Blog

<figure id="figure-dhognptorbm57chfqa" data-full-width="" class=""><iframe id="dhognptorbm57chfqa" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2R8QxCD6ir8" class="w-full bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;" allowfullscreen="" data-url="https://youtu.be/2R8QxCD6ir8" data-corners="default" data-fullwidth="true" data-mce-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2R8QxCD6ir8" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9;"></iframe></figure>28DEC24&nbsp; V0.5Ronald Reagan was a pretty good president who was a big fan of legal immigration which he explained well in this last speech as president when he expressed sentiments and compelling ideas that somehow have been forgotten in the entitlement madness.&nbsp; A key point for 2024 is that Reagan was talking about opportunity and self advancement, entitlement; any cash advances should be treated as loans and repaid during and after a period of probation.One fear is that since they come armed with expectations of a land of milk and honey - if they are not molly-coddled from the off, they will help themselves from defenceless retailers.Despite demands for a total ban, there will always have to be a policy on lawful migration, so we must engineer an immigration policy fit for purpose, and keep out all that cannot prove they can contribute directly to the UK - preferably also with sponsors and a probationary period?&nbsp; But this can only make sense if it starts once all illegal migration has been ceased - and all those who have arrived illegally have been processed and returned - as necessary. And all British citizens who have paid into the welfare state over their working lives and are being denied pensions and welfare are being taken care of.

Is this how to position an immigration policy?

27DEC24 V0.1Pete North remains to be impressed... I think it was around March when I began analysing Reform. I've been banging more or less the same drum ever since. Nothing has changed. It's got worse. It still has no philosophical foundation, no grassroots organisation, no subject expertise, and no policy to speak of. The only thing they've professionalised is their media operation.&nbsp;This is still a party that would not know how to usefully wield power. It can win seats on the basis of dissatisfaction with the establishment parties, but the last six months have proved that they don't know what to do with the influence they have. Rupert Lowe is the exception. They know how to do electioneering and gimmicks, but the work of real parliamentarians is beyond their abilities.The clear lesson from the election is that Reform underperformed because it has no ground game, and had they built a grassroots organisation, they could have won more than a dozen seats. They at least had the excuse of being a relatively new organisation with limited resources, but they will head into the next election in a similar state of a disarray, with rarely vetted candidates, no local coordination, no policies, and no idea what to do with power.&nbsp;Responding to such criticisms, they've done the bare minimum to give the outward appearance of professionalisation and democratisation, but as Ben Habib has revealed, it is still essentially the same top-down organisation, and local organisations are left to fend for themselves but are unable to operate as an independent branch.&nbsp;The challenge was always to evolve beyond a personality-led media operation and into a coherent political force - but none of this work has been done, nor will it ever be done. The leadership is satisfied that they're going everything right, because opinion polls and supporter numbers are their sole metric of performance. &nbsp; They are incapable of self-reflection, and in capable of taking on board criticism.&nbsp;At the last election Reform came second in 98 places. A realistic strategy would be to focus energy and resources on these places, with saturation local campaigning, to turn them into seats at the next election. But they won't do that. They won't even have candidates in place until the last minute. The party doesn't do long term planning. Again they will run their campaign from the centre through the media, in the mistaken belief that social media hype equates to votes. &nbsp;Meanwhile, the party will become a life-raft for Tory has-beens and political grifters. Farage will take anyone if they produce a headline or two for a day. Policy will be triangulated for the needs of the moment. That means being all things to all people, contradicting themselves as they go.&nbsp;In that time, half as many who join will become disillusioned with the party. As with Ukip, there will be a large churn of members and activists, and dedicated activists will realise no support, instruction or thanks is coming their way, and that there is no recognition for their efforts. They'll be left to fend for themselves.Having failed to build a fighting force, Reform will enter the next election having to cobble together a campaign at the last minute, same as last time, and though they might very well score a few more Westminster seats, they'll let scores of second places slip through their fingers. They'll call it a victory too.&nbsp;So then by 2029, we have a largely defunct Tory party, probably on its next leader already, flanked by an incoherent populist party of equal size, but with neither capable of dislodging Labour. Neither party will be capable of mobilising those who've lost confidence in the electoral process and Labour will win a majority in much the same basis as 2024.&nbsp;Because Reform will have increased its parliamentary headcount, the right will still persist with the delusion that Reform is likely to achieve something, while still failing to produce anyone capable of replacing Farage. Farage will get bored, Lowe will bow out due to old age or ill health, and they'll be left with Tice as a caretaker, treading water until implosion. Assuming, of course, that Farage doesn't sell out and merge with the Tories (which was always his plan).Ultimately, Reform is a sunk cost fallacy. Perhaps it can drag the Tory party to the right, but neither party is in any shape to fight and win. The Tories can't win under Badenough, but Reform cannot win as a populist top-down supporters club that can't even articulate a coherent immigration policy. Labour will have done nothing to deserve a second term, but the right will have done nothing to deserve power. Anyone who believes Reform will up-end the uniparty is kidding themselves. They are more likely to join it, putting us back at square one.

