I have been watching the news and following the comments on social media since the US election results and it is indeed heart-breaking as I can sense the fear and hurt in the comments. I am looking at families and friendships being torn apart and the dust has not yet settled. But one thing I sense is that it is an American wake up call! You should not have allowed this to happen. You remained passive and were on auto-pilot while others were planning your future and your destiny. Never ever should you allow this to happen again…this is your wake up call and when there is a wake up call it is not the time to moan and whine and make up noise…it is a call to action, a wake up call as it is, is the time to wake up!
When your alarm clock sound in the morning and you jump out of bed you get cracking, you jump in the shower you get your breakfast, you are not moaning or whining, you know you have 24 hrs in the day and you will make the most of it, you work whether as an employee or self- employed…this is your wake up call.
This is a wake up call, you don’t want Trump but you must accept the reality as you have no choice. It makes no sense to run away as that won’t fix the problem, and then you must strategize and organise collectively to take over, it won’t happen overnight and you must put God in the middle of it. Black persons who are worried and fearsome, that is not of God, have no fear as Jesus is still Lord and he reigns.
Right now Black America, the reality has hit home that you are not really together and you must find that answer as to why? Maybe your community leaders have failed you, Trump is not the problem, Trump was never the problem, he is a symptom of the problem, America is the problem and only you can fix it collectively.
It makes no sense to be a part of the problem by speaking down on and dooming your country.
This is my word to you all. Stay blessed and walk good and I hope this is an encouragement.
© Sylbourne Sydial
November 9th 2016
Without a doubt May 7th 2015 will be a day and a moment of reckoning as the British people go to the polls to elect the next Government. It will be a clear run off between Labour’s Ed Miliband and Conservative’s David Cameron. But for sure with the poll so close the business community is getting jittery with the possibility of an anti-business Labour Government.
Stefano Pessina, the driving force behind the $70 billion transatlantic merger of Alliance Boots and Walgreens and one of the country’s largest private sector employers, has warned that a Labour government would be a “catastrophe” for the UK.
In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Mr Pessina warned that Labour’s attitude towards business was “not helpful” for business or the country.
“If they acted as they speak, it would be a catastrophe,” he said of the prospect of a Labour Government coming to power during the next general election.
“The problem is would they act that way or not? One thing is to threaten and to shout but it is completely different to be in charge and to manage the country day-to-day.”
It is very unfortunate that Labour MPs (Sheerman, Gapes, Spellar, Greenwood, Blenkinsop etc.) are currently attacking the Boots boss instead of listening.
Matt Hancock’s Also said “Rather than listening to one of Britain’s biggest employers about their catastrophic economic policy, Labour MPs are attacking him.
“It’s clear that Labour’s only answer is more spending, more debt and more taxes.
There will be many issues that voters will have to consider when putting the X on the ballot paper, Europe, Immigration, NHS the Economy and much more but I consider the economy as one of the key factors that is a determining factor.
The Conservatives have a clear, long-term economic plan that’s delivering sustainable growth and jobs for the British people.
Labour government will be catastrophic for Britain, warns Boots boss
- Stefano Pessina warned that Labour’s attitude towards business was “not helpful” for business or the country.
- Mr Pessina, whose company has 2,500 shops and employs 70,000 people across the UK, described Labour’s policies towards business as “not helpful for business, not helpful for the country and in the end it probably won’t be helpful for them”.
This morning I woke up and read all the negative news out there about cuts, doom and gloom and decided to post this message as follows:
“On this wonderful morning called April 1st I could start with all the news out there but I will start with the news that you can be and it is as follows:
1) Where there is homelessness and cuts you will have houses and abundance.
2) Where there is no job you will be a creator of many jobs and opportunities. Where there is racism you will have confidence in who you are and that makes a big difference trust me.
3) In other words speak words of life that transmit positive energy not a doom and gloom buster unless you are also a Newspaper…i say create your own newspaper and write the story of your life and others.
This was not an April Fool’s day message…this is a message of life.
In essence “Change your words, Change your life”
Sylbourne Sydial (c)
The past week has nothing but been very interesting especially in British politics. Firstly, under the leadership of Prime Minister David Cameron who piloted the very controversial same sex marriage bill which was passed. Secondly, in securing for Britain an EU agreement on the budget for 2014-20 after lengthy talks in Brussels.
The headlines have been heralding this as a great feat never achieved before. Conservative Homes states “Cameron gets a good deal in Europe AFTER announcing an In/Out referendum. Could it be possible that these two things are connected?” Other headlines states “Cameron wins historic cut in EU’s spending and “At last we win better EU deal”. In the Guardian it insists that the deal is proof that the UK can triumph in Europe if we engage with other leaders and build alliances.
