UK Politics Thread

[rory_20_uk]

Find out what he's been doing. Make it prosecutable if he lies so he has incentive to tell the truth for once in his life. I'd rather not trust that he's not been up to no good, given that all that he's done is exactly what one would do if one were up to no good and wanted to cover one's tracks.

I can easily recreate the whole thing for you...


"I can't quite recall"

And any other synonyms you care for.

The CPS would laugh in your face. There's no case just a rumour. MI5 might well have a file and in 60 years it might be released.

Move on!

[Pannonian]

I can easily recreate the whole thing for you...


"I can't quite recall"

And any other synonyms you care for.

The CPS would laugh in your face. There's no case just a rumour. MI5 might well have a file and in 60 years it might be released.

Move on!

Commons committee? Royal Commission?

Also, Furunculus calls what I want "mudslinging", despite several findings pointing towards what I would call extreme iffiness. Now what the Tory MP did in Durham, was proper "mudslinging". What the Durham police said was "nothing to answer for". What a former head of Durham police said was "politically motivated attempt at smearing, and a waste of police time". In Johnson's case, the professionals deemed what he calls "mudslinging" to be worthy of further investigation, while in Starmer's case, the professionals deemed what was reported to them by a Tory MP to be a waste of time.

[rory_20_uk]

Rather than end the chapter, you're advocating jumping into the gutter and wrestling?

Worst case you make him look like a victim. Again, you'll get nothing except a show trial. A pathetic waste of time leaving Boris to cheerfully tear into everyone else with carefully phrased answers just this side of slander. Investigate every allegation? Probably unable to do so leaving Boris to cry "cover up!"

And he'll make millions more from books / talk shows / talks and newspaper articles.

[Furunculus]

Also, Furunculus calls what I want "mudslinging"

To be clear, i say this specifically because:

a) you keep insinuating that he is colluding with a foriegn power, while;
b) being utterly disinterested in the fact that there is no sign of what this collusion has brought to russia's benefit.

No more, no less.

[Pannonian]

Rather than end the chapter, you're advocating jumping into the gutter and wrestling?

Worst case you make him look like a victim. Again, you'll get nothing except a show trial. A pathetic waste of time leaving Boris to cheerfully tear into everyone else with carefully phrased answers just this side of slander. Investigate every allegation? Probably unable to do so leaving Boris to cry "cover up!"

And he'll make millions more from books / talk shows / talks and newspaper articles.

At the very least, what was he doing, as foreign secretary, in a party with an ex-KGB agent without any accompanying officials? The head of MI6 deemed a private meeting with Evgeniy Lebedev to be unacceptably compromising for someone in his position, because Evgeniy was the son of Alexander. What was Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, doing in a meeting with Alexander Lebedev himself, on Alexander Lebedev's territory? What were they discussing, away from government officials who should have been monitoring their minister's official business?

There are other allegations, not least the latest one from The Times. But I want to know why the above is not worthy of investigation, given that politicians past and present have done less and been deemed unacceptably compromised.

[Pannonian]

To be clear, i say this specifically because:

a) you keep insinuating that he is colluding with a foriegn power, while;
b) being utterly disinterested in the fact that there is no sign of what this collusion has brought to russia's benefit.

No more, no less.

There is no sign, because there were no other officials present. Boris Johnson was the only official present. Do you not think he should be explaining what he was doing there? The head of MI6 refused a private meeting with Alexander's son because he was Alexander's son, and a private meeting with Evgeniy would have compromised the head of MI6. Why is a private meeting between the foreign secretary and Alexander himself deemed ok?

[Pannonian]

Woah, the government is refusing to allow a VONC now. Does this even count as a democracy any more?

[Pannonian]

Major said the whole country knew the government had “broken the law” and that they: “Unlawfully tried to prorogue parliament, ignored the nationwide lockdown by breaking its own laws in Downing Street and tried to change parliamentary rules to protect one of their own.”

He said the damage was “widespread” and added: “In the four countries of the United Kingdom, we take democracy for granted.

“We shouldn’t. If you look around the world, you’ll find it’s in retreat in many countries and has been for 10 to 15 years or more. And it looks like that’s going to continue.

“The point is this - democracy is not inevitable. It can be undone step by step, action by action, falsehood by falsehood.

