Quo Vadis Labour?

[Pannonian]

The UK seems to have caught the "politics is a soap opera" bug and in a world where Sir Kier is doing badly because he's boring, the way to success is constant drama. Oh, and that probably helps keep people from seeing what idiocy Boris is currently up to.

Follow up questions to the above. Is the government minister justified in pushing commercial media channels as long as they are re-elected, and the PM does not sack them? Or are there standards that stand regardless of whether or not they are elected? And relating to that, given the format of our democracy. Is the government justified in doing anything they like, as long as they are elected?

The UK does not have a formal constitution, because the argument in the past has been that the electorate will punish any errant government. However, this government has contravened a number of parliamentary customs that served to check past governments, and the PM has been repeatedly shown to be more often lying than telling the truth. But he was re-elected, nonetheless. Does this validate anything the PM does, and his government? Is media popularity the only requirement for any government?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Follow up questions to the above. Is the government minister justified in pushing commercial media channels as long as they are re-elected, and the PM does not sack them? Or are there standards that stand regardless of whether or not they are elected? And relating to that, given the format of our democracy. Is the government justified in doing anything they like, as long as they are elected?

The UK does not have a formal constitution, because the argument in the past has been that the electorate will punish any errant government. However, this government has contravened a number of parliamentary customs that served to check past governments, and the PM has been repeatedly shown to be more often lying than telling the truth. But he was re-elected, nonetheless. Does this validate anything the PM does, and his government? Is media popularity the only requirement for any government?

Remember the words of that Savoyard lawyer...

On a moral/ethical level, of course actions such as lying to preserve one's self and trashing established customs should be problematic.

But it they people do not vote to preserve such than on a practical level the standards have been changed.

[Pannonian]

Remember the words of that Savoyard lawyer...

On a moral/ethical level, of course actions such as lying to preserve one's self and trashing established customs should be problematic.

But it they people do not vote to preserve such than on a practical level the standards have been changed.

Parliament, and the much-touted PM's questions is supposed to hold the government to task. If the PM can lie to Parliament on a regular basis without any action, are there any standards worth talking about? In US terms, if an elected government, with the collusion of the judiciary and a supportive media, can ignore the constitution without any action against them being possible, are there any standards remaining? Here in the UK, the media have already tried to intimidate the judiciary by labelling those judges who were against the government's abuse of Parliamentary norms "Enemies of the people".

Enemies of the People (headline)

NB. This was 5 months after a UK politician had been assassinated on this issue.

[rory_20_uk]

Follow up questions to the above. Is the government minister justified in pushing commercial media channels as long as they are re-elected, and the PM does not sack them? Or are there standards that stand regardless of whether or not they are elected? And relating to that, given the format of our democracy. Is the government justified in doing anything they like, as long as they are elected?

The UK does not have a formal constitution, because the argument in the past has been that the electorate will punish any errant government. However, this government has contravened a number of parliamentary customs that served to check past governments, and the PM has been repeatedly shown to be more often lying than telling the truth. But he was re-elected, nonetheless. Does this validate anything the PM does, and his government? Is media popularity the only requirement for any government?

The system of the UK has a a key strength in the ability to quickly change to new circumstances.
The massive flaw is of course tha the system relies in people having something like a working set of ethics. Boris has never been encombered by one of those in either his professional or personal life. He is, to be clear, gutter journalist scum.
The electorate in turn doesn't seem to really care - the Tories loosing to the Lib Dems in a by election apparently had more to do with reforming the planning process as the right to both complain no housing as well as protest any and all developments is key.
As thubgs stand, there are almost no checks and balances. The Courts only enforce the Law (so when the Tories move to remove the powers from the body overseeing politicians no one bat's an eyelid). Remove the law enforcing elections every 5 years? That's fine too. As long as they change the laws rather than breaking then all is fine.
The only theoretical power base is the Monarch. But sadly the House of Windsor prefers visiting charities, holding cream teas and feuding publicly with the ginger Beta and his sociopath of a wife rather than providing any sort of governance on the Politicians.

Te system only reacts to events that loose votes. We have a system where lying at elections is fine - and even truths are vague aims rather than having any legally minding weight. In short, the system is rotten and not far of the system of rotten boroughs but this time the politicians are bought directly by rich backers.

