Pink shading shows people who have gone.
Red lettering is for the Conservative traitors, some of whom were readmitted and kept their seats.
Total bag: 33 / 52.
13 December 2019
Brexit playing cards: status at 12 December 2019
Here we are after almost all the results.
Pink shading shows people who have gone.
Red lettering is for the Conservative traitors, some of whom were readmitted and kept their seats.
Total bag: 33 / 52.
Pink shading shows people who have gone.
Red lettering is for the Conservative traitors, some of whom were readmitted and kept their seats.
Total bag: 33 / 52.
01 December 2019
Brexit playing cards: Five to Two of Clubs
Now down to the last Remainer nonentities.
Five of Clubs: Ann Coffey
Labour MP for Stockport (53.21% Remain in 2016), defected to Change UK, and not standing in the 2019 election. When she stood down, she did not try to justify it on the basis of having being bullied on social media, so she was certainly honest.Four of Clubs: Chris Leslie
Labour MP for Nottingham East (57.12% Remain in 2016). Now Change UK candidate in the 2019 election.Three of Clubs: Joan Ryan
Enfield North voted 50.78% Remain in 2016. Previous Labour MP Joan Ryan defected to Change UK and will not stand in 2019.Two of Clubs: Mike Gapes
He was Labour MP for Ilford South, which voted 56.69% Remain in 2016. He is standing as a Change UK candidate in 2019.
Brexit playing cards: Nine to Six of Clubs
We come now to four people who have changed party.
Umunna describes himself as 'One Nation Labour', an oxymoron invented by another idiot, Ed Milliband.
Nine of Clubs: Chuka Umunna
He was the Labour MP for Streatham (79.46% Remain in 2016), and moved to form The Independent Group, which was renamed to Change UK, before becoming an 'Independent' and completing his slide to obscurity by joining the Liberal Democrats. In the 2019 election he is standing as a Liberal Democrat in Cities of London and Westminster, currently a Conservative seat and 71.95% Remain in 2016.Umunna describes himself as 'One Nation Labour', an oxymoron invented by another idiot, Ed Milliband.
Eight of Clubs: Angela Smith
Elected as a Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge (60.65% Leave in 2016), she then defected to The Independent Group, which became Change UK, then became an 'Independent' and then the Liberal Democrats. She is standing in the 2019 election for Altrincham and Sale West, which voted 61.41% Remain in 2016. The Conservatives are likely to hold the seat.Seven of Clubs: Luciana Berger
Same old story, with a Labour MP finishing up as a Liberal Democrat candidate. She was MP for Liverpool Wavertree, 64.74% Remain in 2016, and is standing for Finchley and Golders Green, 68.9% Remain in 2016. She is unlikely to replace the Conservative Mike Freer.Six of Clubs: Anna Soubry
She was Conservative MP for Broxtowe, which voted 52.51% Leave in 2016. She is standing for Change UK in the 2019 election. So we'll probably lose another traitor.
26 November 2019
Brexit playing cards: status at 25 November 2019.
The current state of play.
Played-out cards are crossed through.
Conservative traitors are printed in red.
Played-out cards are crossed through.
Conservative traitors are printed in red.
| Spades | Hearts | Diamonds | Clubs | |
| Ace | John McDonnell | Hilary Benn | ||
| King | Keir Starmer | Ed Milliband | Phillip Lee | |
| Queen | Yvette Cooper | |||
| Knave | Ian Murray | Sam Gyimah | ||
| Ten | Margaret Beckett | Sarah Wollaston | ||
| Nine | David Lammy | Chuka Umunna | ||
| Eight | Dominic Grieve | Steve Brine | Bridget Phillipson | Angela Smith |
| Seven | Ann Milton | Jon Cruddas | Luciana Berger | |
| Six | John Healey | Anna Soubry | ||
| Five | ||||
| Four | Greg Clark | Damien Collins | Jane Dodds | Chris Leslie |
| Three | Antoinette Sandbach | Peter Kyle | Tim Farron | |
| Two | Stephen Hammond | Caroline Nokes | Layla Moran | Mike Gapes |
Brexit playing cards: Ace to Ten of Clubs
Ace of Clubs: John Bercow
The worst Speaker of modern times enjoys bullying other people but has decided to creep away before the December 2019 election. Buckingham voted 51.13% Remain in 2016.King of Clubs: Phillip Lee
One of the traitors who left the Conservative party to join the Liberal Democrats, Lee was in the Bracknell constituency, which voted 53.24% Leave in 2016. No chance there, then, so he's done another slither, to stand in Wokingham, which voted 57.31% Remain in 2016, against John Redwood, a loyal Conservative, Eurosceptic and Brexit supporter. This will be an interesting seat to watch in the December 2019 election.Queen of Clubs: Heidi Allen
Elected in 2015 to South Cambridgeshire (61.51% Remain in 2016) as a Conservative, she defected to Change UK and then to the Liberal D.emocrats and then out of politics. We can expect Anthony Browne to hold the seat for the Conservatives, so her manoeuvring was a waste of time.Knave of Clubs: Sam Gyimah
East Surrey voted 54.2% Leave in 2016. Sam Gyimah was kicked out of the Conservative party in September 2019 and moved to the Liberal Democrats. He is not contesting the seat in the December 2019 election. In December 2019 he is standing Kensington against Labour's Emma Dent Coad. Kensington voted 68.8% Remain in 2016, as one of many London areas convinced that EU membership is better than sovereignty, which is odd.Ten of Clubs: Sarah Wollaston
Another traitor from the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats, of her own volition rather than being thrown out, she was the MP for Totnes, which voted 53.89% Leave in 2016. Best of luck there, then, against Conservative Anthony Mangnall.