Is this a victory for David Cameron / UK?
The Prime Minister thinks so as he stated “I think the British public can be proud that we have cut the seven-year credit card limit for the EU the first time ever,” he said.
He also said he had fought off attempts to change the UK’s budget rebate, worth about 3.5bn Euros annually. He declared it “safe”.
However, the UK’s net contribution is actually likely to rise, because of a previous agreement negotiated by former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Years ago the UK and other big contributors agreed that more would have to be spent to fund the EU’s eastward enlargement.
The main allies to Mr Cameron in demanding cuts were the leaders of Germany, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden. The French, well they were somewhat stubborn, but the Prime Minister had threatened to veto a deal if other EU leaders supported a budget rise.
French President Francois Hollande, who had argued against big spending cuts, said it was a “good compromise”.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel also welcomed the deal, which represents a 3.3% reduction from the previous seven-year budget. “From my point of view this agreement is good and it is important because it gives us the ability to act in Europe in the coming years,” she said.
“It gives us the ability to plan for important projects and with a view to growth and employment”.
The agreement came after all-night talks.
But the question to be asked is what would happen if there is no agreement with the European Parliament? The 2013 EU budget would be rolled over into 2014, with a 2% rise to take account of inflation. That would leave much uncertainty about the EU’s long-term spending programmes. It would also mean the UK paying more than under Mr Cameron’s plan, as his calculation is based on 2011 spending.
The roll-over method, with the EU funded month-by-month, has been done before, but it is messy and seen as an admission of failure. It makes budgeting for things like research projects tricky.
As mentioned in my previous blog the challenge for the conservatives are immense, but as each day pass there is a sense of a man on a mission in the likes of Prime Minister David Cameron whether it will go in the party favour or not is another issue.
Finally, we may see an indicator whether these successes will play out at the ballot. The first test will be with the recently called Eastleigh by-election which has been triggered by the resignation of Chris Huhne, the ex-Lib Dem MP who admitted perverting the course of justice on Tuesday, and then we can sing the UK version of “Hail to the Chief”like the Americans for President Obama.
Sylbourne S B Sydial
February 10th 2013
History was created yesterday in British politics where the House of Commons passed the first stage of the same sex marriage bill coming into force. The defining of marriage seems to be the hall mark of a day of debates yesterday as I watched opposing and supporting views of this latest bill.
So the question is how does same-sex marriage differ from civil partnership?
Although civil partnership is a legal relationship created exclusively for same-sex couples, distinct from marriage. It offers the same legal treatment as marriage across a range of matters, such as inheritance, pension’s provision, life assurance, child maintenance, next of kin and immigration rights.
Opposite-sex couples can opt for a religious or civil marriage ceremony, whereas a same-sex partnership is an exclusively civil procedure.
It is reported that Party leaders at Westminster have hailed the significance of the backing for same-sex marriage in England and Wales in this key vote.
Prime Minister David Cameron said Tuesday’s vote had been “an important step forward” and Labour leader Ed Miliband called it a “proud day” according to the BBC.
MPs voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill by 400 to 175, a majority of 225.
But 136 Tory MPs opposed the bill and have continued to voice their concerns.
While watching the debate and listening keenly to the supporting voices and the dissenting voices I am left to wonder as to how much of democracy was really at work? To what level has been the consultation with the British public by the Members of Parliament in order for them to articulate their views and as well to vote in the way they did?
Yet again listening to the after debates there seems to be more discussion as to whether Cameron pulled off a good one in placing him in a good position to lead the Conservative in the next general election, albeit with a divided party or may lead to a revolt. But, by the next general election unity could prevail as a day in politics can make a major difference. Never forget we are two years before the next election and who knows the British public may come around to the Conservative way of thinking.
But what could be the underlining factor that lead to the Prime Minister to navigate this bill which was not in the party manifesto when we were knocking on people’s door inviting and encouraging them to vote for the conservative party in 2010.
It is clear now that the plans to legalise same-sex marriage have divided the Conservative Party, as from the votes more Tory MPs voted against the bill than voted for it.
Prime Minister David Cameron has said he believes same-sex marriages should be allowed in churches – but only if there is a “100%” guarantee that no church, synagogue or mosque would be forced to hold one against their wishes.
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said the legislation was a triumph for his party, which has championed the plans. Most Labour MPs, including Ed Miliband, also support the move.
