that boycotts began due to Human Rights issues.

The  UK that had the insights, capacity and determination to have created the first steps towards Industrialization will have in the end be the first country to lose such a significant part of its core identity due to the virus and the way in which the Parliament could not seemingly cope. It’s class system would have created a form of seemingly mindset of conquering that in the end had no other places left to conquer and so chose to try and conquer its own people through a regression in rights.

This would show a country that is so out of touch and too inflexible to be able to maintain alignment with the thinking either of its own people or much of the rest of the world. This mindset would have become so arrogant, yet conflicted to be able to adapt to a changing world. The UK as a country would have gone from being at the forefront to being at the back in terms of how it is incapable of adapting to the needs of the 21st Century. By the UK law makers going in opposition to the most central British value and right. The right to free expression and to protest when things are wrong. The lawmakers are devaluing and undermining the integrity and goodwill of the people. The MP’s  are treating the British people with unwarranted suspicion and are seeking to unjustifiably curtail their human rights.

The lawmakers are showing and proving that their best considerations with Brexit really are not anything more than an error of judgment on a massive scale. They are proving to the British people that the true agenda of Brexit was for the UK to be able to act outside of International norms in terms of Human Rights. This again could confirm why the first conversation with the EU by Theresa May was about Human Rights. This proves that Brexit itself was a devious plan against the British people who were lied too misinformed, who were exaggerated too and at the first opportunity for the government to be able to act outside of International norms, the people are betrayed.

Where the British people were provided with a narrative that the European Union was what was causing the problems in the UK when it was in fact the UK politicians themselves and whilst they have been speaking about the UK having this wonderful new future outside of the EU the only significant difference other than slower deliveries and higher International taxes is an attempt to take away the civilized rights, the human right, the right that millions of British people fought for in two world wars and seek to remove that from the British people. A bill to limit the right to peaceful protest has no right to exist in any European country.

Europe itself is the greatest example of how so many groups, peoples and tribes of past millennia can act together and in the interests of all within the continent. This is what the conclusion of the work of Margret Thatcher, to give help and support to President Reagan and he reached out to the former USSR to create and build peace.

The Conservative Party was founded on an agenda of improving human rights. They were formed the year after the disbanding of the pro-slavery Whig Party. If there is any attempt made to realign to the Whig Party values, which there seemingly is by the proposing of a bill to limit the Human rights of the British people, then it really should be the calling of every Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat to stand in clear opposition to this. Conservatism has to do away with any of this residual Whig mindset which is hundreds of years out of date in the modern world.   

Whilst the UK media have questioned on various occasions, ‘Have the Europeans forgotten all that we did for them in WW1 and WW2?’ What is apparently much closer to the truth is that some MP’s of the UK have forgotten. Whilst MP’s dutifully wear their poppies to those that fell ensuring that the British people are free. Some now hypocritically seek to create laws that are in direct opposition to the values that our parents, grandparents and great grandparents fought for and instead align to the values of what they were all against. Namely the curtailing and reduction in human rights of the British people. Lest We Forget? In terms of the protecting of monuments. Some of the most important monuments to protect are those of the two wars. There would be an intrinsic hypocrisy to having statues dedicated to how Sir Winston Churchill won over the Americans and the Russians and helped save Britain and free Europe in a country that is no longer free. 

What the MP’s are trying to present in this Bill causes the British people to once again have to look both towards our own inner strength and resolve. If the British people cannot depend upon their own MP’s to represent their values in terms of maintaining International norms and freedom, then who can they depend upon? The limiting of Human Rights is a clear indication that the MP’s themselves failed to make Brexit workable. The only legitimate course of action in this situation is to maintain balance and order and the right to peaceful protest and for the MP’s to get much better at their jobs in being able to find ways through for all the people of the country without making compromises on human rights.  

If there are laws against protest, then I believe my work is jeopardized too. My work for thirty years in carrying out projects and in presenting creative content to provide answers to the issues of the UK and internationally is being forced by proposed laws in the UK to cease. This work was the work that has provided more answers to more serious contemporary issues than any political thinker or strategist in his time has ever published.

