“You must vote on May 5th, and you must vote No to AV" PM David Cameron

May 5th 2011 referendum for the alternative voting system resulted in what's been called a resounding NO. It led politicians and newspapers to believe that the British people do not desire change in something that already works just fine.

But if there was any truth in that statement, the change would not be the appealing core of persuasive political language. For always during election campaigns political leaders promise of change so they can appeal to voters. The reference of this change is always in context with some revolutionary idea, but no change will ever take real occurrence, for there are only a finite number of ways to sail a ship. In this sense, the rhetorical ship would be Britain, and its management will only change how they sail it. It may be suggested that the ship (constantly said to be sinking) needs a complete reform. People are romanticized by change, but nobody was moved by the idea of an alternate vote, regardless of the AV reflecting a more accurate result from the individual voter. But we don't need to look very far to see why this happened.

THE NO CAMPAIGN - Supported financially by the Conservative Party, almost two million was spent on this campaign, to try and convince people that the vote was dangerous. The posters and flyers associated with this campaign can be seen with the insert to the article. They parallel an infant with the words "She needs a maternity unit, NOT an alternative voting system", a staunch reminder to what's really important. Could this same statement be said when taxpayer's money bailed out national banks? "She needs a maternity unit, NOT a national banking system". This is the power of propaganda and advertising. Moreover this message carries a covert threat! "Vote AV, and nobody will look after your children", and with the onset of the NHS being privatized or "reformed" to put it another way, the message holds that its supporters, the Conservative Party, care about infants. So successful is this threat that the same techniques are employed to smear the Labour party. (It may be significant to point out that this is not Gordon Brown's debt but the debt of the banks loaning money they didn't have to customers based on speculative income, and from consistent deregulations within business, as well as tax evasion on capital gains). Gordon Brown is used as a scapegoat, a diversionary tactic of blame, so the Conservative Party can up their score. It's quite appalling that conservative propaganda is willing to stoop so low as you provoke the public with an emotive image and juxtapose it with Gordon Brown's sole responsibility. This country has been on collision course long before Brown took office. These very actions are the actions of people who want to have it their own way. If you don't do this, then this will happen. If you don't do that, then this will happen. David Cameron has made it clear that he is against the AV, so it comes as no surprise that the NO to AV campaign aims to scare people away from it. Cameron was quoted as stating that:-

"I just feel it in my gut, that AV is wrong. Politics shouldn't be some mind-bending exercise."

Nobody should lead a country with their gut, and yes, political decisions are sometimes complex and demand one to put extensive thought into it, even if it is a mind-bending exercise. When a reasonable thought crystallizes it doesn't happen in the gut. As for whether or not AV is right or wrong is irrelevant. Its just another way of voting, there is no right to it, there is no wrong. If that was a fact we'd have to tell the Australians that they've been voting wrong for the last thirty years. This is an option to vote differently, the main difference being is the AV concludes a more individually ACCURATE result, namely by including individual's second preferences. This would certainly motivate more people into political decisions instead of FPTP, which leads people living in certain constituencies to become apathetic about their choices. It should always be the people's decision, and in a free democracy these decisions should have been made without the influence of a NO campaign to misguide opinion. But, as I cleared up in my earlier blog, we do not live in a democracy in England. A NO campaign will aim at altering decisions, it will also be met with another campaign, a YES campaign in order to draw the public into an expensive tug of war.

THE YES CAMPAIGN - Further absurd amounts of money and funding was pumped into the yes campaign. Collectively, the YES and NO campaigns could have probably sorted that maternity ward problem out over a few hospitals in towns where it was most needed. To put right what the governments see as the people's priorities, it clearly unbalances its own. The YES campaign argues that the AV vote would assure that the BNP would never get seats. But this isn't even an issue. The fact that the BNP exist at all in a pluralistic country like this only demonstrates that social turbulences have not been resolved and that our alienation is subject to the selfish will and irresponsible decisions of the powerful unwilling to sooth racial divide, but instead exploiting it to carry out their own ends. It's these left and right, yes and no idealogical perceptions that are wedging us apart. The YES campaign can't promise that a BNP would never get into power on the simple premise that perceptions are ephemeral and nothing is certain. Furthermore Nick Clegg claimed AV would stop another expenses scandal. The suggestion that an expenses scandal, one that almost every constituent representative made ACA claims for, could even happen again is something of a huge indication that this system is outdated.

