|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 26, 2023 9:21:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 26, 2023 9:24:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Jan 26, 2023 12:55:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jan 26, 2023 13:09:19 GMT
This is where you're in the minority. A lot of people in public service roles are in them due to the job satisfaction they receive through educating children, nursing the sick, keeping people safe from crime etc. Do you genuinely believe people go into nursing or teaching for the money? Lol. When you're a public servant your role is to serve the publics best interests. If you're interesting solely in financial gain then politics isn't for you. Good thing I’m not in politics then, but I’ll never believe that a politician cares anything about me other than the vote I cast. As for your question on where I’d lie if I voted. I would likely vote Conservative in the UK on a tax standpoint. However, I’d struggle because I care deeply about climate change and Tories aren’t really interested in making that a priority. So, that would be a hard decision for me to be honest. On taxes, I would want to vote Republican when I eventually get US citizenship. However, their views on abortion and gun control are not for me, so I’d vote Democrat every time unless a strong independent ever came around that I felt could achieve something. It’s not like Labour haven’t been called into question about their own financial dealings in the past: www.businessinsider.com/labour-together-donations-under-investigation-by-electoral-commission-2021-2?ampEdit: to add to that, I was dead against Brexit and it was actually the reason I decided to leave the UK. I was fine with the first lockdown and I am a firm believer in vaccines. I don’t follow every issue along preset party lines or extremes from either side of the aisle. I think that there are plenty of scandals that should be investigated in the Tory party. With regards to lackluster wording on blind trusts? Has the wording changed since labour were last in power? Could they have not sought to strengthen the guidelines? I think that's a sad way to think but I completely understand why you and many others think that. The whole basis of left wing principles are social equality and egalitarianism, as opposed to social heiarachy. So any true left wing politician should be seeking to achieve equality. With that said there are certainly alot of selfish left wing politicians too. Jeremy Corbyn is a fine example of someone I consider a proper left wing selfless politician. I think for you, you haven't lived in the UK in recent years to see the state of the country right now. In addition to that I get the impression you're quite financially secure so of course stuff like the NHS crisis may not seem a big deal to someone who can afford private medical care. But right now in the UK the country is literally on its knees. There are 100x more people using food banks compared to when labour where in power. That's a 9900% increase. People with heart attacks are waiting 3 hours for an ambulance. Elderly people who have fell are waiting 48 hours on a cold floor for an ambulance. Ten years ago the average first time buyer was 29, this is now 32. Despite the dramatic increase in population, there were 25% less first time buyers in 2020 compared to 2007. The average age of first time mothers has increased at the same rate. While all this is decreasing though. The number of second home owners has increased by around 40% since 08/09. The evidence is pretty damning when you look at the statistics. And it's important to also do your due diligence when looking into them too because the conservatives have actually redefined how a lot of statistics are measured which gives a skewed outlook on certain things. Such as the measures of child poverty being abolished in 2016 by David Cameron. Now to add to all of the above which shows a country on its knees and rapidly declining year on year. The house price to earnings ratio has increased from being 5 in 2010 to 7 in 2021. So if house prices have increased 40% quicker than wages, then the housing problem will continue. Another huge issue with the vast majority of the statistics produced by the government in relation to poverty and inequality is the strong focus on using income as a measure which is ridiculous. Most of the wealthy are asset rich and thus basing inequality on income when some people are spending over a grand on rent while others own houses outright is ridiculous. So circling back to the original start of this discussion. Maybe if we had public services, which we as tax payers pay for, which provided a decent level of service we'd turn a blind eye. Maybe if young people could feel optimistic about the future they'd turn a blind eye. But the fact of the matter is that poverty is on the rise, home ownership is on the decline, multiple home ownership is on a rapid increase, wages in proportion to house prices is abysmal, nhs waiting times at record highs, public transport costs at record highs, energy prices at record highs, food prices at record highs etc.. For the last 13 years this country has got worse year on year and our public services have been ripped apart in that time too. While the party leading the country continue to increase their shares in private health care. And the last 3 prime ministers have all continued to have private meetings with big pharma companies from the USA in thst time too. So if in 5 years time or 10 years time we go down a private model route with health care. It's not going to be a coincidence when lots of tory MPs have shares in these businesses. Because the Torys are destroying our public services from the inside while investing in private health care personally. The amount of scandal and controversy from this party when it comes to finances is atrocious too and every single time a tory is personally benefiting financially. They're scum along with Murdoch, Laura K, Tim Davie and all the others involved in journalism which facilitate it. Of course while donating to the party too and getting jobs and perks in return. So I really do apologise if you think I'm targeting the wealthy with some of my posts. But the fact of the matter is that the tory party is corrupt and ran by the wealthy elite and Russians who the Torys are more than happy to facilitate requests for in return for personal financial gain.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 26, 2023 13:28:29 GMT
