Origin North West

A curious case of a country 300 miles away claiming sovereignty over islands of no previous relationship in the middle of an ocean.

All over the world are islands populated by various peoples, some who’ve been there as long as time recalls, others who arrived and transplanted indiginous peoples, others who came to uninhabited almost unknown islands that no-one was interested in.

Of all these you might think the first and third would have fairly clear sovereignty. Of the second maybe there would be some dispute although in most cases it is resolved by election or just a shared long running disagreement.

Perhaps there is a case that geographic proximity to a larger country should make an island dependant.  This would make many islands more disputable than the Falklands e.g. the Canary Islands, the Caribbean Islands, the Channel Islands.

Islands currently self governed and previously uninhabited and hardly known like the Falkland Islands seem a case of undisputed sovereignty. 

This week the whole of South America and the Caribbean has resolved to support Argentina making a claim on the islands even though they have nothing to do with and are a long way from Argentina.  Seems sticky ground really.  The Caribbean Islands are closer to South America than the Falklands so who is most at risk in the long term.  Often others look to take advantage or shield behind  precedents.

There is a risk that when a country becomes unstable and struggling that it will seek a diversion. Some might argue that both countries are in this position to some degree.  There is a test of maturity under way that might make a mutually beneficial agreement more difficult, although it might make it easier. I haven’t read any logical case to to support Argentina’s claim.

Gordon Brown announced the Labour election slogan ‘A future fair for all’ yesterday and said the Conservatives ‘are not the party of the mainstream majority’.

An interesting statement about the mainstream majority. At the last election Labour got 38% of the votes and the Conservatives 34% yet Labour had 356 seats against the Conservatives 198.  It seems 4% of the votes creates a majority of 158 seats or about 25%.  Hardly representative and hardly showing that any party has a mainstream majority. The Liberals got 22% of the vote, their 62 seats representing about 10% of the seats.

It could be said Gordon Brown was right to put through an electoral reform vote recently. Yet there are several methods of electoral reform and it appeared Mr Brown had chosen one that favoured Labour just before it was likely to be of most use.   Seems to smack of one poor system being replaced by another manipulation. Seems what you’d expect in todays climate of deception.

The electoral changes are unlikely to get through both houses before the election. Although the next election has changed boundaries on many seats. This is because the city centre seats mainly held by Labour have become very small as people move to the suburbs. So re-aligning these is said to favour the Conservatives a bit. The Conservatives need a lot more than this to make an effect. Overturning such a massive majority as Labour hold is almost unheard of.

Labour have put faith in their slogan of ‘a fair future for us all’.   Doesn’t sound very slick, gets me a bit tongue-tied.  I could get ‘fair’ in my mind. The ‘us all’ bit sounds a bit absolute, like ‘we’ve abolished boom and bust’ and ‘British jobs for British workers’. Things you can’t achieve.  Although even after 13 years of power the Labour politicians in general have a more impressive appearance than the Conservatives although you could say the same about Labour in 1997. The biggest thing against Labour is that they seemed to fall into the trap of the most profligate credit card users and spent excessively so that Britain is the worst placed of any western major economy. Even to the extent that Britains future as a major economy is in jeopardy.  On the other hand there are a lot of new schools and hospitals, but it’s now like building a very large garage on your property and finding you can no longer afford a car.

People speak of companies and their morals. Banks have been getting a bad time lately in this department for the levels of salary their staff are paid, yet this doesn’t directly effect most people. Unlike the way banks, building societies and utility companies have been charging people a lot more if they don’t keep track of the latest offers.

I thought I was keeping up with my gas and electricity company but was surprised to check their latest web-based product and find it was about 5% cheaper than the account I changed to about 6 months ago.  How was I supposed to know that they are now on version 5 of their account and all those on earlier versions are paying more.

Same with my bank. I opened an account a couple of years ago and found that it was paying 0.1% while the latest is paying 2%.

My most annoying experience is with a home insurance company. I recently discovered an elderly relative was paying almost £500 to insure their modest semi compared to £200 for my own. Looking on the internet I discovered the same company was offering insurance for £180 and the level of cover was actually 3 times greater on the internet.  When I rang them they were quite unconcerned and even suggested I could pay more on the £500 policy to match the internet level of cover.   It seems you can’t buy the £500 policy now but if you are elderly you won’t know any different and they won’t tell you.  Insurance companies complain about customer fraud and put in measures making things more difficult for honest customers. Yet at the same time they are effectively what can be viewed as defrauding old people out of hundreds of pounds every year. I find it difficult to get my head round the morality of this. Surely it isn’t right?

Time of year to be thinking about getting over Christmas. Wonder why we buy so much chocolate at Christmas. My own worry is more about clogging up the veins as weight isn’t much of a problem.  I know I can put on weight like in my twenties, mainly drinking weight and when I stopped going to the pub 3 to 4 times a week I lost weight.

Ten years ago I joined a gym and did it on a monthly payment scheme because I thought I wouldn’t stay.  Yet I’m still there and in general go about 6 times a month. In the 10 years so many people have joined and lasted a couple of months and never to be seen again. They’re all convinced they’ll stay and some have told me their plans but soon fallen away.

