




Here to share views and discuss the latest perspective's on the world going to hell in a handcart!





From the murder of many thousands of civilians in Gaza not even perceived to be human by some of their killers to a change in pace and pursuit of an illegal invasion of an unlawful nation state. As of late February 2026, the estimated number of Palestinians killed in the ongoing war has reached significant levels, with official and independent sources reporting varying figures based on direct and indirect causes.
Reported Death Toll (Gaza)

The vast majority of the West see Israel as a beacon of democracy in the middle east with a right to exist sadly leading to inherent will and right to enter ongoing wars to fight for its survival against its enemies that it sees if it does not destroy will destroy her.
While the Israel-Palestine conflict remains a critical, ongoing situation, the new, high-intensity conflict with Iran—which has included strikes on Tehran and retaliation from Iranian forces—has created a “Tale of Two Wars,” where the latter dominates international headlines and diplomatic focus.
Here is a breakdown of the situation as of March 2026:
The main justification for war with Iran is the fear that Iran will develop a nuclear bomb capacity if not stopped. This would be an existential threat to Israel, given Tehran’s frequent rhetoric calling for the destruction of the Israeli state. So although the war with Iran might be seen as one that must be fort, must it be thought unlawfully and does it excuse or explain Israel’s actions in Palestine.
Jeff Bezos outsourced his staff and tax responsibilities while asking us to raise funds for red nose day to help fight local and global poverty.
The Red Nose Day Controversy
Partnership Role: Since 2023, Amazon has been the official home of the Red Nose, handling the production and distribution of the noses and related merchandise.
Public Reaction: Critics and some members of the public have labelled the partnership as hypocritical, arguing that a company accused of aggressive tax avoidance is being positioned as a champion for addressing poverty and the cost of living in the UK.
Employee Fundraising: While Amazon encourages its staff to participate in fundraising activities like virtual photobooths and fancy-dress walks, critics point out that these same workers have reportedly faced benefit cuts to fund their own pay rises.
Staff and Outsourcing Allegations
Worker Conditions: Reports have surfaced of Amazon warehouse workers being under significant pressure to meet targets, with some reportedly sleeping in tents because they cannot afford local rent on their wages.
Relief Fund Backlash: During the pandemic, Amazon faced intense criticism for allowing the public to donate to a relief fund for its own contract and seasonal workers, despite the company’s multi-billion dollar profits.
UK Tax Responsibilities
Reported Tax Gap: Campaigners estimate that Amazon’s “systematic corporation tax avoidance” may have cost the UK Treasury as much as £575 million in 2024 alone.
Tax Credits: Investigations by Tax Justice UK highlighted that Amazon’s main UK division paid no corporation tax in 2022 and instead received millions in government tax credits for infrastructure investments.
The idea that “charity is people stepping in where governments are failing” is a widely discussed perspective, particularly in the context of rising demand for food banks, housing support, and social care in the UK. While charities have historically played a role in social welfare, evidence suggests they are increasingly serving as a, sometimes strained, safety net due to gaps in state provision.

