DO WE WANT OR NEED A DIGITAL ID CARD

11 October 2025

What do they really want?? They want us to have nothing and be happy.

What do we want? Freedom, security and equality.

Technocrat or humanist - Blair v Field.

Of these, freedom for us individualists is the greatest. (In that video, the author mentions China. If it "works" for them, it could be because they put the community first, before the individual, and they seek harmony over freedom.)

Freedom means free to do, think, and live according to my own choices, with minimal interference from the state, big business, or social coercions. It's freedom from interference and it's freedom to develop my maximum according to my possibilities.

It's a qualitative thing, how you feel, but could some quantitative scale be assembled against which the unique ID number identifier proposal could be judged?

The benefits Starmer offers in that video clip are poppycock. The implementation risks are in that video. Where are the costs to us living under this freaky control regime? We in the West no longer live in true democracies, and unfortunately the "technocrats" who govern operate a global governance organisation, they view government as a tool that functions best under competent leadership, irrespective of the democratic quality of the system, except that recent leaders defer to Washington and show little sign of competence - look at this ID card idea ... will it turn out like HS2 or the poll tax or the Covid lockdowns - examples where competent leaders may still make poor decisions if they lack a robust guiding philosophy. Except rhat now we have Starmer.

Contrast this with sadly departed Frank Field, influenced by a fading Christian socialist tradition. Frank Field emphasised the dangers of rationalism (aka technical competence) in politics. He advocated for acknowledging human nature's limitations and promoting "self-interested altruism".

What's left of the benefits of being alive today? To answer this q, just assess how much control we individuals would have left over our lives across political, economic, social, digital, and psychological dimensions.

Read More

WILL THE UK NEED A BAILOUT

29 August 2025

Will the UK Need a Bailout?

Introduction

Talk of a UK bailout still feels far-fetched - after all, Britain has advantages that France does not enjoy. The UK issues debt in its own free-floating currency, has an unusually long average gilt maturity of around 14 years, and benefits from an independent central bank that can backstop markets, as the Bank of England showed during the 2022 LDI pension fund crisis. 

These buffers give more breathing room than France, now under pressure for emergency spending cuts and its government demanding a vote of confidence on its austerity plan.

Yet Britain’s fiscal arithmetic is tightening. With debt at historic highs, annual borrowing still large, and gilt yields back to levels not seen since the 1990s, the question requires very serious consideration.

1. Where the UK is Today

2. How We Got Here

3. Where We Need to Be

4. The Path to Get There - and the Risks

1. Where the UK is Today

• Public debt stands at £2.77 trillion (97% of GDP), the highest ratio since the early 1960s

• The deficit remains about 4.4% of GDP, or £121 billion per year

• Gross financing needs are truly enormous: around £299 billion of gilt issuance scheduled in 2025/26

• Debt interest is consuming £111 billion annually - more than the education budget ... and rising as older gilts are refinanced at higher rates

• Yields on 10-year gilts are around 4.7%, with 30-year above 5.5%, showing markets demand a significant premium.

2. How We Got Here

• A decade of weak growth has made every fiscal shock harder and harder to absorb

• COVID-19 borrowing and energy subsidies after NATO expansion finally provoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, piling on fresh debt

• Reliance on index-linked gilts (~22% of the total) backfired when inflation spiked, pushing up interest costs

• The LDI “mini-budget” crisis of 2022 demonstrated how quickly markets can revolt if fiscal policy appears unfunded, but equally how quickly confidence can return when government applies the brakes

3. Where We Need to Be

SMART Targets

• Stabilise debt by reducing borrowing below 3% of GDP (~£80 billion), within the next five years

• Bring the interest bill back under control, aiming to cap it below 3% of GDP (~£85 billion)

• Preserve the UK’s strengths: long debt maturities, central bank independence, credibility with investors

• Restore enough fiscal space to invest in productivity drivers - energy security, AI, infrastructure, skills, start-up incubators - so consolidation doesn’t turn to permanent stagnation.

4. The Path to Get There - and the Risks

• Consolidation: fiscal effort worth 1 - 2% of GDP (£30–60 billion) through a mix of targeted tax reform and spending restraint

• Windfall taxes eg on banks, to raise billions

• Market management: the BoE can pause quantitative tightening or intervene in gilt markets again if disorder arises, but credibility requires political discipline too

• Growth strategy: faster productivity growth can make the debt sustainable long-term. That means tackling housing, planning, and skills bottlenecks.