But the overarching problem today is the financial crisis, and with an AV system being proposed to cost £250million to install, the suggestion was enough to intimidate the public from accepting it. But if there was any truth to an AV costing this quantity of money to implement during a financial crisis, then the very suggestion would not have been called for in the first place. To implement such a system would cost nowhere near this sum of money, Islands don't cost as much. But it really doesn't matter which system we have, FPTP or AV when the people can be influenced this way. The dichotomies of YES and NO, reflect the two party system attitudes of our culture. Our need to divide things into dualities, LEFT and RIGHT, GOOD and BAD, RIGHT and WRONG, YES and NO! Goldhagen reasons that "the human condition is one of agency, namely the capacity and burden for being able to say yes, which means also being able to say no." But the freedom to make these choices within the campaigns are being impinged upon and covertly veto'd. These are our attitudes to over simplified political questions, when much bigger questions lie in wait to be asked, one example being: why do we allow our country to be robbed again by the rich, who are no more or less deserving of government than it's people? It's the choices of the individual political leader in charge that must always be questioned. If you flip a coin you may get heads or tails, but you won't get neither. The power of suggestion shows that individual opinion can be directed one way or the other and through the power of mass media and digital information, it's easy to wing opinions one way or the other, when they flow through only two channels of thought.

Lets start thinking outside of these divisions and come together to start thinking about making the largest effort in history for reform, one that could shape our future for the better.

“Without Britain, Sweden, Denmark or Poland, the whole thing will become more corporatist.” Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform

In the 2010 May elections, the UK government found itself in a hung parliament situation. Although no particular party had won this election, negotiations began between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. The Lib-Dem Party had the balance of power, it was up to them who they would associate themselves with. The balance of power was immediately angled against the previous Labour Party government, as Cameron insisted that Labour Party leader at the time Gordon Brown has lost his right to govern. To exclude Labour, the Conservatives allied with a Liberal Democrat Party, manipulating Nick Clegg into a coalition government . This coalition majored in seats on the Conservative side, and so the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg was content to allow David Cameron to take the lead, stating that it was only right. This meant a reversal on some of the policies in which Clegg had committed to during his election campaign. The Conservatives had a minority of seats, and together the Lib Dem and Labour held the majority coalition above a Lib-Dem Conservative coalition. (It was more logical on this basis to produce a Lib-Labour coalition). While it can be argued that nobody voted for either of these parties in the majority, it seems clear that the will of this coalition government outweighs a democratic desire of the people of Britain. Rather than risk running a new election, this so called Con-Dem coalition government took the initiative, without mandate to do so, to begin preparation of austerity measures. The buzzwords rang out, "There's no alternative."

And history is allowed to repeat itself...

What we've seen since is very little change to the Conservative manifesto outside the area of deepening the deficit reduction rate with more severe cuts than first proposed. Yet we have seen actions taken that were not covered in the manifesto, other than the bewilderingly endless comparisons it draws in parallel to the Labour Party's actions in recent years and how it aims to change them. The originally titled Big Business plan was also given a more acceptable, family friendly name, the Big Society. This plan suggests an inclusion of everybody, but the coalition Government, although it claims to be the most family friendly government to date, targets spending and cuts funding to families and single parents and is represented by a leader with a largely patronizing personality. If there is any family friendly government here, then it needs to show it through community support. How on earth can it do this by removing itself from the responsibility of care?

