The system of peasants

The system is not ideological, the purpose is to use and exert will over politics and undermine reform to traditions and statements like religion or family cohesion. The argument is to undermine the reformers and fascilitate those who dislike community and shared beliefs. This is confusing, the politics looks like it from the outside, like left and right it is an older form, a kind of social uprising based on rules and understandings. It is not so much an expereince as a belief in something beyond the norm.

I undermine the beliefs by joining recent movements and threatening continuity. The challenge is to frame those around you and strengthen local ties. Why? It starts a movement and risks ignoring central and unpopular powers. The UK was threatened in the colonies and France has been in recent terrorist incidents. The politics may be northern, but it comes form a kind of 60s mentality that right is known and  leaders are useless.

The local spirit is important for the movement and the centre feels its is comical. But traditions are based on it and France has an agricultural base like this. The peasants reject the validity of lives outside this framework and the animals are often worshiped. The social movement is an economic entity, based on power it pays through contributions as community structures insert. The terrorits may have had their own aims, but would have has an education in this kind of belief system.

The politics of the UK is different, but social movements do exist and political parties appear to be strengthening their reach. The government needs to realise that victims have collateral, and although their structures continue, their leaders do not. The arabs have similar movements as in Egypt. But they do not cross international frontiers except through education. Like the colonisers, we will be threatened by these movements even from beyond our shores. I suggest we assert rationality and impose authority in education.

The merit of decline

The system is not working because politics is undermined by integration. The risk is its framework, not its centre, the periphery is the danger and the state is finding resistance is ideological, not framed. I suggest government is out of resources because of ideology,not opportunity. The structure is defined, not believed in. The integration a structure of goals, the threat a control of goals, not ideological and framed.

The situation is that risk is divisive, the framework is not. The U.K. Government is a poor political machine,or some of these issues would have made an impact. The framework always does, and is a flexible purpose. The state cannot hold, and the issue is can solutions impose an answer. The difficulty is identity is a division, not a problem. The framework in Germany has been undermined, yet politics continues.

The chance is to decide how to lift a country forwards, or whether to value the status quo. I suggest the Germany that we believe in is a recovery machine,not a safety valve. The politics is merit not decline. France is decisions and goals, the framework is war. Russia is another example of merit.
The foreign ministry is controlled by goals, and the framework is decisions.

The merit of decline is ideology, goals are framed and structure is threatening. The framework a better use of political method. The U.K. appears to forget this and merit is a term of self improvement. The difficulty is an ideology is a undefinable term.  The merit is in politics, and the ideology is systematic, and the division a risk, I argue personality is calculative. The U.K. is a framework of risk, it destroys goals and reproduces itself. The monarchy a frame of political merit.

The ideology is a frame of social merit and decline a part of it. The French Revolution established ideology and democracy believes in choice. But history is meant to confuse. The German freedom was short lived, yet the Uk has no centre. The ideology is rightward and the frame is decided by the government.

The origins of ideology

The social context of immigration is political instrumentation, I suggest the recent politics in France is not a Franco-British issue, it is a social one. The framework is a decisive break with political history, a setting of world influence and a solution neither governmnet can tolerate. The political instruments are the public and the reason a bias towards social threat.

The immigrants from Syria are also a target of drug smugglers and political pundits, but the politics
is economic and the causes the EU. The aim is to destabilise UK support, but the causes have a social dimension. The refugees believe Europe has their interests and the truth is there is no power behind it. The government uses immigration without critical comment, and the refugees have no voice. They do not have to be the new issue, but David Cameron wants a political approach to them.

The history is of Syrian demise and no-one discusses their background or status, we know they will not succeed. The decisons have been taken and the politics is of blame and accusation, not welcome and efficiency. The decison is a framework of economic implication, we are not monetarists and discuss unemployment as a far reaching ideology. Thy know they will have the votes and immigrants are unpopular and excluded.

Responsibility we see in the crowds, and desert in the children, but they are not decisive in their social approach. Refugees are never easily protected, but the onslaught on the vulnerable wasn't the guides or the refugee leaders. The goal is to end immigration, where does economic status leave the UK in this situation. No low paid jonbs open to anyone and trade divided along political not economic dimensions. This background is framed by a spin, if you say it enough times they will believe it. Bad economic sense does not improve their future.

The resort to obscurity is no longer a decision taken by economic organisations, the social approach is decisive, how does politics operate in a vacuum, by manipulating those who cannot answer back. The economic is of course not a political event and the resort to decisive action not aimed at refugees. The decison is a frame of decline not a answer to goals or threat. The decision is a frame of globalisation, but the refugees do not benefit. Who will from this government? This language is used in the conversation between governments, and the politics is a resort to goals that have no depth.

The politics of choice

The goals of the Labour Party do not change, but the competition to replace Ed Miliband is a hard act to follow. The dream team Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper have challenged their main rivals over the state and the distribution of rewards. The other candidates have stuck to isolation and electoral strategy to defeat their opponent.

Ed Balls is a loss Labour cannot afford, and Yvette is becoming a solution not an obstacle to Labour's short term goals. The strategy is  to undermine the personality of David Cameron. But their youthfulness seems at odds with the script. The evil personality trick did its work, and Cameron will be an easy act to follow for the Conservatives. The plan is to sidestep Labour over tax and to threaten them over deciding who controls the European formations.