Hannah Spencer’s victory in the Gorton and Denton by‑election marks one of the most significant political upsets in modern Greater Manchester history. Winning 14,980 votes (40.7%), she not only defeated Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin but pushed Labour — the area’s dominant force since 1931 — into third place.
Her win brings the Green Party’s total representation in the House of Commons to five MPs, joining Siân Berry, Adrian Ramsay, Carla Denyer, and Ellie Chowns.
Spencer’s background is central to her political appeal. A plumber and qualified plasterer, she trained after leaving school at 16 and continued working while campaigning — even telling clients she’d have to cancel their booked jobs because she was “heading to Parliament.”
She has lived in Manchester her entire life, leads the Green group on her local council, and previously ran for Mayor of Greater Manchester. Despite this experience, she insists she “did not grow up wanting to be a politician,” positioning herself as a genuine working‑class representative rather than a career political figure.
Her personal life adds to her grounded image: she’s a marathon runner and shares her home with four rescued greyhounds.
Spencer’s win is more than a local upset — it signals a broader shift in British politics:
Her victory speech captured this mood, declaring:
“We defeated the parties of billionaire donors.”
As the Green Party’s first ever by‑election winner, Spencer enters Parliament with significant symbolic weight. Her challenge now is to translate her grassroots credibility into national influence — and to show that her win is not an anomaly but part of a growing realignment in British politics.
Many a revolution and civil war has played out across the world in many a country including the UK to sever the head of a monarch from the political control of a country. It seems bizarre in this day and age that Britain has a monarch as the head of it’s state, political and religious institutions. But what is even more bizarre is the strength of will at the heart of the establishment to maintain the status quo and make no change to this set of institutions, state of affairs or even review or to ensure transparency concerning where money goes to the monarch and how or why it is then spent.
For me this is not an argument about whether a King or Queen are good people or not but whether they have the right to be born into the role they play and I strongly believe that there should be no birth right to any position in our state let alone that of the head of state.
Arguments against supporting monarchies in democratic societies generally center on principles of equality, accountability, and the desire for a modern, meritocratic state. Critics argue that inherited power is fundamentally incompatible with the democratic ideal that all citizens are equal and that leaders should be chosen by the people.
A core tenet of democracy is that leaders must be answerable to the people they serve.
No Choice or Removal: Unlike elected officials, monarchs cannot be held to account or removed at the ballot box by the public.
Hereditary Risk: Relying on inheritance means there is no selection process to ensure the leader is capable; a nation risks being stuck with an incompetent, “petty,” or “vindictive” individual for decades.
2. Incompatibility with Popular Sovereignty
Democracy is rooted in the idea that power belongs to the people, not a specific family.
Anachronism: Critics view monarchy as a vestige of a feudal past that has no place in a modern world where legitimacy should derive from the consent of the governed.
Secrecy and Lobbying: In some systems, monarchies are exempt from transparency laws (like Freedom of Information requests), allowing for “lobbying by stealth” for private business interests.
3. Economic and Social Costs
Opponents often point to the tangible burdens of maintaining a royal institution.
Taxpayer Expense: Critics argue that the significant funds spent on the “extravagant lifestyle” of a royal family—including security, travel, and palace maintenance—could be better used for public services.
Colonial Legacy: For former colonies, retaining a distant monarch as a head of state can be seen as an obstacle to fully reconciling with their history and achieving true national independence.
4. Institutional Resilience vs. Democratic Values
While some argue that constitutional monarchies provide stability, critics contend:
Borrowed Time: Monarchies in democratic countries are often described as “operating on borrowed time,” requiring manufactured goodwill to survive.
Fragile Neutrality: A monarch’s perceived neutrality is easily shattered if they attempt to intervene in political matters, leading to constitutional crises.
Will the UK always have a monarchy?
Whether the UK will always have a monarchy is uncertain, as it is not guaranteed by law and relies on public support, which has shown a long-term decline. While it remains popular as a symbol of unity and tradition, support dropped to a record low of 54% in 2023, with around 25% favoring abolition.
Key Factors Regarding the Future of the Monarchy:
Public Opinion & Trends: While a majority still support the institution, backing has fallen from 76% in 2012 to 54% in 2023. A growing minority, now around 25%, supports a republic, marking a 10% increase in just five years.
Constitutional Pathway: There is no legal barrier to abolition; it could be achieved through a parliamentary act and a referendum, creating a new, elected head of state.
Arguments for Removal: Critics argue the institution is incompatible with modern democratic values, lacks transparency, and that its wealth (e.g., the Duchy estates) should belong to the public.
Arguments for Retention: Proponents highlight the monarch’s role in providing political stability, acting as a non-partisan head of state, and contributing to tourism and international soft power.
Future Adaptability: The monarchy’s survival has relied on its ability to adapt to changing times, a strategy that future monarchs like Prince William will likely need to continue to maintain support.
The monarchy’s future depends on the “oxygen of public support” and its ability to remain relevant to future generations, making its permanence not guaranteed.