• Risks:

o Political backlash against spending cuts or tax rises, and civil unrest

o External shocks (oil prices, US rates, inflation reduction act and tariffs, more war) pushing yields higher

o If credibility is lost, an IMF-BoE package in the order of £120–180 billion could become unavoidable, with painful conditionality.

In short, the UK is not yet France, but its fiscal cushion is eroding. Unless borrowing is curbed and growth restored, the conversation about bailouts could shift from speculation to reality within this Parliament. 

Read More

THE UK GOVERNMENT'S SUPER INJUNCTION

21 July 2025

What's this fuss about a super injunction? And the 30,000 who are being integrated into the UK?

treason-uks-secret-plan-to-resettle-thousands-of-afghans-revealed-after-superinjunction-lifted/

The public are being lied to

- Unprecedented secrecy: first known instance of a government using one a super injunxtion (silly name)

- Democratic failure: we were all denied oversight for nearly two years

- Risk - reward miscalculation: judge told rhe MoD risks were overestimated, yet the gag remained in place

- Public trust eroded: how many more cockups are being covered up; why did a labour Prime Minister cover up for the Tories, like for the elite?

Well maybe it was a cock-up, but Ida thought that these are exactly the kind of people that the UK wants - educated and loyal and young - what a scoop!

There we go - what might have been a positive thing and in accord with a moral duty, has instead turned into a political scandal over secrecy and accountability.

Who gives a damn - they were only loyal afghanis.

As u wld say, "what a mess". As Mearsheimer says, " they've got the meidas touch in reverse"... everything they touch turns to s**t.

Read More

TECHNOCRAT OR HUMANIST - BLAIR V FIELD

26 April 2024

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/25/tony-blair-offers-a-terrifying-glimpse-into-our-future/

Is it better that the country be governed by a philosopher king and his best solutions, or by the people and their values?

SUMMARY

1. Contrasting Political Philosophies of Tony Blair and Frank Field

Background and Ideological Differences

Tony Blair and Frank Field represent two distinctly different approaches within the Labour Party. Frank Field, influenced by a fading Christian socialist tradition, emphasised the dangers of rationalism in politics and advocated for acknowledging human nature's limitations and promoting self-interested altruism. In contrast, Tony Blair operates a global governance organisation, viewing government as a tool that functions best under competent leadership, irrespective of the democratic quality of the system.

2. Blair's Governance Philosophy

Pragmatic, technocratic, focus on competence over form

Blair's approach to politics is highly pragmatic, focusing on competence over the form of government. He suggests that non-democratic systems can function effectively if led by smart individuals, although this perspective overlooks the broader implications of such governance styles. Blair supports his view by pointing to exceptions like Singapore and the UAE, which he sees as examples of effective governance due to competent leadership.

3. Critique of Competence as a Sole Leadership Quality

Effective leadership requires strong moral beliefs

The notion that only competence should drive government is critiqued. Competence alone, without a strong value system, is seen as insufficient for effective leadership. Historical policies like the poll tax and the Covid lockdowns are cited as examples where competent leaders may still make poor decisions if they lack a robust guiding philosophy.

4. The Role of Values in Politics

Solutions flow from values

The article argues against the idea that there are definitive "right answers" in politics, suggesting instead that solutions depend significantly on the underlying values and priorities. 

For instance, Frank Field's approach to reforming the benefits system was deeply rooted in his values, focusing on promoting work and individual freedom over reducing inequality.

5. Dangers of Technocratic Governance

Real choice requires that the "why" must precede the "what"

There is a significant criticism of reducing politics to mere administration without underlying principles. The article expresses concerns about technocracy, where politics is merely about managing public opinion to support "the right" policies, which could lead to a lack of genuine political choice and engagement.

6. The Potential Perils of a Labour Election Win

Leave people free to learn from their mistakes

The commentary expresses fear that a Labour victory could lead to governance by those who are overly confident in their moral and intellectual positions, leading to incessant interventions in personal freedoms under the guise of achieving societal perfection.

7. Preference for Human-Centred Governance

Ultimately, the author expresses a preference for leaders like Frank Field, who, despite their flaws, are seen as more in tune with human nature and less likely to pursue overly ambitious or unrealistic goals at the expense of practical consensual governance. Humanity over execution competence, a trust in the people, if reform is needed it is rather to "the system".