Good thing I’m not in politics then, but I’ll never believe that a politician cares anything about me other than the vote I cast. As for your question on where I’d lie if I voted. I would likely vote Conservative in the UK on a tax standpoint. However, I’d struggle because I care deeply about climate change and Tories aren’t really interested in making that a priority. So, that would be a hard decision for me to be honest. On taxes, I would want to vote Republican when I eventually get US citizenship. However, their views on abortion and gun control are not for me, so I’d vote Democrat every time unless a strong independent ever came around that I felt could achieve something. It’s not like Labour haven’t been called into question about their own financial dealings in the past: www.businessinsider.com/labour-together-donations-under-investigation-by-electoral-commission-2021-2?ampEdit: to add to that, I was dead against Brexit and it was actually the reason I decided to leave the UK. I was fine with the first lockdown and I am a firm believer in vaccines. I don’t follow every issue along preset party lines or extremes from either side of the aisle. I think that there are plenty of scandals that should be investigated in the Tory party. With regards to lackluster wording on blind trusts? Has the wording changed since labour were last in power? Could they have not sought to strengthen the guidelines? I think that's a sad way to think but I completely understand why you and many others think that. The whole basis of left wing principles are social equality and egalitarianism, as opposed to social heiarachy. So any true left wing politician should be seeking to achieve equality. With that said there are certainly alot of selfish left wing politicians too. Jeremy Corbyn is a fine example of someone I consider a proper left wing selfless politician. I think for you, you haven't lived in the UK in recent years to see the state of the country right now. In addition to that I get the impression you're quite financially secure so of course stuff like the NHS crisis may not seem a big deal to someone who can afford private medical care. But right now in the UK the country is literally on its knees. There are 100x more people using food banks compared to when labour where in power. That's a 9900% increase. People with heart attacks are waiting 3 hours for an ambulance. Elderly people who have fell are waiting 48 hours on a cold floor for an ambulance. Ten years ago the average first time buyer was 29, this is now 32. Despite the dramatic increase in population, there were 25% less first time buyers in 2020 compared to 2007. The average age of first time mothers has increased at the same rate. While all this is decreasing though. The number of second home owners has increased by around 40% since 08/09. The evidence is pretty damning when you look at the statistics. And it's important to also do your due diligence when looking into them too because the conservatives have actually redefined how a lot of statistics are measured which gives a skewed outlook on certain things. Such as the measures of child poverty being abolished in 2016 by David Cameron. Now to add to all of the above which shows a country on its knees and rapidly declining year on year. The house price to earnings ratio has increased from being 5 in 2010 to 7 in 2021. So if house prices have increased 40% quicker than wages, then the housing problem will continue. Another huge issue with the vast majority of the statistics produced by the government in relation to poverty and inequality is the strong focus on using income as a measure which is ridiculous. Most of the wealthy are asset rich and thus basing inequality on income when some people are spending over a grand on rent while others own houses outright is ridiculous. So circling back to the original start of this discussion. Maybe if we had public services, which we as tax payers pay for, which provided a decent level of service we'd turn a blind eye. Maybe if young people could feel optimistic about the future they'd turn a blind eye. But the fact of the matter is that poverty is on the rise, home ownership is on the decline, multiple home ownership is on a rapid increase, wages in proportion to house prices is abysmal, nhs waiting times at record highs, public transport costs at record highs, energy prices at record highs, food prices at record highs etc.. For the last 13 years this country has got worse year on year and our public services have been ripped apart in that time too. While the party leading the country continue to increase their shares in private health care. And the last 3 prime ministers have all continued to have private meetings with big pharma companies from the USA in thst time too. So if in 5 years time or 10 years time we go down a private model route with health care. It's not going to be a coincidence when lots of tory MPs have shares in these businesses. Because the Torys are destroying our public services from the inside while investing in private health care personally. The amount of scandal and controversy from this party when it comes to finances is atrocious too and every single time a tory is personally benefiting financially. They're scum along with Murdoch, Laura K, Tim Davie and all the others involved in journalism which facilitate it. Of course while donating to the party too and getting jobs and perks in return. So I really do apologise if you think I'm targeting the wealthy with some of my posts. But the fact of the matter is that the tory party is corrupt and ran by the wealthy elite and Russians who the Torys are more than happy to facilitate requests for in return for personal financial gain. Brilliant post.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 26, 2023 14:29:37 GMT