What is clear is that cuts will have to be made so that a gradual repay of the deficit can be met. But the suggested cuts are casually regarded as necessary. This simply isn't true, and some alternative cuts may just as easily be suggested. Furthermore the Conservative Party has proposed to make an alteration in the tax acts 1988 - 2009, whereby large businesses with foreign branches are not taxed twice on the same earnings. This means that on foreign grounds, companies will not be taxed on the earnings made outside the UK, which would be enough to pay off the original tax when funds are transferred back. Essentially, banks and large business corporations are heading towards an era of paying virtually nothing in comparison to earnings. These same business corporations exploit the struggling competition, smaller firms or even the NHS, by starving them of government spending, the likes of which a corporate tax accumulation for the country, on foreign earnings, would probably be able to stabalise at good standards. This it claims to do, on their own basis; privatization! Every struggling firm, company and government body will eventually fall victim to this avaricious and irresponsible market strategy. The old 'Death and Taxes' statement is becoming a thing of the past for these would-be invincible corporations and private banking businesses, the aging bureaucracy systemically ensures big business survival.

When the UK opted out of the Maastricht Treaty (1992) several exceptions were delineated for the country. These protocols prevent the United Kingdom from moving to the third stage of EMU (Economic and Monetary Union). In other words, to keep it's currency from becoming the Euro, certain articles will not apply to the united kingdom. These are:

* It's powers in the field of monetary policy are not affected. (Monetary policy such as spending remains under national law)

* Is not subject to the Treaty relating to excessive deficits

* Is not not concerned by the provisions of the Treaty relating to the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), the European Central Bank (ECB) of regulations and decision adopted by those institutions.

However, this means the UK's voting rights are exempt from acts of the EU council concerning:

* Fixing of exchange rates between currencies of Member States that move to the third stage and adopt the Euro.

* The appointment of the President, Vice-President and the other 4 members of the Executive Board of the ECB.

(The Treaty adds...)

But the UK may change it's notification to adopt the single EMU currency on the following conditions:

* The UK gov. & Parliament take a decision in this respect (with or without a referendum, depending on national law);

* The UK meets the convergence criteria laid down by the Treaty establishing the European Community.

This convergence criteria is based on the 5 economic tests that tailor to the EU's policies, to which Gordon Brown was aiming to achieve (convergence of business cycles, flexibility, investment, financial services and growth stability and jobs). Although a 2003 report suggested that this is not in the UK's national interests yet, are the motives well on the way to establishing the single currency?

No surprise here but, absolutely not. But this is nothing to do with the will and desires of the people, because if it was in the interest of business, the full EMU merger would be proposed very quickly. The Conservative Party's business affairs have been well angled at making sure agreements are made with strong nations during this financial crisis, such as Kuwait, China and the US. France's President Sarkozy had recently urged Britain to join the eurozone, during a meeting originally set to concern defence strategies, in order to strengthen the solidarity for the Euro. Although it's true the pound is decreasing and the British economy is threatened by a downgrade to its AAA credit rating by Standard and Poors, joining the Euro would be a direct contradiction to the Conservative Party's political ambitions.

How else would they be able to manipulate interest rates under Brussels by shifting business onto grounds with lower tax rates? How else would they be able to manipulate Tax laws so that foreign businesses can suck in a large proportion of wealth, to which the UK's public will see no benefit? How else can they control illegitimate licensing for arms exports to foreign allies, or act out deregulations the likes of which brought on the very financial crisis we are now enduring? Is it all only to be exploited again in this vicious circle? This is all to benefit a Party with a duel agenda, not to protect the sovereignty of the pound and the UK. The process has been described as Britain having one foot in and one foot out of European policies.

The Buzz Words

The word 'Terrorist' is a constant referent in our daily language. Terrorism has been magnified, supped up, glossed over and garnished with meaning. But the word has become more ambiguous than it's official definition. One of the definitions provided in the Oxford English dictionary states: 'violent action, or the threat of violent action that is intended to cause fear, usually for political purposes.'