“It needs to be protected at all times. It seems to me that if our law and our accepted conventions are ignored, then we’re on a very slippery slope that ends with pulling our constitution into shreds.

“What has been done in the last three years has damaged our country at home and overseas and I think it has damaged the reputation of parliament as well.

“The blame for these lapses must lie principally - principally but not only - with the prime minister, but many in his cabinet are culpable too.

“And so are those outside the cabinet who cheered him on.

“They were silent when they should have spoken out and then spoke out only when their silence became self-damaging.”

The committee is looking at the role of the prime minister in ensuring ethical standards in public life.

Major, who set up the committee on standards in public life, added: “Now all of this can be corrected. And the task for parliament, government, this committee will be to restore constitutional standards and protect from any further slippage against them.

“Bad habits if they become ingrained become precedent, precedent can carry bad habits on for a very long time. And it shouldn’t be permitted to do so.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...d=flipboard-HP

And he said all this before the Tory government denied the opposition leader's request for a VONC, contrary to the custom that a VONC requested by the leader of the opposition is the most urgent item on the agenda.

[Furunculus]

Woah, the government is refusing to allow a VONC now. Does this even count as a democracy any more?

This is a manufactured problem.

There is a correct form to follow here and starmer could have followed it.
Instead they did not, knowing (and hoping?) that it would be rejected so people would scream about; "the end of democracy!"

That sounds like exactly the kind of bending of constitutional norms that Boris is often accused of.

https://twitter.com/explorepolitic1/...99834385108992

The following wording within the attached document maybe the reson for blocking yesterday: "that it does indeed intend to test the Houses's confidence in the government, rather than simply to censure a policy or member of the government."

Update - Gov't to no-confidence itself:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...tion-in-itself

“Labour were given the option to table a straightforward vote of no confidence in the government in keeping with convention. However, they chose not to,” a government spokesperson said. “To remedy this we are tabling a motion which gives the house the opportunity to decide if it has confidence in the government."

[Pannonian]

Britain's current chancellor aka finance minister is having his personal finances investigated by HMRC (tax office) following a tip off from the National Crime Agency (source: The Times, Financial times).

And of course, Sajid Javid dropped out of the leadership race shortly after offering to open up his tax returns whilst refusing to answer questions about offshore tax havens and his businesses (interview on national TV).

This current bunch are making the Major regime look incorruptible.

[Furunculus]

there is definately a point where an incumbenant regime becomes complacent and lazy about the need to demonstrate continueing legitimacy, and this is something they cannot hide from the electorate.

the major regime definately demonstrated this.

[rory_20_uk]

Britain's current chancellor aka finance minister is having his personal finances investigated by HMRC (tax office) following a tip off from the National Crime Agency (source: The Times, Financial times).

And of course, Sajid Javid dropped out of the leadership race shortly after offering to open up his tax returns whilst refusing to answer questions about offshore tax havens and his businesses (interview on national TV).

This current bunch are making the Major regime look incorruptible.

The Panama leak of papers caught politicians all over Europe, from the Nordics downwards so this is known to be a systemic problem. Of course, as a rule these were not breaking any laws, just lying to the electorate which is practically in the job description.

A solution would be that all persons who become an MP have a tax audit by the HMRC with the results being published on a public website. That's only 600(ish) every 4 years - hardly an onerous number and would help this problem. Of course not solve, but strong light into dark places is a pretty good disinfectant.

Penelope Mary Mordaunt is shaping up to be a contender and her known flaws (to date) are that she didn't resign out of protest of Boris and her job history has been almost exclusively PR in one form or another - although she did share her view on the Trans situation which is slightly surprising since there is no view whatsoever which doesn't get one group or another accusing you of being -phobic. She is living in Portsmouth, so the two sword distance might again be required, lest she tries to glass the other side at PMQs...

Rishi would be best to remain on Macroeconomic issues in number 11. He is certainly not "of" of the people, and pretending to be "for" the people hasn't really worked either.

[Furunculus]

Personally, i like Kemi Badenoch:
Feel like she could be a tonic that really reinevents what the the Tory's believe the state is for.
Might not win, but if she does win in 2023 they could go in strong to the 2028 GE.

Mordaunt feels 'lite':
She might win 2023 but it would lead to a 1997 like three parliament crash.
Feels like a Tory status-quo candidate.