Good thing I’m not in politics then, but I’ll never believe that a politician cares anything about me other than the vote I cast. As for your question on where I’d lie if I voted. I would likely vote Conservative in the UK on a tax standpoint. However, I’d struggle because I care deeply about climate change and Tories aren’t really interested in making that a priority. So, that would be a hard decision for me to be honest. On taxes, I would want to vote Republican when I eventually get US citizenship. However, their views on abortion and gun control are not for me, so I’d vote Democrat every time unless a strong independent ever came around that I felt could achieve something. It’s not like Labour haven’t been called into question about their own financial dealings in the past: www.businessinsider.com/labour-together-donations-under-investigation-by-electoral-commission-2021-2?ampEdit: to add to that, I was dead against Brexit and it was actually the reason I decided to leave the UK. I was fine with the first lockdown and I am a firm believer in vaccines. I don’t follow every issue along preset party lines or extremes from either side of the aisle. I think that there are plenty of scandals that should be investigated in the Tory party. With regards to lackluster wording on blind trusts? Has the wording changed since labour were last in power? Could they have not sought to strengthen the guidelines? I think that's a sad way to think but I completely understand why you and many others think that. The whole basis of left wing principles are social equality and egalitarianism, as opposed to social heiarachy. So any true left wing politician should be seeking to achieve equality. With that said there are certainly alot of selfish left wing politicians too. Jeremy Corbyn is a fine example of someone I consider a proper left wing selfless politician. I think for you, you haven't lived in the UK in recent years to see the state of the country right now. In addition to that I get the impression you're quite financially secure so of course stuff like the NHS crisis may not seem a big deal to someone who can afford private medical care. But right now in the UK the country is literally on its knees. There are 100x more people using food banks compared to when labour where in power. That's a 9900% increase. People with heart attacks are waiting 3 hours for an ambulance. Elderly people who have fell are waiting 48 hours on a cold floor for an ambulance. Ten years ago the average first time buyer was 29, this is now 32. Despite the dramatic increase in population, there were 25% less first time buyers in 2020 compared to 2007. The average age of first time mothers has increased at the same rate. While all this is decreasing though. The number of second home owners has increased by around 40% since 08/09. The evidence is pretty damning when you look at the statistics. And it's important to also do your due diligence when looking into them too because the conservatives have actually redefined how a lot of statistics are measured which gives a skewed outlook on certain things. Such as the measures of child poverty being abolished in 2016 by David Cameron. Now to add to all of the above which shows a country on its knees and rapidly declining year on year. The house price to earnings ratio has increased from being 5 in 2010 to 7 in 2021. So if house prices have increased 40% quicker than wages, then the housing problem will continue. Another huge issue with the vast majority of the statistics produced by the government in relation to poverty and inequality is the strong focus on using income as a measure which is ridiculous. Most of the wealthy are asset rich and thus basing inequality on income when some people are spending over a grand on rent while others own houses outright is ridiculous. So circling back to the original start of this discussion. Maybe if we had public services, which we as tax payers pay for, which provided a decent level of service we'd turn a blind eye. Maybe if young people could feel optimistic about the future they'd turn a blind eye. But the fact of the matter is that poverty is on the rise, home ownership is on the decline, multiple home ownership is on a rapid increase, wages in proportion to house prices is abysmal, nhs waiting times at record highs, public transport costs at record highs, energy prices at record highs, food prices at record highs etc.. For the last 13 years this country has got worse year on year and our public services have been ripped apart in that time too. While the party leading the country continue to increase their shares in private health care. And the last 3 prime ministers have all continued to have private meetings with big pharma companies from the USA in thst time too. So if in 5 years time or 10 years time we go down a private model route with health care. It's not going to be a coincidence when lots of tory MPs have shares in these businesses. Because the Torys are destroying our public services from the inside while investing in private health care personally. The amount of scandal and controversy from this party when it comes to finances is atrocious too and every single time a tory is personally benefiting financially. They're scum along with Murdoch, Laura K, Tim Davie and all the others involved in journalism which facilitate it. Of course while donating to the party too and getting jobs and perks in return. So I really do apologise if you think I'm targeting the wealthy with some of my posts. But the fact of the matter is that the tory party is corrupt and ran by the wealthy elite and Russians who the Torys are more than happy to facilitate requests for in return for personal financial gain. You're bang on. Time to tax the wealthy, second/third home owners, landlords with property empires etc to readdress the balance............
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 26, 2023 14:34:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 26, 2023 14:34:30 GMT
Looks like Zahawi is 'proper fucked' ...
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 26, 2023 15:15:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jan 26, 2023 15:53:06 GMT
It just never ends does it. Nadine Dorries nearly had the right idea. Nevermind privatising and selling off channel 4. Make Channel 4 the main public broadcaster instead and get rid of the BBC.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Jan 26, 2023 17:15:20 GMT
It just never ends does it. Nadine Dorries nearly had the right idea. Nevermind privatising and selling off channel 4. Make Channel 4 the main public broadcaster instead and get rid of the BBC. There’s still some out there that believe the BBC is left leaning…
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 26, 2023 18:50:38 GMT
It seems that Sunak has this afternoon moved the goal posts (not in Zahawi's favour) ...