These answers and strategy documents are on my LinkedIn profile page.  This work has provided roadmaps to generating new and effective answers to issues that would otherwise have affected the world in very negative ways. These answers include for The Korea’s, Syria, Iran, India and Pakistan. My work has provided new thoughts and insights in how to resolve contemporary civil rights issues. My work has provided new answers for environment, economics, climate and desertification, refugees, plastic waste in the oceans, rainforest, famine, economics and more. However, with my work not being discussed in the UK press even from a decade before Brexit.  Then laws such as this fill me with concern as it seems evident that there is no place to even question the government line on any issue that is being seemingly legislated into law. It’s a scenario where you can have any colour car as long as it’s black. You can have any opinion as long as it is in alignment with what the government says. This is where the UK could go unless there are many more people and MP’s that see clearly where laws limiting protest are actually really starting to affect people in future

With their being proposals for this new bill it’s becoming increasingly obvious that writing and producing any political content outside of what is the prescribed political agenda, as supported by the official political party/ies, many of which have called upon and used my work in the past is no longer productive, although I do believe it’s still legal to be able to express your views in writing, though with this new law I’d have to question that.

 Whilst my work has provided roadmaps that have been used and applied that have helped many countries including the UK. Whilst Theresa May was sending an aircraft carrier to Asia, I was sending roadmaps of how peace could be maintained and expanded upon. Yet, the no- acknowledgement in the UK of my work, coupled with the fact that there are bills to reduce political freedoms of all in the UK. I no longer feel able to continue writing content. My circumstances and situation in terms of political strategy work are simply not represented and I feel that it’s just not worth the effort, resources and strain to continue.

The bill being heard in Parliament to reduce the political rights of British people is only able to be considered and heard partly as a result of the International peace results that my work has contributed to in terms of generating an improved sense of stability in the world for the past four years.

If it was not for my work there would clearly be very different priorities to consider than this proposed idiotic regression in rights. The priorities would be more about survival of everyone rather than seeking to prevent the freedoms that countless generations of British people earned.

 However, I still have faith that wisdom will prevail in the UK and that there is a chance of a better, or a much better country the other side of Brexit. A country that can find new and improved ways to cooperate within the country and with other countries too. A country that does believe in the essential rights of people and is once again a pioneer in terms of climate change mitigation, adaptation and innovation advancements. A country that has  created the foundations of the most advanced Economy and then the most advanced Green economy on Earth. The opportunity has been not yet been fully utilized thus far.

So, whilst this remains a theoretical concept, based upon various proven prior increments that are in practice, it’s capacity overall is untapped and I believe if instigated fully can provide to some extent the economic and ecological miracle that are both equally required in today’s world and economy.

Having a model and methodology of greatly increased cooperation within society though runs asymmetrical to a country that is for the first time in hundreds of years seeking to limit freedoms and not maintain them. Therefore, this I believe would be completely unworkable in everyway if the UK if the Bill to limited Human Rights is passed in The House of Commons and instigated. 

This model relies and is dependent upon goodwill throughout all sectors and this really is feasible. It’s segments of society that have been the champions of the thinking that has taken root and form in so many ways today worldwide. Yet, if that Bill is passed then goodwill in the UK will be weakened between the government and too many people irreparably.

However, even under such circumstances I consider that this is feasible equally for some other countries to apply either in part or in full this work. However, this would be a very sad situation for me as I will consider my work has failed in the UK. The narrative of more cooperation among all of society, all sectors and yet the contradiction of most people not being able to effectively ever question the government just causes one aspect to counteract the other. Much in the same way that Big Society coupled with Austerity measures did the same and actually made both impractical and unbeneficial. Without Austerity measures would the UK have been better prepared for the pandemic? I believe the answer is yes. Without proposals of this ridiculous law would the UK be better able to cope with the pandemic? Yes, the pandemic has been linked to stress and this proposed law together with sending gunboats to France and Asia is creating stress and stress alone at best.

Protests are essential for maintaining peace, order and advancing politics towards sustainability and environment protection. If politicians cannot protect the environment enough for people to be able to assert their 1000 year right to peaceful protest then what message does that send out to voters about people protecting their own environent?

There are various occasions in the past where protests have provided a barometer for the feeling of the British people that was not represented effectively at all in Westminster.