12 November 2019
Brexit playing cards: Six to Two of Diamonds
Further nobodies, including a few of the loonier LibDems.
Six of Diamonds: John Healey
Wentworth and Dearne voted 70.28% Leave in 2016, and deserves better than this weaselly Labour nonentity, who would probably continue to act against his electorate's wishes.Five of Diamonds: Ian Lucas
A Labour Remainer in Wrexham, which voted 57.57% Leave in 2016, Lucas will not be standing in December 2019.Four of Diamonds: Jane Dodds
Elected in the 2019 by-election, Dodds is a LibDem in Brecon and Radnorshire, which voted 51.86% Leave in 2016. With failed Conservative Christopher Davies now replaced, the electorate may withdraw their protest votes from her in December 2019.Three of Diamonds: Tim Farron
Farron has been wrong on almost every statement he has made, ranging from gay rights to defence. He has described himself as a Eurosceptic but consistently voted as a Remainer. Westmorland and Lonsdale voted 52.94% Remain in 2016, but there is hope that Farron and the LibDems will be ditched in the December 2019 election.Two of Diamonds: Layla Moran
Remarkable only for her violence twaords her boyfriend, Moran was the LibDem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, which voted 61.97% Remain in 2016. While there is little chance that the students of Oxford will now support Brexit, there may be a chance of her losing the seat in December 2019.
30 October 2019
Brexit playing cards: Ten to Seven of Diamonds
With a general election about to happen, it's time to crack on through the rest of the people who do not deserve to represent voters in Parliament.
Ten of Diamonds: Dame Margaret Beckett
Not only was Beckett a 2009 expenses fiddler, but she wrote a spectacularly stupid letter to the committee that ruled on her expenses. Yet another Labour Remainer in a Leave seat; Derby South voted 61.35% Leave in 2016. On 29 October 2019, Beckett voted against an early election.Nine of Diamonds: David Lammy
The first politician to be fined for breaching the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations, Lammy has spouted nonsense on a range of issues from same-sex marriage to a 'People's Vote'. Tottenham is one of those strange London constituencies that voted Remain in 2016, at 76.22%. He might stay on, sadly. On 29 October 2019, Lammy voted against an early election.Eight of Diamonds: Bridget Phillipson
Phillipson is a Labour nonentity, except for the one plus of being a member of Labour Friends of Israel. A Remainer and early 'People's Vote' advocate, she is the member for Houghton and Sunderland South, which voted 62.43% Leave in 2016.Seven of Diamonds: Jonathan Cruddas
Dagenham and Rainham voted 70.35% Leave in 2016, but has this wishy-washy Labour Remainer as their MP.
28 October 2019
Brexit playing cards: Ace to Knave of Diamonds
As we edge closer to the election that the British people deserve, here are some more of the people who should not be re-elected.
Ace of Diamonds: Hilary Benn
Infamous for the 'Surrender Act', Benn is a Remainer in a seat - Leeds Central - that voted 54.04% Remain in 2016. It would be good to see him go, but it is probably unlikely, even in a Northern seat that may swing towards Leave.King of Diamonds: Ed Milliband
A Remainer in Doncaster North, which voted 71.65% Leave in 2016, Milliband could even lose the seat to a Conservative.Queen of Diamonds: Yvette Cooper
Not as barkingly mad as Anna Soubry, but pretty close, Cooper is a Remainer in Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, which voted 69.26% Leave in 2016, so one hopes that the Labour party might come to its senses and put a pro-Brexit candidate in.Knave of Diamonds: Ian Murray
Probably safe in Edinburgh South, which voted 77.85% Remain in 2016. But voters may think that the SNP better serves their aspirations.
22 October 2019
Brexit playing cards: Six to Two of Hearts
Now we're down to some 'Independent', Labour and Conservative nobodies, as we scrape the bottom of the Hearts barrel.
He was expelled in September 2019 but readmitted in October. He will not stand in December 2019, so someone else will become the richest MP in the House.
Voted against an early election on 29 October 2019.
Six of Hearts: Richard Benyon
In 2017, having denounced people for using mobile phones while driving, he was banned from driving for doing precisely that, which gives you some idea of how much he sticks to his principles. Newbury was 52.19% Remain in 2016.He was expelled in September 2019 but readmitted in October. He will not stand in December 2019, so someone else will become the richest MP in the House.