It's now not about his tax avoidance per se but rather, it's about whether he broke the ministerial code ...
|
|
|
Post by yeswilko on Jan 26, 2023 18:59:15 GMT
It just never ends does it. Nadine Dorries nearly had the right idea. Nevermind privatising and selling off channel 4. Make Channel 4 the main public broadcaster instead and get rid of the BBC. There’s still some out there that believe the BBC is left leaning… You'd hope most adult folk would be informed about the revolving door that sits between the BBC and the tory party. I'd imagine those that think the beeb is uber lefty are the ukip types.... fucking weirdos.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 26, 2023 19:10:21 GMT
There’s still some out there that believe the BBC is left leaning… You'd hope most adult folk would be informed about the revolving door that sits between the BBC and the tory party. I'd imagine those that think the beeb is uber lefty are the ukip types.... fucking weirdos. There are plenty of them on here.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jan 26, 2023 19:21:59 GMT
Good thing I’m not in politics then, but I’ll never believe that a politician cares anything about me other than the vote I cast. As for your question on where I’d lie if I voted. I would likely vote Conservative in the UK on a tax standpoint. However, I’d struggle because I care deeply about climate change and Tories aren’t really interested in making that a priority. So, that would be a hard decision for me to be honest. On taxes, I would want to vote Republican when I eventually get US citizenship. However, their views on abortion and gun control are not for me, so I’d vote Democrat every time unless a strong independent ever came around that I felt could achieve something. It’s not like Labour haven’t been called into question about their own financial dealings in the past: www.businessinsider.com/labour-together-donations-under-investigation-by-electoral-commission-2021-2?ampEdit: to add to that, I was dead against Brexit and it was actually the reason I decided to leave the UK. I was fine with the first lockdown and I am a firm believer in vaccines. I don’t follow every issue along preset party lines or extremes from either side of the aisle. I think that there are plenty of scandals that should be investigated in the Tory party. With regards to lackluster wording on blind trusts? Has the wording changed since labour were last in power? Could they have not sought to strengthen the guidelines? I think that's a sad way to think but I completely understand why you and many others think that. The whole basis of left wing principles are social equality and egalitarianism, as opposed to social heiarachy. So any true left wing politician should be seeking to achieve equality. With that said there are certainly alot of selfish left wing politicians too. Jeremy Corbyn is a fine example of someone I consider a proper left wing selfless politician. I think for you, you haven't lived in the UK in recent years to see the state of the country right now. In addition to that I get the impression you're quite financially secure so of course stuff like the NHS crisis may not seem a big deal to someone who can afford private medical care. But right now in the UK the country is literally on its knees. There are 100x more people using food banks compared to when labour where in power. That's a 9900% increase. People with heart attacks are waiting 3 hours for an ambulance. Elderly people who have fell are waiting 48 hours on a cold floor for an ambulance. Ten years ago the average first time buyer was 29, this is now 32. Despite the dramatic increase in population, there were 25% less first time buyers in 2020 compared to 2007. The average age of first time mothers has increased at the same rate. While all this is decreasing though. The number of second home owners has increased by around 40% since 08/09. The evidence is pretty damning when you look at the statistics. And it's important to also do your due diligence when looking into them too because the conservatives have actually redefined how a lot of statistics are measured which gives a skewed outlook on certain things. Such as the measures of child poverty being abolished in 2016 by David Cameron. Now to add to all of the above which shows a country on its knees and rapidly declining year on year. The house price to earnings ratio has increased from being 5 in 2010 to 7 in 2021. So if house prices have increased 40% quicker than wages, then the housing problem will continue. Another huge issue with the vast majority of the statistics produced by the government in relation to poverty and inequality is the strong focus on using income as a measure which is ridiculous. Most of the wealthy are asset rich and thus basing inequality on income when some people are spending over a grand on rent while others own houses outright is ridiculous. So circling back to the original start of this discussion. Maybe if we had public services, which we as tax payers pay for, which provided a decent level of service we'd turn a blind eye. Maybe if young people could feel optimistic about the future they'd turn a blind eye. But the fact of the matter is that poverty is on the rise, home ownership is on the decline, multiple home ownership is on a rapid increase, wages in proportion to house prices is abysmal, nhs waiting times at record highs, public transport costs at record highs, energy prices at record highs, food prices at record highs etc.. For the last 13 years this country has got worse year on year and our public services have been ripped apart in that time too. While the party leading the country continue to increase their shares in private health care. And the last 3 prime ministers have all continued to have private meetings with big pharma companies from the USA in thst time too. So if in 5 years time or 10 years time we go down a private model route with health care. It's not going to be a coincidence when lots of tory MPs have shares in these businesses. Because the Torys are destroying our public services from the inside while investing in private health care personally. The amount of scandal and controversy from this party when it comes to finances is atrocious too and every single time a tory is personally benefiting financially. They're scum along with Murdoch, Laura K, Tim Davie and all the others involved in journalism which facilitate it. Of course while donating to the party too and getting jobs and perks in return. So I really do apologise if you think I'm targeting the wealthy with some of my posts. But the fact of the matter is that the tory party is corrupt and ran by the wealthy elite and Russians who the Torys are more than happy to facilitate requests for in return for personal financial gain. Spot on.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jan 26, 2023 19:23:52 GMT
It's just a form of trumpism more which has been a common deflection technique over the last 5 years.