But why do campaigners want same-sex marriage? The supporters cite a number of reasons for wanting gay marriage, including that separate civil partnerships perpetuate the notion that same-sex relationships are not as valid as heterosexual ones and that legal rights are still not exactly the same as those conferred by marriage.
Home Secretary Theresa May and Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone say: “Put simply, it’s not right that a couple who love each other and want to formalise a commitment to each other should be denied the right to marry.”
Campaigners also say there would be international recognition for same-sex marriage. They say there is no universally-accepted recognition of civil partnerships and they differ widely from one country to the next.
Either way the lobbyist has prevailed to moved the hands of the Prime Minister via the various channels, I am however persuaded to the view that while the division remains and while this bill could be a good thing and could be the will of the majority of the British public, would it not be better as a question on the ballot at the next general election or Council elections?
Equality is key, but the process of redefining historical traditions could set a precedent where there will be punters out there now looking for other avenues to redefine.
Finally, as I always say politics does matter.
To see list of how your MP voted see link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346694
Sylbourne S B Sydial
February 6th 2013
January 31st 2013
Have you ever wondered about some of the key issues that have been in the news and just slip you by? Few days ago two key issues were highlighted in the news firstly, the recent Parliamentary votes to proposed boundary changes and Lewisham Hospital proposed closure of the A & E and Maternity ward. Boundary change is that type of subject that may slip by us unlike the Lewisham Hospital proposed closure and restructure. However, the difference between both is that boundary changes matters more to and has the interest of the political elites, while the Lewisham Hospital matters more to residents and affects the need of individuals who are directly affected and also for those who want to capitalise on a political opportunity. For the purpose of this article the focus will be on boundary changes.
The Plans to redraw constituency boundaries before 2015 which is and was supported by the Conservative party was defeated in the House of Commons, where MPs voted by 334 to 292 to accept changes made by peers, meaning the planned constituency shake-up will be postponed until 2018 at the earliest.
The question to be asked is whether or not boundary changes are issues that have the interest of the average man or woman?
Parliament agreed in principle in 2011 to reduce the number of MPs and to redraw the electoral map to make all constituencies roughly the same size in terms of number of voters. Some believe the proposals, which were backed at the time by both coalition parties, would help the Conservatives win up to 20 extra seats at a future election.
Here are a few Questions and Answers for easy digest courtesy of the BBC:
1. What is the boundary review?
Each MP represents an area known as a constituency. The aim of the review is to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 and in the process end up with more equal-sized constituencies. The Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Act require the Boundary Commission to submit its first report before 1 October 2013.
2. What are the main proposals?
The key change is that the number of voters in each constituency will have to be within 5% of 76,641 – this is the figure gained by dividing the UK electorate of 45,678,175 by 596. Exempt from the calculation are four island seats: Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Orkney and Shetland Islands and two for the Isle of Wight.
3. So will your constituency change?
The proposals have yet to be finalised but there will be extensive changes to constituencies across the UK if the plans go ahead.
4. How would different parts of the UK be affected?
Under the plans, Wales would lose 10 seats; Scotland would lose seven seats, Northern Ireland two seats and England 31 seats.
5. Why do the coalition parties disagree on boundary changes?
In August 2012, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg admitted defeat over plans for House of Lords reform because of backbench Tory MPs’ opposition to the plans. He said this opposition represented a breach of the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, so his party would now oppose Tory-championed plans to cut the number of MPs in Parliament.
6. What does David Cameron say to that?
He says that there is a “fundamental disagreement” between him and Mr Clegg over whether there was any link between House of Lords reform and cutting the numbers of MPs. Mr Cameron says he thinks that the deal was the Lib Dems getting a referendum on changing the voting system to AV (held last year) in return for the Conservatives getting the UK’s constituency boundaries redrawn.
7. Did Tories and Lib Dems have the changes in their election manifestos?
Yes. The Conservative Party proposed, in their 2010 election manifesto, to cut the number of MPs by 10%. The Lib Dems said in their manifesto they wanted a more radical cut in the number of MPs – from 650 to 500 – but only if a more proportional voting system was introduced to elect MPs.
8. So how did we end up with the current plan?
After the horse-trading in agreeing the coalition agreement, one bill was brought forward containing two items of constitutional reform dear to the respective parties’ hearts. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act ushered in a referendum on introducing the alternative vote system, a cherished project of the Lib Dems which was rejected by voters in May 2011. The Conservatives made it a condition of the act that there would also be a review of constituency boundaries which would also cut the number of MPs from 650 to 600.