Is Reform a lazy lightweight?

© P Dawe December 2024&nbsp; &nbsp;V0.1In the interests of equality between students and other recipients of benefits ALL benefits should be treated as loans, with the debt repayable when people have the ability.The benefit paid when at university, when the person is unable to earn, is not only accumulated as a debt, but they also have the cost of their education charged to the same loan account.Yet people who are able to work are given their benefits without the obligation to repay.The genesis of the UK benefit system was <a data-mce-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe">The Tithe.</a> Here everyone contributed a tenth of their income and the pool would pay out if circumstances went bad. This morphed into Mutual Insurance where People would pay into a common pool and if circumstances went bad for a member of the Mutual, the pool would pay out. Later, governments took control of “insurance”, collecting taxes and paying out “benefits” when individual circumstances went bad.&nbsp; Unfortunately, politicians found that by promising to pay out regardless of the bad circumstances and regardless of tax income, they could enjoy the popular vote. This led to the advent of deficit finance, the government could make the pay-outs, even when the taxes did not cover the cost of the pay-outs.&nbsp;Worse, some of the public now see this insurance, not only as a right, when they are in bad circumstances, but expect pay-outs even when the circumstances are self-induced. Some of the public even game the benefit system. Choosing worklessness, rather than doing low prestige work. Thus, we have labour shortages in many low prestige jobs, while having suitable people content to live off benefits.One should similarly argue that all government, and indeed charity, grants, should also be loans, rather than grants. Why do businesses enjoy government hand-outs, with no obligation to repay? Many charitable projects that relied on grants, fail when the grants stop being paid? *WoteFix- is an initiative to highlight discussion topics and subjects that need fixing but are not policy documents (WOTE will not be doing policy, remember?) but deserve to be noted and discussed with politicians who are smart enough to acknowledge and understand the significant bond of trust represented by the Wote Pledge.