Five of Hearts: Jo Johnson
Stepping down at the next election, Johnson has been a supporter of weird Brexit ideas, such as a second referendum. Orpington voted 57.54% Leave in 2016, so it deserves a real Conservative.Four of Hearts: Damian Collins
Collins has never achieved anything in Parliament, apart from a bit of expenses fiddling. He suggested that unemployed youth should work for less than the minimum wage, which gives you some idea of whether he's a One Nation Tory. Folkestone and Hythe voted 61.64% Leave in 2016, but they did not deselect this useless Remainer before the December 2019 election.Three of Hearts: Peter Kyle
Kyle proposed an amendment to Theresa May's Brexit Withdrawal Agreement that would have forced a second referendum; it failed, twice. An arch Labour Remainer in a seat that voted 67.05% Remain in 2016, there is hope that Hove will return to being a Conservative seat.Voted against an early election on 29 October 2019.
Two of Hearts: Caroline Nokes
A Remainer in Romsey and Southampton North, which voted 53.92% Remain in 2016. She was expelled in September 2019 but readmitted in October. One of the cards that might not get flicked into the bin, as her popularity in her seat has outweighed the need for the local association to select a proper Conservative for the December 2019 election.
20 October 2019
Brexit playing cards: Ten to Seven of Hearts
We continue down the list of nonentities and strange people who no longer have the Conservative whip. one of whom has already decided not to stand at the next election.
Abstained in vote on an early election on 29 October 2019.
Announced that she will stand as an 'Independent' in Guildford in the December 2019 election.
Ten of Hearts: Guto Bebb
Bebb is one of those MPs who employ family members; for him, it's his wife as office manager. He spends a lot on expenses, including first-class rail tickets, and is a foul-mouthed bully. He does not have a home in his constituency. Beeb lost the Conservative whip in September 2019. Aberconwy is a 52.2% Leave constituency, so it's just as well that this Remainer is standing down at the election.Abstained in vote on an early election on 29 October 2019.
Nine of Hearts: Ed Vaizey
One of several 2009 expense fiddlers, Vaizey is pretty much a nonentity. He may be re-elected to Wantage, which voted 53.54% Remain in 2016. He was thrown out of the Conservative party in September 2019, but readmitted in October. He is not standing in the December 2019 election.Eight of Hearts: Steve Brine
Winchester voted 60.36% Remain in 2016 so they may elect this Brexit traitor again. He was expelled from the Conservatives in 2019 but readmitted in October.. It would be good to see this Remainer Right-winger go, though.Seven of Hearts: Ann Milton
As we continue down the list of Conservative MPs who not made a positive mark, we come to Ann Milton, some of whose views are weird but must appeal to the voters of Guildford, who were 58.8% Leave in 2016. She is an 'Independent', having been expelled in 2019, and this may result in a proper Conservative winning her seat.Announced that she will stand as an 'Independent' in Guildford in the December 2019 election.
18 October 2019
The Supreme Court
'That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament
ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament'
It is often said that Britain does not have a written constitution. In fact, Britain does not have a codified constitution, which means that it is not written down in a single document. Parts of the British constitution are indeed in writing, and one of principal pieces of legislation forming the constitution is the Bill of Rights 1688. (This is the name given to it in the Government website; it should be called the Bill of Rights 1689, but let's not quibble.)
Prorogation is a 'proceeding in Parliament'. It ought, therefore, not be questioned by any court, including the Supreme Court.
I suggest that the Supreme Court has overstepped its powers and should be abolished and replaced by the previous system of law lords.
So, who were the law lords? Their official name was the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, and, as a result of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, and their function was to act as the highest court of appeal within the United Kingdom.
Most the law lords were long-serving barristers or judges who were given peerages by the Government of the time. Over time, the number of law lords was increased. Each Government could appoint new law lords, usually on retirement of incumbents, especially if they believed that there was a political imbalance amongst the law lords.
The thinking behind the establishment of the Supreme Court was that law lords had both judicial and legislative responsibilities. There was a desire for a body that would be separate from the House of Lords and would have only judicial responsibilities. There was the possibility that a peer could have judicial, legislative and executive roles, and, indeed, this was true of the Lord Chancellor until 2005.
I do not see a problem with this weak separation of powers at levels lower than the monarch, who heads all three powers.
Much of the thinking behind the establishment of the Supreme Court was not about separation of powers. Rather, it was to establish a court in Britain that would have the same role as the European courts.
One of the major problems with the Supreme Court is that it appoints its own members. There is therefore a strong possibility that the court may become biased in a single direction. This is what caused the court first to consider the issue of Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament and second to rule that the prorogation was unlawful. The court should not have considered the case at all.
Following Brexit, I would expect the next Conservative Government to remove this unconstitutional court and revert to the system of law lords.
It is often said that Britain does not have a written constitution. In fact, Britain does not have a codified constitution, which means that it is not written down in a single document. Parts of the British constitution are indeed in writing, and one of principal pieces of legislation forming the constitution is the Bill of Rights 1688. (This is the name given to it in the Government website; it should be called the Bill of Rights 1689, but let's not quibble.)
Prorogation is a 'proceeding in Parliament'. It ought, therefore, not be questioned by any court, including the Supreme Court.
I suggest that the Supreme Court has overstepped its powers and should be abolished and replaced by the previous system of law lords.
So, who were the law lords? Their official name was the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, and, as a result of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, and their function was to act as the highest court of appeal within the United Kingdom.
Most the law lords were long-serving barristers or judges who were given peerages by the Government of the time. Over time, the number of law lords was increased. Each Government could appoint new law lords, usually on retirement of incumbents, especially if they believed that there was a political imbalance amongst the law lords.