[Montmorency]

Parliament, and the much-touted PM's questions is supposed to hold the government to task. If the PM can lie to Parliament on a regular basis without any action, are there any standards worth talking about? In US terms, if an elected government, with the collusion of the judiciary and a supportive media, can ignore the constitution without any action against them being possible, are there any standards remaining? Here in the UK, the media have already tried to intimidate the judiciary by labelling those judges who were against the government's abuse of Parliamentary norms "Enemies of the people".

Enemies of the People (headline)

NB. This was 5 months after a UK politician had been assassinated on this issue.

I don't know if I should offer warning or make light.
https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/statu...31034443407360 [VIDEO]

[Pannonian]

The new Royal Yacht Britannia will no longer be a Royal Yacht because the Queen think's it's over the top and not needed. But the government is going ahead with it anyway, and funding it through the Ministry of Defence.

It was hoped that the ship would be named after the Prince Philip, who died in April at the age of 99, but the PM's plan was rejected by the royals.

A senior Whitehall inside had said the ship would be named after Prince Philip, who played a role in designing the original Britannia, if Buckingham Palace agreed to the plan.

But, a royal source said the suggestion was 'too grand' and added 'it is not something we have asked for.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ce-Philip.html

New national flagship replacing the Royal Yacht Britannia 'to be funded through the Ministry of Defence', says Number 10

https://news.sky.com/story/new-natio...no-10-12337906

[Furunculus]

I do question the value of a 'royal yacht' in this billionaire era where there are dozens of alabaster and smoked-glass behemoths roaming the seas, each larger that most counties frigates (and likely more expensive).

That said, i see no reason why it couldn't be an excellent venue for trade and diplomacy, and more than 'wipe-its-face' in terms of the capital and revenue costs.

If that is the case - that it is a net positive on a par with any other equivalent investment - then a decision to proceed is purely thematic:
i.e. does a multi-use Trade and Diplomacy / Disaster Relief and Casualty Receiving / ISR and Emergency Command Post ship project the image of the UK that HMG wants to project?

Arguably, with the Integrated Review and Defence Command Paper, as well as the DIT push for a more seagoing free-trading role, then a new 'royal' yacht is a perfectly acceptable idea.

But i'd like to see HMG evidence their confidence that a seaborne venue for trade and diplomacy is indeed a net positive...?

[Pannonian]

I do question the value of a 'royal yacht' in this billionaire era where there are dozens of alabaster and smoked-glass behemoths roaming the seas, each larger that most counties frigates (and likely more expensive).

That said, i see no reason why it couldn't be an excellent venue for trade and diplomacy, and more than 'wipe-its-face' in terms of the capital and revenue costs.

If that is the case - that it is a net positive on a par with any other equivalent investment - then a decision to proceed is purely thematic:
i.e. does a multi-use Trade and Diplomacy / Disaster Relief and Casualty Receiving / ISR and Emergency Command Post ship project the image of the UK that HMG wants to project?

Arguably, with the Integrated Review and Defence Command Paper, as well as the DIT push for a more seagoing free-trading role, then a new 'royal' yacht is a perfectly acceptable idea.

But i'd like to see HMG evidence their confidence that a seaborne venue for trade and diplomacy is indeed a net positive...?

Are net positive the new key term? The trade deal with Australia is estimated to increase the UK's GDP: by 0.08%, while the loss of existing trade links with the EU is estimated to decrease the UK's GDP by 4%. Do net positives apply in this calculation too?

[Furunculus]

Are net positive the new key term? The trade deal with Australia is estimated to increase the UK's GDP: by 0.08%, while the loss of existing trade links with the EU is estimated to decrease the UK's GDP by 4%. Do net positives apply in this calculation too?

You took the trouble to quote all of my reply, if wished to address that I would be very happy to respond.

[Pannonian]

You took the trouble to quote all of my reply, if wished to address that I would be very happy to respond.

I'm highlighting how Tory economics uses certain terms to paint their policies in a good light, but only selectively use them to justify this micro policy or that micro policy. If your proposed flagship (no longer called royal yacht since the monarch refuses to approve it) should be judged on net positives over 200m, and that with measurements being gerrymandered to suit your definition, does this not apply to the wider economy as a whole too?