9. Where do the parties stand on the issue?
The Conservatives are the largest party and they support the idea. Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists have said they are in favour but it is not clear whether they will vote to delay the plans. Labour and the Lib Dems have both said they will vote against the plans. The SNP, Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and the Green Party have all expressed their opposition to boundary changes, making it unlikely that a majority of MPs could be found to vote for the reforms.
10. What is the case for redrawing boundaries?
One argument for reducing the number of seats is that it will make Parliament less expensive. The government claims it could save £12 million a year. Supporters of reform say that achieving greater parity between constituencies will make elections fairer. At present, more votes tend to be needed to elect a Conservative MP than to elect a Labour MP. The system is weighted in favour of Labour, it is said. Some critics of the current electoral layout say Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are over-represented when populations there are falling and parts of southern England are under-represented since its population is rising.
11. What do the plans’ opponents say?
Labour has accused the Conservatives of “gerrymandering” – manipulating constituencies in order to achieve electoral advantage. The areas set to lose the fewest seats tend to vote Conservative in large numbers, while some regions such as Wales, which would lose a larger proportion of its seats, tend to have more Labour voters. Labour MPs have also pointed out that the review has been carried out swiftly compared to other such reports and that electoral quotas do not take account of people who are missing from the electoral register. MPs from several parties share the view that the shake-up would disrupt historic demarcations and local loyalties. Lib Dems, including the deputy prime minister, have said that reducing the number of MPs without reforming the Lords gives too much strength to the executive.
From my perspective it seems that this is an issue that is at the heart of the democratic process and should be of interest to every man and woman in this country or rather every voter who believes in exercising their right to vote.
To find out more about the proposed boundary changes see link http://www.boundarychanges.co.uk/
February 01, 2013
There is the saying that “a day is a long time in politics and a week even longer ” which can make a major difference. Since Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech at the World Economic Summit “wake up and smell the coffee” in Davos, and prior to that with his no nonsense approach in his speech on Europe. The speech promising to give Britons a say either in or out of Europe has somewhat give him some kudos with the British people as per recent polls.
The Conservatives have seen an increase in support since the Prime Minister declared his intention to hold an EU referendum, the poll suggests. The ComRes poll for the Independent on Sunday shows the Tories gaining five points on previous polling, with Labour’s lead over David Cameron’s party narrowing to six points. UKIP’s support dropped by four points. As someone suggested David Cameron back on front seat after his EU speech but still Ed Miliband in the driving seat. Conservative 33% (+5); Labour 39% (-); Lib Dem 11% (+2); UKIP 10% (-4).
Conservative leadership bid.
Nevertheless the Government is not out of the woods yet and may not be till late 2013 early 2014 in preparing for the 2015 general elections. Of recent days there are talks about a challenge to David Cameron’s leadership by Adam Afriyie, Member of Parliament for Windsor. He was first elected at the 2005 general election and re-elected at the 2010 election. According to the mail a wealthy MP dubbed the ‘Tory Barack Obama’ has been accused of undermining David Cameron with a secret leadership bid.
The Mail on Sunday has learned that multi-millionaire IT tycoon Adam Afriyie is poised to stand, should a rumoured backbench revolt force the Prime Minister to resign. Two Tory MPs have told the mail newspaper they were asked to sign a letter endorsing Mr Afriyie as a leadership challenger in the event of such a contest. One said Mr Afriyie’s supporters claimed 40 MPs had already signed – though his allies deny the letter even exists. It is very unfortunate though that he has been dubbed the ‘Tory Barack Obama’ similar to Labour Chuka Umunna being also dubbed as the “ UK Barack Obama”, this debate about who is an Obama is for another debate but it points to an awakening within the conservative party on the eve of a fierce general elections which many will have the view that labour has it in the bag and are sitting comfortable which I beg to differ.
Going further there are dossiers of events and issues being compiled in preparation for th2 2015 election for example the propose closure of the A&E and maternity section at Lewisham hospital. There was a massive turn out at the demonstration yesterday in Lewisham in support against the closures, but while the concerns are legitimate, one cannot help but notice that the legitimate concerns are being hijacked by others who have varied agendas and using the campaign as a platform. Personally, I have a personal affection with Lewisham hospital where both my children were born, and of recent days had to dash to the A&E and was heartened that it was so close so yes there is legitimacy by the community raising their concerns and it is hoped that the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt will make the right decision once the consultation is intact and considered.
These are just a few key issues that the government will need to be aware like the Mary Seacole controversial proposed removal from the curriculum. Without a doubt these are all concerns raised and according to how the Government handle each of these issues will determine the next government and possible the next Tory leader whether it be an Obama factor or not.