The thinking behind the establishment of the Supreme Court was that law lords had both judicial and legislative responsibilities. There was a desire for a body that would be separate from the House of Lords and would have only judicial responsibilities. There was the possibility that a peer could have judicial, legislative and executive roles, and, indeed, this was true of the Lord Chancellor until 2005.
I do not see a problem with this weak separation of powers at levels lower than the monarch, who heads all three powers.
Much of the thinking behind the establishment of the Supreme Court was not about separation of powers. Rather, it was to establish a court in Britain that would have the same role as the European courts.
One of the major problems with the Supreme Court is that it appoints its own members. There is therefore a strong possibility that the court may become biased in a single direction. This is what caused the court first to consider the issue of Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament and second to rule that the prorogation was unlawful. The court should not have considered the case at all.
Following Brexit, I would expect the next Conservative Government to remove this unconstitutional court and revert to the system of law lords.
Brexit playing cards: Ace to Knave of Hearts
Now on to a Red suit. Two Labour and two ex-Conservative.
Ace of Hearts: John McDonnell
It would take too long to list all of McDonnell's stupid and infantile statements and actions, but he did once quote from Mao's Little Red Book in the Commons and then threw it across the despatch box to the Chancellor, George Osborne, who opened it and declared it was McDonnell's personal signed copy. There is hope that Hayes and Harlington, which voted 58.2% Leave in 2016, will come to its senses and elect someone a little less thick.King of Hearts: Sir Keir Starmer
Starmer was a terrible head of the Crown Prosecutions Service, but was knighted for his services. As he chooses not to be known as Sir Keir, one has to ask why he accepted the honour. Less intelligent than he likes to appear, he is probably safe in Holborn and St Pancras, which voted 73.34% Remain in 2016. Make up a card for him anyway - we don't expect to flick all 52 of them into the bin..Queen of Hearts: Margot James
Back to the Tory traitors. Margot James was expelled in September 2019 but readmitted in October. Stourbridge voted 63.66% Leave in 2016. She is not standing in the December 2019 election.Knave of Hearts: Richard Harrington
Harrington has already gone from the pack, having decided, even before his expulsion from the Conservative party in 2019, not to stand again in Watford, which voted 51.15% Leave in 2016. He supported the continuation of NHS funding for homeopathy in 2010, so you get some idea of how bright he is.
17 October 2019
Brexit playing cards: Six to Two of Spades
We continue our way down the list of Spades, the ex-members of the Conservative Party who have attempted to block the will of the British people, as expressed in the 2016 referendum, and promised in the 2017 manifesto, and may justifiably be called traitors to both people and party.
We are now scraping the bottom of the barrel.
He will not stand in December 2019. Haywards Heath voted 53.56% Remain in 2016, but a real Conservative can win the seat.
Abstained in vote on an early election on 29 October 2019.
We are now scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Six of Spades: Sir Nicholas Soames
Soames was a useless minister under useless prime minister John Major. His main claims to fame are lying about Diana Princess of Wales, making 'woof' noises at female members of Parliament in the House of Commons, attempting to evade tax, and repeated driving offences.He will not stand in December 2019. Haywards Heath voted 53.56% Remain in 2016, but a real Conservative can win the seat.
Five of Spades: Dame Caroline Spelman
Briefly a minister under Cameron, but not since, she was a 2009 expenses fiddler. A Remainer in a Leave seat - Meriden, 58.81% Leave - she tabled the infamous motion in the House of Commons in January 2019 that stated that there was not a majority of MPs in favour of a no-deal Brexit. The point of Brexit is that the people voted for it, not MPs, and the motion was a disgraceful attempt to thwart that vote. Expelled from the Conservative party in September 2019, she has decided not to stand at the next election. So another traitor already gone.Four of Spades: Greg Clark
As a minister, his staff went on strike because his department did not pay them the London Living Wage. He was expelled by the Conservative party in 2019 but readmitted in October, so it will be up to the local party in Tunbridge Wells - 55.35% Remain in the 2016 referendum - to deselect him..Three of Spades: Antoinette Sandbach
Following her expulsion from the Conservative party, the Eddisbury Conservative Association passed a motion of no confidence in her. She remarked that they were 'an unrepresentative handful of people' who should not get to decide the question. She will stand as an 'Independent' and a Remainer in the next election, although her constituency voted 52.17% Leave in the 2016 referendum.Abstained in vote on an early election on 29 October 2019.
Two of Spades: Stephen Hammond
Hammond has the distinction of being one of the MPs whose Wikipedia entry was altered through computers owned by Parliament, to remove mention of his abuses of 'perks'. He has been sacked as a minister, sacked from being vice chairman of the Conservative Party for London, sacked from the Conservative party, and sacked from being its vice chairman. His career has been one of promotion and dismissal. His seat is Wimbledon, which voted 70.63% Remain in 2016. He was readmitted to the Conservative party in October 2019, but will Wimbledon select a real Conservative?
16 October 2019
Brexit playing cards - Ten to Seven of Spades
Continuing down the list of previous members of the Conservative Party who have been expelled from the party and who deserve to be deselected or voted out of Parliament at the next election.