Glossary of Terms

- Christian Socialism

An ideological perspective within Christianity that combines elements of socialism with some Christian ethics, focusing on social justice and welfare.

- Rationalism in Politics 

A belief in reason and logic as the primary sources of authority and legitimacy in political decision-making and technology for execution. Cf. a more conservative belief in people and values adaption by consensus.

- Technocracy 

A system of governance where decision-makers are selected based on their expertise or technical knowledge rather than popular support.

ARTICLE

I don’t generally wish to send traffic to The Telegraph’s competitors, but if you can bear it, I urge you to have a look at The Times’s interview last weekend with Sir Tony Blair. Then contrast his approach to politics with the sadly departed Frank Field’s. Two Labour Party figures, two Christians – and yet how different their worldviews.

Frank Field came from a Christian socialist tradition that has almost died out in the Labour Party – more’s the pity, as it was the source of most of what is good in that party’s philosophy. Field wrote in his final book last year of Michael Oakeshott’s “emphasis on the danger of rationalism in politics”, of the need to recognise the limits inherent in human nature, the importance of “a sense of self-interested altruism”.

Blair runs a global governance organisation. Not surprisingly, his philosophy is quite different – and we must take it seriously given his obvious influence on Keir Starmer. He sees government in entirely instrumental terms. “The problem with countries that aren’t democracies is they’re fine if you happen to have really smart people running them, but if you don’t, there’s a problem.” Here, competence is the only test for good government: the important thing is not the system, but having “smart” people in charge. 

Look around the world, though, and neither democracies nor authoritarian states seem to be particularly good at giving political power to smart or competent people. The system doesn’t select for that. The odd exception, like Singapore or maybe the UAE, about both of which Blair speaks approvingly, doesn’t disprove the general point. 

But in any case, competence and smartness are not the most valuable qualities for leadership. Able and intelligent people can become prey to intellectual fads just as easily as anyone else – maybe more so – and take the most terrible decisions. Consider the poll tax, the Exchange Rate Mechanism, net zero, or the Covid lockdowns, if you doubt me.

Blair seems blind to this. Indeed he goes on to claim that “politics works when policy comes first and politics comes second. When you ask what’s the right answer to a problem and then you shape the politics around that.” 

He isn’t, of course, unique in thinking this. This centrist dad worldview, the idea that men and women of good will from all parties can get together and find the indisputably right answer to our difficulties, is widely shared across the so-called centre ground of politics, from the Blairite Left to the supposedly “One Nation” Right. 

It’s still wrong. There aren’t unambiguous “right answers” to problems in politics. Everything depends on the value system you bring to them. 

Suppose you are trying to reform the benefits system, as Frank Field spent much of his life trying to do. If your priority is to encourage work, aspiration, and individual freedom, then you will arrive at one set of solutions. You’ll come to quite different ones if your primary aim is to reduce inequality and make sure absolutely no one can slip through the net. 

Or: if democracy, national cohesion, and immigration control are your top priorities, then you probably supported leaving the EU. If you favour diversity, migration, and being part of a bigger power bloc, then you probably didn’t. It depends what you think is more important. The value system, the politics, comes first. 

This is why competent administration, the capable managerialism that so many seem to wish for, simply isn’t enough on its own. In the end, however well done, it must fail. It’s no good being good at doing things if you don’t know why you want to do them. There has to be a value system that visibly drives actions. 

And you have to win the arguments in public for that value system. That’s how to bring people with you. If instead you take the view that there are self-evidently “right” policies supported by all sensible people, and then reduce politics to the task of shaping public opinion so it supports them, that squeezes out political choice and turns politics into a technocracy. Blair says the country has had too much politics: I say it hasn’t had enough. 

Yet that isn’t even the worst consequence of this way of thinking. It’s: where do you stop? If you think every problem can be solved by clever people, then why not try to solve every problem? 

But there will never be an end to problems – which means there is no limit in principle to what the government can do. The only constraint is a practical one, and AI, digital currencies, restrictions on speech, or China’s emerging social credit system show that the limits to social control are weakening all the time. 

So that’s the politics I fear if Labour wins the election: that of the moral improvers, the politicians who think they know best, and will not give up trying to make us live as they think we should. Give me the Frank Field’s any day. I’d much rather be governed by normal capable human beings who may have flaws but who understand human nature, than by relentless high-achieving busybodies with noble goals. Those people will never leave us alone until they have achieved perfection – and they never will.

Read More