WOTEfix*: Loans not Grants

Draft 28DEC24 V0.2<h3>WoteFix* required: Getting kicked down the lane</h3>The arguments about saving money by outsourcing software development to India and CRM to call centres to anywhere English speakers can be found for £5 ph, have never really been discussed in a "public political" context by anyone that understands the real issues of quality control, security and the UK's national interest. Long-suffering UK customers have been forced to battle with foreign call centres for years and generally got nowhere other than "kicked down the lane" when complaining. Banks especially know how to exasperate customers to the point of exhaustion, when they give up and go away. The use by banks of overseas call centres to handle sensitive customer data seems to have been curtailed or stopped after many <a data-mce-href="https://x.com/i/grok/share/ZxidOhWFjXy0mp3CxZZZfmfUe" href="https://x.com/i/grok/share/ZxidOhWFjXy0mp3CxZZZfmfUe" target="_blank" rel="noopener">experiences of fraud.&nbsp;</a> <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-weight: inherit; font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); background-color: rgba(249,250,251,var(--tw-bg-opacity));" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-weight: inherit; font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); background-color: rgba(249,250,251,var(--tw-bg-opacity));">Other than simple intuition by "aware" managers, surveys have consistently showed customers prefer to talk with British <span data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-weight: inherit; font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); background-color: rgba(249,250,251,var(--tw-bg-opacity));" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-weight: inherit; font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); background-color: rgba(249,250,251,var(--tw-bg-opacity));">accents - and most UK banks seem to have brought call centre operations back to the UK.&nbsp; It is difficult to get honest answers from those using overseas call centres as this topic is on the awkward edge of racial prejudice. But few indigenous customers want to talk to a foreign voice for support, if a British alterative is available due to incompressible accents and poor outcomes.&nbsp; &nbsp;The present situation is <a data-mce-href="https://x.com/i/grok/share/ZikEVPSbsTIq1H7hFtSXCXJXa" href="https://x.com/i/grok/share/ZikEVPSbsTIq1H7hFtSXCXJXa" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-weight: inherit; font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); background-color: rgba(249,250,251,var(--tw-bg-opacity));" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(16px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-weight: inherit; font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal); background-color: rgba(249,250,251,var(--tw-bg-opacity));">discussed here</a>Trustpilot <a data-mce-href="https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/lloydsbank.com" href="https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/lloydsbank.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report Lloyds</a> Bank at 1.6/5 (Bad) with 80% 1-star reviews.&nbsp; "I was met with the rudest customer service employee in the fraud department called Tina. She spoke to me condescendingly and rudely..." "Would give zero if I could." "Awful bank" "Should be NIL!" "Joined Lloyds to benefit from their bonus £200 joining incentive. Met all the criteria, but now they say they won't pay up because of semantics. Really shocked a High Street bank would do this." But as most banks seem to be as bad as each other, and they know the stress of changing bank means most users will just put up with dreadful service and soldier on.Other than call centres, the major outsource industry used by UK businesses involves software development. This is FAR more important than the person on the Clapham Omnibus or jobbing politician can appreciate, since software is the foundation of modern business and life - and the UK has been using substandard developer services for 20+ years. Badly conceived, designed and tested software is the underlying problem with almost all online interface and support systems. Pete North relates his direct experience... ...I once worked for a health insurer in Bristol. They'd outsourced their software development to India. My team was to refine requirements and test what they built. The system was built using Microsoft Dot Net libraries, but bizarrely the front end was shipping data it didn't need (the entire record) and hiding it on the page with JavaScript according to user permissions.&nbsp;I never claimed to be an expert developer (it's boring, underpaid, and hard), but I know that you definitely don't pull out the whole record set if you don't need to, and you only deliver data to the page if the user has permission to see it. I raised my concerns but was told to basically shut up.&nbsp;The Indian company assured us that the software was going swimmingly and would be delivered on time, but in my view required a substantial rewrite. My impression of Indian tech workers is that they're incompetent and dishonest, and whatever money was saved by outsourcing, it was gobbled up on the quality control we were having to do on our end. They were in for years of teething trouble.&nbsp;As it happens, the entire system could have been built by two competent UK based developers, and done in under a year, but the company was three years in, and £4m down on it, and weren't prepared to admit they'd completely fucked up. You couldn't trust anything the Indians said. They were always polite and deferential to your face, but every bug fix was a cosmetic bodge.&nbsp;Given that India is a global capital of data theft I wouldn't have trusted this company with anything sensitive. In IT, the standing joke is that if you don't know how to do something, there is always "some Indian guy" on Youtube with a tutorial, and there's no doubt about it. Many of them do know their shit. But the problem is business the culture. They have a blame culture where mistakes are punished, so if there's a problem, they'll conceal it and lie about it. That's bad enough for financial data but especially bad if they're working on avionics upon which lives depend.I don't believe there is any cost saving in outsourcing to India. Ultimately, in a crisis, you need good working relationships, and you can't do that with partners who barely speak English, and you get a different operator every single time. They'll string you along and lie to your face. Following that experience, I won't even take an IT contract if there are Indians involved. Every developer I know can tell you a similar story.&nbsp;If there is a skills shortage in IT in the West, it's a recruitment problem (HR recruiters seldom have IT experience) and it's a pay problem. The industry demands twenty years of experience, intimate knowledge of obscure frameworks that have only been out for a year, while expecting to pay less than £40k.&nbsp; It's a high stress job with huge responsibilities that require high availability, but employers still expect developers to work to the same shop floor rules as call centre clerks. As a career, I now advise young people to do anything other than IT. It's a mug's game, and it's not even creative any more.Ultimately, Indians are favoured because they're cheap, subservient, and expendable, but business always ends up learning the hard way that cheap ends up being very expensive. PN <a data-mce-href="https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1872590335668277449" href="https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1872590335668277449" target="_blank" rel="noopener">on X</a> *WoteFix- is an initiative to highlight discussion topics and subjects that need fixing but are not policy documents (WOTE will not be doing policy, remember?) but deserve to be noted and discussed with politicians who are smart enough to acknowledge and understand the significant bond of trust represented by the Wote Pledge.