It doesn't matter if something is true, you just deny it and provide no evidence. And then someone can come along and go "the right say its bias and so do the left so it has to be balanced". However one side has about 20 pieces of evidence and the other doesn't have anything bar their words.
Its like rather than criticising the government you instead say but Corbyn would have done this and Starmer would have done that. No evidence of course but just fear mongering.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jan 26, 2023 19:26:38 GMT
In other news I am on Andrew Bridgend side with this - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64414637I stand by my original opinion that his post wasn't made with antisemitic intent. And while covid misinformation is dangerous, those who have concerns deserve to be represented and have their questions asked.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jan 26, 2023 19:34:43 GMT
In other news I am on Andrew Bridgend side with this - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64414637I stand by my original opinion that his post wasn't made with antisemitic intent. And while covid misinformation is dangerous, those who have concerns deserve to be represented and have their questions asked. I agree once more. The overused antisemitic slur should be used in a much more specific and evidence based way, given what genuinely unpleasant thought process it represents in reality. I have pretty much zero time for Bridgend but I am suspicious of the hue and cry.. particularly when the likes of Matt Hancock is leading it in an attempt to 'clean' what is his deservedly poor reputation. There is alot of contradictory evidence around the efficacy and safety of the vaccine and there is a huge amount of vested financial interest associated with it. One only needs to watch the interesting YouTube offerings from John Campbell, who is no way a conspiracy monger.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jan 26, 2023 20:08:18 GMT
In other news I am on Andrew Bridgend side with this - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64414637I stand by my original opinion that his post wasn't made with antisemitic intent. And while covid misinformation is dangerous, those who have concerns deserve to be represented and have their questions asked. I agree once more. The ridiculously overused antisemitic slur should be used in a much more specific and evidence based way. I have pretty much zero time for Bridgend but I am suspicious of the hue and cry.. particularly when the likes of Matt Hancock is leading it in an attempt to 'clean' what is his deservedly poor reputation. There is alot of contradictory evidence around the efficacy and safety of the vaccine and there is a huge amount of vested financial interest associated with it. One only needs to watch the interesting YouTube offerings from John Campbell, who is no way a conspiracy monger. I'm not much of a YouTuber so not really watched many videos. And my health anxiety is bad enough as it is without some Astra Zenca stats thrown at me lol. Despite not being someone who has entertained the different covid theories, I still respect the fact its important to alot of people and they deserve representation. Shutting things down looks much worse than actually addressing them with answers.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jan 26, 2023 20:16:17 GMT
I agree once more. The overused antisemitic slur should be used in a much more specific and evidence based way, given what genuinely unpleasant thought process it represents in reality.. I have pretty much zero time for Bridgend but I am suspicious of the hue and cry.. particularly when the likes of Matt Hancock is leading it in an attempt to 'clean' what is his deservedly poor reputation. There is alot of contradictory evidence around the efficacy and safety of the vaccine and there is a huge amount of vested financial interest associated with it. One only needs to watch the interesting YouTube offerings from John Campbell, who is no way a conspiracy monger. I'm not much of a YouTuber so not really watched many videos. And my health anxiety is bad enough as it is without some Astra Zenca stats thrown at me lol. Despite not being someone who has entertained the different covid theories, I still respect the fact its important to alot of people and they deserve representation. Shutting things down looks much worse than actually addressing them with answers. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the virtual ban on intelligent and reasonable debate is indicative of something sinister and that very big money and influence is sitting at the heart of the 'information' we a being spoon fed. I'm not sure about answers, but open discussion is an absolute must in any society claiming to be free. Btw I say this as someone who has had 3 vaccinations, so I'm certainly not a silver foil lined tin hat type.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jan 26, 2023 21:34:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Jan 26, 2023 21:42:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 26, 2023 21:51:41 GMT
Tick-tock ...
|
|
|
Post by 828492 on Jan 26, 2023 22:35:06 GMT
New Statesman 24 January 2023 Britain’s democratic rot has continued under Rishi Sunak
The lies and autocratic legislation that defined Boris Johnson’s premiership have endured.
By Annette Dittert
In Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” the assembled crowds studiously refuse to notice that their august leader is naked. Indeed, it takes a child – as yet blissfully unaware of the adult demands of deference and conformity – to point out the obvious: “But he’s wearing nothing at all!”