Removing the power base of a born and bred King or Queen from the head of the UK will not be easy or happen overnight but it does feel like a form of constitutional madness to still have a monarch today as the head of a democratic society and is very much one that has been in place for so long it is sadly perceived to be a normal state of affairs.
So why is democracy seen as the worst form of government bar all other forms of governance tried?
Democracy is often characterized as the “worst form of government” primarily through a famous aphorism attributed to Winston Churchill: “Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.
In the UK we could end up having a Reform government led by Nigel Farage in after the next general election or the very threat of this happening could in effect keep him voted out, the idea of a Britsh Trumping of social norms and political structures is a delight to some and terrifying to others. The political party Reform now has so many dangerous former Conservative Politicians in it they are more regurgitated Tories than they are reformed human beings.
Life, the world and technological futures seem to be creating the perfect storm for our future endeavours which as we vote and how we are governed will show the best and worst of us all. Do we care for ourselves or others, rich man, poor man, beggar man or thief. How should we act and treat one another when a crisis is right at our feet.
The political sentiment for democracy being the best of a bad bunch reflects a pragmatic recognition that while democratic systems are riddled with inherent flaws—such as inefficiency, corruption, and the potential for “mob rule”—they remain preferable to authoritarian alternatives that lack accountability and individual justice.
Russia, China and Iran all must supress, lock up and kill their own citizens as well as ones abroad in order to maintain their supremacy and there are not enough words on a board to express the horror and suffering they inflict on others in order to get their own way. Democracies do not aspire to be brutal totalitarian regimes but in stead aim to fend of the madness of such regimes from inflicting their brutality and suppressing nature onto us all.
Core Philosophical and Practical Criticisms of democracies
The perception of democracy as a “bad” or “flawed” system stems from several long-standing arguments:
1. Competence and “Mob Rule”
2. Structural Inefficiencies
3. Corruption and Elite Capture
Contemporary Challenges (2025–2026)
Current political analysis highlights specific modern threats that exacerbate these negative perceptions:
The “Least Bad” Perspective
Despite these significant failings, democracy is defended as the only social order consistent with justice and human dignity. Proponents argue that its “built-in flaws” and tendency to decay are actually safeguards; a certain level of skepticism and the ability to change leaders without violence are advantages that other systems, which are often more brittle, do not possess.
Democracies hold a kinship to freedom like a shining beacon in the dark
Political freedoms to vote, freedom of expression, Freedom to think and freedom to do and be.
Though these freedoms have in some ways restrictions so that one persons freedom does not inflict damage or disregards another persons freedom it is I feel our freedoms that are the eternal beacon of hope which guides and shapes our democracies to not just survive but to live on into a forever future like the eternal flame of freedom, hope and democracy.
The “eternal flame” serves as a global symbol for freedom, hope, and democracy, manifesting in several prominent memorials and monuments worldwide:
Key Memorials & Symbols
Cultural and Global Context
Artistic Expression: Musicians like Bruce Springsteen have recently launched tours (e.g., “Land of Hope and Dreams”) explicitly centered on themes of democracy and defending the American ideal.
United Nations: Secretary-General António Guterres has used the metaphor to urge the world to “keep the flame of democracy alive” for future generations.
International Day of Democracy: Observed annually on 15 September, this day reinforces the idea that democracy must be nurtured and defended as a “flame” that requires active citizen participation.
Will it be heaven or will it be a further insight into hell, the choice might still be ours to make and the only vote is for how it happens and not if?
I have so many friends now that want to work, can work and would love to work. Many of the jobs left are in care work such as nursing and not everyone is built to be a nurse, or delivery services to peoples doors and not everyone is fit enough to cycle quickly or productively enough to peoples homes. It’s not just about the jobs left but all of the jobs being lost or no longer hired for that we can’t all be doctors, nurses and delivery drivers so what does the future hold for everyone else. I don’t have any solutions but am certainly aware of the fact that right now there is a clear and present danger and problem for humanity.
Our politicians talk about the need to work our ethics teaches us that work sets you free as does our morality. But what about those left that are unable to due to circumstance out of their control what will happen for them. If we can not afford to run the machines that produce goods and services that no one can afford to buy what happens in a consumption focused society then. Our model of production, services and supply is not as resilient as we might think it is and neither are the people that purchase and consume the goods either.
There is so much chatter by economic experts of productivity, but if people are not working who or what is measured as being productive and none productive. Without an income we struggle to purchase and without our ability to purchase an economy will struggle to produce. This is a global issue and not just a local issue, we can neither run or hide from this situation. It will effect all and our only weapon or strength we have is to vote to mitigate from the impact of these changes and that will take time that many might not have.
In a future where machines handle most or all traditional jobs, society would likely undergo a fundamental shift in how we value time, income, and purpose.
1. Economic Restructuring
Universal Basic Income (UBI): Governments may implement unconditional cash payments to all citizens to maintain consumer spending and prevent poverty as wages disappear.
Automation Taxes: To fund UBI, some propose taxing the “robot labor” or the massive profits generated by AI-driven corporations.
Decoupling Income from Labor: We may move toward a “post-scarcity” economy where the cost of goods drops drastically, and survival no longer depends on holding a job.
2. Shifting Human Roles
Focus on “Human Touch”: Roles requiring deep empathy, complex ethics, and interpersonal care (like nursing, therapy, or early childhood education) are expected to remain human-centric.
Creative and Philosophical Pursuits: Freed from survival-based labor, humans could dedicate themselves to the arts, scientific exploration and personal development- though who ultimately picks up the tab for this I do not know.
Moral Custodians: Humans will still be needed to oversee AI ethics, take legal responsibility for machine decisions, and provide “human-in-the-loop” governance.
3. Immediate Practical Steps
Continuous Upskilling: Focus on “soft skills” like critical thinking, systems understanding, and adaptability, which are harder for AI to replicate.
AI Literacy: Programs like the UK’s AI Skills Hub are already emerging to help workers transition into roles that manage or implement technology.
Reducing Work Hours: Automation could naturally lead to a two- or three-day workweek as productivity gains are shared.
The future is potentially quite bleak for humanity if we don’t look to address these issues sooner rather than later. We might get a chance to know our value and see what worth we finally have to others whether we are black or white straight or gay, all are humans and have a right to life, that life has value and although there are always rules to live by and for we have the right to live that life for sure.
On February 2020 I started my huwspace.com blog and have had a great deal of enjoyment expressing myself on this site. With music, thoughts and films that are close to my heart that express who I am and write about my perspective on what is going on in my life and in the world. 2020 onwards has been a crazy time really and the 2020’s decade has been one in which so much has happened it’s like the world is going too fast and there is no chance of jumping off at all as we are here for the ride or until our song stops being written or sung.