Callcentres - overseas outsourcing and exporting jobs, importing mediocrity

<figure id="figure-1edq0gc6lem4u6o4yd" class=""><img id="1edq0gc6lem4u6o4yd" src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/33bGl8oeApnlI76eIiG9KpCF5cXX4vFjbblzEgSshmp9RxoynT99N4Lwe1deAh0h.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="null" data-positiony="null" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/33bGl8oeApnlI76eIiG9KpCF5cXX4vFjbblzEgSshmp9RxoynT99N4Lwe1deAh0h.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>The virtue signalling tweet by Wes Streeting @wesstreeting, dated May 6, 2017 "Last week I wrote to thousands of women in Ilford North to pledge my support for the WASPI campaign and today I've signed the #WASPIpledge" &nbsp; Shall we select Wes as the first subject for a private prosecution for Criminal Negligence for his role in allowing the Labour Government to continue the nightmare of lies, waste, deceit and incompetence?&nbsp;It must be criminally negligent of all Labour MPs to knowingly leave obviously inept and fantasist ministers in charge of crucial elements of the economy such as housing, energy, foreign policy and justice - when they have the ability to stop Britain being driven over a cliff with a vote of no confidence in Starmer's government. As such, each Labour MP may be guilty of criminal negligence for their acquiescence to this state of affairs. Huge fines at the very least for their ongoing part in the dishonesty?&nbsp; The various angles of culpable negligence are being explored in blog posts <a href="http://wote.uk" data-mce-href="http://wote.uk">http://wote.uk&nbsp;</a> So we asked Grok to prepare a notice of intended prosecution... To: Wes Streeting Member of Parliament for Ilford North House of Commons London, SW1A 0AA&nbsp; X: @wesstreetingDate:December 18, 2024<h3>Subject: Notice of Intended Prosecution for Criminal Negligence</h3>Dear Mr. Streeting,1. Notice of Intended ProsecutionYou are hereby notified that you are under investigation and may be prosecuted for the offence of criminal negligence, pursuant to&nbsp; "Common Law Duty of Care" 2. Alleged OffenceIt is alleged that you, Wes Streeting, as the Member of Parliament for Ilford North and Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, have:Failed in your duty by not participating in or supporting a vote of no confidence against the current UK Government, which was deemed necessary to force the government's resignation due to numerous fundamental governmental failures requiring a vote of no confidence to limit the damage being done to the UK economy and society.3. Details of the Alleged NegligenceDate of Alleged Negligence: Continuously from July 5th 2024 Details: Your avoidance, absence or abstention from a vote of no confidence, is considered a breach of your primary duty to represent the interests of your constituents and to act in the public interest. This inaction is construed as negligence given the severity of the situation and the potential impact on public welfare and trust in government.4. Legal Basis and ConsequencesUnder an oath of allegiance and duty of care to serve the interests of your constituents and the nation&nbsp; MPs have a responsibility to act in the best interest of their constituents and the nation. Your failure to engage in this critical parliamentary process is seen as a dereliction of duty, potentially leading to criminal negligence charges if it can be proven that your inaction contributed to significant harm or loss of public confidence.5. Right to RespondYou are entitled to respond to these allegations. You or your legal representative may submit any defence, evidence, or explanation in writing to:The Will Of The Electorate, a federation serving the obvious need to provide a roof over the heads of the many politically homeless who have been evicted from their former accommodation within the Conservative Party or Labour Party (and devolved regional variants thereof),Within 21 days of receipt of this notice.6. Next StepsAn investigation will proceed, and further steps, including possible formal charges, will depend on the findings of this investigation and any response you provide.7. Acknowledgement of ReceiptPlease acknowledge receipt of this notice within 7 days by sending an email to banged_to_rights@wote.uk &nbsp;8. NoteThis notice does not imply guilt but serves to inform you of the potential for&nbsp; prosecution of those with a responsibility to limit government harm so that you may cease your negligence now you have been advised. If this NIP has caused you to pause and ponder your role in the general malfeasance of the Labour Government, then you are advised to seek moral guidance and absolution.Sincerely,On behalf of the shocked and horrified people of the United Kingdom who are saddened and horrified at the scope and volume of broken promises, solemn undertakings, lies, deceit and hypocrisy that have typified the demeanour and performance of Sir Keir Starmer's Labour Government since taking office.&nbsp;Disclaimer: This preliminary document is a fictional creation for the purpose of prompting debate. In reality, the process to prosecute an MP for criminal negligence for not participating in a vote of no confidence will involve complex legal considerations, specific parliamentary procedures, and would be challenging given current legal standards and political norms in the UK.&nbsp;&nbsp;But it's worth a bloody hard try...