The defence issues appear solidly Tory, but in fact many are predicting a return to Labour frameworks of resistance. Yvette Cooper is not a natural middle ranking party organiser, but her husband has national recognition in the markets. Labour is cleverly facing left in this context. I suggest Andy Burnham's arrival supports the backward movement and the right will threaten the centre ground.

The real strategy is not the party but how to restart the bandwagon to electoral victory, I disagree, politics and ideology are rule bound, parties rely on new policies not internal warfare. Cameron is vulnerable on party and personal issues, and can be taken out by home identity and political bias. The real issue is whether the party will support a new direction after defeat, and Yvette and Ed require a public message to return back into the state fold.

Andy has a good personal profile but lacks a public and growth in public understanding. The Tories will use these early moves as ammunition and try and split the shadow front bench when elected. Their moves over Europe appears to back a new fresh approach by Labor. Andy Burnham's  underplay hints at a lack of experience in this field. The electorate will welcome a change of direction.

Russia exits Cuba

Raul Castro is unlikely to be accommodating, but Russia wants an agreement. The approach is different in America these days, there is a balance of power. Russia no longer fears an outside intervention in the Ukraine. The point is the Ukraine is framed by Putin, and Cuba has a black friend in the Whitehouse. The UK is keeping quiet, and the balance is in favour of the USA.

The next step is relations with Iran, which should improve. The approach is significant, America has adjusted to the framing of countries by internal division. Russia is an enemy again and America is calling the shots. Cuba a porn in a game of draughts. Russia is the opposition and Iran the key player. The strategy is peace relationships and the threat may be the U.K.' s acceptance.

American foreign policy is bipartisan, it relies on a friendly Congress. The nearness of the U.S. election suggests the timing, but Cuba is typical in the knife edge challenge. Iran is more unpredictable, nuclear conflict is dominating the agenda, not trade links. The point is Cuba is a good investment, and Iran a threat. Russia a neutral power in the exchange.

The decline of the U.S. is through the international timing of the calendar, Cuba is late in Third World terms, Iran late in western, and Russia is a bipartisan issue in the US. The future lies in external friends. The relationships will exclude Europe when possible, because Europe is the pivot. The influence is American.

Homes respond to everyone

The problem with homelessness is it doesn't make sense, financially it is a framework for ruin. The residue is a ambition of future politicians and the popularity of identity and ideology has undermined the reason behind it. I suggest homelessness is a  new paradigm, a sort of ridiculous decline of values for the sake of the pantomime. The difficulty is the homeless do not get there by themselves, just restore the threat to all of us from authority, whether religious of economic. I say homelessness is the future division in Europe, a crisis of monetary proportions.

The homeless live in shelters or do not survive and the public should understand why homelessness does not end. I argue the value of a person homeless is less than one pence. The future of the care of the homeless is non-viable, but bravery has no price tag. The country should not be consumed by the position, and one way out is for groups of writers to tackle every aspect of the nonsense. The eating habits of the homeless should be undermined through education about health and accidents living all day on streets animals cannot manage.

The country need not donate large sums, it doesn't get there, the city men and women gets more of it than a homeless man. The money is given to the chancellor and he feeds it into institutions. Less known is the price, he keeps over half. The religious institutions may claim great losses, but they fail to redistribute the money they get for the needy to actual homeless individuals.

A solution is to reinvent housing as not the state or private landlords, but as a charitable approach to encouraging self-independence. This would resist pressure from landlords through a single method of purchase and negate the state from participating in social reinvention. The state is financially rewarded and the money goes to its economic network. Individual housing saves the state money, but doesn't reward the private landlords mentioned earlier.

The chosen people

Immigrants travel to get jobs a leading Minister declares, the European Union concerns the free movement of goods and encourages workers to travel to find work. The free movement of workers is not enshrined in European law, but unemployed individuals use European legislation to find work in the UK. This kind of nonsense shows the Union at its best, finding jobs and undermining government bureaucracy like immigration for economic reasons. The channel frontier fails to let immigrants travel to the UK, or should do, I suggest we look at why government policy is encouraging this trend, and not undermine those trying to administer it.

The immigrants of Calais are unemployed, they come from Libya, Iraq and Syria. Eastern immigrants do not travel to the UK because frontiers like Calais make them poorer. The European legal framework encourages barriers to illegal immigration and allows trade that avoids punitive taxes when it crosses frontiers. French borders are porous like ours, but not steel. The access of eastern Europe to to our work is requested by European agencies like the UK government, it has quotas and pays for publicity out of national finances.

The difficulty with the poor is not solely due to our economic policy, gypsies and travellers are crossing frontiers because they do not recognise them and the politics of the UK in the Union is similar. Money is allocated to their education, and their travel plans. Landed and farmers do not want them to create a permanent community on their lands. The division is class, not heredity. The government fails to acknowledge that it protects them to avoid embarrassment. The immigrants do not mix with these communities, they wait in cities to find communities that will accept them. First sending someone before them to a region that appears urban.

Free movement if prevented would increase taxes, impede travel at airports and increase barriers to trade which firms pay when crossing frontiers like the Channel. The immigrants support such a move, like the UK Independence Party, by creating division, the Conservatives create decline in populations and social cohesion in disparate locations, like Scotland. The framework is irregular and the response unpredictable, and Scotland fails to admit to this politics in mainstream circles. The immigrants may not care, but London is occupied by these groups in its suburbs. They bring resources and employment and not social outcasts and old age is becoming the issue in this area, especially the cause of unemployment and services for old age.