Rishi feels like continuity 2012 pre-referendum Cameron/Osborn'ism:
Might do well in the "Who do do you think will make the better PM?" question in the run up to 2023...
...But even if he wins he'll be leading a tired and aimless party that will bore the electorate.

Suella falls on the wrong side the war-on-woke:
I have no objection to saying that gov't should have no interest in intervening in hurt feelings in personal conduct.
But there are some who see the war-on-woke as a 'wedge issue' and are in it to beenfit from it. Hello Suella...

Truss i kinda like, but not very enthusiastically:
I suspect I like her mainly because of the trade / foriegn policy focus.
i.e. her legacy is tied up in ensuring Global Britain is pursued. Not sure what she offers domestically tho...

Tugendhat i want nowhere near the PM's seat:
He is way to old school with his military fascination with 'alliances', without caring about the political cost.
Suspect he'd melt on divergence for services and trade, leaving us stuck with precuationary principle.

I'd like to see Badenoch / Truss duopoly emerge from the later voter rounds, kemi to do the domestic vision backstopped by Truss leaning into the services/trade divergence.

[rory_20_uk]

I suppose Mordaunt, to me, could be seen as someone who wishes to be primus inter pares as opposed to episodes of the Boris Johnson Show. I would hope she would allow the Cabinet do do what they are supposed to do in their areas as opposed to being the story herself.

The biggest thing I have against Badenoch is the fact she's relatively untested with no previous Cabinet position. From the very little I know about her, she seems to have her head screwed on the right way. Give her a sensible Cabinet level appointment and see how she does. Not the health secretary as that is toxic, and Priti is doing an almost comical job as the Xenophobe in Chief in the Home Office.

Truss strikes me as too bonkers for PM. We don't need another internecine war in the Cabinet / Commons / Country which seems seems almost eager to start. So if she is good overseas, she should remain focused there.

Suella has been happy to have some International laws broken which as a Lawyer and as the government lawyer that's a massive red flag for me. Her job is to enforce the laws and resign in protest if they're broken. That role is the damn canary in the coal mine.

Interesting take on Tugendhat. He also wanted to continue in Afghanistan when anyone without a personal bias could see it was a lost cause. And given the ability of the PM to do what he wants in such conflicts I'd rather someone who is less of a warmonger - train the forces of allies? Certainly. Give weaponry? Where required. Jump in the meat grinder? No thanks.

So I'd go with a Mordaunt / Badenoch final with a marginal preference for Mordaunt to win. The Government has reached the point where an "Augean stable" is the only realistic option with many of those who have been in the previous administration need to go with a few exceptions who have ability in what they have done - as long as the PM can bitch slap them in line of course. If they won't know their place, all are replaceable. This of course must leave the Civil Service rubbing their hands with glee since they have another load of newbies to try the old tricks on.

[Pannonian]

I suppose Mordaunt, to me, could be seen as someone who wishes to be primus inter pares as opposed to episodes of the Boris Johnson Show. I would hope she would allow the Cabinet do do what they are supposed to do in their areas as opposed to being the story herself.

The biggest thing I have against Badenoch is the fact she's relatively untested with no previous Cabinet position. From the very little I know about her, she seems to have her head screwed on the right way. Give her a sensible Cabinet level appointment and see how she does. Not the health secretary as that is toxic, and Priti is doing an almost comical job as the Xenophobe in Chief in the Home Office.

Truss strikes me as too bonkers for PM. We don't need another internecine war in the Cabinet / Commons / Country which seems seems almost eager to start. So if she is good overseas, she should remain focused there.

Suella has been happy to have some International laws broken which as a Lawyer and as the government lawyer that's a massive red flag for me. Her job is to enforce the laws and resign in protest if they're broken. That role is the damn canary in the coal mine.

Interesting take on Tugendhat. He also wanted to continue in Afghanistan when anyone without a personal bias could see it was a lost cause. And given the ability of the PM to do what he wants in such conflicts I'd rather someone who is less of a warmonger - train the forces of allies? Certainly. Give weaponry? Where required. Jump in the meat grinder? No thanks.

So I'd go with a Mordaunt / Badenoch final with a marginal preference for Mordaunt to win. The Government has reached the point where an "Augean stable" is the only realistic option with many of those who have been in the previous administration need to go with a few exceptions who have ability in what they have done - as long as the PM can bitch slap them in line of course. If they won't know their place, all are replaceable. This of course must leave the Civil Service rubbing their hands with glee since they have another load of newbies to try the old tricks on.