Rishi Sunak is, of course, not devoid of clothes. Quite the contrary: the Prime Minister has a wardrobe full of luxury menswear which he pairs with a friendly smile and the promise given at the beginning of his premiership to reintroduce good sense and moral integrity in Downing Street. Yet just shy of 100 days in office it has become impossible to overlook the fact that, under the smart sartorial surface, there is: not much. Or even worse perhaps: beneath the expensive suits, the old chaotic and deeply amoral spirit of Boris Johnson lingers on.
When, almost exactly three years ago, Johnson’s “Get Brexit Done” bulldozer swung into action, a lot of people still did not understand that this was also about wrecking the British economy. When Johnson said “f*** business!”, he meant it – and his wrecking ball wasn’t aimed just at the British economy, either, but also at the pillars of parliamentary democracy. As someone who never showed anything but contempt – disgust, even – for rules and regulations, it was impossible for him to do anything other than stream-roll over the vulnerable checks and balances of British democracy.
But simply getting rid of Johnson as an individual does not mean that things have returned to normal. Once the moral taboos and gentlemen’s agreements which formerly structured public life have been torn down, it is incredibly hard to re-erect them. In much the same way as, after Donald Trump, things in the US can never be the same, we don’t see a return to the former status quo in Britain under Sunak either.
And so, the ubiquitous sleaze which was the inevitable result of Johnson’s populist leadership continues unfettered – and instead of making good on his promise to clean up the mess Sunak finds himself behaving in exactly the same way as Johnson before him. Witness his recent all-out and all too familiar defence of Nadhim Zahawi over his tax settlement, for instance.
Yes, while they may be less visible with Sunak at the helm, the three inherent forces of the Johnson era remain very much in effect: the constant distortion of the truth; the increasingly autocratic legislation; and the continued application of the core principle behind Brexit – disruption for its own sake, without so much as a single thought about what might follow. What these three strands of Johnsonism have in common is that they undermine the delicate balance of power in a democracy, tipping the scales in favour of the executive at the expense of the judiciary and the legislature.
The basis of all of this, of course, is the lies – lies which, in spite of Sunak’s solemn promise on entering No 10, remain endemic under his rule. By the end of his first Prime Minister’s Question Time, he’d already misled parliament, having told the House that Britain had built a record number of homes last year when it hadn’t. Bad enough on its own terms, this inaccurate statement has another pernicious effect – as an encouragement to Tory MPs to keep making equally misleading claims.
Months later and the list of falsehoods is long. The latest is Sunak’s repeated assertion that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, a piece of legislation designed to further limit the already tightly regulated right to strike in the UK, is by no means extraordinary – and indeed quite common even in EU countries such as France, Spain and Italy. If he didn’t detest Sunak so thoroughly for various reasons, Johnson himself would certainly approve of this move, since it is not only a perfect distraction from what His Majesty’s Government actually intends to do but also wholly, spectacularly untrue.
Yes, in the EU countries mentioned, there is indeed an obligation to uphold minimum levels of service during strikes; but in all three of them, these levels are a matter for negotiation between unions and public-sector employers, and if no agreement can be reached, an independent judiciary body must adjudicate. In none – not one – of these countries does the government have the right to set the rules by itself, and in none – not one – of these countries does the government have the right to simply fire any worker if the minimum service level is not provided. On the contrary, dismissal on these grounds is expressly forbidden by law in Italy, for example.
In interviews Sunak and Grant Shapps, the Business Secretary, stress that it’s all about “minimum safety levels” – except that the word “safety” isn’t mentioned once in the proposed legislation. In reality the act would enable the business secretary to dictate that, say, 20 per cent of trains are legally required to run regardless of industrial action, thereby effectively torpedoing strikes before they have even started; “safety” need not play any role in the decision.
So if this isn’t about public safety, what is it about? It is yet another re-weighting of the balance of power in favour of the executive. And it isn’t just the Minimum Service Levels Bill but a whole cluster of similarly anti-democratic legislation. There is an amendment to the already controversial Public Order Bill, for instance, which substantially increases police powers, allowing the constabulary to shut down demonstrations before any disruption even occurs. This represents a further draconian restriction of rights to peaceful protest for which there is absolutely no need – blocking roads and defacing works of art are already crimes – and it is significant that the police force itself had not asked for these new powers.
And then there is the Online Safety Bill and its attempt to add video footage showing people crossing the Channel in small boats “in a positive light” to a long list of illegal content that all tech companies must take proactive steps to prevent from reaching users. If that phrasing sounds complicated and impractical, that’s because it is – and clearly borders on the kind of censorship normally practised in autocratic states. Apparently, though, it’s all about “protecting children”.