The best example to cite are the anti-war protests of 2003 in the run up to the Iraq war. More than one million people took to the streets of London. The figures cited at the time on an automatic people counter at the protest were nearing 1.4 Million people when I passed through. That’s significantly more than 1% of the population of the UK taking to the streets to say in no uncertain terms do not bomb Iraq. However, consequently the protestors were not listened too.

This may have led to more rights in Iraq, yet also caused destabilization in the region, This then led to the refugee crisis, austerity measures and the narrative for brexit to take back control’ yet with this new law proposed it would seem that this is more aligned to taking away any form of control or even influence of politics from the people. This is whilst simultaneously calling for other countries to get serious about climate change, when getting serious about climate change requires the goodwill of people to have enough capacity and participation to be successful.

This also led to a narrative in opposition to those affected by the wars and refugees in general that then sowed the seeds for populism, divisions in Europe over refugee issues, etc.

The point is that the protestors were right to be protesting against the war in Iraq in calling for peace. That has never been properly represented in the press, whilst now seemingly everyone agrees that the war in Iraq was not in the world’s best interest  for a great many reasons.

Today there are very few who would say that the War in Iraq was the best path for any of the countries that were called at the time ‘The coalition of the willing’.  The protestors are ‘The coalition of the unheard’ The unheard that were eventually heard, and this coupled with world events unfolding helped the protestors view of the Iraq war before it happened become very widely accepted. The coalition of the unheard, in a way became the ‘coalition of commons sense’ worldwide that today is represented in all leaders that also agree that these vast wars and conflicts provide nothing for the advancement of humanity, either from an International or national perspective.  There were restraints and wise decisions made to reduce wars towards the end of the Bush Administration and his own refusal to involve Iran was a very wise decision at the time and President Obama built upon that. President Trump then did in other countries and President Biden is now doing so too.

Yet, overall these wars most of what they achieved created  more discord which feeds directly back to the countries that were involved in many apparently ‘unforeseen consequences ways’. If the world has learned anything in the past thirty years of significance it’s been that there is no such thing as the winner of a modern war. There are only losers. Not even the politicians that tried to ride on the wave of seeking to resolve an ethical issue won in the politics of the situation. All wars do today is create global instability. In times of pandemic all they are effectively able to do is disrupt, cause exponential loss of life and create trauma before, during and after the conflict.

We all have a level of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the wars of the past thirty years. It’s played out in politics, policy, media, patience and global positioning national positioning.

It’s perpetuated populism as different groups seek to try and find balance from the vast imbalances that have been created away and at home. Yes, a few companies gained some profit for their shareholders yet at the cost of a significant amount of the stability and the positioning of the Western world. Whilst President Trump referred to the economy of China so many times the question has to be asked how much more has the USA and European countries spent on wars in the past years and how much has China spent? It’s sort of ironic in a way that whilst the Make America Great bring back to the USA the resources it has put out abroad makes sense in many ways. It’s what China has been doing. If the UK is to make the best of Brexit then continuing to think international in terms of peacemaking makes sense and the think local in terms of resource use makes sense, too.  For politicians and leaders to try and rival and compete with other countries and even their own population through laws is wrong and simply adds on to previous misjudgements and errors in thinking.

Had Tony Blair actually had more second thoughts over the war in Iraq, the austerity measures of the mid to late 00’s may have not been so severe. The UK may not today be outside of the EU and the UK would have been much better equipped to deal with the pandemic and climate change and International relations in every way. However, with all that has occurred, there are now narratives for peace that are out there in the world, considered and heard and this can potentially present the greatest benefit for the UK if maximised.

The vast pro-EU protests in the wake of Brexit did much to smooth over relations for Brits living in the EU, that were effectively being pressured due to the Brexit vote. The protests showed just how divided the loyalties in the UK towards the EU were. The truth is the pro-EU protests smoothed the path for both leave and remain Brits living in the EU. So these are two examples of how protests separate to Parliamentary politics have helped the UK, have helped the British people and the country as a whole. There are few if any that outwardly admit today that the war in Iraq was the best position for the UK to take and yet it’s only due to the vast scale of the protests and inquiries that it is known just how contentious this war or invasion actually was.