Isn't Badenoch a self-admitted hacker?

[rory_20_uk]

Isn't Badenoch a self-admitted hacker?

Yup. 2008 I think. The victim accepted her apology and referred her to the police.

She hacked a MPs website, not the nuclear codes.

Would I still prefer Kier? Yes - if he could do what he would want to do. But the choices we have now are determined by Conservative MPs and for me it is almost choosing the ones left after removing all the known lying, scheming criminals.

[Furunculus]

Penny Mordaunt picked up 16 more votes after Jeremy Hunt and Nadhim Zahawi were knocked out yesterday.

Liz Truss gained 14 more votes, Kemi Badenoch picked up 9 and Rishi Sunak took 13 to take him within 20 votes of the 120 needed to effectively be through to the final round.

Tom Tugendhat lost five of his total from yesterday, meaning he will be hoping for a stellar weekend of debates to catch up with Kemi Badenoch, who is now 17 ahead.

The full results this afternoon were: Rishi Sunak - 101, Penny Mordaunt - 83, Liz Truss - 64, Kemi Badenoch - 49, Tom Tugenhadt - 32, Suella Braverman - 27

Suella's votes split between Baednoch (~11), Mordaunt (~9) and Truss (~7)?
Tugenhadt pulls out and votes go to Sunak (~24) and Truss (~8)?

[rory_20_uk]

If the UK were within this effort and contributing our expertise, then the EU's efforts may be more effective. Policy-wise, the UK is the money-laundering centre of the world. This isn't due to lack of expertise, but due to intentional policy. And if we were to agree to work towards this ideal that you said you'd like, then because of our experience in aiding money-laundering, we'd also have the most expertise in reducing it. So once again, you describe an ideal and blame the EU for not being able to live up to it, when it's the UK which has the greatest part in thwarting this ideal of yours.

The EU is an additional layer of government. So it needs to add something to justify the expense. It doesn't whatsoever - it is best at giving those at the top plum jobs and benefits. On top of the same number at national level. Whilst engaging in some wonderful gridlock. The last thing that they have managed which is definitely useful was standardising USB-C for devices. Something that doesn't require the EU to achieve.

If there was an entity that was in essence led by Germany and had rigour in the drafting and implementation of processes then we'd have a much smaller EU which might have a use. But we've seen a system acting like a Ponzi scheme where the most important thing is growth as somehow adding more voices will improve things - Italy / Greece / Hungry to mention just three disasters.

To your... "point", the EU should have been the one to craft laws to prevent money laundering such as takes place in the UK. Y'know, hold countries to a higher standard? As it is, they've managed to make Natural Gas a Green fuel - hilarious. At least the bureaucrats can tick the box they're hitting the synthetic targets eh?


Back to the election...

Penny might be extremely light on detail. Or it could be character assassination - who knows? No everyone is detail focused, and with the right deputy that's not a problem. But might we end up with effectively a female Boris who PRs her way through all the important details?

[Furunculus]

thought this was quite a good read - broadly chimes with my own thoughts:

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...nation/670527/

[rory_20_uk]

The ending is extremely trite - it's not the Constitution out politicians have failed in the last 10 years. Which is true but the system expects this to not happen.

Power is increasingly held by one person with very little to curtail it - as long as elections are won (which means a majority of posts - not the majority of the electorate).

This isn't that new - Blair took us to war on a known lie and nothing happened.

Trying to codify every eventuality is of course both stupid and a very American approach. I would wish there to be not another executive branch, but an investigative branch that broadly keeps them honest. The Police seem to have an aversion to investigating their "betters" as if we're in the 1850s, the courts only oversee the Law whatever it is (as is right and proper) and MI5 take along, strategic view - they'll not tip their hand over mere lying / tax evasion etc but use that to see what hostile forces bite. And again they're very good at what they do.

We have had almost 3 years where a known liar continue to lie, breaks the law and brazened it out. That he will soon be gone for a nice sincure as Diplomat Without Shame to the Ukraine - shortly followed by a knighthood of course - is not evidence that everything is fine and we must Keep Calm and Carry On.

[Pannonian]

The ending is extremely trite - it's not the Constitution out politicians have failed in the last 10 years. Which is true but the system expects this to not happen.