Abstained in vote on an early election on 29 October 2019.
Ten of Spades: Rory Stewart
Gone from Parliament now, presumably on the basis that a Remainer wouldn't stand much of a chance in a Leave constituency (Penrith and the Borders, 55.2% Leave in 2016) now that he has proven himself unable to honour the 2017 manifesto. He is standing for election as Mayor of London, a position that is unsuited to a lightweight, so expect the Conservative Party to put up someone more substantial.Nine of Spades: David Gauke
An expenses fiddler and a terrible employer, having been described a judge as 'reprehensible', David Gauke was expelled from the Conservative Party in 2019. He is one of many current politicians who do not understand the basics of the British constitution. He is not standing at the December 2019 electionEight of Spades: Dominic Grieve
A politician who has the ability never to tell the same story twice. One of the first Remainers to panic after Boris Johnson became prime minister, Grieve has been continuously involved in legislation to stop Brexit, and is known to have collaborated with the EU and the Labour Party.Abstained in vote on an early election on 29 October 2019.
Seven of Spades: Alistair Burt
Already announced that he will not stand in the next election, which is not surprising for a Remainer booted out of the Conservative Party, readmitted in October, and currently the member for North East Bedfordshire, which voted 53.4% Leave in the 2016 referendum.
15 October 2019
Brexit playing cards - Ace to Knave of Spades
Remember the deck of playing cards of 'most wanted' that the US Defense Intelligence Agency developed in 2003, with Saddam Hussein on the Ace of Spades? Here is my list of people who have let down the British people who voted to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum. If you get an old pack of cards and write their names on them, you can enjoy watching them leave Parliament during the next round of candidate selection (especially by the Conservative Party) or following the next General Election.
Abstained in vote on an early election on 29 October 2019.
Announced that he will not stand at the December 2019 election, in a letter that does not actually state that, as an 'Independent', he would not stand a chance. Nigel Farage called him a 'fraud', which may appease those who object to his being called a traitor.
Abstained in vote on an early election on 29 October 2019.
Abstained in vote on an early election on 29 October 2019.
Abstained in vote on an early election on 29 October 2019.
Ace of Spades: Philip Hammond
The chief Tory traitor, who has continued to spout the failed arguments that even the Treasury no longer seems to support. He was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer by Theresa May, and does not seem to have ever had a good grasp of this portfolio. He sits as an Independent for Runnymede and Weybridge (having been ousted by the local Conservative party on 4 September 2019), which voted 50.15% for Remain. Given that there is likely to be a national swing towards Leave, he stands a good chance of being ousted by the official Conservative candidate.Abstained in vote on an early election on 29 October 2019.
Announced that he will not stand at the December 2019 election, in a letter that does not actually state that, as an 'Independent', he would not stand a chance. Nigel Farage called him a 'fraud', which may appease those who object to his being called a traitor.
King of Spades: Kenneth Clarke
Remembered chiefly for being found out in the 2009 expenses scandal, Clarke was always largely ineffective in a variety of ministerial positions. Opinions have been voiced that his constituency of Rushcliffe is no longer the safe Tory seat it has been, but his decision not to stand in December 2019 may see a real Conservative win the seat. His appalling manner of speaking - which may be contrived rather a natural impediment - will not be missed.Abstained in vote on an early election on 29 October 2019.
Queen of Spades: Justine Greening
Already gone, apparently, as she has stated that she will not stand for re-election in the next election. This is probably the best decision she has made to date. I won't throw the Queen of Spades into the bin just yet, as she may go back on her word again. Her most notable failure in office was as Secretary of State for Transport, when she cost the Government £40 million during botched franchise awards.Abstained in vote on an early election on 29 October 2019.
Knave of Spades: Sir Oliver Letwin
Another 'Independent' booted out of the Conservative Party, Letwin was a Remainer in a Leave constituency. West Dorset voted 51.04% Leave in 2016. Branded as a racist because of his insensitive comments on the Broadwater Farm riots, he was a 2009 expenses fiddler and would be much happier doing more 'work' in the City rather than being an MP. He will not stand in December 2019.Abstained in vote on an early election on 29 October 2019.
20 October 2016
Trump and women
One could get confused over the word 'liberal' these days. In my youth, a liberal was one of two things.
The first Liberal had a capital 'L' and was a member or supporter of the Liberal Party. The Liberals were the latter-day Whigs. Starting as a party of the aristocracy - as did their rivals, the Tories - the Whigs became the party of the middle-class owners of industry, of the non-conforming Protestant churches, and of 'liberal' issues, including the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown and Church, the abolition of slavery, and the extension of suffrage. They introduced the Reform Act of 1832. The Whigs merged with other interests to form the Liberal Party. The Liberals in Government in the early twentieth century started the welfare state system. Gradually the Labour Party supplanted the Liberal Party, and it declined during the rest of the twentieth century, adopting policies such as membership of the Common Market and the introduction of proportional representation, and eventually merging with a number of disaffected - and largely ineffectual - Labour Party members to form the Liberal-Democrats.
The second liberal was the kind of person who would have been at home in the early Liberal Party, advocating rights and freedoms. They would have been less happy with the later Liberals, keen on destroying British sovereignty and democratic elections. True liberals wanted liberty and equality.