So the idea of stopping protests is actually counter-productive to the UK as a country. The fact that some MP’s do not really consider this again shows how out of touch they are. Many British people were having a really difficult time in Europe after the Brexit referendum. Some people in Europe saw the vote not in the context of being in opposition to the EU as an institution but more so in opposition to European people. This was a complete misconception obviously to British people yet certainly not to a very significant minority of EU citizens. So the pro EU protests really helped improve UK EU relations far more than has ever been voiced or is probably even known by MP’s. I witnessed elderly British pensioners in tears in a restaurant due to anti-British sentiment after the vote. The UK considering changing human rights laws simply confirms something again that would be unpalatable to those living in the EU.

In fact the welcome British people receive just twenty miles away in France is better than it would be had there not been protests showing the people of the EU that so many British people were very much on side with them and wanting to remain in the EU. If this bill passes, then it falsely presents to the wider world the notion that the thinking in Westminster is truly representative of the British people, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth on the issue of Human rights especially.

The fact is that Westminster actually benefits from protests in ways that are not actually acknowledged. Margaret Thatcher’s government was previously in support of Apartheid in South Africa.  This stance changed due to protests and protests alone.

It was the protests outside of Westminster, the protests in South Africa, the music of The Specials that provided the impetus to stand up and say yes to Free Nelson Mandela. As events turned out if there would have been a pro-apartheid government in Westminster during the time of the Obama administration this would have greatly damaged UK and US relations. So again the UK as a country benefited not from what was occurring in Westminster but due to protests. There are countless other examples to cite. However, in my view an end to protests is an end to good, creative politics in the UK that is among the best known, internationally respected, endearing and enduring qualities of this country.

There are so many instances where Westminster has dragged its feet to the detriment of the UK. Another example of this is with climate change, another crowd funding. Saying one thing, doing another.The NHS another example. Westminster politically in recent decades has  probably one of the most un-innovative places in the UK. This is why there has been a culture of copying original political strategy work from outside of Westminster on a consistent basis, for many years that to this day goes unreported.

The Biden administration and prior to that the Obama administration want to see really effective coherent climate action. The reason, the only reason that the UK has been unable to provide that to date is the fact that Westminster is certainly not in front of  some of the rest of the county on the issue and in terms of the most advanced thinkers in both business and social enterprise is almost forty years behind. The social enterprise model of The Body Shop of using commerce to help communities, help alleviate poverty and save rainforest through retail has still to be even properly discussed in Westminster, whilst this model of business has been readily accepted and supported as far away as South America, North America, Asia and Australia. Similarly there has never been an adequate discussion on the British created fair trade, crowd funding, fair trade or organic. Other British innovations that now have massive global appreciation, support and participation.

So whilst there is global appreciation for these and other forms of British economic and social innovation Westminster still has to come to terms with the fact that these even exist despite the fact that they have influenced and affected the world’s economy.  In fact, in the context of Crowd Funding more so than the entire UK GDP each year. If a country is not prepared to openly speak about an economic innovation that has gone out into the world and equaled its own GDP in terms of investment alone. It’s counterproductive and economically negligent.. The single largest economic improvement since the birth of The Stock market has not had one single article ever published in any UK press of how that originated. An advancement that can advance again and make Brexit more feasible.

So the fact of the matter is that when it comes to progressive modern British world changing politics in many ways Westminster benefits greatly as does the UK as does the world from some ideas that are not ever fully properly even discussed in The House of Commons or The House of Lords. Words now worth 3.4 trillion to the world economy in terms of investment have never been mentioned one single time by any Prime MInister, Minister and probably only by one MP, Caroline Lucus. 

 In a changing world any country that does not embrace the best of what it has to offer to the world is running counter to International trends that began here in the UK in the first place. So by limiting the voice of the thinkers outside of Westminster, the protestor, by seeking to stop protests not only is Westminster doing a disservice to the British people, it’s actually doing a disservice to British innovation, British thinking, British business, international relations and its own economy.  Instead of providing improvements to either the UK or abroad it’s actually tying to prevent them. Of all the countries in the world I do not fully understand Westminster has to be the most confusing of all.

Police, protestors and human rights.