My mental health has been at times a challenge to during this time. It’s sometimes difficult to know who I am where I fit in and where I belong. This year I am 50 in July a milestone if ever there was one. I have lived in my home now since 2012 in Exeter and it really is a home and base for me which I important to me. I was born in Wales in 1976 and first moved to Devon in 1982 to the village of Spreyton a place which has been a home from home. Though I know I am Welsh and love watching Wales play rugby I also feel strongly a part of Devon due to the roots I have put down here and friends made too.

Being the youngest Edwards in Devon now at what feels like a ripe old age of 49 is a strange experience to have my mum and me enjoy our life here but it feels sad that we are the last parts of the family that moved to Devon left here. It is a wonderful place which I feel very grateful to be living and would not want to live anywhere else for sure.





Challenging start to the New Year with the experience of loss of loved ones gone but never forgotten.
Sadly on the 6th January we lost my mother’s brother or my uncle Paul Hughes a lovely man with a big heart. He had battled dementia in the last year of his life which is a cruel occupier of the mind and body. Uncle Paul reminded me very much of my Grandpa Hughes his father Bill Hughes they both had the same look and sound to their voice and as I spent many a found Christmas with my Grandpa Bill Hughes seeing and hearing Paul Hughes would often remind me of those more innocent and happier times.


Then sadly we learned that on the 17 January a very lovely soul Jacqui Leigh lost her battle with cancer she was a loving and kind soul that it was also felt hard to hear of her passing. She has four children and her husband that will now very much be missing her considerably as will we.

You must be logged in to post a comment.