The lost monach

The monarchy is subtly more powerful than the aristocracy, euro bonds are less powerful than frameworks and politics is cultural. The monarchy is led not a charity or an institution. The cost is less important than the decline of markets. The system is a kind of charity, raising huge sums of money and vulnerable to market depression.

I argue monarchies are easily replaced, but the history is on their side. The bombing of Mountbatten was immense in historical memory, and the time became fixed. The Spanish civil war is a framework, not a beginning. The French Revolution about modern France and the history expands with each French Republic. The civilian rule in Germany is through principles, not monarchical and developed through stages.

The changeover was political, but the method was social, the long term redressed the balance. To avoid change the monarch needs a political settlement. Scotland has both political and social links to the UK's monach. Ireland is sovereign like Germany. The U.K. is secure in its direction, but political change would be the origins of its demise.

The government in opposition has raised the issue of reform and the British are concerned over social identity. The constitution is framed by these rules, and democratic legitimacy is required for reform. The monach has also been in power for half a century and not thought to be under review in terms of experience or stability. Reform could come from abroad and radical policies, because external threats are powerful influences on the monach. Radical elements also have undermined sovereign power through the regions.

The risk

The threat to institutions comes from the risk its inhabitants face in search of the truth in their lives, not the organisation of power in the attempt at reaching equal status to other residents. The risk is the nature of the individual, not the cause of the problem and the power of the inmates is not measured by the events they go through. I argue the influence is the construction of authority and how you challenge it, not the nature or meaning of it in objective terms. The institution is an external position in relation to interests and the structure of ideology.

The elderly face uphill tasks in their self appraisal of the face others give them. I suggest that the reach of the institution has no bearing, but the power of individual members has a status impact on their lives and not the meaning they attach to them. The institution is a possibility, an image, not a disability and the influence of staff similar to bathing or finding help in terms of meetings and clothing. The risk is in challenging other views of those around them on these points and not in the daily tasks done for them. Accidents are of meaningful translation, not the risk to the institution.

The elderly face problems of relatives, do staff recognise their rights in implementing the threat to those who challenge them. I agree that staff have rights, but how can they be the same entities? The reach of the institution is in the outside, a world that can challenge definitions and the influence of fascilities for recognition. I suggest these are personal, and the elderly face extremities of threat and comfort in this way. The other point is cognition, and institutions are relevant to internal cognition as well as structural types.

The problem for the elderly is not this meaning, but the external impact of long-term effects. This is the institution's public face and meaning is not recognised. The latter is why the elderly do not decide to change their situation. By public and private faces I mean the social impact of institutional methods. The risk to institution is great, but the power of politics much higher on institutional to do lists. The elderly risk being undermined by this organisation, and the power of groups is set to challenge these definitions in objective interests.

UK's relationship

Chinese politics is based on risk, the visit by its President to the UK was a political signal to its elite that the centralisation of policy would continue. The Commonwealth is based on trade, but its centralisation is a political not policy signal. The visit reassured Huang that the UK had no interests in its region, the UK was more concerned with presitige and trade, an agreement was in Chinese interests. Centralised policty means closed borders and territorial integrity. The UK has interests in nuclear fuel because of low prices and the hope of access to markets in the far east.

The India dimension is fairly straightforward, India is a regional power and the UK has historical prestige in a close relationship with it. China is a friend which has no social comparison to the UK and the UK likes to invest resources on its territory, because of cheap labour and low regulation. The power relationship is less easy. The power in India is in structures, not institutions, the UK would like to exploit these links. China is in a similar position to the UK, and India has an historical power division in this area. The ideology is in structures and will the UK harm either country's interests.

Foreign policy is a structure and power an institutional division. I suggest China fears the UK history in the region, but has not assessed UK political culture and India is mindful of domestic interests looking towards new ties and not old benefactors. In other words the UK will not be a policy interest. China has centralised institutions, and structure is a regional battleground. The Chinese will wonder why the UK chose this moment, I suggest China has been reluctant. The visits to London by India and Chinese leaders are evidence of a reconciliatry move.

The UK policy is in trade through Europe and Japan, sometimes difficult for UK audiences. India and China may have political points, but trade depends on sea routes and trade deals not political demands. China understands this and is ready for a UK deal, will our suppliers trust it. India is less ready to concede its economic reach, possibly because of experience in dealing with the UK. Centralisation and regional power are important in these dynamics. The risk is China doesn't need the UK, and UK needs China. 

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.