Whilst protests are loud and direct, there is an outlet for so many people to put the world to rights. In a world where there are so many problems. A world where there can be so many very busy MP’s that they actually can fill up their schedules without having really influenced or affected any of the main issues being considered by their local constituents as being priority issues.

Whilst climate protests and Black Lives Matter protests have been singled out as being reasons and justifications for a ban on protests. It’s just wrong trying to justify having slave traders remembered in monuments is simply unacceptable to most rational thinkers of today. Just as it would be in bad taste to have Cornish people remembered in statues as being slaves to the Moors or to the Vikings, the whole slavery issue in the UK is an issue that does seriously require addressing. The fact is that slavery was not only a pass time of the rich and the super rich of the past. There were many people that were participants and shareholders in slaves. This really is an issue that did affect everyone. Not one person alive today, nor their parents participated in this. Yet, there is a tendency to try and paper over what occurred. Or worse to allow for institutional racism to continue.

Hiding the issue away or seeking to create draconian law that are in opposition to those in opposition to these wrongful practices of all of our ancestors is wrong. Whilst we do not need to hold he guilt today of what occurred previously, we do have to be sensitive and educated on the issue. Of course it is uncivilized to have memorials to people that worked people to death through violence for money. There is no defense at all for these people of the past and them and what they did has to be admitted and healed. Rather than trying to criminalise those that take offense to torture, slavery and murder it’s more in alignment with modern thinking of the past three hundred or so years to actually accept the fact that what was done in the past was wrong and today we are all so much better than that today. To be reasonable about this. We do not have to disregard all of our history, we just need to learn from it, represent it correctly and work towards continual improvement. There have been attitudes that have changed in our lifetimes too and this is a part of a healing process.

In terms of Black Lives Matter, yes of course they do. They mattered three hundred years ago, three thousand years ago however our ancestors were unable admit that. We today should not have to be reminded so much that Black Lives Matter, yet it’s right that we are until it’s really known, understood and all laws should be in alignment with this clearly obvious truth. The fact that some people still have to be reminded that Black Lives do Matter illustrates how far we still have to go before what should be a self evident truth is widely known, acknowledged and factored into the workings of society.

To legislate today on behalf of the wrong doers of hundreds of years ago and in contrast to those alive and offended today proves only how misguided and wrong people still are even today. Yes opinion has progressed, however there is every reason for people to be in clear opposition to those that engaged in slavery. Slavery was defined as being wrong, immoral and illegal in the UK House of Commons hundreds of years ago. How can it be that even today there are those that seek to remember it by way of monuments as being anything other than the abomination it was then. Whilst some monuments are of people that did both right and wrong there has also to be balance in this. There are attitudes of Ghandi that some would certainly find of offense and yet Ghandi was the inspiration too behind Martin Luther King. So the fact is we are all on a scale of improvement in terms of the way we are all learning about this and adjusting to the fact that the UK was created as we know it due to multi culturalism and that is very much a part of where the UK is today and into the future. So the sooner we start making laws that help every British national feel they are welcome the easier and faster we will have a more cohesive society which is good for everything as we are outside of the EU now.

Why should people have to walk past representations of people that committed genocide for economic gain?  If there are to be statues of these people then why not also create statues of other people of equally low moral standing ? Of course even writing this is completely outrageous to us with our own families having fought so hard to be free from the grip of what came to Europe just over one hundred years ago. Well it’s actually the same for all those who’s families fought for generations to be away from the grip of people that had also done the same to them. So the monuments issue is an issue that requires balanced thinking and good rational. Sir Winston Churchill and Ghandi and most of the people in the past did say things that offended and yet they also both helped provide great progress towards a more free and tolerant society in the UK, USA and Internationally.

Sorry if that offends some people, yet the truth is that other people are justifiably offended by statues of slavers. This is a part of the British past that is hard to deal with, that is hard to feel good about. Yes, it’s true that in the name of profit people were captured from their villages and were taken across the Atlantic and were worked one generation after the next. This is what our ancestors did. Yes, it’s also true that the British people were earlier the slaves themselves to The Vikings and Romans and after that they were Serfs. 