Power is increasingly held by one person with very little to curtail it - as long as elections are won (which means a majority of posts - not the majority of the electorate).

This isn't that new - Blair took us to war on a known lie and nothing happened.

Trying to codify every eventuality is of course both stupid and a very American approach. I would wish there to be not another executive branch, but an investigative branch that broadly keeps them honest. The Police seem to have an aversion to investigating their "betters" as if we're in the 1850s, the courts only oversee the Law whatever it is (as is right and proper) and MI5 take along, strategic view - they'll not tip their hand over mere lying / tax evasion etc but use that to see what hostile forces bite. And again they're very good at what they do.

We have had almost 3 years where a known liar continue to lie, breaks the law and brazened it out. That he will soon be gone for a nice sincure as Diplomat Without Shame to the Ukraine - shortly followed by a knighthood of course - is not evidence that everything is fine and we must Keep Calm and Carry On.

The investigative branch is supposed to be the press, backed by journalistic standards. The press is supposed to inform the electorate and hold the government to task in a way that's not limited by democratic requirements. So what happens when the government and the press are in cahoots? When the media barons are willing to lie and cover up for the side they pick, whilst smearing the opposition, in return for expected favours? Blair is often cited as an example of Labour being favoured too, but Labour has never had the media on their side to this degree. No one has. Johnson/the right wing media are effectively the same unit. One can expect the next leader to be similarly beholden and favoured.

In the past, ministers lying in the House would be a cause for scandal and eventual resignation. What happens when the media push the message that standards do not matter? I posted lots and lots of times on here about the many ways in which Johnson trampled over our constitution, such as it is. With responses such as how no one cares, and how it's more important to focus on relevant things (you can fill in the blanks as to what is deemed relevant).

I think the right wing media-politics synergy is what's breaking our democracy. And Brexit is the banner that they're doing it under.

[Pannonian]

Multiple ministers pulling out of Commons committee meetings. I get that Johnson is a lazy so and so (and his wedding party at Chequers has been cancelled, but he will be holding a farewell do at the same venue and probably with the same guest list instead). I get that there may be settling in for new ministers like Steve Barclay the new health minister (despite there being an unprecedented health risk coming up). But why is the home secretary pulling out of meetings? She's still in place. She's been in the same position for years, so she's as experienced as most home secretaries. Why is she unable to answer to the Commons for what government has been doing?

So if the Commons is not allowed a vote of confidence in the government, and ministers won't answer to the Commons, what accountability is there?

[Furunculus]

vote of (no) confidence scheduled for 10pm this evening afaik.

[rory_20_uk]

Italy are trying something new: Link

Almost "leaning in" to the farce yet politicians do seem to be responding to it - and as the score can be tailored towards positive things that might help somewhat. Given effective oversight and any sort of penalty isn't likely to happen.

[Pannonian]

vote of (no) confidence scheduled for 10pm this evening afaik.

Johnson complained about Labour wasting time tabling the vote when the government could be doing something more constructive (what that is I'm not sure, given that Johnson couldn't find time to attend a COBRA meeting, but could find time for a Typhoon photo-op). The Speaker noted that the vote was tabled by the government, not the opposition. Does Johnson not know what the government he's heading is doing?

[Pannonian]

Italy are trying something new: Link

Almost "leaning in" to the farce yet politicians do seem to be responding to it - and as the score can be tailored towards positive things that might help somewhat. Given effective oversight and any sort of penalty isn't likely to happen.

Given that the current PM has his profile because of his appearances on a gameshow, I'm not sure how this is going to encourage reforming of behaviour.

[rory_20_uk]

Given that the current PM has his profile because of his appearances on a gameshow, I'm not sure how this is going to encourage reforming of behaviour.

Currently the system is based around treating democracy as something of a theatre - the latest debate has been cancelled since the 1922 Committee told the candidates that things are getting to the point that the general public might realise what they are like. So, no debate, and just behind the scenes fighting.

In the absence of any proper, rigorous, approach to ensuring the country is run well - which I have mentioned many times now - this might encourage better behaviour by rewarding politicians for some actions and punishing them for others. Because we don't know nor care who most of the politicians are and they do their own thing for 5 years with the populace voting based on party loyalty. If people were more interested in what politicians did, and they were scored for what they did then this is better than what we've currently got and ideally would lead to politicians actually worrying about what they do lest they might get voted out.