The amplification of this word has permeated every facet of western language and culture. For surely we are living in times of terror, and terrorism is rampant. But the word is also self indulgent, for it feeds a response to terror, anti-terrorist movements, such as the famous oxymoron; War on Terror: and War opens a gate for destructive and genocidal ideologies to manifest, conveying unreasonable mass murder, while the perpetrators are lionized as great leaders of change, employing principals of transformative elimination.

The relationship between the terrorist, extremist and hostage is forever changing and circulating like currency, debt and payment. So how do we define terrorism? Western cultures perceive terrorism as a violent action that is done to us. What then is the act of retaliation, on a much grander scale of chaos? That would be a War on Terror, and War is perceived as something more justified, for with war are all the associations of heroism and valor and honor. Every September we are anually reminded what terrorism means to us, as we watch our screens and relive the falling of the WTC, nostalgically replaying the dread and fear. Our emotive responses are anger, and its angled to the East. This repetition engages viewers to abandon their doubts, keeping people in faith of War and supportive of a reaction. Current events are so hyped up in the present day that it becomes harder and harder to remember the past, as news reports stream into living rooms and inform viewers of current events. But looking back, it's easy to see that the buzzword only thirty years ago was 'communism' and that any threat to a Western Right Wing Capitalism was always associated thusly.

And what is an extremist? Far from what most people consider to be normal, reasonable or acceptable. It was extremists that destroyed the towers on 9/11, and it was the act of extremists who countered with a hail of bombs that killed over 100,000 plus people, not responsible for the suicide attack on the WTC. This demonstrates that extremism can exist in both realms, those of the political left and right. But what it also demonstrates is the overly simplified motive for genocide. With the search of weapons of mass destruction, the political leaders of western civilization needed only search their own back yard. Let's not forget that though no WMD's were found over the period leading upto 2003 bombings of Iraq, we still can be held responsible for proliferating them for profit. So the exchange of terror and the hostage continues. We have a strong policy on non negotiation when it comes to terrorists. However, it seems we're evidently not opposed to weapons technology being distributed through deregulated markets. Much like the negotiations that took place during the 1970's, where Western economists struck deals with Saudi Arabia. This negotiation took place with full knowledge that Saudi Arabian construction companies were arming the Mujahideen. But no effort was made to counter this, because the Mujahideen were opposing Russian communists. Any chink in the armor of communism would be seen as a victory, and so the tactical negotiation takes place, producing a clear paradox in policy loyalty.

Perhaps another strong buzzword would be the use of freedom. We are truly free, but we're imposed with so much trepidation, dependence, alienation and guidance that we're all made to feel incompetent. And so with freedom comes inertia. We are constantly in a phase of powerlessness, throwing out the question 'What can I do?' This is not freedom, and although all the associations of freedom relate to romanticized icons, historic founders, war heroes, crusaders and adventurers, it becomes evident that its meaning is lost in a sea of repetition and ambiguity. Freedom to attack any nation we must in our interest. Freedom to imprison poorer nations into the IMF and global police. Freedom to dismiss a hung Parliament and use a coalition agreement to mask a governmental invasion. We are free to pretend we live in a democracy, and free to live in a benign dictatorship. We are free to turn a blind eye to palpable corruption, we are free to a two party vote. All these freedoms are actually reductions of freedom. No vote will ever really change an overly corrupt government, whose interest is in quarreling with each other to the same end. Take the recent events in the UK, since the coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems reversed their policies to tailor to a Conservative regime, repeating the discourse of "there's no alternative", the same unreasonable slogan used by Margret Thatcher. What must be recognized here is the importance of the two party system. Not only did the Conservative party in this move cripple the reputation of the Liberal Democrats, but they forced the hand of Labour to transfer their manifesto to a more center right wing agenda. There were no choices here made by the public.