Of course, the Tory theoretical school's answer to this is to use wider picture terms to focus on their selected limited picture with lots of possibilities, implying that their selected limited picture is representative of the whole, whilst refusing to address the wider picture with plenty of actuals. It's an effective way of justifying select, heavily subsidised certain projects that invariably result in contracts for Tory backers, whilst cutting societal spending as a whole because one must be prudent. The New York Times ran an article looking at this phenomenon during covid.

[Furunculus]

you make it sound like i am part of a tory conspiracy, yet really these are just my thoughts on the matter.

i can't even claim to have read similar views to this, such that i might merely be parroting 'the tory line'.

[Pannonian]

I'm highlighting how Tory economics uses certain terms to paint their policies in a good light, but only selectively use them to justify this micro policy or that micro policy. If your proposed flagship (no longer called royal yacht since the monarch refuses to approve it) should be judged on net positives over 200m, and that with measurements being gerrymandered to suit your definition, does this not apply to the wider economy as a whole too?

Of course, the Tory theoretical school's answer to this is to use wider picture terms to focus on their selected limited picture with lots of possibilities, implying that their selected limited picture is representative of the whole, whilst refusing to address the wider picture with plenty of actuals. It's an effective way of justifying select, heavily subsidised certain projects that invariably result in contracts for Tory backers, whilst cutting societal spending as a whole because one must be prudent. The New York Times ran an article looking at this phenomenon during covid.

Bwahaha. The Health Secretary's mistress has a brother who's the director of a company that's been receiving contracts from his department. All that theorising about economic prospects is just covering for Tory diversion of public money into the pockets of them and theirs.

[Pannonian]

It's even worse than that, according to the Sunday Times. The Health Secretary was fired for using his own private email account. So no official paper trail for any business conducted thus, and apparently most of his business was done thus. And remember the New York Times ran an article looking at how 40bn GBP was spent during the covid crisis on companies with no track record of providing the PPE and other services they were paid for.

[Furunculus]

can you be trusted to fix the problems of the world when you're stood on the shoulders of those who want nothing more than to tear it all down?

https://thecritic.co.uk/infiltrating-the-far-left/

[Pannonian]

can you be trusted to fix the problems of the world when you're stood on the shoulders of those who want nothing more than to tear it all down?

https://thecritic.co.uk/infiltrating-the-far-left/

1. The far left are not in power. They are vocally hostile to the Labour party leader.
2. Who are The Critic?

[Crandar]

A recently established conservative magazine. Not exactly the Tories' mouthpiece, but mainly interested in attacking the left.

[Pannonian]

Compare that kind of "journalism", with little standing, partisan background, and attacking a faction of a party that's in power neither in the country nor even within the party, with this.

Waste, Negligence and Cronyism: Inside Britain’s Pandemic Spending

One of the most respected journalistic sources in the world (New York Times), non-partisan (as it's a US newspaper), investigating a government that's actually in power (UK government), finding irregularities that would have been the downfall of any UK government before this one (cronyism on a scale of tens of billions of pounds), with specific names listed.

Furunculus, which would you say was the better example of journalism? The Critic article you posted or the New York Times article I posted? What are your views on the Tory corruption described in the NYT article?

[rory_20_uk]

When we are reduced to the quality of journalism to see which example of poor behaviour of one of the two parties that would control the country it is a dark day. On reflection I think describing either party as "leading" the country or indeed the head of the party as the party "leader" is misleading.

It reminds me of a local (mayoral I think) race in America. The winner ran with the slogan "vote for the crook, not the racist". We seem to have venal, corruption on one side and a (seemingly) decent leader of the opposition with a party with a large number of iconoclasts looking to impose their vision of reality on the country... and corrupt hypocrites.

There's a good chance it has never been better, merely that the general public were unaware of what went on as the flow of information was easier to control.

[Pannonian]

When we are reduced to the quality of journalism to see which example of poor behaviour of one of the two parties that would control the country it is a dark day. On reflection I think describing either party as "leading" the country or indeed the head of the party as the party "leader" is misleading.

It reminds me of a local (mayoral I think) race in America. The winner ran with the slogan "vote for the crook, not the racist". We seem to have venal, corruption on one side and a (seemingly) decent leader of the opposition with a party with a large number of iconoclasts looking to impose their vision of reality on the country... and corrupt hypocrites.