Yet nowhere is the spirit of Boris Johnson more alive than in the now rather dry-sounding Retained EU Law Bill (REUL), formerly known as the Brexit Freedoms Bill. Much has been written about the latest, maybe last, and certainly craziest hurrah of the Brexiteers – about what amounts to pulling the rug out from under the rule of law – so I’ll spare us the details here. Suffice it to say that if Sunak really meant to keep his second big promise – to repair the British economy – then he would already have scrapped REUL. Who, after all, is going to invest in a country without safe and reliable legal protections?
I do assume that, deep down, the Prime Minister understands this; in reality though he doesn’t behave accordingly. If he now regrets to have firmly committed to that bill, since having produced that infamous video last summer in which he shredded printouts of EU laws while Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” played in the background, he doesn’t show it. To this day he hasn’t dared to openly criticise the bill once. It is, after all, nothing less than the ultimate article of faith of the Brexit Ultras, and would confer on ministers the power to modify more than 4,000 laws without any parliamentary accountability whatsoever. As such, it is little more than another massive executive power grab which is also intended to burn all remaining bridges to the EU. Sunak might be hoping for all this to be rebuffed by the House of Lords, but as long as he is afraid that the arsonists might catch him fighting their fire, he is playing their game.
And so, almost exactly three years after the UK left the EU, the populist window that opened with Johnson has not closed in the slightest with Sunak. No, he is not naked, this well-dressed emperor, but his suits are not much more than a façade, behind which the destructive populism of his predecessors is continuing to wreak havoc. It is only a matter of time until Sunak will be torn to shreds by it.
Translated from German by Brian Melican.
Annette Dittert is the London bureau chief and senior correspondent of the German public broadcaster ARD. She was previously bureau chief for ARD in New York and Warsaw.
|
|
|
Post by milton58 on Jan 26, 2023 22:56:25 GMT
New Statesman 24 January 2023 Britain’s democratic rot has continued under Rishi Sunak The lies and autocratic legislation that defined Boris Johnson’s premiership have endured. By Annette Dittert In Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” the assembled crowds studiously refuse to notice that their august leader is naked. Indeed, it takes a child – as yet blissfully unaware of the adult demands of deference and conformity – to point out the obvious: “But he’s wearing nothing at all!” Rishi Sunak is, of course, not devoid of clothes. Quite the contrary: the Prime Minister has a wardrobe full of luxury menswear which he pairs with a friendly smile and the promise given at the beginning of his premiership to reintroduce good sense and moral integrity in Downing Street. Yet just shy of 100 days in office it has become impossible to overlook the fact that, under the smart sartorial surface, there is: not much. Or even worse perhaps: beneath the expensive suits, the old chaotic and deeply amoral spirit of Boris Johnson lingers on. When, almost exactly three years ago, Johnson’s “Get Brexit Done” bulldozer swung into action, a lot of people still did not understand that this was also about wrecking the British economy. When Johnson said “f*** business!”, he meant it – and his wrecking ball wasn’t aimed just at the British economy, either, but also at the pillars of parliamentary democracy. As someone who never showed anything but contempt – disgust, even – for rules and regulations, it was impossible for him to do anything other than stream-roll over the vulnerable checks and balances of British democracy. But simply getting rid of Johnson as an individual does not mean that things have returned to normal. Once the moral taboos and gentlemen’s agreements which formerly structured public life have been torn down, it is incredibly hard to re-erect them. In much the same way as, after Donald Trump, things in the US can never be the same, we don’t see a return to the former status quo in Britain under Sunak either. And so, the ubiquitous sleaze which was the inevitable result of Johnson’s populist leadership continues unfettered – and instead of making good on his promise to clean up the mess Sunak finds himself behaving in exactly the same way as Johnson before him. Witness his recent all-out and all too familiar defence of Nadhim Zahawi over his tax settlement, for instance. Yes, while they may be less visible with Sunak at the helm, the three inherent forces of the Johnson era remain very much in effect: the constant distortion of the truth; the increasingly autocratic legislation; and the continued application of the core principle behind Brexit – disruption for its own sake, without so much as a single thought about what might follow. What these three strands of Johnsonism have in common is that they undermine the delicate balance of power in a democracy, tipping the scales in favour of the executive at the expense of the judiciary and the legislature. The basis of all of this, of course, is the lies – lies which, in spite of Sunak’s solemn promise on entering No 10, remain endemic under his rule. By the end of his first Prime Minister’s Question Time, he’d already misled parliament, having told the House that Britain had built a record number of homes last year when it hadn’t. Bad enough on its own terms, this inaccurate statement has another pernicious effect – as an encouragement to Tory MPs to keep making equally misleading claims. Months later and the list of falsehoods is long. The latest is Sunak’s repeated assertion that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, a piece of legislation designed to further limit the already tightly regulated right to strike in the UK, is by no means extraordinary – and indeed quite common even in EU countries such as France, Spain and Italy. If he didn’t detest Sunak so thoroughly for various