So we come to the 'liberals' of today. Far from embracing ideals of liberty and equality, the 'liberal' media seems to want rule by those whom they regard as best fitted to rule and equality on a limited stratum of society. The people best fitted to rule are writers (especially in the media), actors and scientists. They exclude people who own practically anything - businesses, land, even houses - and include those whom they regard as 'disenfranchised' - non-Whites and non-Christians.
I hope that the true 'liberals' of today persist in their aspirations for freedom and opportunity. Sadly, the adjective 'liberal' is now used to describe people whose views are far from liberal.
In the United States, some politicians called themselves 'liberal' and the label was adopted by newspapers and television stations whose agenda was really ruthless exploitation. Thus, while the loathsome Kennedys rose to and achieved power, the New York Times and the Washington Post twisted towards the rhetoric and ideology of the 'liberal' Democrats.
Unfortunately, rhetoric and ideology are the sole pillars of modern 'liberalism'.
Take Mrs Clinton's stated policy on Syria. She is proposing a full review of the United States' strategy in Syria. That sounds like inaction. But it isn't. While Mrs Clinton has said that she would not commit more troops to Syria, her campaign advisors have said that both ISIS and Assad must be removed. How is that going to accomplished without ground forces? The only way to achieve military success is by capturing territory, and you don't do that with drones and missiles. Because the ideology cannot be made to fit the realities, the rhetoric becomes illogical and cloudy. So she promises a review.
The ideology is so flawed that it cannot recognize the reality of Syria. There is a civil war within Syria. While the West may be alarmed at the presence of ISIS - or, more accurately, 'ISIL', if we take the full meaning of 'as-shaam' as referring to The Levant rather than Syria specifically - we should be alarmed at its presence in other countries, including the US. Whatever we may dislike about the situation in Syria, we would be hard pressed to explain how it affects us. We should also remember that much of the unrest in the Middle East is caused by a previous intervention, when a more pragmatic, and indeed liberal, view would have been to have left it alone.
Who in the liberal media is jumping up and down about the sheer idiocy of Mrs Clinton's Syria policy? Or taxation? Or trade?
What does vex the American and some international media are remarks by Mr Trump about women.
What should trouble them is that Mr Trump's statements were typical of the way that many 'celebrities' and media people treat women. Not only women, of course. Some male child actors have reported abuse recently, too. It seems as if the practice of sexual abuse among senior men within the movie industry is commonplace. If it is, then we can also imagine that boasting about their abuse is also commonplace. And that boasting would probably take the form of the statements made by Mr Trump in 2005.
As a presidential candidate, those remarks now haunt his campaign. But it looks as if many men in Hollywood have yet to be brought to account for their actions.
While there is some justification for ranting about Mr Trump's remarks, we should realize that they are symptoms of a larger, and continuing, problem.
The first Liberal had a capital 'L' and was a member or supporter of the Liberal Party. The Liberals were the latter-day Whigs. Starting as a party of the aristocracy - as did their rivals, the Tories - the Whigs became the party of the middle-class owners of industry, of the non-conforming Protestant churches, and of 'liberal' issues, including the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown and Church, the abolition of slavery, and the extension of suffrage. They introduced the Reform Act of 1832. The Whigs merged with other interests to form the Liberal Party. The Liberals in Government in the early twentieth century started the welfare state system. Gradually the Labour Party supplanted the Liberal Party, and it declined during the rest of the twentieth century, adopting policies such as membership of the Common Market and the introduction of proportional representation, and eventually merging with a number of disaffected - and largely ineffectual - Labour Party members to form the Liberal-Democrats.
The second liberal was the kind of person who would have been at home in the early Liberal Party, advocating rights and freedoms. They would have been less happy with the later Liberals, keen on destroying British sovereignty and democratic elections. True liberals wanted liberty and equality.
So we come to the 'liberals' of today. Far from embracing ideals of liberty and equality, the 'liberal' media seems to want rule by those whom they regard as best fitted to rule and equality on a limited stratum of society. The people best fitted to rule are writers (especially in the media), actors and scientists. They exclude people who own practically anything - businesses, land, even houses - and include those whom they regard as 'disenfranchised' - non-Whites and non-Christians.
I hope that the true 'liberals' of today persist in their aspirations for freedom and opportunity. Sadly, the adjective 'liberal' is now used to describe people whose views are far from liberal.
In the United States, some politicians called themselves 'liberal' and the label was adopted by newspapers and television stations whose agenda was really ruthless exploitation. Thus, while the loathsome Kennedys rose to and achieved power, the New York Times and the Washington Post twisted towards the rhetoric and ideology of the 'liberal' Democrats.
Unfortunately, rhetoric and ideology are the sole pillars of modern 'liberalism'.
By 'rhetoric', I mean 'language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content'.They are the sole pillars because modern 'liberalism' lacks any clear policies, plans or initiatives to bring its ideology into reality. Such policies as it does embrace are often ineffectual.
By 'ideology', I mean 'a set of political beliefs or ideas'.