There's a good chance it has never been better, merely that the general public were unaware of what went on as the flow of information was easier to control.

Because all opinions are of equal weight. One is thoroughly researched, by a publication that's respected around the world, in an area that's relevant to the public, where historical precedent indicates attention should be paid. The other is a new publication with no such track record of widespread respect, looking at an area that doesn't affect the general public.

Do you hold the same views in the medical world rory? Do you think that all opinions are of equal weight, both the well respected with a track record of quality, and the new on the scene with no track record?

[rory_20_uk]

Because all opinions are of equal weight. One is thoroughly researched, by a publication that's respected around the world, in an area that's relevant to the public, where historical precedent indicates attention should be paid. The other is a new publication with no such track record of widespread respect, looking at an area that doesn't affect the general public.

Do you hold the same views in the medical world rory? Do you think that all opinions are of equal weight, both the well respected with a track record of quality, and the new on the scene with no track record?

One facet that equally occurs in science and Medicine is some areas are focused on and others are overlooked. So yes one is undoubtedly a better source of information and if they were to produce a piece refuting the findings of the critic I would believe them. But in the absence of better information - and along with other rather weak sources (as well as Kier himself trying to get rid of these entities) leads me to view this as highly likely to be true.

Otherwise we enter the territory of "the witness is a prostitute so the evidence is worthless" territory.

[rory_20_uk]

Duplicate

[Pannonian]

One facet that equally occurs in science and Medicine is some areas are focused on and others are overlooked. So yes one is undoubtedly a better source of information and if they were to produce a piece refuting the findings of the critic I would believe them. But in the absence of better information - and along with other rather weak sources (as well as Kier himself trying to get rid of these entities) leads me to view this as highly likely to be true.

Otherwise we enter the territory of "the witness is a prostitute so the evidence is worthless" territory.

You've missed my point that one of them is a reputable publication talking about the current government indulging in massive corruption. The other is an unknown publication talking about something irrelevant. Doubly so with Furunculus's conclusion: "an you be trusted to fix the problems of the world when you're stood on the shoulders of those who want nothing more than to tear it all down?".

In case you've missed it, Momentum began life as The Campaign to Elect Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Leader. Labour are not in government, so that makes the article less relevant. Jeremy Corbyn is not Labour leader, so that makes the article less relevant still. Jeremy Corbyn isn't even in the Labour party, so that erases any remaining relevance Furunculus sees in the article. And in case there are any more doubts, Momentum are opposed to the current Labour leadership, even supporting an anti-Labour campaign in a recent by-election.

What do you think of Furunculus's conclusion to the article: "an you be trusted to fix the problems of the world when you're stood on the shoulders of those who want nothing more than to tear it all down?"

[Furunculus]

Compare that kind of "journalism", with little standing, partisan background, and attacking a faction of a party that's in power neither in the country nor even within the party, with this.

Waste, Negligence and Cronyism: Inside Britain’s Pandemic Spending

One of the most respected journalistic sources in the world (New York Times), non-partisan (as it's a US newspaper)

"non-partisan" isn't really the phrase that springs to mind when I hear the name "NYT"; as everything I see on social media is NYT pieces whining about brexit and/or the british. maybe i'm only exposed to the nuttier element of their editorial, but the experience hasn't inclined me to go and seek out their news.

[rory_20_uk]

You've missed my point that one of them is a reputable publication talking about the current government indulging in massive corruption. The other is an unknown publication talking about something irrelevant. Doubly so with Furunculus's conclusion: "an you be trusted to fix the problems of the world when you're stood on the shoulders of those who want nothing more than to tear it all down?".

In case you've missed it, Momentum began life as The Campaign to Elect Jeremy Corbyn as Labour Leader. Labour are not in government, so that makes the article less relevant. Jeremy Corbyn is not Labour leader, so that makes the article less relevant still. Jeremy Corbyn isn't even in the Labour party, so that erases any remaining relevance Furunculus sees in the article. And in case there are any more doubts, Momentum are opposed to the current Labour leadership, even supporting an anti-Labour campaign in a recent by-election.

What do you think of Furunculus's conclusion to the article: "an you be trusted to fix the problems of the world when you're stood on the shoulders of those who want nothing more than to tear it all down?"