So there has been great progress in the past one thousand years. What really here is the most important is to deal with the past and not legislate in favour of people that are no longer in the world and when they were clearly so many of them had changes of mind themselves as to what they were doing. The consciousness of this country and the people of this country that overwhelmingly stood up against the practice of slavery and said no, stop this and  never again.

In more recent years many types of rights issues have played out in politics, from their being vote for Women to a female Prime Minister. Rights for a complete cross section of society and then racism has been a factor that has played out in politics.

Yet, as mentioned earlier Brexit played out in ways Internationally that could have set apart British people from other countries and whenever there are differences highlighted there is the chance of there to be prejudice of one form or another. It’s the same in the animal kingdom too.

Whilst is South Africa in a wildlife reserve I was introduced to a very large  tortoise who had been run over by a truck. His shell was broken and whilst there are various layers to his shell there were ants getting through the layers of the shell. I asked the lady of the park why she did not dress the shell and she replied that she had tried and when the tortoise looked so different with this plaster on it the other tortoises had rejected it. So I said leave this with me to think about. The following morning I woke up with an idea. I said to the park ranger if you put dressings on all of the tortoises then they will all consider each other the same. Therefore, the one that needs the dressing will be able to recover and the other tortoises won’t see a difference. Her face lit up she great idea and that’s what happened and a few weeks later the tortoise had fully recovered. It’s when we see difference we see difference and I think it’s the same for all of us to.

There is racism that I have experienced having traveled so much and I believe everyone  feels the same if it happens to them, it’s a put down on who we actually are. There was a time this occurred in South Korea in a cafe. One of the people I was talking to on another table a South Korean that lived in the USA. Jumped into a confrontation with the cafe owner who had put me down without me knowing verbally. Then the strangest thing occurred. The cafe owner who had said the put down to me, then took a chair, went over to the corner of the room and then sat down facing the wall. The American Korean said to me don’t worry she is sorry. I did not actually know whether to be upset or just remain abit perplexed or just astonished.  The situation was odd. It was a one off situation and although I had experienced racism or prejudice various times before. This was so weird  that the strangeness of it was a novelty in itself.

However, where it get much more difficult to deal with is when it’s a repeated situation. When there is a situation outside of your control that repeats itself continuously. This is when it becomes much more difficult. It can be the opposite of that, the seeming ordinariness of a racist situation that actually makes it worse. Whilst that women had behaved in a way that was culturally incorrect in South Korea and that was called out by a South Korean. When there is a continuity of racism and it’s not actually called out. It’s allowed to just continue and is considered culturally appropriate that to my mind is when it’s much worse. Then it really does feel like it’s you and you alone against the world around you.

An example of this was the Brexit situation in the EU. Whilst living there, there were almost twenty episodes that occurred in three countries. I for being British was being blamed for people in Europe having to watch our parliament on their television each night due to the ins and outs of Brexit and they were as fed up of it as anyone else was and as a result they were responding in the only way they could to the first Brit they met. So there were various situations that occurred ranging from it being implied my water supply to my house would be closed off to being not served in restaurants. From being purposefully overcharged to people in cafes saying they had tainted my food.

There was a continuity to this that was more difficult to cope with. Yet, the fact that I had not even had the chance to vote in the Brexit referendum and if I had i would have voted to stay was seemingly irrelevant. I was being judged for being British and for the decision that was made with the Brexit referendum and that was the end of the conversation. They did not like Brexit, brexit was a British thing put onto them and therefore to their minds prejudice was acceptable. When I arrived in the town of one country after the Corona virus had began. I walked past a park bench with three youths on it. They had seen the registration of my car and as I walked past all three of them sneezed at the same time.

Feeling unwanted due to the country you come from or any other reason beyond your control is not easy, who you are is something else I did not get to vote on. However, the benefits and advantages of this is that it helps you relate better to what it must feel like to be in your own home country and feel you are not accepted. The country where I had been made to feel unwelcome by some I had lived there for fourteen years. So in my view it’s the acceptability of prejudice that is the most significant problem. The invisibility of there even being an issue. The going along with actions that are hurtful and wrong is in some ways just as bad as the issue itself.  The Uncle Tom analogy in the USA is important, there can be a sense or a need to justify the actions of those doing something wrong to you, you can be forced into a type of Stockholm Syndrome. Sometimes there is little or no choice, and yet you feel an inner yearning, a need to resist this. People’s prescribed prejudice towards you is their own limitation in being able to relate to anything much more than themselves.