Take Mrs Clinton's stated policy on Syria. She is proposing a full review of the United States' strategy in Syria. That sounds like inaction. But it isn't. While Mrs Clinton has said that she would not commit more troops to Syria, her campaign advisors have said that both ISIS and Assad must be removed. How is that going to accomplished without ground forces? The only way to achieve military success is by capturing territory, and you don't do that with drones and missiles. Because the ideology cannot be made to fit the realities, the rhetoric becomes illogical and cloudy. So she promises a review.
The ideology is so flawed that it cannot recognize the reality of Syria. There is a civil war within Syria. While the West may be alarmed at the presence of ISIS - or, more accurately, 'ISIL', if we take the full meaning of 'as-shaam' as referring to The Levant rather than Syria specifically - we should be alarmed at its presence in other countries, including the US. Whatever we may dislike about the situation in Syria, we would be hard pressed to explain how it affects us. We should also remember that much of the unrest in the Middle East is caused by a previous intervention, when a more pragmatic, and indeed liberal, view would have been to have left it alone.
Who in the liberal media is jumping up and down about the sheer idiocy of Mrs Clinton's Syria policy? Or taxation? Or trade?
What does vex the American and some international media are remarks by Mr Trump about women.
What should trouble them is that Mr Trump's statements were typical of the way that many 'celebrities' and media people treat women. Not only women, of course. Some male child actors have reported abuse recently, too. It seems as if the practice of sexual abuse among senior men within the movie industry is commonplace. If it is, then we can also imagine that boasting about their abuse is also commonplace. And that boasting would probably take the form of the statements made by Mr Trump in 2005.
As a presidential candidate, those remarks now haunt his campaign. But it looks as if many men in Hollywood have yet to be brought to account for their actions.
While there is some justification for ranting about Mr Trump's remarks, we should realize that they are symptoms of a larger, and continuing, problem.
12 October 2016
Samsung Galaxy Note7
Before I begin my review of the flawed thinking that has caused such problems at Samsung, a brief criticism of the media. Almost universally, the phone has been referred to as the 'Galaxy Note 7'. On Samsung's website, there is no space between the 'Note' and the '7'. Whatever anyone may think about Samsung's products, it is just simple good manners to call the model by the actual name given to it by its manufacturer. Journalists should check on the correct spelling of people's names - with some media having style guides that include 'difficult' names - but that seems to be a declining skill, too.
For many years, companies, their management, and their management consultants worked on perfecting their product development life-cycles. One of the criteria was quality, and quality was assured through testing. In the time that I was working, first in manufacturing companies and later as a consultant to manufacturers, we continued to improve testing techniques. At some stage, as business continuity planning grew out the earlier disaster recovery planning, we linked product testing with business continuity assurance. In short, we developed a rule that no product would ever reach the market if it had a fixable, identifiable fault. There was a recognition by manufacturers that a problem with any product could lead to the withdrawal of that product and could invoke the business continuity plan to keep the maker in business.
I have noticed before that a good deal of the 'knowledge base' that we built between the 1970s and the 1990s seems to have either been lost or to have been appropriated by fads. Sometimes, when a fad - such as ISO 9000 - dies and is thrown out, the knowledge that it was based on gets thrown out with it.
While I have observed this happening in many manufacturing and service companies, it is a trend that has not been repeated in the mainstream software development industry. Indeed, I am impressed that new techniques of rapid testing have been developed. I can speculate that this happens in the following ways.
We could expect that getting the Note7 to market was largely dependent on the hardware rather than the software. So Samsung should have employed the techniques of manufacturing that were established decades ago. If Samsung had still retained the processes and methodologies, it could have made a success of the Note7. Unfortunately, there were two factors that seem to have made it forget how to put a decent product in the marketplace.
First, and actually of less importance, despite what has been written recently by some commentators, there was Apple's iPhone 7 - and there is a space between the 'iPhone' and the '7'. Samsung became desperate to launch the Note7 before the iPhone 7.
Second, and much more relevant to the failure of the Note7, the board of Samsung Electronics has technologists, a banker, a professor of economics and a professor of business administration. Where are the marketing people? Call me biased but I do not regard economists and business administration professors as practical hands-on marketing experts. So Samsung had no one, apparently, who could have told it that going head-to-head at the launch of the iPhone 7 would not work. Did Samsung really imagine that it could tear devoted fans - who had purchased the iPhone 6, or at least the iPhone 5 - from their intention of buying the iPhone 7? Did it believe that consumers would buy the Note7 rather than wait for the iPhone 7, especially given that Apple does not reveal much about its products before they are available for purchase (or pre-purchase)?
As it turned out, the iPhone 7 was not a major leap forward. It remains underpowered, with technology issues of its own, and with a camera that has only just been brought up to the specs of its competitors. There are many things wrong with iOS 10 (with a space), not least its inability to integrate apps and to communicate widely. But Samsung could have waited. Once the consumers who were undecided about their next phone had seen the iPhone 7 and read the reviews, Samsung could have launched the Note7, and its timing would have made it more of a 'killer' in a market where it could gain ground.
And while they waited, they could have tested it.