What the Opposition does is almost as relevant as what the government does as... they're the Opposition. If we don't have the current shower, due to our dreadful FPTP system they're the only alternative. And this is the only reason that Boris is in power at the moment.

It does seem that Kier is managing to expel many of the extreme groups which is a good sign. Less of a good sign is the rumblings that Kier himself should be got rid of. Apparently he's not enough of a showman? I'm not sure.

As to Furunculus's conclusion, that is I believe the main reason anyone ever votes Conservatives any more - not any great belief of what they'll do but more the greater fear as to what the others might. Tony Blair got labour elected by basically being equally Tory and his off the books NHS debt did a both more costly as well as less efficient job of "privatisation by stealth" than the Tories ever cooked up, and turned out to be a greater war monger as well to boot.

[Pannonian]

Tory MP found guilty of corruption. Tory government passes law so that said MP would not be guilty after all. A Bill that said MP voted for. And now said MP wants to sue head of commission that found him guilty.

Democracy in the UK means flaunting one's majority in the knowledge that a majority excuses everything. Independent checks and balances are to be discarded in the promotion of more democratic authority.

[rory_20_uk]

Tory MP found guilty of corruption. Tory government passes law so that said MP would not be guilty after all. A Bill that said MP voted for. And now said MP wants to sue head of commission that found him guilty.

Democracy in the UK means flaunting one's majority in the knowledge that a majority excuses everything. Independent checks and balances are to be discarded in the promotion of more democratic authority.

Democracy in the UK has always been something of a veneer to give the ruled some sort of perception of a stake in the country after the previous tropes of religion and then Patriotism failed to be enough: let in a handful from the countryside mainly landed gentry and ensure that the true counter-jumpers are either intimidated by the pomp, bribed by the system or isolated so that they can change nothing.

The system isn't broken - it is working extremely well. If Labour were to get in, they might make some small changes which would be massively discussed but until the very method of voting is uprooted then everything else is window dressing.

[Pannonian]

Democracy in the UK has always been something of a veneer to give the ruled some sort of perception of a stake in the country after the previous tropes of religion and then Patriotism failed to be enough: let in a handful from the countryside mainly landed gentry and ensure that the true counter-jumpers are either intimidated by the pomp, bribed by the system or isolated so that they can change nothing.

The system isn't broken - it is working extremely well. If Labour were to get in, they might make some small changes which would be massively discussed but until the very method of voting is uprooted then everything else is window dressing.

At the very least, the elected government should be held to its stated promises. Have any people who voted to Leave held the government to the promises they made for enabling that referendum victory? How many of the promises that campaign made have been kept so far?

Relating to this government's unbelievable levels of incompetence of corruption, I refer you to the NYT's report on how 33bn was mis-spent during the pandemic, with huge contracts given to MPs' friends, family, business associates, etc. without due process, checks of track record, and so on. Just like that 1.5m shipping contract given to a company with no ships, no experience, no assets, whose only real asset was its director's links with the minister who gave the contract.

All of that is ok though, since they are backed by the will of the people.

[Furunculus]

"Have any people who voted to Leave held the government to the promises they made for enabling that referendum victory?"

I'm quite content that brexit is being 'achieved', and since i have no confidence in any other party to pursue the task with vigour then i'll have temper my enthusiam for pointing out the flaws in its execution.

[Pannonian]

"Have any people who voted to Leave held the government to the promises they made for enabling that referendum victory?"

I'm quite content that brexit is being 'achieved', and since i have no confidence in any other party to pursue the task with vigour then i'll have temper my enthusiam for pointing out the flaws in its execution.

A government which is elected on one issue and one issue only, without metrics on how that issue is being implemented.

Meanwhile, the then-Health minister gave a 30m contract to an old neighbour of his who had no track record whatsoever in what he was being paid for. All part of the 33bn highlighted by the NYT report that was paid out to friends and family of the government under the guise of Covid spending. But that doesn't matter to supporters of the government though, who care about the one thing only.

[rory_20_uk]

That is the failing of the system that the UK, along with other countries, have.

The next chance to vote on the ruling party is a couple of years, and is guarantee. The looser will leave power. That too is close to a guarantee.
The next chance to vote on the EU might well be whenever, if ever, the government allows it in whatever way they choose to do.

If the two issues were delinked - which almost any form of proportional representation would allow - that would be great.

What would also be great would to be less obtuse.