My own experience in many activities is to keep it up you need a regular schedule that says, like, on Tuesday at 6pm I’ll be there. I found that doesn’t work for me at the gym. Other things come along, like you can’t eat first then go,  don’t want to do some heavy work and then go, don’t want to go to dig the garden get dirty and have a shower then go.  All I can recommend is to say that you will go at least once a week and try to fit in another so you do at least 6 in the month.

The other aspect is making a start after years of doing nothing.  Going to work and bragging you ran for 8 minutes at 8kph on the flat on a treadmill.  They must have thought me mad. Now I can run for ages but it took time and came in steps. Suddenly found I could up the speed and it felt great. Wish I were younger, need to keep the heart at a faily low level at my age, there’s a formula, and that limits my speed a lot.    I don’t do the other cardio-machines, like the step, bike, rotex or rowing  they give me pains where I don’t want them. Running at a slowish speed and a bit of stretching keeps me good and I can feel it every day.

Running for up to 30 minutes on the treadmill is more than most people want to do, and I did once have some girls loudly making comments about how boring that must be. You can watch TV and listen to music but I tend to think about things I want to do and if I want to give up, tell myself  just do another 5 minutes. How often can you fool yourself with this 5 minutes. I’ve done it loads of times. Near the end of the 5 minutes you’re thinking good nearly done but with seconds to go you say I’m fine I can manage another 5. Seems to work for me, must be mad.

Then there are the weights.  Doing the heavy stuff doesn’t appeal, 10 years on the weight-machines, using chrome dumb-bells (seem to be for ladies) and the mats (who’d have thought I do that after bad school mats and a cruel teacher). Never graduated to the barbell. With the number of reps building up the total the Technogym computer system at our gym tells me 10,000kg spread over different muscle groups is a good session for me along with 5km on the treadmill.

So I’d recommend finding a fitness centre and not being over ambitious or too enthusiastic, play it cool and keep going for the long term.

I was watching Dan Snow with his show about the power of the Royal Navy and it was apparant that the willingness to spend money on the future was the key to Britains success in the 18th and 19th centuries. Even though it was encouraged by the threat of foreign invasion.

This week I read with disappointment that Mr Obama is cutting the US manned moon programme. The disappointment was that the un-inhabited moon will be annexed by who-ever goes and stays. It seems the Chinese and Indian governments are viewing their future power symbolised by moon colonies. Yet the US isn’t. The US will be a clipped wing power by 2050 like Britain is now and as someone who has always seen the US as a beacon of technology it isn’t something I want to see.  Maybe I won’t because I’m too old now.

There are those who might think, sort out things on Earth first and such power plays are hostile and out-dated.  To that the answer is that the wise man invests for the future while budgeting for the present, mankind would be in caves if the cave was to be sorted first. To that end we are always pushing the boundaries and getting better.

Should John Terry remain England captain is a question in the papers and many are saying he should resign. His wife and Wayne Bridge might have something to say but my own opinion is that he should remain England captain after a bit longer on the rack.

There are those who say the England captain has to be a person of honour and respect but I think they’re getting a bit carried away. Footballers aren’t exactly known for being saints and a quick check on past captains might be revealing. Far more damage is done by the weekly diving and shouting at the ref.

Others say he might lose the dressing room but he doesn’t seem to have lost the Chelsea one and I doubt many England players will be any different. They all want to win the World Cup and the second best captain must lower the probability or the manager has got it wrong.

In the last few weeks there have been property TV shows about housing in Australia and New Zealand seeming to be encouraging emigration. One of them even lists the vacancies at the end.  Are these sponsored by the Australian Government?  Seems an odd thing for a TV station to do, although money talks. Who’s paying?

I’ve been to Australia several times and spent well over a year there in the last 20 years.  It’s a great place and life is good, but on the other hand I’m British and leaving for good has never appealed. It’s a very long way  to go, a point that is only realised when you reach Singapore after a mammoth flight and find there’s another 8hr flight to go.  Aus is big on sport, mainly rugby and swimming, and I do like a bit of a run but the rest of my recreation is here and I haven’t thought I could find the same there in such a concentrated area.

These TV programmes are being shown in January and it looks very bright.  The Aus sun is so brilliant it makes home look dark even in the day.  I used to love it but I grew some cancerous lesions that needed cutting out and now don’t go out in it without full armour.  We still go as my wife has family there, but only in their winter now and the sun in Queensland is still bright. I notice Phil in the show doesn’t wear a hat in the sun  - obviously not Aus trained.

Overall the living is good in Aus but to me there is a lot more breadth and depth to life in Europe mainly due to concentration of populations and age, if that provides things that interest you.  It is possible to be a ‘boomerang  Pom’ who like both places and get homesick for both and come and go,  I’ve developed a sort of affinity with being there.

I watch the debate about Aus being a republic and don’t really want it to happen.  On the other hand it isn’t anything much to do with me.  Having read some of the alternatives and I can understand why it’s not easy for them to make the move.  Questions like is the head elected by the electorate or parliament or senate, or appointed and who by, power or no power, how long etc.  My own thought is they should just change the flag and leave other things as they are. Canada changed its flag and it isn’t apparent to the wider world that the Queen is still head of state. Their PM appears at all international functions under the Maple Leaf and how many look deeper. Canada does like to establish it’s own identity though as it has a big neighbour. So maybe just the flag, no worries anyway.