For many years, companies, their management, and their management consultants worked on perfecting their product development life-cycles. One of the criteria was quality, and quality was assured through testing. In the time that I was working, first in manufacturing companies and later as a consultant to manufacturers, we continued to improve testing techniques. At some stage, as business continuity planning grew out the earlier disaster recovery planning, we linked product testing with business continuity assurance. In short, we developed a rule that no product would ever reach the market if it had a fixable, identifiable fault. There was a recognition by manufacturers that a problem with any product could lead to the withdrawal of that product and could invoke the business continuity plan to keep the maker in business.
I have noticed before that a good deal of the 'knowledge base' that we built between the 1970s and the 1990s seems to have either been lost or to have been appropriated by fads. Sometimes, when a fad - such as ISO 9000 - dies and is thrown out, the knowledge that it was based on gets thrown out with it.
While I have observed this happening in many manufacturing and service companies, it is a trend that has not been repeated in the mainstream software development industry. Indeed, I am impressed that new techniques of rapid testing have been developed. I can speculate that this happens in the following ways.
- Software development gets handed over. It is rare that someone comes on to a software development team without being mentored or at least having all the documentation available to them. So there is a continuity of product knowledge.
- Software development has become increasingly controlled by methods and methodologies. The software industry has developed its own tools - usually themselves software - to control and management the development and testing cycles.
- Software development is modular. From its earliest days, software was always modular: large programs were broken into modules that called each other. Today, the use of techniques such as 'containers' means that individual functions can be developed and tested on their own, before they are incorporated into the main software product. It goes further than that: these individual functions can be modified and enhanced and tested on their own, with a minimal need for their integration with the whole product to be re-tested comprehensively.
- Software development has 'version control' imposed on it. Each new version is only released to the market - or each new function is only included in its container - when it has undergone testing. The days of coders being able to say 'I've only changed a couple of lines' have gone. Change leads to testing.
We could expect that getting the Note7 to market was largely dependent on the hardware rather than the software. So Samsung should have employed the techniques of manufacturing that were established decades ago. If Samsung had still retained the processes and methodologies, it could have made a success of the Note7. Unfortunately, there were two factors that seem to have made it forget how to put a decent product in the marketplace.
First, and actually of less importance, despite what has been written recently by some commentators, there was Apple's iPhone 7 - and there is a space between the 'iPhone' and the '7'. Samsung became desperate to launch the Note7 before the iPhone 7.
Second, and much more relevant to the failure of the Note7, the board of Samsung Electronics has technologists, a banker, a professor of economics and a professor of business administration. Where are the marketing people? Call me biased but I do not regard economists and business administration professors as practical hands-on marketing experts. So Samsung had no one, apparently, who could have told it that going head-to-head at the launch of the iPhone 7 would not work. Did Samsung really imagine that it could tear devoted fans - who had purchased the iPhone 6, or at least the iPhone 5 - from their intention of buying the iPhone 7? Did it believe that consumers would buy the Note7 rather than wait for the iPhone 7, especially given that Apple does not reveal much about its products before they are available for purchase (or pre-purchase)?
As it turned out, the iPhone 7 was not a major leap forward. It remains underpowered, with technology issues of its own, and with a camera that has only just been brought up to the specs of its competitors. There are many things wrong with iOS 10 (with a space), not least its inability to integrate apps and to communicate widely. But Samsung could have waited. Once the consumers who were undecided about their next phone had seen the iPhone 7 and read the reviews, Samsung could have launched the Note7, and its timing would have made it more of a 'killer' in a market where it could gain ground.
And while they waited, they could have tested it.
08 October 2016
Auckland's mayor
Voting closes today in the election of the mayor of Auckland. As usual, the candidate who is ahead in the polls is a second-rate politician with no discernible achievements on his CV.
The outgoing mayor, Leonard Brown, despite being a member of the Labour Party, stood as an Independent, but his policies have not disguised the Socialist ideology with which he has approached the job. Similarly, his bluster has not disguised his lack of accountability over expenses, his psychotic behaviour in 'the Chamber', and at least one sexual affair. Lacking in any real vision for a major conurbation, he has embraced the outmoded notion that railways can solve road traffic problems. This also demonstrates how little this Manukau-based ex-lawyer understands the people of Auckland: you can't just expect that people will give up their cars and move to public transport: Auckland is not London.
It is a feature of Socialists that they abbreviate their names as well as declaring themselves as 'independent'. So Philip Goff, who failed to achieve anything in at least five ministerial portfolios, is the favourite in the polls.
So here we are again: probably about to elect another nondescript mayor with no discernible ability to manage a city of almost 2 million people.
The outgoing mayor, Leonard Brown, despite being a member of the Labour Party, stood as an Independent, but his policies have not disguised the Socialist ideology with which he has approached the job. Similarly, his bluster has not disguised his lack of accountability over expenses, his psychotic behaviour in 'the Chamber', and at least one sexual affair. Lacking in any real vision for a major conurbation, he has embraced the outmoded notion that railways can solve road traffic problems. This also demonstrates how little this Manukau-based ex-lawyer understands the people of Auckland: you can't just expect that people will give up their cars and move to public transport: Auckland is not London.
It is a feature of Socialists that they abbreviate their names as well as declaring themselves as 'independent'. So Philip Goff, who failed to achieve anything in at least five ministerial portfolios, is the favourite in the polls.
So here we are again: probably about to elect another nondescript mayor with no discernible ability to manage a city of almost 2 million people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)