So with the monuments issue, the idea that slavery is just accepted as the past is unpalatable and not only to black people but to people of all ethnicities too. It’s a part of our history that we should not have to constantly have to remember. I would say that if there is a law to protect these monuments and for them to remain then I would request that there are also monuments there to remember white British people that were made slaves. Why should it be ok for us to be able to edit that out of our history and yet not be so generous as to do that for other people. If we had people in shackles being taken away by Vikings that is just as much true to the representation of the past as it is to have slavers represented too. Yet, really this is all the content of bad and unnecessary writing. It’s just so much easier to focus on the exceptional the brilliant the world changing that has happened from the Uk to the world for the better. We have a past that is both positive a negative, yet we can choose what we remember and put emphasis on the most and what this can be are our greatest successes, our greatest win wins and there are thousands of these. This empowers everyone together, and enables everyone to feel good about who they are and where they are today. There is no loss by putting to the side the past that is uncomfortable for people to be reminded of and yet there is a great, great deal to remember the full true benefits and advancements from the UK. 

The exploitation of people working for no payment with duress, has no place in any society in the world. Slavery has no place in any modern country. The people who were slavers are an inspiration to nobody and are in fact are representative of what was wrong in the past and what today has influenced racism which should not be mistaken for patriotism particularly in a country that is comprised of Celts, Angels, Saxons, Pits, Scandanavians, French, Spanish Italians even thousands of years ago.

It’s time to face up to the past learn the facts and the truth and do what our great, great, great, great grandparents did stand united in opposition to this practice.  Amazing Grace, lawmakers of today can get to where law makers of centuries ago got too and stop the representation of slavery that presents it is any form other than the clearly wrongful practice that it was. There has been good and meaningful dialogue between people in Bristol and this should continue. This is an issue where common sense is required. If there were calls to pull down statues of Sir Winston Churchill then I would be there in defense of that statue. I did not agree with all that he said or did at all, yet if we were to only have statues of people without sin then the country would be filled only with religious iconography and statues. So there really is balance to be found in this and the appropriate place is in museums for these statues so people can learn and benefit from understanding and knowledge rather than feeling bad, wrong or undermined every time people walk past them. 

If we are to progress in countries and in societies towards better understanding of each other and align towards a better future, then what we should be looking at is how to get over the past in a way that is more sensitive to all. Yet, there is commons sense balance applied too.  Then in addition to that we are best aligning our thinking of how we can create a better future and present than we are otherwise of the path to by not realigning economy to ecology. We should look to use this realignment to again in today’s world create opportunities for many more people and this way we can create more small businesses whilst medium and larger businesses can also engage in this with social enterprise which is now already a part of most large and medium sized businesses. It’s simply ridiculous to keep going over issues that have only created division in the past and expect there to be any better outcome. We have very real challenges and very real potential answers these are more productive to be focusing on.

The following are models to improve the economy by creating new green economies. There are many of them and I do not suggest they require all instigating together. They would induce different economic conditions and circumstances and would create many new markets and opportunities. So the use of them could be regulated and instigated in a non- disruptive and yet complimentary way to the existing economy. They enable people to be more resourceful and to find their way much easier out of circumstances where it feel like there are no opportunities to being able to have them more accessible. Either way, whether we continue seeing ourselves as so different from others, we end up struggling to find the right positioning in our own minds for the need for there to be a collective action. Our economy in itself it a type of collective action we just don’t use that for the best advantage of ourselves these days. If we did then we would be freedom orientated for all, knowing that if we seek in any way to reduce the freedom of others then we are only one step away from our own freedoms being limited.  Being on the same side in more ways than before, is the way to progress and something that is so true today just because we give someone different from us respect does not mean that we lose respect ourselves in any way.

 People are all different in the way they look and more different in the way they think, yet somehow there needs to be more agreement to allow differences to just be. If we all thought the same we would be much more un-unintelligent than we are today, we would be half as developed as people. In fact we would probably all still be in awe of the telephone.  However, it’s differences in thinking and being that have enabled us to be as developed as we are today. It’s both consensus and contrast in thinking and partial consensus in thinking and renewed consensus in thinking that propels us all forward. It’s this that keeps the issues of villages, towns and communities everywhere relevant and improved. The speed in the uptake of good ideas has historically been slow, yet the history of the future depends upon how quickly that changes.