In popular music, the most common word phrasing made by contemporary lyricists are "I want..." or "I don't want..." which reflects our culture as consumers and materialists. In much the same way, freedom, extremism and terrorism is peddled into the discourse, like ghostly echoes growing louder, becoming more real as they filter through screens and radios. We want freedom, we don't want extremism. We want a War on Terror, we don't want Terror. Weather lyrics in our culture mean to or not they contain a subtle truth within their deconstruction and they do somehow reflect the modern day. But who's to say those wants were ever really yours in the first place? We're free to make our own choices, but those choices can be hindered and directed when the options are whittled down to the inflections described by, so called, civilization. Whose to say those wants were not environmental influences pandering what you think you need to hold your head high in society? Excuses that many people prefer to take in order to deem their lives led by fate, aka, narrative. We're led to believe that our desires, our "wants" are well known by the powerful, and that they do all they can to provide them, so you can be free. But freedom is just another buzzword for modern day slavery, one of the mind. That beyond the walls of a civilized world there can be no rational thought. Beyond these walls logic breaks down, law cannot exist, only the dark ages exists there, and the ragheads that rule it. Yet more pathological is the condition of a developed world, won over by the talking heads and radios, to believe they are fighting for freedom, while being held static in cities of mirrors and billboards. To believe that social issues reported in the newspapers are the acts of people with inherited murderous genetics and not victims of an estranged environment. It's the buzzwords that drive us to keep buying into the potentially dangerous discourses, spotting them early may help us to see that those who operate it trade in our lives.

Big Brother Bombs

On May 24th, 2000, Lockheed Martin undertook a study contract for the suitability of UAV's in England, for the MoD. The incentive was to supply reconnaissance capability, surveillance, airfield protection and support for NATO and UN operations. The ISTAR acronym (Intelligence, Surveillance, Targeting Acquisition and Reconnaissance) for the MoD was assessed and UAV's successfully installed, and Big Brother took to the skies.

UAV's are unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly referred to as drones. This enters the world of science fiction made real. The use of this technology is highly controversial, not just as an invasion of privacy, but because this technology extends the exchange of firepower with the loss of life on one side only. Like a computer game, it introduces the essence of multiple lives. If the drone is destroyed, the pilot needs only fly a new one, and continue the game from the last checkpoint. This form of combat removes the pilot from reality, enabling them to target without too much concern for the consequences. It's probably accurate to say that cameras can never reveal the absolute true picture of events, allowing an uncertainty to exist. Cameras merely open a window of perspective, for the interpretor to see what they need to, and in some cases, what they want to see. Clear as an image might be there is a strong, historical social relationship with the TV screen.

Much like the collateral murder videos revealed in Wikileaks, the military gunned down Reuter reporters perceiving their photography equipment as RPG's and AK47's. The main difference being their experience was not from the perspective of a screen, but from the aerial view from a helicopter, of the reporters below. This elevation gave them the means to abuse their power, and with all the cultivated background of video games and news reports of explosions from above, this was perhaps an inevitability. Considering the use of language between the gunner and pilot's comments during the assassination, they're not unlike the casual remarks made by gamers hitting their targets on 3D shoot em' up's. This is not to say that computer games are inherently bad, there is truly an enjoyable aspect to them, but these too are distorted with the layers of reality. After all, it's much easier to dismiss irresponsibility and load the blame on a computer game or horror movie in the modern world than it is for individuals to take responsibility for their actions.

So what then would the consequences hold for UAV's in the hands of a gamer with a high score? Not so long ago, a UK broadcast advertising the use of a small UAV being remote controlled by an X-box 360 controller aired on our television screens. The aim was to show that the military are fostering hip new ways of fighting the war on terror, the novelty being that the X-box controller was essentially an asset to the forces because of its wide use, familiarity and comfort. The overarching message for this was; forget playing your games at home, see if you have it in you to play the real games of warfare! Of course the X-Box and its controllers are all targeted to a specific audience, usually males aged fifteen to thirty, to no surprise the same market gap based on recruitment for the TA and the forces. The other relationship this holds is the fun we have associated with playing such recreational games and the reward of being the best at them. When the realities become blurred, it's harder to see where the games begin and end. When the consequences are real, then it ends in bloodshed.