reasons, Johnson himself would certainly approve of this move, since it is not only a perfect distraction from what His Majesty’s Government actually intends to do but also wholly, spectacularly untrue. Yes, in the EU countries mentioned, there is indeed an obligation to uphold minimum levels of service during strikes; but in all three of them, these levels are a matter for negotiation between unions and public-sector employers, and if no agreement can be reached, an independent judiciary body must adjudicate. In none – not one – of these countries does the government have the right to set the rules by itself, and in none – not one – of these countries does the government have the right to simply fire any worker if the minimum service level is not provided. On the contrary, dismissal on these grounds is expressly forbidden by law in Italy, for example. In interviews Sunak and Grant Shapps, the Business Secretary, stress that it’s all about “minimum safety levels” – except that the word “safety” isn’t mentioned once in the proposed legislation. In reality the act would enable the business secretary to dictate that, say, 20 per cent of trains are legally required to run regardless of industrial action, thereby effectively torpedoing strikes before they have even started; “safety” need not play any role in the decision. So if this isn’t about public safety, what is it about? It is yet another re-weighting of the balance of power in favour of the executive. And it isn’t just the Minimum Service Levels Bill but a whole cluster of similarly anti-democratic legislation. There is an amendment to the already controversial Public Order Bill, for instance, which substantially increases police powers, allowing the constabulary to shut down demonstrations before any disruption even occurs. This represents a further draconian restriction of rights to peaceful protest for which there is absolutely no need – blocking roads and defacing works of art are already crimes – and it is significant that the police force itself had not asked for these new powers. And then there is the Online Safety Bill and its attempt to add video footage showing people crossing the Channel in small boats “in a positive light” to a long list of illegal content that all tech companies must take proactive steps to prevent from reaching users. If that phrasing sounds complicated and impractical, that’s because it is – and clearly borders on the kind of censorship normally practised in autocratic states. Apparently, though, it’s all about “protecting children”. Yet nowhere is the spirit of Boris Johnson more alive than in the now rather dry-sounding Retained EU Law Bill (REUL), formerly known as the Brexit Freedoms Bill. Much has been written about the latest, maybe last, and certainly craziest hurrah of the Brexiteers – about what amounts to pulling the rug out from under the rule of law – so I’ll spare us the details here. Suffice it to say that if Sunak really meant to keep his second big promise – to repair the British economy – then he would already have scrapped REUL. Who, after all, is going to invest in a country without safe and reliable legal protections? I do assume that, deep down, the Prime Minister understands this; in reality though he doesn’t behave accordingly. If he now regrets to have firmly committed to that bill, since having produced that infamous video last summer in which he shredded printouts of EU laws while Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” played in the background, he doesn’t show it. To this day he hasn’t dared to openly criticise the bill once. It is, after all, nothing less than the ultimate article of faith of the Brexit Ultras, and would confer on ministers the power to modify more than 4,000 laws without any parliamentary accountability whatsoever. As such, it is little more than another massive executive power grab which is also intended to burn all remaining bridges to the EU. Sunak might be hoping for all this to be rebuffed by the House of Lords, but as long as he is afraid that the arsonists might catch him fighting their fire, he is playing their game. And so, almost exactly three years after the UK left the EU, the populist window that opened with Johnson has not closed in the slightest with Sunak. No, he is not naked, this well-dressed emperor, but his suits are not much more than a façade, behind which the destructive populism of his predecessors is continuing to wreak havoc. It is only a matter of time until Sunak will be torn to shreds by it. Translated from German by Brian Melican. Annette Dittert is the London bureau chief and senior correspondent of the German public broadcaster ARD. She was previously bureau chief for ARD in New York and Warsaw. can't be arsed read all of that if it says this government is the worst ever then you get a tick from me
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jan 26, 2023 23:17:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 26, 2023 23:36:51 GMT
Come off it Gary, why on earth would we deny foreign, short term speculators their profits, if it means all we have to do is fill our rivers full of shit?
How many of the actual population would vote for this given the opportunity?
These MP's aren't remotely interested in representing their constituents, it is in their DNA to support PROFIT, whatever the cost.
Privatisation working exactly as it is supposed to work.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jan 27, 2023 1:44:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 27, 2023 7:51:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 27, 2023 14:46:49 GMT
Absolutely nothing to see here ... apart from Fiona Bruce, the wife of a Tory donor (Nigel Sharrocks) defending Tories on the BBC, a channel currently chaired by another Tory donor, Richard Sharp.
It's quite staggering how brazen she is in doing it and it surely calls her journalistic impartiality into question.
And when she finally gets called out for it, she claims that her 'opinion' doesn't count.
I so wish he'd replied with "well we're not talking about OPINIONS here are we Fiona? We're talking about, erm ... FACTS!"
|
|