Overwhelming pressures on people or communities and on  society have to become more manageable and how we all interlink our lives into an infrastructure of renewal and all benefit on the way is what I set out here. When you have read this then go further and read what one of the worlds most experienced economy experts has to say of the problems in the USA and see how many of them are answered already if some or many of the new infrastructure concepts are instigated.   

These new economies function in such a way so that shared ideas can take form and people within the financial world can benefit from their being other new sub-economies introduced. Yet, these sub economies work primarily on the basis of goodwill. If there is a loss of freedom, a ban on protests then people are not going to be focused towards wanting something better, their first consideration is regaining what they have lost. So a government trying to assert more not less control over its people is actually working counter to the energy, the thrust required to create these new economies. If the government is going counter to this then the government themselves become seen as an obstacle and a hurdle towards a better world or even the maintenance of the freedom orientated society we have always known. In the worlds of Ali G, ‘You can take the trees but give us our freedom’.  Whilst this may be a parody, there are usually truths in parody too.  If a person is fighting for their right to exist, they are less inclined to be thinking of whether or not they did the washing up last night. There are logical levels to how we organize our thoughts and our motivations in life and if the government is perceived to be an overly controlling force then we are not on side with the initiatives they wish to pursue. So the reality is for this to work requires both trust from the government to the people and trust from the people to the government.  Introducing unnecessary fear based laws to limit freedoms is counter productive. Therefore, that is why I say that the US government in my view should consider that the events at the Capital building were caused by a very complicated range of issues, some of those media related, some of those unjustifiably considered and some justifiably considered. How many times have you been monitored, experienced surveillance before breakfast, during that last phone call you made to enquire over a bill. How many times have you ended up trying to reason with a computerized 3D answer machine. Does that make you feel more or less free and in control? Does that make you feel like you are a valued part of a society that’s working towards the benefit and the happy sustainable future of everyone or does that make you feel you are not valued? If you feel valued you have enthusiasm, if you feel under valued you have resentment. Can a society of people feeling resentment actually create a better future?  

When does life just become seemingly so streamlined towards a lack of a good future that negative not positive emotions take over?  If a company does not provide people to answer phone calls is that company really aligned to a better world or a more distant, technologically oppressive, human need aloof and indifferent world? What the world needs now is love and a bit more understanding that we are in this situation together and can make a better situation together.  There needs to be coherence of intention thought that runs throughout society that builds trust and therefore that builds participation. If there is an overtly fearful society, where people are expected to behave only in ways they have, if there is not playfulness in terms of how people think about their own sense of security then people will be more change and risk averse and therefore more likely to see the glass half empty rather than half full, less likely to be open minded and trusting enough to participate in an economy that works more for the future of us all.

Similarly for generations there have been parallel policies between the Uk and the USA. How do freedom loving Americans perceive the fact that British people are having to go out onto the streets to protest for the right to protest? To free up resources and investments and create the confidence that we can all be active participants in a better infrastructure we need political leaders that we can truth. That requires some political leaders to keep doing exactly what they are doing and others to have more faith in people’s best intentions and not suspicions over peoples ‘less than best intentions. People want stability, freedom, opportunities and a viable path towards an improving future. That is not too much to ask. So with the thought that governments themselves monitor their motives, consider what message their policies send out to people. 

I believe that all in Westminster should stop this Bill, should see that their futures too depend much more upon there being good will in society and working like others have done so for hundreds of years to protect that. If politicians are not in favour of the people they are elected to represent then they should just give up in politics.

Building trust takes so long and I believe that trust could be lost if this bill is not stopped. If it is then there really is the better chance of a better tomorrow beginning to manifest today that is in alignment with the goals of so many countries in the world and here is how;  

The GDP Economy of 3.4 Trillion is one economy in the Uk. 3.4 trillion is a new International economy in terms of investment alone that began in the UK. This is how it can go further, much further within the infrastructure plan.