Again, I'm all for getting the HMRC in to audit the lot of them to get a handle on the dodgy dealings, get in investigators to check up on what they're doing with their donors, links etc and get the Police and the Courts to charge, convict and imprison wrongdoing because although some of what they do can be viewed as government business quite a lot isn't... But is such a robust approach likely to take place? No?

[Pannonian]

Currently the system is based around treating democracy as something of a theatre - the latest debate has been cancelled since the 1922 Committee told the candidates that things are getting to the point that the general public might realise what they are like. So, no debate, and just behind the scenes fighting.

In the absence of any proper, rigorous, approach to ensuring the country is run well - which I have mentioned many times now - this might encourage better behaviour by rewarding politicians for some actions and punishing them for others. Because we don't know nor care who most of the politicians are and they do their own thing for 5 years with the populace voting based on party loyalty. If people were more interested in what politicians did, and they were scored for what they did then this is better than what we've currently got and ideally would lead to politicians actually worrying about what they do lest they might get voted out.

Again, I'm all for getting the HMRC in to audit the lot of them to get a handle on the dodgy dealings, get in investigators to check up on what they're doing with their donors, links etc and get the Police and the Courts to charge, convict and imprison wrongdoing because although some of what they do can be viewed as government business quite a lot isn't... But is such a robust approach likely to take place? No?

What kind of reward is it? It's pretty clear that the biggest influence on public opinion is the image the media barons project in their media, and they arrive at that through deals with the politicians as to the policy platforms they run. It was bad enough in the past when they wanted individual policies and sets of policies to favour them. The Tory-Brexit era sees them wanting the whole country to follow their lead.

There is no functional democracy without a cleanup of the media and some semblance of journalistic standards, as opposed to them excusing every abuse under the sky in return for a politician in their pocket. Without that, the idea that every vote counts the same is severely flawed, as they need only get enough PR-influenced votes to get their lackey over the line, and then this democratic mandate can be used to justify absolutely everything in the British system.

NB. It was The Times, for long the last remaining right wing paper with some reputation left, who broke the story about Starmer's "beergate" (along with a Tory MP pushing the Durham police for an investigation). One which the Durham police concluded had no substance whatsoever, and which a former head of Durham police called a politically-motivated piece of smearing. The Telegraph, Mail and Express and worse have long lost their journalistic standards. The Times now has none either. How much of the electorate does that cover?

[Furunculus]

It's pretty clear that the biggest influence on public opinion is the image the media barons project in their media, and they arrive at that through deals with the politicians as to the policy platforms they run.

There is no functional democracy without a cleanup of the media and some semblance of journalistic standards

You're starting from a premise that i fundamentally don't accept: that it is substantially the media that leads public opinion rather than the opposite being the case. A quasi religious argument at best - on either side.

If you do accept that it is substantially the media that leads public opinion then yes, your solutions will lead you to media barons as the source of 'the problem'. They are the source of the deviancy pulling opinion away from public policy solutions that are 'proper'.

However, if you take the view that it is substantially public opinion that leads the media narrative, then attacks against the media barons seems like displacement activity. i.e. blaming them for the public not responding positively to the manifesto that you wish to push.

Given my entreaty for the left to "be relevant!" i think it is plain which side of the argument i fall on...

[rory_20_uk]

I think the two evils feed on each other.

Some years ago, someone pointed out the self evident fact that people choose the newspapers they read based on what they already think. So he chose to read the newspapers that he disliked - in this case as he thought how can he understand the average GP patient without reading the Daily Mail. I realised that I'd fallen into the same trap, tailoring the news I read based on what I already thought so I got reflected back at me the news through the prism of what I already thought.

Media outlets need to make money and the easiest way is giving people what they want - hence the cycle of only getting a version of events that fits with what you already think. Breaking this is extremely tough since these are for-profit organisations and they aren't going to accept massive loss of readers to be more balanced.

I try to anger-read my way through the Guardian and if I'm really wanting to get my Gen-X blood up I read the Metro - even the opinion columns. And looking at things that I might not have initially agreed with I have come to view Social Democracy is probably the ideal form of government rather than small state, individual freedom which is the view I had and was probably strongly influenced from my father.

But the Point is that this was a conscious choice to act against my innate nature.