On April 22nd, 2011, Aljazeera reported that Pakistani intelligence officials claimed two suspected UAV drones attacked a tribal region of North Waziristan. At least 25 people were killed, among them women and children. Nothing can be learned from this, other than the attack is clearly unreasonable, and western culture defines unreason as a principle of evil. In this particular scenario the target was a militant guest house. It's easier to see that as an enemy to Western ideology any militant can be dismissed as a common enemy. After all, they are all common enemies, and any resurgence against Western forces must be crushed without negotiation. Let's not even consider that perhaps these countries have their own cultural differences and that Western perceptions categorize them in one big Muslim box. Lets not even consider the original 2003 war on these Middle Eastern countries drove militants together to defend quite rationally what they too perceive to be the common good, against NATO and the US. As clarified in the Aljazeera report, when civilians are killed by these remote controlled bombs it only bolsters support for the Taliban, and it's clear that particularly the US are stirring this problem. One of the simplest ways to justify an action is to turn it around. Suppose your country was invaded, what would you do to survive? Who would you turn to after bombs destroyed your loved ones? There is no care for the people here. The Governments have acted how they pleased to ascertain resources and information in what they've described as a necessary war.

The drone attacks are seen as lawful, as part of the military action authorised by congress in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks as a subject of defence initiatives. By those rules, such targeted killing is not seen as assassination, perhaps this paradox is why US foreign policy is often questioned. This is in essence not a necessary war but a covert war, and therefore illegitimate, and is straining the Pakistani relations that are vital in mandating any resolve.

The News Of The World also advertised Sea-kat destroy drones, in a much more sleek and admirable light. (There's no available link for the article anymore, NOTW demands registration) but the article is a testament to the shameless salesmanship within the language of the article. The article seeks public approval, discussing their "sleek, low-profile camouflage design" and their ability to "operate over 500 miles on one fuel tank". Not much different from the UAV's that patrol the skies, this is in reference to the robot speed boats also policing the seas.

Should we be against these steps in defence? Emphatically, yes. This is no longer about who has the better explosives and toys anymore. This is about displaying the steps we're ready to take in order to deter resistance. To play the people against each other, and in turn hope for promotion into being an authoritarian preserving the systemic interests, so that the historic repetition rolls onto the next generation. Just as these machines are sold to the readers, it's not unreasonable to assume that as the market for these devices increases, they are also sold to private investors looking to watch over land, industry or business events. British firms such as GFS Projects in Petersburg won US contract in 2007 to build a vertical take off UAV. This firm was supported by a DTI grant and private investors. Even Blackwater are contemporaneously building UAV's to support their profit based margins of belligerence. Why is the UAV so popular?

What is immediately discernible here is that we're reaching for higher and higher territory, asserting our dominance through the skies. Fighting uphill is a hard fight, but there's no higher fight than that of the skies. The ability to occupy the skies and operate on the ground, to multiply one's self into being in two places at once, is the ultimate trickery of modern man and we're doing it with great success. Such divergences open an uncertain future for all of us, as weaponry pushes to obtain higher and higher divisions of atmosphere. And this is all under the table play, we are all happy to do business with one another, so long as the true intentions of play remain hidden, because an act of altruism is essentially giving the game away. We only need to look as far as Cameron's claims that he wants to assist the Lybian people. How? He sees a potential disaster and exploits it by proliferating weapons while stirring civil war. But this is not just shouldered to one man like Cameron, but the responsibility of those with the power, and also of the people's will to shift the power into responsible thinkers. As Big Brother's Bombs seek higher heavens, its players observe from the ground like gamers seeking every possible target with professional pride, to keep the score high and the money rolling in.