Wes Streeting - Man of Dishonour

Grok has taken the strain of this draft - I will polish in due course, but it's a good start. Negligence is a concept in law that refers to the failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing injury or loss to another person. However, the context in which negligence is considered—either civil or criminal—determines its implications:Civil Negligence: Definition: Civil negligence involves a breach of the duty of care that someone owes to another, leading to harm or loss. It's primarily about one individual or entity causing harm to another due to failure to act with the care that a reasonable person would in similar circumstances. Purpose: The aim in civil negligence cases is usually to compensate the victim for their losses or injuries. This is often through monetary damages. Burden of Proof: In civil cases, the standard of proof is "balance of probabilities" or "preponderance of evidence," meaning the plaintiff must show it's more likely than not that negligence occurred. Examples:&nbsp; A doctor failing to diagnose a condition, leading to further health deterioration. A business owner not maintaining safe premises, causing a customer to slip and fall. Outcome: The remedy is typically financial compensation for damages like medical expenses, lost wages, or pain and suffering.Criminal Negligence: Definition: Criminal negligence involves such a significant departure from the standard of care that it can be considered reckless or grossly negligent behaviour. Here, the negligence is so severe that it demonstrates a disregard for the safety of others, potentially warranting criminal sanctions. Purpose: The focus is on punishment for the negligent act, aiming to deter future misconduct, protect society, and sometimes rehabilitate the offender. Burden of Proof: The standard here is much higher, requiring proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the negligence was criminal in nature. Examples:&nbsp; A contractor ignoring safety regulations, directly leading to a fatal accident on a construction site. A parent neglecting their child to such an extent that it results in serious injury or death. Outcome: Penalties can include imprisonment, fines, or community service, in addition to any civil remedies if pursued separately.Key Differences: Nature of Action: Civil negligence is generally about compensating for harm, while criminal negligence is about punishing for egregious behavior. Standard of Proof: Civil cases require a lower burden of proof compared to criminal cases. Consequences: Civil negligence results in damages awarded, whereas criminal negligence might lead to criminal penalties. Intent and Severity: Criminal negligence often involves a higher degree of recklessness or disregard for safety, whereas civil negligence might simply be due to a lack of reasonable care.Legal Process: The process and procedures in court are different; criminal cases involve the state or government prosecuting, while civil cases are between private parties. Understanding these differences is crucial for anyone dealing with legal responsibilities or seeking justice after experiencing harm due to negligence. If you have any more specific questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask <a data-mce-href="https://x.com/i/grok/share/ndPZ2SnYpaN9jQ4hos4qfJC8G" href="https://x.com/i/grok/share/ndPZ2SnYpaN9jQ4hos4qfJC8G" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Grok </a>! &nbsp; Wote asserts that Labour MPs who have witnessed the massive public distrust represented by the petition vote, have been put on notice; and they need to respond. They should be paying close attention to the reasons why the electorate chose to make a such an unprecedented representation of dissatisfaction. And where it is obvious that the actions of the government are based on a speculative and largely unproven climate hypothesis - presented by unhinged zealots where 30 years of climate catastrophism and predictions have been proved wrong time and again. It is a large part of the reason that is causing the economy to go into recession - putting livelihoods and lives at risk.Which means MPs - one of the two classes of UK person with the power to call a halt to the government's reign of terror, the other being the monarch - must enforce their power and responsibility require the government to resign and be replaced with new elections - where the opportunity to redesign the UK's electoral system can be modernised and made fit for 21st century purpose and not disenfranchise 80% of the electorate as presently..&nbsp; &nbsp;

The WOTE.uk Federation 2025

Blog: the Revolution starts here...

Is this how to position an immigration policy?

Is Reform a lazy lightweight?

WOTEfix*: Loans not Grants

Callcentres - overseas outsourcing and exporting jobs, im...

Wes Streeting - Man of Dishonour

Negligence explored